Castro Stepping Down

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

IT'S GREAT THAT WE CAN FINALLY HAVE THIS DEBATE ABOUT GERRYMANDERING US CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS AND DIEBOLD MACHINES NOW THAT FIDEL CASTRO HAS STEPPED DOWN!

[Fairweather]

 

Would you argue that the recent problems with elections, that overwhelmingly occurred at the behest of Republicans, has NOT undermined faith in the fairness of the American electoral process?

 

[mattp]

I agree with woofies’ most recent post but Jay continues to argue with what I didn’t say. Now you, Mr. F, come along with your usual response. I take it you agree with your president when, this morning, he said that he hopes Cuba holds a fair election. Don’t you think we should, too? Your pals here are arguing that we shouldn’t try - no maybe we should try - but they did it first.

[Fairweather]

Castro wasn't elected. Recall the newspaper he held high above his head in 1960 when he proclaimed "Who needs elections? The people have spoken!" That was also the same year Nixon won the popular vote vs Kennedy, but some "irregularities" surfaced in Mayor Daily's Chicago. At least Nixon showed some dignity...something Gore was unable to do.

[mattp]

something Gore was unable to do.

 

Huh?

[Fairweather]

You may recall the case...Gore v Reality.

[mattp]

Yes, we've been all around about that. His lawyers were idiots and the only possible way they could have lost a recount was by the selective method that THEY requested. That was just plain stupid. But where does a lack of DIGNITY come in?

[Fairweather]

Nixon had a pretty clear case, but let it go...for the good of the nation. Plus, I'm sure he knew his day would come...and it eventually did. Gore basically ruined any chance he ever had of becoming prez with his crybaby/lawyer antics.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Fairweather

[mattp]

Gore basically ruined any chance he ever had of becoming prez with his crybaby/lawyer antics.

 

Unlike your friend Rossi?

 

I don't think dignity would have suggested he not question an election that was not counted accuartly. That is almost the opposite of dignity - it shows a lack of self esteem and is not based on any high road.

 

The "good of the nation" would be promoted if, in the context of discussing our recent elections, we were discussing how to make them fairer and how to make them appear fairer. Not in denying that there was a problem, then arguing that if there was a problem it is just politics as usual for the past 150 years.

[StevenSeagal]

Yep, Nixon, that benchmark of integrity, public service, and doing what's "good for the nation"!

 

 

SAYONARA MOTHERFUCKERS!!!

[Fairweather]

Fall from grace. But we're talking 1960 here my Akaido-slashing friend.

[Fairweather]

The "good of the nation" would be promoted if, in the context of discussing our recent elections, we were discussing how to make them fairer and how to make them appear fairer. Not in denying that there was a problem, then arguing that if there was a problem it is just politics as usual for the past 150 years.

 

I agree. So why are you having such a difficult time "moving on"?

Edited February 20, 2008 by Fairweather

[mattp]

Say what? You agree that it is a bad idea to deny there was a problem yet you suggest I not refer to the contradiction I see where Bush comments on how other countries might not hold fair elections?

[StevenSeagal]

Fall from grace. But we're talking 1960 here my Akaido-slashing friend.

 

 

Maybe. A lot of things changed after 'Nam, let me tell you.

[Fairweather]

OK then. Let's see what happens if the Dems take power for several years. IF they redraw the voting districts to favor their reelection, if the newest government contractor for voting machines says they are going to deliver votes to the Dems and it looks as if they may in fact actually do so, and if the dems interfere with access to the polls in Republican districts you are not going to complain. Gerrymandering, lying about the capability to make election machines that produce a receipt, providing reduced services for voters in specific districts is all legal, right?

 

 

Um, you realize that THE DEMS were in charge (exec, anyway) during and prior to the 2000 election? You think THE DEMS didn't gerrymander in the extreme during their 30+years in control of congress pre 1994? There are some districts in the deep south that look like corkscrews! Re-districting is something that has gone on for 200 years--and it's not wholly illegal. As for the voting machines, you have yet to make your case.

[JayB]

I agree with woofies’ most recent post but Jay continues to argue with what I didn’t say. Now you, Mr. F, come along with your usual response. I take it you agree with your president when, this morning, he said that he hopes Cuba holds a fair election. Don’t you think we should, too? Your pals here are arguing that we shouldn’t try - no maybe we should try - but they did it first.

 

I am glad that you agree that:

 

1)Both parties are guilty of using gerrymandering to suit their own purposes.

 

2)There is no credible evidence to suggest that electronic voting have been rigged to distort the vote count in any recent presidential election.

 

 

[olyclimber]

I agree with woofies’ most recent post but Jay continues to argue with what I didn’t say. Now you, Mr. F, come along with your usual response. I take it you agree with your president when, this morning, he said that he hopes Cuba holds a fair election. Don’t you think we should, too? Your pals here are arguing that we shouldn’t try - no maybe we should try - but they did it first.

 

I am glad that you agree that:

 

1)Both parties are guilty of using gerrymandering to suit their own purposes.

 

2)There is no credible evidence to suggest that electronic voting have been rigged to distort the vote count in any recent presidential election.

 

 

regarding #2, whatever the "evidence" is, why not not get rid of electronic voting till it can be made transparent and opensource? until it is so i will always distrust the results (except of course when they are in my favor )

[Peter_Puget]

Jeesh Porter think of all the FREE AGENTS that will be flooding the MLB market!

