A survey of our American friends and their politcal standing

Political stand (American)

  • I'm not American - click here!

    Votes: 133 100.0%

  • Democrat

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Republican

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    133
It's also more than just immigration policy. If you're coming from India, do you want to live in Sydney or Moose Jaw? No, you move to areas with already large populations from India. You'll also move to areas where employment would be more likely to obtain. This effect is the same anywhere there's immigration. How many visible minorities are in rural Britain compared to larger centres for example?
Click to expand...

Correct, but in a perfect world, immigration would be spread out across a nation, rather than 'ghettoizing' large cities. In a perfect world, ofcourse. Anyhow, hopefully the 5-year bill I mentioned will pass.
 
That poll was confusing! If I wanted to choose the middle option, I needed to select the bottom hole right? What? You mean I was supposed to choose the hole next to the option I wanted? My vote wasn't counted correctly! It was too confusing! I want a recount!

Oh, wait...

I'm not an elderly democrat from Florida, so I did vote correctly.

Nevermind...
 
That poll was confusing! If I wanted to choose the middle option, I needed to select the bottom hole right? What? You mean I was supposed to choose the hole next to the option I wanted? My vote wasn't counted correctly! It was too confusing! I want a recount!

Oh, wait...

I'm not an elderly democrat from Florida, so I did vote correctly.
Click to expand...

Just be glad your vote got counted before someone ran to family friends on the Supreme Court and demanded an immediate injunction to prevent 'irreparable harm' being done... :)
 
Recounts wouldn't have made a difference unless the morons who somehow couldn't figure out the ballot were allowed to vote again. Bush still would have won Florida and therefore the electoral college.
 
Actually, I believe Bush would have lost if they had done a statewide recount as the republican party was suggesting. The democratic party got greedy and demanded a recount only in the counties in which they were strong(turns out they would have lost that recount)
 
Hmm, so counting votes that couldn't be counted by machines wouldn't have had an effect? I find it hard to believe that there were what 3% spoiled votes , on average, and Bush 'won' by such a small fraction you can't even type it in here?

We'll never know, Bush's 14th Amendment right (which isn't even valid) somehow was more important than the 1st Amendment of Floridian voters...
 
Actually, I believe Bush would have lost if they had done a statewide recount as the republican party was suggesting. The democratic party got greedy and demanded a recount only in the counties in which they were strong(turns out they would have lost that recount)
Click to expand...

I agree. Of course, it serves them right for being stupid.
 
If they had done the recount using the rules Gore wanted, Bush would have actually gained votes. But if the recount were done using the rules Bush wanted, he would have lost votes, but not enough to lose the election.
 
And you know this how? After all, I love this nugget:

"What this shows is that if you count the voter's intent, Gore wins," he told the Associated Press. "If you look for excuses not to count votes, Bush does better."

So Bush actual would have done better if the status quo was actually maintained because Bush did in fact find an excuse to not count votes. His appeal based (erroneously) on the 14th Amendment. Only the VOTERS could have issued a challenge against Gore since it was their equal protection that was violated, not Bush. Bush had no legal standing to use equal protection.

Then, we have the big result:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
 
actually if you do a search the washington post (liberal paper) did and several other newspapers/sources did a major recount they used several standards, and in all bush won. Ill do a quick google search but it was done. They had like 2 or 3 standards of counting votes and in all bush won.

Also remember NO president has ever lost their home state. Bush won texas, and gore lost tenesse.

later,
 
Hehe. Tennessee. Funny, because some African-American voting polls, like in Missouri, actually just up and disappeared without telling the voters where they relocated. Literally. Yahoo had the story up on their frontpage for maybe an hour... This, to me, was a far bigger violation of voter's rights than anything Bush and Gore were fighting over in Florida...

You should also read the statistical results at the Consortium article. Numbers like those are quite revealing.
 
here is a quick link that proves what i said although the results they quote are done by usa today and another paper.
http://us.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/

Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.
Click to expand...

Ironically, a tougher standard of counting only cleanly punched ballots advocated by many Republicans would have resulted in a Gore lead of just three votes, the newspaper reported.
Click to expand...

Im sure somehow those who think that gore won, will make some excuse or other. ;)

later,
 
While that was the tone of coverage in these leading news outlets, it’s still a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots.

“Full Review Favors Gore,†the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.

Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots – punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards.

The new, fuller study (all the other papers including the Herald and USA Today) found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.

This core finding of Gore’s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush.

Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even ignoring the “butterfly ballot†and other irregularities that cost him thousands of ballots.

The news organizations opted for the pro-Bush leads by focusing on two partial recounts that were proposed – but not completed – in the chaotic, often ugly environment of last November and December.

The new articles make much of Gore’s decision to seek recounts in only four counties and the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to examine only “undervotes,†those rejected by voting machines for supposedly lacking a presidential vote. A recurring undercurrent in the articles is that Gore was to blame for his defeat, even if he may have actually won the election.

"Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to 'count all the votes,'" the New York Times wrote, with a clear suggestion that Gore was hypocritical as well as foolish.

The Washington Post recalled that Gore "did at one point call on Bush to join him in asking for a statewide recount" and accepting the results without further legal challenge, but that Bush rejected the proposal as "a public relations gesture."
Click to expand...

My empahsis added. And that last paragraph is quite illuminating too. Opinioniate site I'll grant you, but so is USA Today.

I do think Gore actually wanted to 'lose' because he would have been hounded as much as Clinton was. Just as this issues still is contantly being brought up in conversations and definitely will be mentioned in next year's election.

It also explains why Boies, a man who outlitigated the US federal government when he worked for IBM, did such a sh*tty job. It'd better have been pro bono work because if it wasn't Gore should have demanded his money back if he really wanted to be pResident.
 
Stats for homelessness and other poverty studies for both countries are well available online. Its worse in the States than in Canada but never said it didnt exist in Canada. Ill say it a third time. We are catching up to you guys very fast. We'll be in the same boat by the end of the decade likely short of a political revolution.

Shouldnt have said starving as its very Ethiopia sounding tho malnutirion of about 10 million kids in the states was documented in the 90's...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html

browse to US after...
 
Willmeister said:
And you know this how? After all, I love this nugget:
His appeal based (erroneously) on the 14th Amendment. Only the VOTERS could have issued a challenge against Gore since it was their equal protection that was violated, not Bush. Bush had no legal standing to use equal protection.
Click to expand...


Thank you Mr Canadian expert on American Law. Umm no, Bush and Gore are candidates in an election and have a legal right to challenge the executive branch implementation of the election, just as citizens do. The violation of constitutional rights is orthogonal to who is bringing the case.

I could bring a case to the supreme court based on 1st amendment grounds, and they could end up setting precedents that affect third parties and the 4th amendment. Their reasons for overtuning a case don't have to have anything to do with the class of whose bringing it.


You idiots won't let this be. Let's see, Gore could have won Florida by what, 100 some votes out of 6 million, or 0.001% How can this possibly represent some definitive outcome?

Do you think 100 people out of 6 million's minds were changed to stay home and not vote after Gore was prounounced (erroneously) the winner?


Do you think maybe 100 people that day had a personal emergency and were unable to vote?

Do you think maybe 100 people got stuck in traffic on the way and missed the polls before they closed?

Do you think maybe 100 people voted for Gore who were paid "going around money" by Black church leaders funded by the Democratic party?

With a sample size of 6 million, your margin of error is 0.04%. 0.001% is 40 times below the margin of error. Simply put, those 100 votes are statistically irrelevent. You'd need atleast a margin of 2400 votes, and even then, you are riding the border line.

I'm sorry but there is no clear winner in florida, no matter how you manipulate the valid votes, because there simply isn't a large enough difference.

Americans in 2000 simply were deadlocked and could not put a statistically significant amount of votes on a single candidate. The only reason Gore lost was because his campaign was stupid and tried to out manuever Bush legally, and got outmanuevered himself.

There was no theft of the election because neither Bush nor Gore were the discernable winners. (and please, don't talk to me about the popular vote. Small states don't accept themselves being stomped on by large Democratic states who have an overabundance of multiplying democratic welfare recipients)
 
pax said:
Stats for homelessness and other poverty studies for both countries are well available online. Its worse in the States than in Canada but never said it didnt exist in Canada. Ill say it a third time. We are catching up to you guys very fast. We'll be in the same boat by the end of the decade likely short of a political revolution.

Shouldnt have said starving as its very Ethiopia sounding tho malnutirion of about 10 million kids in the states was documented in the 90's...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html

browse to US after...
Click to expand...

And what do you expect the political revolution to do about it?
 
DemoCoder said:
pax said:
Stats for homelessness and other poverty studies for both countries are well available online. Its worse in the States than in Canada but never said it didnt exist in Canada. Ill say it a third time. We are catching up to you guys very fast. We'll be in the same boat by the end of the decade likely short of a political revolution.

Shouldnt have said starving as its very Ethiopia sounding tho malnutirion of about 10 million kids in the states was documented in the 90's...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html

browse to US after...
Click to expand...

And what do you expect the political revolution to do about it? Redistribute even more money into a political dependency class? Create soviet-style work projects?
Click to expand...

Hahah! LOVE that hyperbole. Seriously demo. The Economist just voted Canada the best place to invest in for the next 3-5 years. We arent that den of socialism you think we are ;P.

Simple fact as we move away from the industrial age into the techno\workless age there will be more of what I see as citizen investors and fewer workers or hours worked by people.
 
Create soviet-style work projects?
Click to expand...

The five year plans were actually quite successful despite Stalin and his appartchik minions. Sort of like how 'Hitler's' Panzer warfare and the German charge across Europe was successful, despite Hitler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Sign the Academic Bill of Rights
Replies
18
Views
3K
OpenGL guy
O
Q
  • Poll
Article about making titles suitable for Japan & America
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
function
F
Back
Top