Democrats and the '04 Election

[afr0byte]

The liberal/left creates myths for the dupes in their number, the most recent being "The dems won the elections" and "Bush lied about WMDs", both repeated endlessly, but neither ever proven.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,430306,00.html

 

[afr0byte]

Mid West Liberal is not ovver it..He never will be......He is consumed with hatred..........

It's interesting how you claim you can tell when people are consumed by hatred based off of postings on an internet forum.

 

[alphamale]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,430306,00.html

Yaaaaa ..... two liberal/left newspapers say Bush lost! Well, I'm convinced! (Drool .....wipewipewipe) (farrrrrtt .....Oops!:lol: )

 

[disneydude]

The liberal/left creates myths for the dupes in their number..."Bush lied about WMDs"

I must have missed the report when they found the WMD's....gosh Alpha.....guess most all of us missed that news reports.....or maybe.....just maybe......it was a lie to justify Rumsfield/Cheneys/Rove's etc ambition to invade Iraq.....We found the WMD's? Guess that was one of those "great things happening in Iraq" that the "liberal media" hasn't shown.

 

[Navy Pride]

I must have missed the report when they found the WMD's....gosh Alpha.....guess most all of us missed that news reports.....or maybe.....just maybe......it was a lie to justify Rumsfield/Cheneys/Rove's etc ambition to invade Iraq.....We found the WMD's? Guess that was one of those "great things happening in Iraq" that the "liberal media" hasn't shown.

You Libs crack me up..........Did you for get every major nation in the world said Saddam had WMD.........Did you know that Clinton said in 1998 that Saddam needed to be taken out......Did you know that Congress voted almost unanimously to take Saddam out..........Did you know that the UN Security Council voted 15-0 in resolution 1441?

Talk about hypocrites..........:roll:

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

hypocrite

hmmm........for some reason thats my least favorite word.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.


...interesting that it took until 2003 to act upon this legislation...

 

[lily]

Navy Pride

You Libs crack me up..........Did you for get every major nation in the world said Saddam had WMD.........

That's a bit of a streatch.........not every major nation. Great Briton.......oh and don't forget Poland!

Did you know that Clinton said in 1998 that Saddam needed to be taken out......

There's an 8 year gap, between that statement. One would think that a wise leader, would finish one war, before starting another.

Did you know that Congress voted almost unanimously to take Saddam out..........

With the information that this administration gave them.

Did you know that the UN Security Council voted 15-0 in resolution 1441?

........yet we went to war without their approval.......

Talk about hypocrites..........:roll:[/QUOTE]

 

[cnredd]

Let's see, lily asks the question "What makes the Republicans think that the Democrats are not over 2000 and 2004?"

cnredd responds "hmmmmmmmm.....Let's see if I can take a crack at it..."

cnredd then produces quotes from Debate Politics Forums showing that indeed 11 posters are not over the 2000 and 2004 elections. So far, so good.


But then he adds this statement:

Yup!...Looks like they're "over it" to me...



Yet, in a thread just the other day, he correctly argued that a few does not represent all.

"See?...A person on YOUR side of the aisle said something whacky, so you're ALL whacky!"...

BWG,

First off, I'd like to say...EXCELLENT!...

When reading these forums as a forum member, looking to point out indiscrepancies and hypocritical comments should be encouraged...It shows that some members push forward their agenda without logical thought...exposing it shows the other members this, and in the future other members will keep this in mind when reading what was written...

As to this particular comment, you're forgetting the original quote from lily that I responded to...

What makes the Republicans think that the Democrats are not over 2000 and 2004?

THAT, BWG, is a generalization...Do you see the words "MOST Democrats"?...Do you see anything indicating, "Only a few are not over it?"...

No, you don't...

lily's statement implies 100%...Obviously a falsehood...

BTW - My use of the word "they're" was referring to those 11 members who've written those comments...Not "all Democrats" as implied by lily's question...That is probably where the misinterpretation lies...read my comment again in that vein and you'll see that makes much more sense...

Also, keep this in mind...

lily did not make that statement ONLY referring to this forum...Her comment was encompassing all Democrats...

If I was able to find 11 JUST on this forum...How many would I find on the whole internet?...100,000?...200,000...maybe a million?...

You're also missing another point...The 11 that I found are ONLY the ones that have publicly voiced the opposite of what lily's question contented on this forum...How many are thinking it WITHOUT publicly writing about it?...If 11 people wrote it, how many agreed?....Surely 100% of the people that are not over it are the ones who wrote it...There can be dozens, hundreds, or possibly thousands of people that view these 11 comments and personally have the same sentiments...

