 sj |
||
|
||
WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: mousethief Date: 16 Nov 00 - 02:16 PM This thread is hereby closed. Use the new one instead! Thanks!
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Nov 00 - 02:12 PM This thread needs a part 2, since it shows no sign of dying, and it's too long for convenience. But I couldn't make the New Thread doodah work. Maybe someone else can. (Not that I think the title is the best one - the real problem here isn't so much incompetance as of crooks taking advantage of incompetance.) |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Nov 00 - 02:02 PM Numbers don't really make much difference if you think about it.
At a General Election in the UK there are about 600 counts going on all over the country; at a by-election there'll be maybe one. The results come in about the same time in either case, give or take a few places where it takes longer to actually collect the ballot boxes, and bbegin to count ther voters.
And of course, if any candidate wants a recouint, they get a recount, sometimes sveral, which can put the declaration back by as much as two hours each time...
The point is, it doesn't take any longer to carry out 600 counts than it does to carry out a single count. Why should it? After all, it doesn't take any longer for 600 million people to tie their shoelaces than it would for one person.
I suppose if when they count the votes in the States they only use the same number of people doing the counting as would be needed in a much smaller country it would take a bit longer. Maybe if a tiny tiny fraction of the billions spent on propaganda during the election was spent on employing enough people to carry out the county expeditiously this kind of problem, wouldn't arise.
|
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: mousethief Date: 16 Nov 00 - 12:18 PM My wife heard that the National Bureau of Standards reported, TEN YEARS AGO, that the punch-hole ballots are incapable of being counted accurately by machine, and recommended at that time that they be scrapped. Of course, few jurisdictions have acted upon their advice. Ironically, the test case that brought the issue to the attention of the Bureau of Standards 10 years ago was from Palm Beach County, Florida.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: kendall Date: 16 Nov 00 - 11:39 AM I'm in favor of either recounting all of the votes, or, throwing out all of the votes. It's clear to me that Dubbya wants to quit while he's ahead, knowing damn well that if all the votes are counted he will lose. Never mind that those 30 year old machines screwed up the voting, what about all those black voters who were turned away from the polls? I say "Count all the votes, and the devil take the hindmost" |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: Bert Date: 16 Nov 00 - 11:33 AM She just made a honey of a mistake.... In my job if we make a mistake we have to fix it! |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: Ferrara Date: 16 Nov 00 - 11:08 AM McGrath, you said that "This whole thing is bizarre - somehow people seem to have managed to distort something pretty simple into something incredibly inefficient and cumbersome. How did it come about that the world oldest democracy cocks it up in such a complicated way?" ... and then go on to describe the local voting procedures. Well, first, how many people's votes have to be counted with your manual procedures? You can see how long it's taking to count a single county here! -- We have a whole bunch of people in the US, really we do. Hundreds! Machine voting, like computers (which were preceded by mechanical IBM tabulating machines when Social Security was new) arose partly in response to the population problem. They were needed to handle huge volumes of data from huge numbers of people. AND, machine voting was invented to try to prevent vote fraud, which is an old tradition in this and every other country where elections are held. As an older woman once said to me, "Some people just won't do right." As to the subjectivity of manual recounts: The Washington Post said that Gov. Bush signed a manual recount law in Texas which set the "sunlight test" as a standard for determining whether a hole had been punched: i.e., a dimple doesn't count, but if the counter can see any daylight, it's a vote. This is a looser standard than the one chosen on Saturday by the Palm Beach County Canvassing Committee. Since Texas permits manual recounts (and probably requires them for specified close elections), the awful uncertainty that Bush is talking about only seems to apply to elections in other people's states. Still, if anybody is recounting anything in Florida, one would wish all counties would agree on the standard. And I suspect the only way to get a real count is for all Florida counties to recount, God forbid! The real tragedy I see is in the votes that went to Buchanan and the double votes, which can't be taken into account in a recount. This kind of screw-up in counting votes is NOT unusual. It's just that most votes aren't this close. When they are, manual recounts are often done. I don't see any way that Jeb Bush or any Republican can have fiddled with that butterfly ballot. That's just not a factor in this mess. Lenore Pore, the woman who designed it, does not have any sense of what makes for clarity, either graphically or verbally. Not her fault, poor woman, but it's causing a damned big spot of trouble. The reason I say she has no sense of verbal clarity is that on election day, long before it was known how close the election was, it was known that many people had either voted twice or voted for Buchanan by mistake. The account I read said that some people left the polls in tears. At 2:30 pm, Pore was asked by a local lawyer to "instruct election supervisors to warn voters about making possible mistakes." From the Washington Post: Pore wrote a memo that said "ATTENTION ALL POLL WORKERS, Please remind ALL voters coming in that they are to vote only for one (1) presidential candidate and that they are to punch the hole next to the arrow next to the number next to the candidate they wish to vote for." I swear to God that's a direct quote from the Post, Nov. 11, page A18. So the woman just has no idea how to give useful, clear directions or instructions, no idea of