Announcement

**HershOstropoler** · May 31, 2003, 20:24

Originally posted by DanS
or if Bush et al. tweaked the intelligence.

If ?

**loinburger** · May 31, 2003, 20:25

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Well, the fact remains that if the Electoral College votes were 100% proportional to the population of the states they represented, Gore would be in the White House (read that as: the total population of the states Gore won was greater than the total population of the states Bush won).

Not true. Winning the electoral votes in a state is generally an all-or-nothing affair (there have been very few exceptions to this rule), so if one candidate wins 100% of the vote in the states representing 49% of the electoral college, while the other candidate wins 51% of the votes in the states representing 51% of the electoral college, then the latter candidate wins despite only winning approximately 25% of the popular vote. This is intended to reduce the effects of regional voting. For example, Lincoln was not even put on the Southern ballots in (IIRC) the 1860 election, but he still won the majority of votes in the Northern states, resulting in his winning a majority of the electoral votes despite only winning approximately 40% of the popular vote. That
s why there's an electoral college -- it puts a cap on the effect that any single state/region can exert on the election process.

**Lord Merciless** · May 31, 2003, 20:25

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

Ah I see, Waldheim ended up as UN general secretary because of all his fellow nazis in, ia, the US and the USSR. You're such a bright bulb.

As for Haider, he'd be expelled from the Republican party as a whiny wet lefty on most issue.

Btw, Sound of Music makes a much better troll than the NSDAP as far as I'm concerned. Wanna try again?

Come on, we know you Austrians desire "Zucht und Ordnung", "Oesterreich den Oesterreichern!", and "Auslaender raus!"

As for Waldheim, how should we know his past if you guys covered everything up? He seemed to be quite tame in the 70s.

**DanS** · May 31, 2003, 20:27

Hershell: Few even in the intelligence community are saying that the administration tweaked the intelligence. There are a lot of people in the intelligence community covering their asses right now, so you would expect them to latch on to it, if it were true. But they haven't.

They haven't even attacked the DIA, the neocon intelligence fiefdom that has grown so much and is somewhat independent from the rest of the intelligence bureaucracy.

Given these items, it seems likely to me that intelligence community still thinks that we will find some bona fide chemical or biological weapons in Iraq and that the details of the particular intelligence failures (where things are, etc.) will go by the wayside.

**Victor Galis** · May 31, 2003, 20:28

In addition to election irregularities, there's the way the parties carve out electoral districts to favor them. Everyone does it, everywhere in this country. Other countries have independent commissions look into these things. Here, the state legislature does it.

**HershOstropoler** · May 31, 2003, 20:29

What's so bad about Zucht und Ordnung?

And we don't expel our Ausländer, we assimilate them. We naturalize them at a 30.000 to 40.000 rate per year, and turn them into ardent xenophobes by that.

**loinburger** · May 31, 2003, 20:31

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Compared to you, our fraudulent actions are negligable. But tell me, what was the last major forgery at austrian elections, hmm?

I'm just surprised that everybody's still harping on our last major forgery. Watergate was decades ago, people! Let it go!

**Whaleboy** · May 31, 2003, 20:31

" Enlighten me as to how that argument counters anything I said"

Hardly counts as contempt when someone prefers Saddam in Iraq than the Americans!!

Nonetheless, the situation, I am told, is viewed as little different in Iraq as anti-Blair people view the current government here. Contempt, ridicule, unpopular (ok closer to conservative then... i dont know the opinion polls for blair, but if their anything like my mind, its not good for our favourite 50 year old), runs wild, but generally, not enough to make the people rise up in a number of years. I believe that before the war, Saddam was laying off with the oppression somewhat, so if the people were going to rise up, just before the war was the best opportunity. Didnt happen.

"As for your last bit, I would agree wholeheartedly if the US had any intention of ruling Iraq for the long term"

Very true, I doubt the US will stay in there more than a year, whether they garrison it is a different matter, though with Iran, I would imagine that they would. Nonetheless, the question is whether the US will have any signigicant power of the Iraqi government. My betting is that the governmental puppet show is about to get a brand new actor.

**HershOstropoler** · May 31, 2003, 20:32

Originally posted by DanS
They haven't even attacked the DIA, the neocon intelligence fiefdom that has grown so much and is somewhat independent from the rest of the intelligence bureaucracy.

They haven't?

Opinion | Save Our Spooks (Published 2003)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/30/opinion/30KRIS.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists

Nicholas D Kristof Op-Ed column says no weapons of mass destruction have showed up in Iraq, but evidence is mounting that Bush administration grossly manipulated intelligence about weapons threat; says there is widespread outrage among intelligence professionals, who say administration officials leaned on them to exaggerate Iraqi threat and deceive public; says Central Intelligence Agency is now examining its own record, but asserts that outside examination is essential; suggests that Brent Scowcroft lead inqury and, in public report, suggest steps to restore integrity to America's intelligence agencies (M)

**Victor Galis** · May 31, 2003, 20:32

Originally posted by loinburger

Not true. Winning the electoral votes in a state is generally an all-or-nothing affair (there have been very few exceptions to this rule), so if one candidate wins 100% of the vote in the states representing 49% of the electoral college, while the other candidate wins 51% of the votes in the states representing 51% of the electoral college, then the latter candidate wins despite only winning approximately 25% of the popular vote. This is intended to reduce the effects of regional voting. For example, Lincoln was not even put on the Southern ballots in (IIRC) the 1860 election, but he still won the majority of votes in the Northern states, resulting in his winning a majority of the electoral votes despite only winning approximately 40% of the popular vote. That
s why there's an electoral college -- it puts a cap on the effect that any single state/region can exert on the election process.

-What you're saying is true, but it does not in any way contradict my statement. Right now, each state has a number of representatives directly proportional to its population; however, the number of Electoral votes is equal to 2 + its number of representatives. This gives small states an unfair advantage in violation of the "one man, one vote" doctrine. If you reduced each states' number of electoral votes by 2, Bush's 271-266 victory becomes a 213-224 loss. He won more small states and thus benefited disproportionately from this skew in the way electoral votes are assigned.

edit: fixed my numbers which were slightly off. Had forgot to account that one of Gore's electors abstained and randomly gave Bush two too many votes.

**HershOstropoler** · May 31, 2003, 20:34

Originally posted by loinburger

I'm just surprised that everybody's still harping on our last major forgery. Watergate was decades ago, people! Let it go!

You've missed the Florida farce, then.

**Whaleboy** · May 31, 2003, 20:36

More or less same people in power too, or at least the same doctrines.

**loinburger** · May 31, 2003, 20:37

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
You've missed the Florida farce, then.

You mean how the democrats approved the butterfly ballots, and then blamed them for their loss? Stupidity on the part of the losing party does not constitute fraud on the part of the winning party.

**Lord Merciless** · May 31, 2003, 20:37

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
What's so bad about Zucht und Ordnung?

And we don't expel our Ausländer, we assimilate them. We naturalize them at a 30.000 to 40.000 rate per year, and turn them into ardent xenophobes by that.

Did I say that was bad? I just want to remind you that "Zucht und Ordnung" are not what leftists and liberals stand for. If you really love these concepts, think twice before throwing in the same lot with lefists.

If what you say about immigration is true, I think Austria is doing a better job than Germany here.

Germany is taking many Muslims in every year and turn them into ardent anti-westerners. How sad.

**Imran Siddiqui** · May 31, 2003, 20:38

I think what he is saying is that Florida wasn't a major forgery

.

Announcement

Finally the reason for the war on Iraq

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment