Canadian Who Called Bush 'Moron' Quits

[Asher]

You wouldn't want to do that -- I'd smash my bottle over your head and steal your Pinto.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Tingkai, politicians are NOT that smart. I can't believe Chretien set all that up. Probably what happened is the person that made the remark realized that she'd be moving jobs soon and could shoot her mouth off.

you cannot say that the man has the majoirty support of the country when he statistically does not.

Actually he does. Check the polls, he has at least a 60% approval rating. That is a majority of support.

Thousands of convicted felons and PEOPLE WHO HAD SIMILAR NAMES to convicted felons ( including the electoral supervisor for madison county ) were not allowed to vote. Most of these individuals came from predominantly democratic-supporting black and hispanic backgrounds. This included 8,000 on a false list supplied by another state which claimed they were 'former convicted felons who had since moved to Florida'. The state which supplied the list was... Texas.

The list was supplied by a private non-partisan company.

Before the counting was finished and it was too close to call the winner ( though it must be mentioned at the time Gore was slightly ahead ) the head of Fox's election coverage made the decision to go on air and announce that Bush had won Florida and consequently the election. The head of Fox's coverage is the first cousin of Bush, John Ellis. Most the other networks quickly followed suit and soon Bush was declared the winner despite not actually having won anything.

How is this fixing the election? And CNN declared Bush the winner first, btw. I was watching TV that night and switching between news networks.

An investigation by the New York Times concluded that of the 2,490 overseas votes which were finally counted, 680 were considered flawed and questionable. This included 544 of Bush slips which cuts Bush's winning margin of 537 to a negative 7 in favour of Gore. I can go into further detail here if you wish.

Please do, because the NYTimes said that Bush won the election in its recount.

The Supreme Court ( in which many of the members had good reason to strongly desire a Republican victory including two who were hoping to retire and have an ideologically similar candidate appointed to replace them ) cancelled the recount when the statistics showed that Gore was "only 66 votes down, and gaining!". The Court concluded;

"The counting of votes which are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreprable harm to [Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud on what [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election." - In other words if they counted all the ballots which were questionable rather than just the overseas ones in favour of Bush there was no way in hell it would come out in his favour and therefore put a dampour on his election celebrations.

Bull****, bull****, bull****! The SC did not stop the recount because it would be detrimental to Bush's celebration! It stopped it because the recount was being done differently in every county thus depriving people in different counties of equal protection.

[notyoueither]

No Imran, it is obvious the CIA fixed the election with a voter on a grassy knoll... and they did it because their candidate, who was created in a vat from GB genes, was showing signs of malfunction... the SCOTUS clones worked perfectly... we all know that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Shh, that wasn't meant to be revealed... yet.

Now we'll have to hunt you and wipe your memory clean. And then kill everyone you told.

[notyoueither]

What is that light...

[Faboba]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

you cannot say that the man has the majoirty support of the country when he statistically does not.

Actually he does. Check the polls, he has at least a 60% approval rating. That is a majority of support.[QUOTE]

Oh and polls are always accurate are they? I want election figures. If they like him that much they can go out and actively vote for him.

Thousands of convicted felons and PEOPLE WHO HAD SIMILAR NAMES to convicted felons ( including the electoral supervisor for madison county ) were not allowed to vote. Most of these individuals came from predominantly democratic-supporting black and hispanic backgrounds. This included 8,000 on a false list supplied by another state which claimed they were 'former convicted felons who had since moved to Florida'. The state which supplied the list was... Texas.

The list was supplied by a private non-partisan company.

It still came from Texas.

Before the counting was finished and it was too close to call the winner ( though it must be mentioned at the time Gore was slightly ahead ) the head of Fox's election coverage made the decision to go on air and announce that Bush had won Florida and consequently the election. The head of Fox's coverage is the first cousin of Bush, John Ellis. Most the other networks quickly followed suit and soon Bush was declared the winner despite not actually having won anything.