user interfaces shall we say. I've studied her butterfly ballot. It's ugly indeed. Huge chances for confusion, especially for people with any kind of spatial perception difficulties (such as, say, new bifocals...). One man -- not elderly, no spatial perception difficulties -- used his comb to try to line up names with punches and still wasn't sure he got it right. There was a tiny little arrow showing where to punch. She could have made it a big, visible arrow. She could have shaded the name and corresponding punch on each side of the butterfly. She could have put a dotted line to line up names and punches. She could have asked a half dozen people to look at the design and see what they thought. But I don't think she had any idea that the ballot's clarity was in question. No dishonesty, no deliberate attempt to be misleading. Pore voted for the manual recount, and she's a Democrat. She just made a honey of a mistake. |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Nov 00 - 09:54 AM Gary's technical explanation seems likely enough - congfirming that the stuff from Bushy and Co about problems with interpreting whether a vote is valid or not is a load of rubbish, and the only intent is to try to hold on to that wafer thin majority.
Can any one doubtb that that man is a crook, a cheat and a coward as well? A physical coward who sneaked out of fighting in the Vietnam War which he supported, and a political coward now who is frightened of allowing an accurate vote now.
Bring back Richard Nixon - at least he was a crook with some kind of style. |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: Gary T Date: 16 Nov 00 - 08:44 AM And now the latest news report--With 383% of the Florida vote counted, it's still unclear who is the winner. (Not my original, but I thought it was pretty funny.) |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 16 Nov 00 - 01:21 AM The voters have spoken. Is anyone listening?
The machines do not allow of much checking to see if the chad is missing, or the hole completely punched through. The voters were not instructed to make sure that the holes were complete. Any attempt to decide the winner MUST take into account that the voters in question have no idea whether their holes were complete. |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: Gary T Date: 15 Nov 00 - 11:04 PM McGrath, to clarify this: There is a perception, I believe, that questionable holes generally reflect a botched attempt to vote for Gore, and thus this evaluation of the mechanical legality of the holes once again tends to play along party lines. Perhaps it's only my perception. What I was thinking was, with Bush being at the top of the ballot, those who wanted to vote for him had no trouble selecting the correct hole to punch. Many of those who wanted to vote for Gore, however, had some confusion as to whether to punch the 2nd or 3rd hole down (the uncharacteristically and extremely high tally for Buchanan in Palm Beach county is almost certainly due to this--votes intended for Gore but punched in the wrong hole). Presumably, some would-be Gore voters started to punch the Buchanan hole, then stopped and realized which hole they really wanted to punch. This would result in a significant number of intended-for-Gore ballots having at least dimples in two holes, whereas the intended-for-Bush ballots would only have one hole punched (or partly punched). |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: GUEST,Petr Date: 15 Nov 00 - 09:17 PM To Bob S. who wonders why the Democrats are asking only for selective recounts, Gore has said they would be fine with a statewide manual recount and are asking Republicans to agree that. With respect to trusting machine counts over manual counts, it seems to me that there are cases of these holes which hang but are punched through would not be counted by machine but are clearly counted in a hand count. Still the republican legal strategy doesnt make a lot of sense namely the attempt to stop the recount (when they really should be pushing for a statewide manual recount) It was not likely to succeed, mainly because the courts are loathe to get involved in political decisions that could decide an election. The insistence by Sec. of state Harris to stick to the legal certification deadline of Nov 14 (even though the deadline for absentee votes is not until the 17th. And the electoral college votes arent until Dec 18th. I think that in these days of instant everything people want a quick answer, what we have is a 19th century election popping up in the 21st century (or is it still the 20th) and often they took weeks to decide. I love the comment about electile dysfunction and how ironic that it would be focused in a state shaped like Florida. Even though Im a Canadian, the US election is fascinating especially the fact that its so close (I mean what are the odds of that happening) Its understandable since both candidates are fairly close to the centre (or Bush says he is). It is tight nationwide, they have yet to declare a senator in Washington state. I think that there is something to be said about this phenomenon. What are the differences between those who voted for Gore and those for Bush. Im sure that women play a big part in this. Any comments on the overall picture? PEtr |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Nov 00 - 08:36 PM As I understand it, one of the reason for dodgy holesd is that the meachines are crap, and if you don't push the buttion pretty hard they don't cut through cleanly. Incan't see whynthat would be more likely to affect Democrat voters than Republicans..... As for selective picking of counties - it doesn't take any longer to do 67 counts than it does to do one. It wouldn't take any longer to count every vote in the United States in fact than it does to count one county, the same way that it doesn't take any longer to have a vote in one ward than it does for the whole country. And as spaw worked it out the numbers involved to getbitbdone in a reasonable time aren't that great
The only explanation I can see for the hoohah is that the candidate in front is shit-scared that a fair count of the vote would mean that he'd lose. Right now it so happens it's Bush, and in the process of trying to stop thge vote I think he has demonstrated that he's not fit to be elected dog-catcher.
