IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Well, I will admit '96 was better than '92...
Which is why I said for the next 3.5 years. :-) Perhaps the Democrats will back off if W. is elected in '04.


But to grouse about Democrats is to ignore '92. Some might call it a double standard.

Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
New I'm still lost.
But to grouse about Democrats is to ignore '92. Some might call it a double standard.

What, about the 92, or the 96 election, was widely disputed?

Addison
New Where there was disputes back in '92?

Officially? Probably not. But then again, there aren't any 'official' disputes now, are there? The Democratic Party does consider W. President and factions of the DP have stated that it's time to move on.


That said, we also know that:


  • Dole claimed that the majority of people had voted against Clinton (directly after the election).
  • It was Dick Armey who claimed that Clinton was "your President".


    Frankly I can't see any difference in some of the claims made by certain conservaties directly after Clinton was elected and the statements made by certain liberals now. Furthermore, I disagree with individuals who wish to silence the opposition with one set of rules (example: he was fairly elected) without at the same time using the same set of rules upon themselves.


    I am not accusing you of this. In fact, it's one of the reason why I dislike Rush Limbaugh, as he DOES do this.


    In any case, individuals do (believe it or not) have the right to express their opinion. While I disagreed with the set of conservates that disagreed with Clinton, I never disagreed with their right to express these opinions. Likewise, I don't see any reason why individuals unhappy with W. should be unable to express their opinions now.


    Stainless steel traps make for stainless steel rats.
    New I don't see that as the same thing.
    Dole claimed that the majority of people had voted against Clinton (directly after the election).

    Did he claim that as part of challenging the election?

    Or as a comment directed towards Clinton that he hardly had a mandate?

    The first would be what I would assume you're talking about. The second is political commentary.

    It was Dick Armey who claimed that Clinton was "your President".

    Don't know about that in context, but again, I've never seen anybody attacking the 92 or 96 elections as somehow being fraudulant. (And I suspect that voter errors in those were to the same order as 2000, just the election wasn't within the margin of error).

    Frankly I can't see any difference in some of the claims made by certain conservaties directly after Clinton was elected and the statements made by certain liberals now.

    I do, from a standpoint of that they are continuing on harp on the actual election. That wasn't the case in the prior elections. Not liking the winner and continuing to insist on recounts even a year later are different things to my frame of mind.

    I agree with you about Rush, BTW. I'm not a big fan of his. :)

    But I don't know that he ever said that Clinton *wasn't* the duly elected president at any time. And that's what the "same thing" to me would be.

    Likewise, I don't see any reason why individuals unhappy with W. should be unable to express their opinions now.

    I don't either.

    Addison
    New Okay, I'm lost now...

    The first would be what I would assume you're talking about. The second is political commentary.

    Perhaps I don't see the difference between what Dole grousing about Clinton winning and Democrats grousing about W. winning.



    Don't know about that in context, but again, I've never seen anybody attacking the 92 or 96 elections as somehow being fraudulant.

    Wouldn't that make Dick's quote even worse? However, I am sure you can find thousands of similar expressions in the right forums. Forgive me for not wanting to sift through FreeRepublic for quotes of "he's not my President" or expressions to that effect. Such expressions would be incorrect, but it would be a mistake to assume that they do not exist.


    I do, from a standpoint of that they are continuing on harp on the actual election. That wasn't the case in the prior elections Not liking the winner and continuing to insist on recounts even a year later are different things to my frame of mind.

    Again, I'm lost. Who is insisting on (official) recounts? All I can determine is that there are Democrats demanding investigations to irregularities and rumors regarding the election. Are you saying that such rumors and irregularities shouldn't be investigated? Wasn't that a charge against the Clinton administration? That there were irregularities...possibly felonies, being committed and that he wasn't investigating? Are we going to allow such irregularities to go uninvestigated now?



    New Don't get eaten by a grue.
    Perhaps I don't see the difference between what Dole grousing about Clinton winning and Democrats grousing about W. winning.

    All I can determine is that there are Democrats demanding investigations to irregularities and rumors regarding the election.

    That's the difference, there.

    Nobody that I heard of demanded that people (*Republican* people, not the people in Palm Beach (Democrats) who screwed the whole pooch trying to help - after all, since they're not Republicans, *they're* not evil)) should be jailed for Clinton winning in 92 or 96. Didn't demand massive investigations. They might well have groused, (and often for good measure, as various scandals were somehow buried/postponed until after the election) - but they (as far as I saw) didn't insist that Clinton has "stolen" the election, or "manipulated" it.

    After he won, it was back to business. Which was mostly dealing with the postponed scandals/lawbreaking/whatnot.

