I love it! A group of folks not afraid to criticize Kerry :)
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-20 20:09:31 +0000
and recognize he's still better than Bush....
Posted by rladew on 2004-10-20 20:21:53 +0000
that would be be the purpose of the site, yes.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-20 22:28:38 +0000
Interesting I haven't seen anything like this for Bush, yet it seems this is your rationale for voting for Bush: "the mess Bush will leave after four more years will be easier to clean up than if we have four years of Kerry."
You're kinda alone on this one, which is cool. Just sayin'....
Posted by rladew on 2004-10-21 01:21:19 +0000
I realize I'm alone (or close to it) in my peer group. I'm just as surprised by my choice as most of my friends are. I think this will be the first (!) time Ive actually voted republican. If I'm wrong, and Bush does win, (which is a big if) and stuff gets worse than it is right now, I'd like to think I will be big enough to say "you know, I was wrong about that!" ...
I'm not going to be one of those folks who's going to be vindictive if Kerry wins, either. I would wish him the best of luck as we are all ultimately Americans and are trying to make this an even better place to live than it already is.
Posted by tgl on 2004-10-21 12:48:48 +0000
They way things look --and my definition of "things" is entirely Iraq-- whoever wins, things will get worse.
Posted by rladew on 2004-10-21 12:59:57 +0000
true. true. wars not make one great..
Posted by tgl on 2004-10-21 15:39:19 +0000
What if Kerry wins through the electoral college, without the popular vote majority, and the electoral vote tally is decided by a federal court overruling a state court?
Posted by rladew on 2004-10-22 19:25:49 +0000
Sue first...... ask questions later
read up on provisional ballotting my friend....
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black
Posted by tgl on 2004-10-22 19:31:33 +0000
We use proportional balloting here in Cambridge. It's even wackier than provisional balloting.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-23 05:15:05 +0000
The whole point is to get the vote as accurate as possible. What the hell is wrong with that?!?!?!?!?
Orwell/Kafka in '04
Posted by rladew on 2004-10-23 13:29:39 +0000
How is a vote accurate if people with a pulse and not much else walk into a polling place, regardless of their registered to vote status, and regardless of whether or not they follow instructions and make a successful clear as day vote making an accurate vote?
Instead of letting the people decide and using the system we setup in the constitution, we are knee-jerk sending it to lawyes to figure out and anyone within a 5 mile radius of a polling place is considered a person a person who voted? This is called provisional balloting, and makes an actual vote IMPOSSIBLE to quantify - I hope yr not serious about accuracy here Dawn -
What if someone went out to 10 polling places and did this - that would add 10 times more hard to read / decipher / illegitimate votes that would have to be counted through the nice in theory but oversimplified democratic argument of "make every vote count"
IMHO it should be "make evry legit vote count"
Instead, the modus operandi as seen by official documents from the DNC is to sue first and ask questions later. Let the lawyers decide who will be president. heh. Democracy.
Just b/c you play the race card doesn't make someone else racist. Just because you call me Jim Crow doesn't make it so.
True, Old voting equipment, long poll lines, and other difficulties can make it more challenging for yr vote to count, and if these are deterrents for people to vote, I can see how you would make a WEAK argument for disenfranchisement (or whatever the correct gramatic word would be) but b/c of skin color? Yr gonna need more quantifiable proof than you've provided. saying you think someone is racist isnt gonna cut it.
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black
Posted by tgl on 2004-10-23 16:59:44 +0000
Re: Letting the lawyers decide who will be president
Are we talking about 2000 or 2004?
In the Atlantic article on K. Rove, we learn how the persistent application of lawyerly elbow grease resulted in the win for his candidate in 1994.
These tactics aren't new, and Rove has pioneered them.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-23 18:09:33 +0000
Day of registration has been happening for decades and hasn't made the vote any less accurate. Why not make people show a social security card and/or drivers license? Whose letting lawyers decide the vote this time (or are we talking about 2000) Was the GOP complaining then? How does provisional balloting make it impossible to be accurate?
So many awkward, unsubstantiated questions...
A key Republican strategy is trying to deny as many people as possible the right to vote. High turn-out elections favor Dems, and the GOP is using a mix of voter suppression (Voters Outreach in Nevada and Missouri, I've posted these before), disenfranchisement (we all know about this in Florida), paying people $100 to challenge black voters in the inner city
link
and calling elderly telling them that there polling location has changed, when it hasn't.
link
Call it Karl Rove (I know rladew doesn't like to) call it the Grand Party's tactics, call it unethical, whatever it is, it's definitely happening and it's ugly. And we (yes We the People) need to stop it in all it's forms.
And it's not like the GOP has learned their lesson, as they continue to hire indicted notaries
link
No doubt trial will be after the election.
You know, I would vote Dem simply on this issue. Who wants a true oligarchy?
Orwell/Kafka in '04