Maybe if Gore was in front he'd act the same, and demonstrate that he is as much a crook and a cheat as his rival - but he hasn't been put in that position yet, so we don't know. Maybe if the vote turns to favour Gore after the overseas ones are taken into account we'll see Bush calling for recounts, and Gore can show if he's more honest in these matters than Bush.
Maybe he is. After all, it now appears clear that to top Bush, he wouldn't have to achieve a particularly high standard of honesty - and most people in my experience are in fact reasonably honest when it comes down to it. And that probably includes a fair number of politicians even. Well, some anyway, and maybe Gore's one of them. I hope he gets a chance to show. And if he isn't, sod him as well. |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: GUEST,Kim C, who deleted cookie Date: 15 Nov 00 - 05:48 PM I voted for who I liked, and it was neither Gore nor Bush. To paraphrase the great Will Rogers, it's all a bunch of hooey. ;) |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: Gary T Date: 15 Nov 00 - 02:23 PM McGrath and Wolfgang, I'll try to shed a bit of light from my perspective.
Don't people in America feel a little bit embarassed about this?...the fact that the opinions on this line up so neatly along political divisions.
- We don't understand that many in the USA don't seem to care who actually has won or think that it may not be possible to know.
- We don't really understand what the reasons are against counting by hand. We do it this way each time and the final results usually comes at about 4 to 6 hours after the election.... We count in our local election office the perhaps 400 local votes.
The point is, with holes in the paper, the person scrutinising the votes to see if they are legal or not does not have to look at the front at all, and does not need to know who the vote in question is being given to. Republicans point out that the Florida counties singled out for recounts are heavily Democratic, thus it may be unfair to recount only in those counties. Democrats point out that those counties are the ones with obvious, known, large-scale problems. They're both right. It quickly becomes a matter of how far do you want to take this recount business? There are various problems reported in places all over the nation, just as there have been in virtually every election. A complete hand recount of every vote in the U.S. is not really practicable. Recounting only four counties in Florida is probably not exactly fair. Where does one draw the line? At some point, yet to be determined, a balance will be struck between perfection and expediency. |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Nov 00 - 02:13 PM Let's see........A new person team can do say 6 a minute (Pick it up, look, agree, put it down). So that means in an 8 hour shift with a half hour off to eat, they can do 2700 ballots. 10 teams then could do 27,000 and working round the clock, they could do 81,000 and 100 teams could do 810,000.........With the total votes cast in Florida, it could be done in about 8 days. Interesting. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Nov 00 - 01:33 PM Right on Wolfgang! Especially this paragraph:We don't understand that many in the USA don't seem to care who actually has won or think that it may not be possible to know. Our impression before was that it is possible to find out even in a close election and we'd like to know (if it was here) even if that means recounting for three weeks.
That's the heart of it, and it's really discouraging the way the media seems to be ignoring it. Even more discouraging is the way so many people on the Mudcat seem to ignore it as well.