How is this fixing the election? And CNN declared Bush the winner first, btw. I was watching TV that night and switching between news networks.

Well not having American TV I can't comment but I'm told it was Fox first and if so you don't think that would represent a major conflict of interest? A national network whose coverage was being run by one of the candidates cousins decided out of the blue to announce that his relative had won even though the reality was different?

An investigation by the New York Times concluded that of the 2,490 overseas votes which were finally counted, 680 were considered flawed and questionable. This included 544 of Bush slips which cuts Bush's winning margin of 537 to a negative 7 in favour of Gore. I can go into further detail here if you wish.

Please do, because the NYTimes said that Bush won the election in its recount.

I was referring to detail about the overseas ballots as supplied by the Times. To whit;

* 344 ballots had no evidence that they were cast on election day.

* 183 ballots were postmarked in the US.

* 96 ballots lack appropriate witness information.

* 169 ballots came from unregistered voters, had envelopes which weren't signed correctly or came from people who hadn't requested a ballot.

* 5 ballots came in after the deadline.

* 19 overseas voters voted on two ballots... and had both counted.

The Supreme Court ( in which many of the members had good reason to strongly desire a Republican victory including two who were hoping to retire and have an ideologically similar candidate appointed to replace them ) cancelled the recount when the statistics showed that Gore was "only 66 votes down, and gaining!". The Court concluded;

"The counting of votes which are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreprable harm to [Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud on what [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election." - In other words if they counted all the ballots which were questionable rather than just the overseas ones in favour of Bush there was no way in hell it would come out in his favour and therefore put a dampour on his election celebrations.

Bull****, bull****, bull****! The SC did not stop the recount because it would be detrimental to Bush's celebration! It stopped it because the recount was being done differently in every county thus depriving people in different counties of equal protection.

Listen, the bit in inverted commas comes from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. I suggest you take it up with him.

The main point is however, and feel we've wandered away from it, even if there is no specific HARD evidence ( these people aren't stupid after all ) there is still enough in the way of rather odd things going on to give raise to suspicion. You don't think any of it smells a little off?

[Faboba]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No Imran, it is obvious the CIA fixed the election with a voter on a grassy knoll... and they did it because their candidate, who was created in a vat from GB genes, was showing signs of malfunction... the SCOTUS clones worked perfectly... we all know that.

Did I say any of that ****? No. Because I don't believe any of that gibberish, I believe that the state of Florida was fixed ( or creatively adjusted ) to garuntee as nearly as possible that the electoral college votes would go to Bush and win him the election. I believe it was done more by the Bush family than anyone else as they felt, seeing as how Jeb was governor why waste the opportunity available to them. I believe that during and after the election efforts were made to hinder attempts to prove otherwise due to a mix of protecting Bush and protecting the integrity of the office itself.

I doubt it was some big conspiracy. They probably didn't know that it would come down to Florida being the one that could make or break the election for Bush but I believe they took the opportunities that were open to them to push the results in Bush's favour.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Tingkai, politicians are NOT that smart. I can't believe Chretien set all that up. Probably what happened is the person that made the remark realized that she'd be moving jobs soon and could shoot her mouth off.

We'll probably never know what actually happened, but Chretien is a smart politician (albeit one with any political vision other than staying in power). He's been near or at the top of political power for most of his 30-odd-year career.

Accident or planned, he won this political skirmish.

[Alexander's Horse]

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in a Western Government, including the US government, who doesn't think Bush is a halfwit. But we all have to pretend otherwise.

I feel sorry for this woman - if you are backgrounding reporters your comments should never be attributed. The reporter who wrote this up is an unethical arsehole.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Faboba

Well not having American TV I can't comment but I'm told it was Fox first and if so you don't think that would represent a major conflict of interest? A national network whose coverage was being run by one of the candidates cousins decided out of the blue to announce that his relative had won even though the reality was different?