I think you'll agree that those 11 represent a much larger population...

Of course, if asked the question, "Are you over the 2000 and 2004 elections?" to Democrats, the majority will not admit that they are not...It just wouldn't be self-serving...

But even you have to admit that there is a certain percentage that is not over it yet...What that percentage is...1%...5%...10%...20%...we'll probably never know...

But you can deny that it's not 100% as implied by lily's question...

Once again...Loved your thinking...:2wave:

 

[afr0byte]

Most of the hate by the left for GWB is becasue of the 2000 election.......I don't want to get in a ******* contest over that again but you just can't allow a recount with 59 counties using 59 different standards to determine a vote and every organization that has gone down there and did a recount still had GWB winning including some liberals ones.....Its a good thing that GWB did not ask for recounts in the states that he barely lost.......We would probably still be counting...........He had to much class to do that unlike Gore........

What? Class has nothing to do with it. Silly me for thinking it's a good thing to make sure the count is accurate.

 

[cnredd]

What? Class has nothing to do with it. Silly me for thinking it's a good thing to make sure the count is accurate.

The problem is with the question of "What is accurate?"...

The biggest problem was that Florida did not have a solution to the problem BEFORE the elections...There were no standards that were legislated...

Certain people thought one way to recount was accurate, while others thought it wouldn't be accurate and THEIR way would be accurate...There are different ways to recount them and not one of them was established...

Therefore, a vote on county "A" would be considered legit, but it the next county over it would be thrown out...

See the problem?...Where's the legitimacy?

When the Florida Supreme Court decided...for themselves...that they should all be recounted, they didn't have the authority to do that...That's the job of the legislative branch...because the courts could not say "how" they would be recounted...

Any any option would bring wrath from people who believed the option others' chose was inaccurate...

The Florida Supreme Court put their nose in business that was not there concern...They should've said , "Don't look at us...We didn't cause this mess."...But instead, they overstepped their authority...

And the US Supreme Court?...All they did was reign the Florida Supreme Court in...They pretty much said, "Stay out of it...You have no place to decide legislative matters."...

 

[afr0byte]

The problem is with the question of "What is accurate?"...

The biggest problem was that Florida did not have a solution to the problem BEFORE the elections...There were no standards that were legislated...

Certain people thought one way to recount was accurate, while others thought it wouldn't be accurate and THEIR way would be accurate...There are different ways to recount them and not one of them was established...

Therefore, a vote on county "A" would be considered legit, but it the next county over it would be thrown out...

See the problem?...Where's the legitimacy?

When the Florida Supreme Court decided...for themselves...that they should all be recounted, they didn't have the authority to do that...That's the job of the legislative branch...because the courts could not say "how" they would be recounted...

Any any option would bring wrath from people who believed the option others' chose was inaccurate...

The Florida Supreme Court put their nose in business that was not there concern...They should've said , "Don't look at us...We didn't cause this mess."...But instead, they overstepped their authority...

And the US Supreme Court?...All they did was reign the Florida Supreme Court in...They pretty much said, "Stay out of it...You have no place to decide legislative matters."...

Hmm, much better response than a NP response at least.

 

[cnredd]

Hmm, much better response than a NP response at least.

Don't generalize based on the comments of the fringe...

The biggest problem on this forum...

 

[tecoyah]

I would like to make a small note in this thread, and apologise if its seen as a threadjack. The 2000 election did cause much concern for a large portion of the population in this country (yes, myself included), primarily due to how close the race actually was, combined with possible irregularities in some areas of the country. Though I fully accept that GWB won the election, I had hoped something could have been done in the years following to lower the chance of a repeat occurance. Instead it seems we are going the opposite direction with the Dibold issue, and ignoring the concerns many have as to the dependability/trustworthyness of this form of Voting. I would think that collecting the Data on elections accurately, and with integrity would be of utmost importance in an already heavily divided population....but it seems to me this is not the case.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Far fom being undebatable, it touches on perhaps they key to American politics at this moment: because they lost the election, democrats' almost whole motivation is a hatred for Bush - even to the point of fighting his policies necessary for the security of America, just to get 'revenge" on Bush. When republicans were criticizing Clinton, the whole liberal media picked up Clinton's mantra of the "politics of personal destruction". If all this is beyond your grasp or ability to debate, why don't you just flake off?

We don't like Bush because his administration is grossly incompetent with a rubber stamp congress and no checks and balances.

Bush falsely got us into a war in Iraq, justifies torture and illegal spying on American citizens. And that's just page one.