And something else I find incomprehensible is the way noone in a poasition to do anything about it seems to have noticed that with a hole in the paper system of ballotting, clumsy as it may be, there is one major advantage. You can totally eliminate the kind of fraud and distortion that is being spoken of as if it was inevitable, and has been used by the fella who thinks he's ahead as an excuse for preventing a proper count that might cost him the Presidency (or very likely confirm him as the winner - but I suppose that's too big a risk for the man who's being going on about the need for honesty...)
The point is, with holes in the paper, the person scrutinising the votes to see if they are legal or not does not have to look at the front at all, and does not need to know who the vote in question is being given to.
So all you need is to have a committed Democrat and a committee Republican watching like hawks, and bingo. A fair result. |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: Wolfgang Date: 15 Nov 00 - 07:35 AM Well, I've read a lot of these election threads and I've talked to a lot of my friends here (in Germany) about the election. In case you'd like to know here's the gist of our reaction: - We are, mildly said, surprised, that the USA don't seem to be prepared to a very close results that needs recounting to make sure who has won. - We are not irritated by the popular vote (perhaps) being different from the electoral vote. Rules are rules (and if you want to change them next time it's fine, unless you do it after the event) and comparable things could happen in Britain and (less well known) in Germany, so what. - We don't understand that many in the USA don't seem to care who actually has won or think that it may not be possible to know. Our impression before was that it is possible to find out even in a close election and we'd like to know (if it was here) even if that means recounting for three weeks. - We don't really understand what the reasons are against counting by hand. We do it this way each time and the final results usually comes at about 4 to 6 hours after the election. There are (quite) clear rules when a vote has to be counted or not (not, e.g. when any word is added to the actual mark indicating my preference). We count in our local election office the perhaps 400 local votes. The counters are usually all members of the big four parties, but everyone else is allowed to watch. And when I have finished with counting a member of another (opponent) party counts again until we agree (we can't but agree in the end, for we count a pile of paper ballots). There are always some ballots left where a decision is difficult what the intent of the voter was. We try to agree and if we do we count (or discard) them as agreed. And if we do not agree we assign to those 1, 2 or 3 votes the status 'undecided'. All that takes about two hours time and then we protocol our final figures and sign them and phone the central election office with our results. Then we go home and watch the late news giving the final result. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: P05139 Date: 15 Nov 00 - 06:43 AM Seeing as I'm only 16 (nearly 17, yeaaah!!) I have no idea about politics. Why do you think I didn't opt for Sociology at college in favour of psychology?!? Mind you, politicians need their heads checking at times... |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: Margo Date: 15 Nov 00 - 01:43 AM Yeah, but CNN reported that people recounting were holding the ballots up to the light to look for dimpled impressions in the ballot to try to "determine the intent of the voter". That sort of activity makes the hand recount subjective. If it were done objectivly, I certainly wouldn't mind. But as it is, there seems to be no standard way of doing it. It is clearly unethical for anyone doing a recount to try to determine that the voter didn't or did mean to vote the way they did. As I understand, that is the sort of thing that was going on. More than one network reported it..... Margo |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Nov 00 - 05:35 PM This business of counting votes is a technical issue of how to get it right. Getting it right means being accurate, it has nothing to do with who you would like to win the election.
There are clearly differences of opinion as to how to go about getting it right. But how do people explain to themselves the apparent fact that the differences seem to coincide with different political affiliation? And political affiliation has nothing to with whether a hand-count is more accurate than a machine count and so forth.
Don't people in America feel a little bit embarassed about this? I don't mean so much by the election confusion, but by the the fact that the opinions on this line up so neatly along political divisions. |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: GUEST,Bob S Date: 14 Nov 00 - 04:28 PM Disagree? Yes. I have no objection to a hand count if it is done statewide. Why should one candidate have the right to pick and choose counties which most likely be favorable to him. I said before, there were 26,00 ballots tossed in Duval which is largely Republican. Lets count Duval too. Do I believe it can be done honestly? No. Like letting the fox guard the henhouse. From U.S.News and World Report today a "very senior" White House aid explained how Gore would win. "You know this is all in Florida. And think about it, they have Caribbeans there, Cubans there, folks from other Third World nations. I mean, they really know how to steal elections." Was he trying to be funny? In any event I don't trust the hands. The hand is quicker than the eye. Bob S. |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Nov 00 - 02:38 PM Does anybody really think that a machine count is more reliable than a hand count? As opposed to more likely to help "their side"? Hand on heart and wish to die, and if the vote in question was the other way round?