    Yes, irregularities should be investigated. Damn straight.

    But the only concern for that seems to be in Florida - not Chicago, (Ill won by Gore) rather famous for their rolls. Or San Francisco, (California, won by Gore) where my sister has tories of the Democrats driving buses to pick up homeless, and take them to the polls, and then to a meal.

    Or any of the states that Bush won by a large margin. Hell, not even New Mexico, and did they ever get all their votes counted?

    In other words, the current screaming about the system in FLORIDA is hypocritical. Sure, it has problems. I'm sure my district got miscounted by a few votes. I'm sure the state missed 1 or two somewhere. *Everyplace* has that problem.

    But its "lets figure out how Bush "stole" the election, rather than what Bush is *doing now*." That's the concentration on Florida, Florida, Florida. Surely the Bush team broke the law. Surely they pushed for inclusion of ballots favorable to them, and exclusions of ones not favorable to them. (Both Gore and Bush's teams were very legalistic in their arguments, which allowed them to say "will of the people" with a straight face as they tried to toss out the ones they didn't want)

    And no, I didn't see the Republicans doing that in 92, or 96, so I don't see that as hypocritical.

    I'd hoped that this might cause election reforms and improvements, but instead, its a witchhunt, only.

    Addison
    New Slow down there pilgrim... :-)

    In other words, the current screaming about the system in FLORIDA is hypocritical. Sure, it has problems. I'm sure my district got miscounted by a few votes. I'm sure the state missed 1 or two somewhere. *Everyplace* has that problem.

    But its "lets figure out how Bush "stole" the election, rather than what Bush is *doing now*." That's the concentration on Florida, Florida, Florida. Surely the Bush team broke the law. Surely they pushed for inclusion of ballots favorable to them, and exclusions of ones not favorable to them. (Both Gore and Bush's teams were very legalistic in their arguments, which allowed them to say "will of the people" with a straight face as they tried to toss out the ones they didn't want)

    Okay, you're arguing multiple points, and I can't quite handle that many at one time. :-)



    1. I surprised that your blaming the Democrats for the acts of news organizations. I certain don't blame Republicans for the actions of Fox News. (However, I do blame all Republicans when they claim that all news organizations are liberal and I can point to Fox news.)
    2. The question of misuse of a congressional office has absolutely nothing to do with the state of Florida (Particularly when the office and representative has nothing to do with the state.) . Personally, I'd demand an investigation of that regardless of state.
    3. The counting of military Florida ballots are a Florida issue, however postmarks missing from military ballots are a Federal issue. According to regulation, military mail is supposed to carry a postmark irregardless of whether or not postage is due. During the election, percentage of military mail missing postmarks jumped from 1% to 18% percent. This again, has nothing to do with Florida.
    4. Democrats have demanded investigations into what Bush is doing now. In addition to the above, they've repeated asked for information on meetings Rove and Cheney have had. Hell, there was the entire issue of VP fundraising dinner.


    I'd hoped that this might cause election reforms and improvements, but instead, its a witchhunt, only.

    Frankly I hoped for some reforms also. I have a number of issues with the optical scanners. But that's a whole different issue.


    However, as for witchhunts, might I point out to the numerous hoax scandels that were directed against Clinton.

    Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
    New Re: Slow down there pilgrim... :-)
    I surprised that your blaming the Democrats for the acts of news organizations.

    I'm not.

    The question of misuse of a congressional office has absolutely nothing to do with the state of Florida

    But it has to do with the election. I'd agree it should be investigated, but one might also have to ask about what other members have done - quite often they exeed their grasp. The reason its being investigated, to be factual, is because of the election.

    The counting of military Florida ballots are a Florida issue, however postmarks missing from military ballots are a Federal issue.

    And the above mentioned congresscritter was on the Military subcommittes, if I recall correctly... Which brings it back into his venue, at least potentially.

    However, as for witchhunts, might I point out to the numerous hoax scandels that were directed against Clinton.

    Please do.. I can't think of any that were hoaxes. There were some that were utterly ridicolous (due, mainly to Clinton's behavior), but I don't know of any that were hoaxes. So you'll have to point them out.

    But that's aside from what you said originally:
    So...yeah, I expect Democrats are going to be going on about this for at least 3.5 years. Ya can't blame them, Republicans did the same exact thing with Clinton.

    And I asked you when that had happened, because I didn't recall that every happening...

    Addison
    New Okay...point by point...

    I surprised that your blaming the Democrats for the acts of news organizations.

    I'm not.

