Hillary, President

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Joseph
Oerdin
You may not believe this, but at one time I was just like you are now. I believed the Demorcratic party could do no wrong.

Then you were nothing like me. I do believe they can do wrong and repeatedly have in the past. I just believe that their over all policies are better for the people of the United States and that the Republican leadership has repeatedly proven they are absolutely evil SOBs who will commit virtually any crime in order to enrich themselves and maintain power. That's bad enough but then you throw in the fact that their policies almost always harm the common man and the middle class while enriching a the wealthest who give the Republicans millions.

I'm choosing the Democrats because they are the lesser of two evils not because they can do no wrong.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Joseph
If I remember the Law in Nov of 2000 was if the election is closer than 2%, there will be a MACHINE recount only. I don't remember anything about a manual recount at that time. That is why Gore went to the FL SC to get a Manual recount.

Nothing in the law prohibited a manual recount. Indeed, that's why the Florida SC ruled in Gore's favor on it, and why it was allowed to occur in the first place. The ending of the recounts by SCOTUS wasn't really about manual recounts not being legal. Indeed, the official election results included several manual counts. If they weren't legal, why would they have been allowed to stand?

I sure don't remember anyone saying that under Fl law you can count dimple.

Previous case history and precedent had already determined that a dimple or hanging chad can be counted according to Florida's voter-intent standard. The issue was that some counties were counting them differently, and therefore it was an issue of there being no uniform standard in actual use among the varying county election boards. But nothing in the law prevented them from counting dimples or hanging chads.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Hilllary OTOH mismanaged the politics of health care. Single payer would have been easier to sell than Hillarycare. When it became clear that hillarycare was in trouble, and it was too late to go back to single payer, she should have compromised for something less than 100% coverage

That's unlikely. The Republicans were adamant about no compromise. They wanted the Clinton Healthcare plan dead and played every trick they could to do it. However, Bill and Hillary were able to pass a few smaller healthcare programs and bills to help needy children, and other underpriviledged groups.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Of course Oerdin and others probably think IM a right winger

I've always thought you were a center right which is a reasonable position to take. The people I object to are the ones who are unable to defend their positions, who just reject news articles from reputable sources when it goes against their political beliefs, or who do similiar things.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Or, it's focusing only on the initial situation and neglects to mention Gore's subsequent call for a statewide manual recount. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Because you were pwnd.

[Dinner]

Are we reading the same thread?

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Nothing in the law prohibited a manual recount. Indeed, that's why the Florida SC ruled in Gore's favor on it, and why it was allowed to occur in the first place. The ending of the recounts by SCOTUS wasn't really about manual recounts not being legal. Indeed, the official election results included several manual counts. If they weren't legal, why would they have been allowed to stand?



Previous case history and precedent had already determined that a dimple or hanging chad can be counted according to Florida's voter-intent standard. The issue was that some counties were counting them differently, and therefore it was an issue of there being no uniform standard in actual use among the varying county election boards. But nothing in the law prevented them from counting dimples or hanging chads.

Then Fl SC made law instead of asking the S Legislature to make it.
The 2nd one is why in Calif., all 58 counties had the same requirement, no dimple or hanging tags.

Boris you are running for office, there are 5000 voters.
2400 clean votes are for you. The other guy gets 600 hanging tags, dimple, and only 2000 clean votes. Who should win? In my book you should, but in your book you would loose.

I don't know about you, but in my book, I never want a SC of the States or US to make laws. That is why we have State Legislature and a Congress. They make laws and the SC only rule on that the law is legal or not.

[DinoDoc]

Yes, we are. Likely you merely lack the reading ability to look at the last page.

[Dinner]

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you. I suppose you could claim you pawned Boris if you ignored everything Boris said including his latest response. Otherwise, no.

[DinoDoc]

Are we really reduced to rubber/glue comparisons already? Or would you like to provide a single example where Gore seriously pushed for the statewide count Boris claims he did. Bonus points if you can explain why his legal team never made a move in that direction.

Edit: I never pawn anyone.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oerdin, I think you failed to read my post on the issue (what Gore actually asked for in the courts).

So in the end, I'd say the issue of pwnage is up in the air... it depends on how you are looking at things (and whether Boris is talking reality or hypo Gore's team wanting a statewide recount).

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DaShi


That's unlikely. The Republicans were adamant about no compromise. They wanted the Clinton Healthcare plan dead and played every trick they could to do it. However, Bill and Hillary were able to pass a few smaller healthcare programs and bills to help needy children, and other underpriviledged groups.

The Republicans didn't matter, the Dems had the legislature and the White House. The crucial failure was not realizing how much resistance would come from their own party. Very much like the Carter administration.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Joseph
You better check with the News service that went down and counted all of the ballots after the election. Bush won with around 300 or so vote. Get over it.

No, that's only true under one recount scenario, albeit the one originally requested by the Gore team. Under every other scenario, Gore won. Considering the amount of vote fraud in the state, Gore did win. He, and America, just had the vote stolen from him.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
By "income distribution" do you mean
more progressive tax rates;
increased welfare benefits; or
income transfers to people who "deserve" them?

Not necessarily any particular policy solution, merely the recognition that changing income distribution is a problem, and something that Democrats do well to bring up as an issue. Some DLC (or perhaps it was PPI, their think tank) made a big deal about how bringing up income equity was a political negative.

[Ted Striker]

.