So far as I can see, it's the machines and the machine count that has caused this problem. A hand count carried out honestly is far more reliable than the kind of machine counts they've been using. When carried out on a set of ballots that weren't processed through a Heath-Robinson voting machine it takes only a couple of hours, with a modest sized team of people counting them. If the problem is that there aren't enough honest people to carry out hand-counts, and to supervise hand-counts, America really must be in desperate trouble.
Maybe it is, looking at the way this seems to be dividing on political lines - I had naively assumed that, leaving aside a few bent politicians, whatever people's politics they would want a true election result, representing the actual way that people voted, and rectifying any fiddles. And that would mean they wouldn't be divided along political lines on a thing like this.
I'd expect at the very least that there would be active and committed Republicans among those calling for a properly conducted recounts, and for re-votes where there is sufficient evidence that a fair poll has not been conducted. And I'd expect the same of Democrats, and anybody else. Except for the crooks on both sides. And I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation.
"Your side" indeed. Anyone, whatever their politics, should be on the same side in trying to clear this kind of thing up. Taking sides in this kind of thing is a bit sick. Getting it right is a lot more important than who gets to win.
I repeat what I said before, anyone who tries to stop a recount that seems to be going against them is unfit to hold any kind of public office, at any level, in any country. Whatever party label they might be trading under is completely immaterial.
Does anyone really disagree with that?
The thing that surely matters is to get it right, and that doesn't mean getting the bloke you prefer elected, it means sorting out the election mess. If that means recounts or re-votes, in Florida or clear across the United States, so be it, you've got all the time you need. Throwing your arms up in the air, and having some kind of fudge is to pour contempt on that vaunted American Constitution. The right to vote and to have that vote properly counted is surely a lot more basic than any "right to bear arms".
|
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: mousethief Date: 14 Nov 00 - 11:25 AM Doug: In this very thread, on the 13th of November, at 2:56 pm, I said, "I admit, it was a paraphrase." (Look it up yourself -- it's right on this very web page!) Hell, why should you have to search for it? You can't search for Republican propaganda online to give to an undecided voter; we can't expect too much of you, apparently. So I'll give you a clicky: clicky If you have any problem with any of these words, I can define them for you, or point you to an online dictionary for you to look them up yourself. Now please be so kind as to drop it.
Thanks, |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: GUEST,Bob S. Date: 14 Nov 00 - 11:18 AM If they're going to hand count one county they should hand count all counties. The Dems figure to pick up votes by choosing which counties to hand count. There were some 26,000 votes (ballots) tossed in Republican Duval county. Let's hand count those too. Bob S. |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: mousethief Date: 14 Nov 00 - 11:08 AM What Greg said. |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 14 Nov 00 - 10:29 AM First: I'm a Republican, but for the first time in forty years I voted for a Democrat (Gore). Had be been running, I would have voted for Clinton. That said, however, it is not meaningful to make a big deal out Bush's having signed the Texas recount statute, which is similar to that in Florida. The policy decision to pass that Texas statute was in the hands of the legislature, not the Governor. Unless he is extremely exercized about the "wrongness" of a statute, so that he must veto it, it is his duty to sign it. Signing it doesn't mean he agrees with it. Now, it may be a fact that he agreed with the Texas recount statute, or even that he promoted it, but I haven't heard that stated as a fact. Also, given my having voted for Gore, even though we seem to have a popular-vote/electoral college miscarriage working, I still believe that the electoral college should be preserved. Okay, so I'm confused. Maybe my vote needs to be recounted? Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: wlisk Date: 14 Nov 00 - 09:42 AM Heard someone say that what we have here is electile dysfunction! And something about the evidence not standing up in court. Seriously, I hope when this fiasco is over those of us who are so upset will direct our energy to fixing the problem. It can be fixed. We are using 1950's and 60's technology for one of our most important processes. Bill |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: rabbitrunning Date: 14 Nov 00 - 09:17 AM The Republican argument that hand recounts are biased is undermined in the face of the law that GWBush signed in Texas giving manual recounts preference over machine counts. The text was in one of the papers I read... may the New York Times or Boston Globe... That or he doesn't read what he signs. |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: GUEST,Greg F.