    My first inclination was that you were saying that your were not surprised. Then I realized that your trying to state that you weren't blaming the Democrats for the actions of the news organizations. But you definitely appear to be, you have yet to point out where Democrats have asked for a recount and appear to be grousing about a news article and pointing at Democrats. At least, that what I'm reading in your posts.



    The question of misuse of a congressional office has absolutely nothing to do with the state of Florida

    But it has to do with the election. I'd agree it should be investigated, but one might also have to ask about what other members have done - quite often they exeed their grasp. The reason its being investigated, to be factual, is because of the election.

    First off, it's not investigated (yet). People have asked it be to investigated, but that's because the office holder seemed to break the law. If they broke the law, somehow related to the election, this is mitigated somehow? (This is news to me, if you can find in the Constitution or US Code somewhere that one is allowed to break election laws, please enlighten me.)



    The counting of military Florida ballots are a Florida issue, however postmarks missing from military ballots are a Federal issue.

    And the above mentioned congresscritter was on the Military subcommittes, if I recall correctly... Which brings it back into his venue, at least potentially.

    Correct, and if it stayed in his venue, there wouldn't be an issue. However, if he then forwards that information to a political party, then there's the question of misuse. Again, in my opinion, this THEN become STRICKLY A LEGAL MATTER irregardless of the election. I do NOT see why you think this is solely election orienteed.



    However, as for witchhunts, might I point out to the numerous hoax scandels that were directed against Clinton.

    Please do.. I can't think of any that were hoaxes. There were some that were utterly ridicolous (due, mainly to Clinton's behavior), but I don't know of any that were hoaxes. So you'll have to point them out.

    We're off on a tangent now... (and I don't have my sources with me at the moment) but immediately following Clinton's election, rumors flew that Clinton was 'selling off' gravesites in Arlington to Democratic supporters. Nice and dandy, except it wasn't true. A congressman even demanded an investigation of the sell off.


    But that's aside from what you said originally:
    So...yeah, I expect Democrats are going to be going on about this for at least 3.5 years. Ya can't blame them, Republicans did the same exact thing with Clinton.
    And I asked you when that had happened, because I didn't recall that every happening...


    Well, I already gave you two examples. I don't know what else it'll take to convince you.

    Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
    New Back to the main point
    You: So...yeah, I expect Democrats are going to be going on about this for at least 3.5 years. Ya can't blame them, Republicans did the same exact thing with Clinton.

    Me: And I asked you when that had happened, because I didn't recall that every happening...

    You: Well, I already gave you two examples. I don't know what else it'll take to convince you.

    No, you didn't show me any examples of the *election* being challenged.

    That would make it the "Exact same thing".

    As for the NYT (and we'll presume they're not politically motivated here :)) and the media, no, that's independant of the Democrats. But there is movement in the Democratic party to keep this issue open.

    (Which is silly, they should raise the bar, and start changing the subject to better polling (but then that brings up other things)).

    No, I hadn't heard that Arlington issue. (Which would lead me to believe it didn't get THAT much press play). Even so, that's not unusual. (Congresscritter hears rumor, demands investigation. Happens every day).

    Now, were you referencing that with what the Democrats are doing now, then yeah, that happens.

    But you said that the Republicans did the "exact same thing" (recount and demand explanations and look for reasons that Florida were lost (even granting "election" instead of "Florida)) - and that's not correct.

    Addison
    New You're right....

    No, you didn't show me any examples of the *election* being challenged.
    That would make it the "Exact same thing".
    [...]
    But you said that the Republicans did the "exact same thing" (recount and demand explanations and look for reasons that Florida were lost (even granting "election" instead of "Florida)) - and that's not correct.

    My original quote was "So...yeah, I expect Democrats are going to be going on about this for at least 3.5 years. Ya can't blame them, Republicans did the same exact thing with Clinton."


    Remember that 3.5 years...it'll be important. Apples to apples - oranges to oranges.


    This could mean that Democrats are officially challenging Bush's Presidency for another 3.5 years. To keep apples to apples, oranges to oranges, this would require that Republicans to have officially challenged Clinton's Presidency for 8 years.


    However, I haven't argued that. In fact, I admitted that officially, the Republican party has never challenged the legality of (either of) Clinton's election(s). Furthermore, I have repeatedly asked for references to Democrats continuing to officially challenge Bush's presidency. Since you haven't provided any, I have to assume that they are none.


    So...apples to apples - no difference between Republicans and Democrats.