The real scandal was when most of the major networks declared Florida for Gore before the polls in Western Florida had closed. This has the effect of depressing turnout amongst those who think their side has lost the election (ie Republicans in this case). Western Florida is the strongest Republican area in the state btw.

Fox (and later the other networks) declared Bush the winner many hours after the polls had closed. They later admitted that the election was too close to call, not wanting to further compound their streak of erroneous reporting. Bush can only have lost votes based upon this series of events, and cannot have gained anything from a declaration of victory after the polls were closed.

Originally posted by Faboba
The main point is however, and feel we've wandered away from it, even if there is no specific HARD evidence ( these people aren't stupid after all ) there is still enough in the way of rather odd things going on to give raise to suspicion. You don't think any of it smells a little off?

This is a lot weaker than your charge in a previous post:

"Bush's rule is undemocratic in the sense that he fixed ( or rather had his brother Jeb whose campaign he funded fix on his behalf ) the florida election thus securing him 25 electoral college votes and thus, the election."

Both sides sought to get maximum advantage in order to secure Florida. I'm sure Jeb Bush regrets telling George Bush that Florida was 'in the bag' and both regret George Bush telling the Gore camp what Jeb had said, as events soon proved that the election wasn't anything but a statistical tie with the result hanging like chad in the wind.

Both sides early on ironically sought judicial remedies that would have meant victory for the other side (as it turned out). Friendly election officials on both sides let some things slide. The Democrat controlled Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount that was favorable to Gore, and the Republican majority of the U.S. Supreme Court squelched it. It was neither side's finest hour, but to be fair this election was so close that the winner had to rely entirely on how the vote was counted. Either candidate could have won the election had the methods used been altered. Neither candidate had enough information to act completely intelligently, otherwise each side would have acquiesed to the other side's losing criteria when the chance presented itself.

If they were crooked enough to fix the election, and skillful enough to avoid being caught, why weren't they skillful enough to create a margin of victory that avoided recounts and controversy that might undo their plot?

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Tingkai
30-odd-year career.

Have you ever noticed how many people DO things just before they walk out the door? I'm sure JC is capable of pulling off this simple and petty plan. I'm also sure Kyoto was approved for the same reason, i don't think Chretien would have committed if he was starting his first term and was looking forward to 2 or 3 more.

Chretien may approve Kyoto, but it's somebody else's problem making it work.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Faboba
You don't think any of it smells a little off?

Seeing their was so much doubt and the results so close you should have settled it by trial by combat. Medievil maybe, entertaining for sure. Definiitly would have ended this debate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh and polls are always accurate are they? I want election figures. If they like him that much they can go out and actively vote for him.

Actually looking at the 2002 election, I think a majority of people like Bush. Especially considering that everywhere Bush went the Republican got AT LEAST a 3 point bump, and it helped a lot of candidates win, especially here in Georgia and next door in South Carolina.

It still came from Texas.

Anything that comes from Texas is tainted!!

I was referring to detail about the overseas ballots as supplied by the Times.

Give me a cite. And secondly, absentee ballots are counted by the county... yep, the same people that did the recounts.

Listen, the bit in inverted commas comes from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. I suggest you take it up with him.

So you don't know the difference between the holding and dicta. Not suprising.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Sikander
Clinton meanwhile never won a majority of the vote in the two elections that he won. The only majority that counts in the presidential election is a majority of the electoral college votes. Everyone knows this going into the election, and it has a huge impact on the way everyone's campaign is plotted.

In both elections Clintn had a plurality (more votes than any other candidate) In fact, I had thought he had a genuine majority in 1996.

In 2000, Bush had fewer votes than Gore, no matter how you slice up Florida. This does not invalidate his election, bt it's no much of a mandate.

The recent Congressional elections were a definate, minor victory. Itwould be extreme to say they were not a victory, but equally extreme to say they showed any type of major publc support for the Repblicans as opposed to the Democrats.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

"Canadian who called Moran 'Bush' quits"