Whether Bush won by 1 vote or 200 million votes is not the issue. When Bush's approval is at 30% how can you seriously blame this all on the liberals?

Any questions?

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

We don't like Bush because his administration is grossly incompetent with a rubber stamp congress and no checks and balances.

Bush falsely got us into a war in Iraq, justifies torture and illegal spying on American citizens. And that's just page one.

Whether Bush won by 1 vote or 200 million votes is not the issue. When Bush's approval is at 30% how can you seriously blame this all on the liberals?

And yet, he gets elected. Either the reps are doing something right or the dems are doing something wrong.

oh and no, his approval rating is 39% and the dems are at 41% approval rating.

Don't lie.

 

[Gardener]

And yet, he gets elected. Either the reps are doing something right or the dems are doing something wrong.

oh and no, his approval rating is 39% and the dems are at 41% approval rating.

Don't lie.

I wouldn't assume that what the republicans do right and the democrats do wrong has to do with policy. Republicans are very adept at marketing, while the democrats are not and tyhe republicans are well organized while the democrats are not, and this is the key to the relative success. It isn't what they do, but how they appear.

In terms of marketing, the republicans created an extensive network of talk shows that dispense the rnc talking points, as well as understanding what motivates their target audience and tailoring these talking points to this audience. That Bush is so inarticulate and lacking in intelligence acts as an advantage rather than a disadvantage, since he can better appear as a man of the people to those who prefer platitudes delivered as absolutes and view subtlety or nuance with distrust. This, coupled with the reinforcing nature of the talk shows, works in concert to create the notion that it is really the democrats who are elitist rather than the republicans, for the notion of elitism thus pedalled isn't one of economic elitism as represented by the actual republican policies, but intellectual elitism as represented through the use of language. That's why they keep it simple.

The democrats simply do not understand marketing. Even as their economic policy is more likely to benefit the biggest block of voters who vote against them, they fail to connect with these voters because of the language they use. They are at a distinct disadvantage in terms of the media, for while the republicans created their well-organized network of propagandists (one day I checked out 5 different talk shows, and they ALL referred to a Tom Daschle speech as a "meltdown". This is no accident, folks), the democrats did little or nothing in terms of media propaganda. As far as presidential candidates, the last two have been too articulate, thus playing right into the hands of the repubs.

Bush was just the point man and public face, as it was the republican machinery responsible for his election. In most elections, the candidate comes forward first and then the money follows, raised to further his or her ambitions. In 2000, as soon as Bush "announced" his candidacy, he had an enormous war chest at his disposal, giving clear evidence that his was not a candidate in search of money, but a case of money searching for a candidate. Until the democrats create organizational machinery equal to the republican, they will continue to face an uphill battle.

 

[Hoot]

Certain people thought one way to recount was accurate, while others thought it wouldn't be accurate and THEIR way would be accurate...There are different ways to recount them and not one of them was established...

Therefore, a vote on county "A" would be considered legit, but it the next county over it would be thrown out...

See the problem?...Where's the legitimacy?

I'm sorry cnredd, I don't mean to be picking on you, but this is absolute bull.

There are different standards of determining valid votes in just about every county of every state in this union.

What you're suggesting means we have never had a valid election in the history of the United States. ( ie: Texas counts dimpled chads, Florida doesn't) Since the standards are different, I suppose we should throw all the votes out from those two states and not have them counted?

See how ridiculous that sounds?

The truth is, each candidate is treated equally within each respective county. (ie: If Broward county counts dimpled chads for Bush and Gore, but Miaimi Dade does not count dimpled chads, how in the world does this violate the Equal Protection clause?!) Each candidate is treated uniformally within each county.

The problem was, this question was never satisfactorally asked by Gores lawyers, but the USSC, in their..(ahem) infinite wisdom should've known better.

They knew it was a crock because they said their decision only applies to Bush v Gore and can never be used as legal basis for any future decisions.

 

[Navy Pride]

What? Class has nothing to do with it. Silly me for thinking it's a good thing to make sure the count is accurate.

Someone said you liberals were over the 2000 presidential elections........You are breathing, living proof they are not over them.......

 

[afr0byte]

Someone said you liberals were over the 2000 presidential elections........You are breathing, living proof they are not over them.......

Hahah. I'm not the one that originally brought up 2000. Just because I was debating it after someone else brought it up doesn't mean I'm not over it. I accept that Bush was elected president, but does that mean I have to agree that he should have been elected? I don't think so.

 

[cnredd]

I'm sorry cnredd, I don't mean to be picking on you, but this is absolute bull.

I can take it...:2wave:

There are different standards of determining valid votes in just about every county of every state in this union.