    Now, you are correct that Democrats did officially and quite legally challenge Bush's election based on irregularities. But this was over, by what, February? So, a few months compared with 3.5 years. (Apples, oranges) So, I don't see how my statement can apply here. You're absolutely right. I do NOT expect to see Democrats OFFICIALLY challenging Bush's election over the next 3.5 years. (Amazing, I didn't think I was arguing that!)


    Of course, my quote might have referred to how individual democrats are going to treat Bush over the next 3.5 years and how individual republicans treated Clinton during his last 8 years (I can even include similarities in how these individuals acted after the election.) But that would be apples to apples.


    You can disagree with me, but it's unlikely it'll change the outcome.




    Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
    New Thanks.
    Remember that 3.5 years...it'll be important. Apples to apples - oranges to oranges.

    I was pointing that out, you don't need to point it out to me. :)

    Furthermore, I have repeatedly asked for references to Democrats continuing to officially challenge Bush's presidency. Since you haven't provided any, I have to assume that they are none.

    Of course there are several. I'll be lazy and look them up tonight/this weekend. My apologies for not addressing that.

    So...apples to apples - no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

    That requires the assumption that the Democrats aren't challenging the legallity of the Presidency.

    Because:
    I do NOT expect to see Democrats OFFICIALLY challenging Bush's election over the next 3.5 years. (Amazing, I didn't think I was arguing that!)

    But its what I objected to, so its certainly what I thought you were arguing.

    If you mean that the Democrats will act like whiny children, and the Republicans did under Clinton, I can agree with that, but that's not what I read you in the first post.

    Addison
    New Still a difference
    Clinton was not accused of stealing the election. People questioned whether they wanted him as president, but they did not question whether he had actually won according to the rules in place at the time. The current accusations are that Bush didn't actually win the election, but that voting irregularities and political pressure all the way up to the Supreme Court helped install a pretender to the presidency.

    Had Clinton's opponenets succeeded in their aims, he would have been removed from office. If Bush's opponents are successful, his presidency could theoretically be declared to have never been valid. The implications for what to do about irreversible policy decisions (Tax refund checks are going out soon, etc.) and international relations (Kyoto Accord, etc.) are vast and unknown. There is not, that I'm aware of, any existing law governing what to do if a president's term is declared to have been invalid. Would all legislation he signed become null and void? Would any decisions regarding pardons/clemency be reversed? There is no precedent.
    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    New the votes dont matter anyway in Florida
    because the legislature would have sent their own slate of electors if the USSC had not stepped in. They cant overturn an election but they could impeach GB and Cheney then Denny Hastert then Colin Powell then Dachle can have the job. Dont think that is going to happen any time soon.
    Having said that the votes dont matter I think there should be investigations into some of the allegations and charges filed if warranted.
    thanx,
    bill
    can I have my ones and zeros back?
    New That is the real issue.
    That popular votes don't count. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say explicitly that we have a "right to vote for the President". That idea is, as is the "right to privacy", a right which most Americans (and most legal decisions) have inferred from what is in the Constitution.

    We owe a "democratically elected President" to Andrew Jackson. Since his time, the principle that our Presidents should be elected democratically has been a widely held one. Various laws have been passed to fortify that notion.

    If you believe in democracy, then the illegitimacy of Resident Bush and (to borrow from Bugliosi) the "criminality" of the current USSC is crystal clear and without question. If, on the other hand, you don't believe in democracy, then you cannot understand what all the fuss over the last election is.

    Believe it or not, I am on the fence. At times I fervently agree with Hamilton, that "the masses are asses" and yet, so many have sacrificed so much so that we can decide who our President is via a democractic vote, it is sad to me that a USSC could rip that away and so many be content to sit idlely by and let it happen with no apparent thought about what has been lost.

    The willingness by some (read Republicans and the popular media) to give up a right so dear to so many without a whimper should not come as a surprise, I suppose. In an age where Reagan babies have grown up to trust corporations more than they do their democratically elected representatives or even their neighbors, where the absolutely idiotic notion that "government should be run like a business" is often embraced, where so many prefer "virtual reality" to the genuine article, anything is possible.

    bcnu,
    Mikem
    New Well I like the current system sorta
    and the Legislature could impeach the Justices over this issue. I am no fan of the current crop of Justices. The overhaul of how votes are collected and counted with a view towards streamlining and accountability is highly in order.
    I like the electoral system but would like a 3 votes per state electoral college so the wannabees will have to adress the national needs not just California, New York and Florida.
    thanx,
    bill
    Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
    Chuck Palahniuk
    New I don't think the Justices could be impeached.
    I don't remember anything in the Constitution about it. Presidents, sure, but Justices? Besides, who's be Judge at the trial?