[JayB]

Say what? You agree that it is a bad idea to deny there was a problem yet you suggest I not refer to the contradiction I see where Bush comments on how other countries might not hold fair elections?

 

What specific defects in our elections are you referring to here, and which proven defects would pertain exclusively to Bush?

 

Is this all about the gerrymandering of congressional districts? This practice disqualifies any president of the US from criticizing anything that goes on in any election in any country at any time?

[JayB]

I agree with woofies’ most recent post but Jay continues to argue with what I didn’t say. Now you, Mr. F, come along with your usual response. I take it you agree with your president when, this morning, he said that he hopes Cuba holds a fair election. Don’t you think we should, too? Your pals here are arguing that we shouldn’t try - no maybe we should try - but they did it first.

 

I am glad that you agree that:

 

1)Both parties are guilty of using gerrymandering to suit their own purposes.

 

2)There is no credible evidence to suggest that electronic voting have been rigged to distort the vote count in any recent presidential election.

 

 

regarding #2, whatever the "evidence" is, why not not get rid of electronic voting till it can be made transparent and opensource? until it is so i will always distrust the results (except of course when they are in my favor )

 

I have no problem reverting to optical scanning, for example, but Matt hasn't been going on about the technical merits of one voting technology in the four-year-long-monomaniacal-insinuatathon...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I agree with woofies’ most recent post but Jay continues to argue with what I didn’t say. Now you, Mr. F, come along with your usual response. I take it you agree with your president when, this morning, he said that he hopes Cuba holds a fair election. Don’t you think we should, too? Your pals here are arguing that we shouldn’t try - no maybe we should try - but they did it first.

 

I am glad that you agree that:

 

1)Both parties are guilty of using gerrymandering to suit their own purposes.

 

2)There is no credible evidence to suggest that electronic voting have been rigged to distort the vote count in any recent presidential election.

 

 

regarding #2, whatever the "evidence" is, why not not get rid of electronic voting till it can be made transparent and opensource? until it is so i will always distrust the results (except of course when they are in my favor )

 

DIEBOLD must go.

[mattp]

Actually, Jay, we have discussed several times -- as recently as last week -- that I think optical scanning of paper ballots is the way to go.

 

And, of course, you may be "clever" in catching the fact that I overlooked that part of woofie's post, but you know full well that I don't agree that there was no credible showing that Diebold machines were not used to alter election results in Ohio during the last presidential election.

 

Are you going to argue once again with my assertion that just because gerrymandering is 150 years old doesn't make it right?

[JayB]

So why this business about me arguing against statements that you haven't made?

 

Where is the proof? Any party that had any *inkling* of such conduct by their opponents both the motive and the means to dedicate massive resources to investigating such an incident, ditto for any publication that even dabbles in investigative journalism?

 

If an average citizen like you has free access to damning factual evidence, how is it that no one with any authority to act has noticed, and why haven't they acted on it? This would make any political sandal in history inconsequential by comparison. What gives?

 

As far as gerrymandering is concerned, it's clearly a defect in my opinion. How, in your opinion, does the fact that partisan majorities in state legislatures use the rules to redraw the lines of electoral districts in a manner that favors their interests preclude American presidents from articulating critiques of elections in other nations? Does this go for all presidents, or just Bush?

[mattp]

Jerrymandering? You twice argued with the assertion that I did not make that it was a new development or that only Republicans do it.

 

Ohio? You make the idiotic rhetorical argument that I am the only one who has noticed a problem. For whatever political reasons, just as they have decided not talk about impeaching Bush and Cheney, the Democrats have decided not to pursue the issue. I am not arguing that manipulation can be proven as I don't know whether or not it can. I have some concerns, though, and the discussion really hasn't been undertaken. Here's a little reading for you. Rolling Stone Article

 

As to the concluding retort of your post? WTF? OUR president is the expert on fairness in elections? Even if you apparently believe as maybe you do that the Republicans did not cheat even the tiniest bit, our system does not look good. For LOTS of reasons.

 

Even Fairweeather and KK agree with me that Diebold (they have a new name) is questionable and optical scanning machines should be the standard. I think we've established that gerrymandering should be curtailed, at least. Defensive denials aside, there should be no question about whether there has been voter suppression. The Electoral College is totally obsolete. Everyone except maybe you agrees that campaign financing is needed. Etc. etc.

[JayB]

My argument is not that you are the only one who has made such claims. The first argument is that if *you* or any other average citizen are aware of them, they are quite public. It follows, then, that neither your claims nor the evidence that they are ostensibly based upon are unavailable for examination by anyone who wishes to do so. If this is the case, everyone in the country with either a motive or the authority to act upon them is also aware of them - yet...nothing has happened. The burden of proof, logic, and plain sanity rests on your shoulders here. Explain how this is possible.

 

What "political reasons" could the democrats possibly have for not uncovering blatant rigging of the presidential election? What's the downside? How do you explain the press's apparent reticence here?

 

Also - you might not have caught this earlier, but what response do you have to the fact that the comments made by Diebold's CEO in his capacity as a party official were issued on a public fundraising letter, widely distributed through the US mail? Is stating one's intention to rig an election in public the mark of a canny conspirator capable of pulling an elaborate plot of this magnitude and keeping it quiet for four years?

 

This is straight-up insanity here amigo.