(remote location) Date: 14 Nov 00 - 09:10 AM Doug- give it a rest. Its not Alex's fault that you misunderstood the movie line reference. Everyone else apparently understood it.Its YOUR problem, not his. You're starting to sound like a petulant three-year old. Enough, already. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: GUEST,Bob S Date: 14 Nov 00 - 06:22 AM DougR: I think you meant to say "Hail to the Chef" If gore wins our goose is cooked. I saw him crying about how he didn't want a tainted win. That boy can't stop lying. Bob S. |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 14 Nov 00 - 02:31 AM The stragety is: fix the election in Florida. when it looks like gore might win anyway, fix it again in a hurry When it has gotten to much attention from the media, and they start to look bad for correctly giving Gore the nod at 8PM, point the finger at them. Call Gore a 'bad sport' because the voting electoate is in the streets in Florida. Threaten to recount in other states Use direct litigation to try to stop the recounts NEVER INSIST ON FAIR AND COMPLETE BALLOT COUNTS The analogy is; He thought his two yard touchdown run had won the game and he was doing all the right gymnastics,...but there was a flag on the play... holding-Republicans... |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: DougR Date: 14 Nov 00 - 01:54 AM Alex! Why are you so reluctant to admit that you were wrong to quote President elect Bush, saying what you wrote that he said? I have not always agreed with your point of view, but have felt that you are a fair person. All you are doing with all the gibberish you have written in the post above, is just that ...gibberish! So, please direct me to the place where Governor Bush said what you said he said. I'd appreciat it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: GUEST,Jerry Date: 13 Nov 00 - 11:47 PM The whole problem with this election is people did not vote for who they liked, but for who they disliked least! |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: Troll Date: 13 Nov 00 - 11:35 PM Margo, A machine count won't give the election the Al Gore. A manual recount probably will. They can't cheat on the machine recount but the manual recount is highly subjective, to say the least. troll |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: mousethief Date: 13 Nov 00 - 11:16 PM Doug, I already answered that question. I said, it was a paraphrase of the lawsuit. Then you backtracked and said what you wanted was the source of the Baker quote, not the Bush quote and we went off in that direction. Now yhou're back asking the question I already answered. You're obviously very worked up over all this; maybe you should sit down and have a cup of herbal tea or something. I've listened to Limbaugh before. I can only take so much ignorance and hatred before my hackles begin to rise. You will have to give me a synopsis. I can't take it straight; sorry.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: DougR Date: 13 Nov 00 - 11:09 PM Ok, guys, tell me. I'm sure you have heard Vice-President Gore making his statement in front of the White House today. Do you REALLY believe this guy? Does he REALLY come across to you as a real person? Would you REALLY want to sit down at the dinner table with him? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: Margo Date: 13 Nov 00 - 11:08 PM Has anyone addressed the subjectivity of a hand recount? CNN reported that people recounting were holding the ballots up to the light to look for dimpled impressions in the ballot to try to determine the intent of the voter. I prefer a machine count. That kind of activity is clearly unethical. I don't understand why they don't abide by a machine count? Margo |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: DougR Date: 13 Nov 00 - 10:59 PM Uh Oh, now I'm concerned. Peter King, (R. NY) is making noises about "whoever wins we have to get behind him." That must mean he knows something everybody else doesn't know. Hail to the Chief! Al Gore! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: Troll Date: 13 Nov 00 - 10:33 PM The strategy is, keep demanding recounts until you win. If there is a recount in the other counties, there should be a recount for the whole state. For the Rep. to agree to a recount in four heavily Dem. counties, and not demand a state-wide recount would be stupid. Of course the Dem. want recounts in those four counties. Lots of chances to fiddle the count. troll |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: DougR Date: 13 Nov 00 - 07:29 PM Thanks, Gary, I loved that movie, and remember that scene well. Perhaphs if Alex had attributed the quote to the Mexican bandito, it would have been appropriate. I don't have a playlist available showing the cast of that movie, but I'm reasonably certain the name of the bandido was not Bush. Did you mistakenly attribute the quote to Bush, Mousethief? Alex, if you catch this message in time, you can tune in to MSNBC and hear Rush Limbaugh on Brian Williams' show! