85% of U.S. Unhappy With Economy

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by rah
No one said "RIGHT" I said FINAL. It was decided by a set of rules. Some might not agree with the outcome or the rules, but it's much better than it being decided at gunpoint. So be disturbed if you want, but I'd love to hear a better alternative.

It's much better than deciding it at gunpoint, because its the right wing that has all the guns.

[rah]

You betcha.


But we do have to be concerned because the revolutionaires usually have guns too.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


It's much better than deciding it at gunpoint, because its the right wing that has all the guns.

Around 25% voted Bush, another 25% Gore, less than 1.5% nader, almost 50% did not vote. I would say there are tons of people who can't be branded left/right and are not confident in the system, even gun owners.

[Jon Miller]

Honestly? I have relatives that I can't imagine what would cause them to vite.

A lot of people hate politics in the US.

JM

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis


Around 25% voted Bush, another 25% Gore, less than 1.5% nader, almost 50% did not vote. I would say there are tons of people who can't be branded left/right and are not confident in the system, even gun owners.

QFT. Lots of people forget that Reagan's mandate arising from his 1980 landslide victory was because he gotten the votes 25% of the registered voters.

Lots of people stayed home that year.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis


Why was the recount stopped

Didn't the media gain access to the records and finish the recount? I thought that they did and that Bush would have won anyway if the recount had been allowed to continue.

blacks were disenfranchised

Weren't a lot of overseas members of the armed forces disenfranchised as well?

*****

There is no doubt that the election of 2000 was full of problems, but I don't think anyone can unequivocaly state that Gore would have won had they not been there. There were problems that affected both sides of the vote.

In any event, it will provide debate fodder forever. rah has it right...a decision was made and that is the way it is.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by PLATO
Didn't the media gain access to the records and finish the recount? I thought that they did and that Bush would have won anyway if the recount had been allowed to continue.

IIRC, this was done by the New York Times, and IIRC, their findings were:

If the recount asked for by either Bush or by Gore had gone forward, Bush would have won, but if the entire state had been recounted, Gore would have one.

[DinoDoc]

Sadly Gore didn't want a statewide recount.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Honestly? I have relatives that I can't imagine what would cause them to vite.

A lot of people hate politics in the US.

JM

Well, I don't know if by "Honestly?" you mean no **** sherlock or link plix. If you are asking, those numbers are from 2000 when 51.3% voted. 2004 over 55% voted tho

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

I don't know why 2004 has different numbers in those links. 56.7 vs 55.3

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by PLATO


Didn't the media gain access to the records and finish the recount? I thought that they did and that Bush would have won anyway if the recount had been allowed to continue.

blacks were disenfranchised

Weren't a lot of overseas members of the armed forces disenfranchised as well?

*****

There is no doubt that the election of 2000 was full of problems, but I don't think anyone can unequivocaly state that Gore would have won had they not been there. There were problems that affected both sides of the vote.

In any event, it will provide debate fodder forever. rah has it right...a decision was made and that is the way it is.

Democrats are no saints either, there is this thing called "bonusgate" going on right now that is not getting much press at all. Stolen elections, whatever!

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


QFT. Lots of people forget that Reagan's mandate arising from his 1980 landslide victory was because he gotten the votes 25% of the registered voters.

Lots of people stayed home that year.

As opposed to say, Clinton, who received less than 25% during both the 1992 and 1996 campaigns?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yes, yes, Nixon was a hate filed, paranoid, scheming SOB, I don't think that Imran would ever fail to accept that. At the same time:

Indeed. Everyone knows Nixon was a scummy guy who was breaking all sorts of laws and considers him to a horrible President. But what people don't consider is that he had a LOT of achievements in office (China, Clear Air and Water acts) and even proposed universal health care! As said, far more progressive than the Republicans that came afterwards.

Hell, he was far more progressive than the Democrat's that have come afterward. Face it, Nixon was the most liberal President this country has had since Johnson.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sadly Gore didn't want a statewide recount.

Which is why I got no sympathy for him. It should be about what the people want, not winning. I'm such an idealist. This is why I don't make that much of an issue about stealing the Ohio election, because the popular vote was for Bush in 2004.

[One_more_turn]

What Reagan did 28 years ago may no longer be applicable today. Times change, facts change, and economic policies must be adjusted accordingly.

Our country is suffering from overconsumption and underinvestment, is it so difficult to recognize?

If the next Administration continues to the same borrow-and-consume nonsense, I see no other viable investment options beside hoarding foreign currencies, gold, and oil, while shorting the bejeezus out the S&P 500.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Hell, he was far more progressive than the Democrat's that have come afterward. Face it, Nixon was the most liberal President this country has had since Johnson.

That's true. People also fail to realize that Carter was a conservative Democrat and not some wacky liberal.