    I know there's a move afoot to 'impeach' the Justices, but I consider it as well planned as the move to oust McCain.
    Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
    New that is the only way you can get rid of them
    Has happened only once before for a single Judge in the 1800's(Vague memory)Alcee Hastings one of our congress critters is an impeached federal judge.
    thanx,
    bill
    Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
    Chuck Palahniuk
    New "3 votes per" - spoken like true Alaskan. :)
    Alex

    This is my sig. There's another almost like it, but this one is mine.
    New 50*3+14DC!/2 :)
    Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
    Chuck Palahniuk
    New Re: Where there was disputes back in '92?
    Dole claimed that the majority of people had voted against Clinton (directly after the election).

    This is actually true because, IIRC more people voted for Bush and Perot combined than voted for Clinton. Dole probably said this to indicate that Clinton did not have a popular mandate from the people.
    Jay O'Connor

    "Going places unmapped
    to do things unplanned
    to people unsuspecting"
    New Which I find interesting...
    ...because my feeling is that people voted for Perot not so much as a backlash against Clinton, but as a backlash against Bush.
    New In Both
    Perot was a factor in both..I heard it said many times that a "vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton."

    Pretty much the same as 2000 with Nader affecting the Dems.
    -----
    Steve
    New Re: Which I find interesting...
    I've heard this often in '92 from former Reps who voted for Perot. Many were ticked about the 'No new taxes' line, only to have the taxes increase in Bush Sr. term. Of course the were other things to dislike about Bush Sr. but this is the one thing I remember distinctly.
    Ray
    New That'd be a first!
    Perhaps the Democrats will back off if W. is elected in '04.

    First time victory, I mean.
         Florida vote counting revisited. - (a6l6e6x) - (48)
             err you are confused - (boxley) - (3)
                 Interesting.. - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                     Re: Interesting.. - (jp)
                     nope all amil was shipped via mil transpo - (boxley)
             And more. - (mmoffitt) - (43)
                 I love this stuff... - (bepatient) - (29)
                     Um... - (Simon_Jester) - (26)
                         Speaking of lost... - (addison) - (25)
                             Well, I will admit '96 was better than '92... - (Simon_Jester) - (24)
                                 I'm still lost. - (addison) - (22)
                                     Where there was disputes back in '92? - (Simon_Jester) - (21)
                                         I don't see that as the same thing. - (addison) - (16)
                                             Okay, I'm lost now... - (Simon_Jester) - (15)
                                                 Don't get eaten by a grue. - (addison) - (6)
                                                     Slow down there pilgrim... :-) - (Simon_Jester) - (5)
                                                         Re: Slow down there pilgrim... :-) - (addison) - (4)
                                                             Okay...point by point... - (Simon_Jester) - (3)
                                                                 Back to the main point - (addison) - (2)
                                                                     You're right.... - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                                                         Thanks. - (addison)
                                                 Still a difference - (drewk) - (7)
                                                     the votes dont matter anyway in Florida - (boxley) - (6)
                                                         That is the real issue. - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                                             Well I like the current system sorta - (boxley) - (4)
                                                                 I don't think the Justices could be impeached. - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                                                     that is the only way you can get rid of them - (boxley)
                                                                 "3 votes per" - spoken like true Alaskan. :) -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                                                     50*3+14DC!/2 :) -NT - (boxley)
                                         Re: Where there was disputes back in '92? - (Fearless Freep) - (3)
                                             Which I find interesting... - (inthane-chan) - (2)
                                                 In Both - (Steve Lowe)
                                                 Re: Which I find interesting... - (rsf)
                                 That'd be a first! - (mmoffitt)
                     "the Dems are going to spend the next 3 years stuck in y2k" - (DonRichards)
                     Re: I love this stuff... - (a6l6e6x)
                 Slightly OT Gore is coming back - (boxley) - (12)
                     Geez Bill, John Edwards is just another Clinton. - (a6l6e6x) - (11)
                         Silly question... - (Simon_Jester) - (4)
                             It was not just a question of suing. - (a6l6e6x) - (3)
                                 unlimited damges is important bu not for lawyers - (boxley) - (2)
                                     Re: important for lawyers - "Progress Through Litigation". - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                         if yer gonna cap cap the contingency percentage - (boxley)
                         Silly question... - (Simon_Jester)
                         He is on the right side of privacy on the net - (boxley) - (1)
                             Re: Privacy on the net -- Yep, not all bad. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                         Why is my constitutional right - (boxley) - (2)
                             See my comment to Jester, above. - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                 I'd rather look like a patient. -NT - (mmoffitt)

    Cloaca Cola... oh, that was sooo good.
    221 ms