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: Gary T Date: 13 Nov 00 - 07:02 PM Doug, when I saw this: "Recount? We don't need no stinking recount!" -Bush, I figured it was a joking reference to Bush's frame of mind, not an actual quote. It's a reworking of a fairly famous line from the Humphrey Bogart movie "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre". In a scene where the protagonists (gold miners) are accosted by a group of bandits claiming to be sheriffs, our heroes ask to see their badges. The bandit leader replies "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!" (gunfight follows). I would venture that Alex assumed readers would recognize the line, and thus know it wasn't a real Bush quote. |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: DougR Date: 13 Nov 00 - 06:42 PM I see, Alex. Then it was not a direct quote. Thanks for clarifying. I thought the Baker quote, was in quotes, but I guess I was wrong. Yes, I was wrong, I cheked your thread again. There are no quote marks related to any Baker remarks. But my original question (I rechecked it too)did relate to a direct quote you attribute to Bush. "Recount? We don't need no stinking recount!"-Bush. That's the quote I wish you would direct me to. Yes, I agree it is largely one's own point of view (as I believe I pointed out) as to which lawsuit was the most interesting. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: mousethief Date: 13 Nov 00 - 06:21 PM Actually the state law is divided on this issue; there are 2 laws that speak to recounting, and they appear to be contradictory; one appears to say the Secretary of State has some leeway in extending deadlines. Surely in your broad reading you will have come across this; if not I will try to find (again) the web page (I'm pretty sure it was MSNBC) I read it from. I didn't attribute any direct quotes to Baker; I attributed an indirect quote to Baker, which I saw on a headline on a newspaper. Unfortunately I did not read the article and it appears I was wrong in thinking he wanted Gore to concede the election before the absentee ballots were in. As to which lawsuit you find more interesting, I guess that's a matter of taste, and we all know there is no disputing taste. We also know that it depends on whose ox is being gored, whether or not a person has an ax to grind.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: DougR Date: 13 Nov 00 - 06:11 PM Well, I obviously get confused easily too, Alex. I meant Baker, not Bush. So, where did you find that direct quote that you attribute to former Secretary of State, James Baker? Yes, as a retiree, I'm familiar with the media outlets you mention, and have listend most of the day to CNN and MSNBC. I'm also aware that the Republicans lost the law suit they filed in federal court. A far more interesting law-suit, to me, is the one filed by your side in the state court, asking the Court to order the Secretary of State to disregard state law, and extend the deadline for filing the hand counted ballots in the four heavily populated counties. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: mousethief Date: 13 Nov 00 - 05:04 PM Well, Doug, you said, "I must have missed that quote you attribute to Bush. Where did you find it?" and my posting was a response to that question. If this was meant to refer to a Baker quote (I quoted Baker?) you should have maybe said "you attribute to Baker" instead of "you attribute to Bush." I get confused easily. The lawsuit I was referring to was the one the Bush camp filed to stop the recount. Perhaps you haven't been following the news very closely; you can check out stories at MSNBC or CNN.COM. To quote the former, "Gore's lawyers won a victory in federal court, where a judge rejected a lawsuit filed by the Republicans seeking to stop hand recounts of votes."
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: DougR Date: 13 Nov 00 - 05:04 PM I have an idea which might ensure that the ballot problem Floridians have encountered, might not occur again, or would at least reduce the number of people who errered in marking their ballot correctly. One of the first pieces of legislation the new president should introduce is one that would provide federal grants for every voter in the United States to visit an optomitrist, and if necessary, purchase a pair of reading glasses! A brand new federal give-away program! What do you think, Mudcatters? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Nov 00 - 04:58 PM Anyone who tries to stop a recount that looks like it may go against them is a corrupt politician and unfit to hold office in any country, at any level.
And this is a man who's been going on about how honest he is, and how he's the voice of the real America.
Remember the old 20 year rule, under which any president elected this year is due to die before leaving office? We have to assume that Bush agreed to try to stop the recount, when he heard it was going against him.
If that is the case, even if Bush wins the election, either fairly when all the votes have been fairly counted, or by stealing it, he's dead already, even if he lives to be 100. |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: DougR Date: 13 Nov 00 - 03:55 PM No, no, Alex, obviously the Gore camp filed the lawsuit! That's perfectly clear (even to me). The part of your post I referred to in mine, was the sentence attributed to Baker in quotation marks, which to me, meant it was a direct quote. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: WHAT a bunch of INCOMPETENTS! From: mousethief Date: 13 Nov 00 - 02:56 PM DougR: I admit, it was a paraphrase. Trying to boil an entire federal-court lawsuit down to a single phrase, one is liable to make it unclear in some points. Which part do you object to? Or will you tell me the lawsuit seeking to stop the recount was done over Bush's objection?
Alex |
| Share Thread: |