I agree...(wait for it...two little letters are about to kill your argument)...

What you're suggesting means we have never had a valid election in the history of the United States. ( ie: Texas counts dimpled chads, Florida doesn't) Since the standards are different, I suppose we should throw all the votes out from those two states and not have them counted?

See how ridiculous that sounds?

Your Kung-Fu is weak!...

REcounts...Not counts...REcounts...

If a vote is in dispute because people differ on the intent of the voter due to inadaquacies in the ballot itself, a standard MUST be established beforehand to decide how the ballot would be recounted...That did not happen...

In fact, a candidate could actually LOSE votes because the person(and monitors) recounting the ballot interpret it differently than the way the voter originally intended it...

The truth is, each candidate is treated equally within each respective county. (ie: If Broward county counts dimpled chads for Bush and Gore, but Miaimi Dade does not count dimpled chads, how in the world does this violate the Equal Protection clause?!) Each candidate is treated uniformally within each county.

If you remember correctly, Gore wanted recounts in ONLY four counties...Wanna guess on the political affiliations of those four?...Would you call that fair?...

That's why GWB lawyers trumped it and got ALL counties to be recounted...and I'm sure you would agree...

But here the problem...contained in the next comment...

The problem was, this question was never satisfactorally asked by Gores lawyers, but the USSC, in their..(ahem) infinite wisdom should've known better.

No...The problem was this...

In the Flordia laws, there is a certain date that the state MUST certify the count as official on that date...There is nothing in there that exempts them from it...

The Florida Supreme Court tried to circumvent that by allowing the recount to proceed, which obviously would have gone past that date...Making the Florida State law useless...

Is that how you want courts to decide things?...By overruling their own established laws that are not unconstitutional?

They knew it was a crock because they said their decision only applies to Bush v Gore and can never be used as legal basis for any future decisions.

Nope...The USSC said, "The Judicial Branch of the state cannot usurp the power of the Legislative Branch...If they have a law that says the ballots have to be certified by a certain date, no one has the power to change that except for the Legislative Branch itself."

They didn't actually say that...I'm paraphrasing...

Here's a better gist of it...

The minority dissents noted some of these issues and others including the principle of fairness, and the conflicting laws which could be interpreted as invalidating the December 12 deadline. It appears the minority would have wished to allow the recount to continue up until the college of electors were mandated to meet on December 18. The majority, however, accepted the finding of the Florida Supreme Court that the Florida legislature intended to obtain the benefits of federal statute. This included the December 12 deadline. Thus, sending the case back to the Florida Supreme Court until December 18 could be not appropriate under Florida statute.

 

[KCConservative]

We don't like Bush because his administration is grossly incompetent with a rubber stamp congress and no checks and balances.

"grossly incompetent" is an opinion. It doesn't mean anything, other than to those who are desperaely looking to bash. Again I say, and have said for months now, what is the democratic plan? Who is the viable candidate? Hating Bush isn't going to get you a democratic president or a shift in the power of checks and balances. You need to stop losing elections. You need a solution and time is running out.

 

[lily]

Hmmmm.......after reading two pages, I think I better post my qeustions/statments more clearly

Ok, I guess I can now see that the Democrats, (most, some, a few, many,) are not over the 2000 and 2004 elections.

But I aslo see that the Republicans, (most, some, a few, many) are also not done rubbing our noses in it and gloating.:2wave:

 

[hipsterdufus]

And yet, he gets elected. Either the reps are doing something right or the dems are doing something wrong.

The Republicans have a wonderfully well-oiled machine to win elections. Too bad they can't govern.

Combine that with the right wing noise machine Rush, Fox, Think Tanks , American Heritage, Cato, Coors, Scaife, Olin etc. etc. and Dems start 50 yards back in a 100 yard dash. It's amazing that Dems occasionally win one.

BTW
Bush is at 34% approval. The 30% came from the % of people that support Bush's Iraq policy. (It's actually 29%.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

 

[Navy Pride]

The Republicans have a wonderfully well-oiled machine to win elections. Too bad they can't govern.

Combine that with the right wing noise machine Rush, Fox, Think Tanks , American Heritage, Cato, Coors, Scaife, Olin etc. etc. and Dems start 50 yards back in a 100 yard dash. It's amazing that Dems occasionally win one.

BTW
Bush is at 34% approval. The 30% came from the % of people that support Bush's Iraq policy. (It's actually 29%.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Yeah hips the dems don't have any outlets like that except PBS, NBC, MSNBC, CBS ABC, CNN, LA Times, NY Times and Air America (granted no one listens to them) Did I miss any my friend?