PDA

View Full Version : Ladies and gentleman, your Democratic congressmen and women



KYRedsFan
01-06-2005, 01:48 PM
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050106/NEWS01/501070325

Ohio votes will be challenged

By Carl Weiser
Enquirer Washington Bureau

Ohio's 20 electoral votes for President Bush are expected to be challenged by a group of Democrats today in Congress - the first time since 1969 that anyone has tried to block the counting of a state's electoral votes.

Led by Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones of Cleveland, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Cal., the challenge won't change the outcome of the election. The House and Senate, both of which are controlled by Republicans, will debate the challenge for two hours.

Not joining the challenge: Sen. John Kerry himself, who is in Iraq. He issued a statement saying that while he was concerned about voting rights, "I will not be joining their protest of the Ohio electors.'

Conyers and other activists charge that voting irregularities in Ohio - long lines, bad vote counting, Warren County's mysterious closing of its offices - merit further investigation before the votes should be counted.

Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, called the challenge "a sad day for the United States Congress.''

"I can hardly believe that this could happen on the floor of the United States Senate. All objective observers in Ohio know that President Bush carried the state of Ohio.''

pedro
01-06-2005, 01:51 PM
Here's a link (http://www.pdamerica.org/field/final%20status%20report.pdf) to the congressional report.

It's a 103 pages long. I haven't read it yet.

CbusRed
01-06-2005, 01:57 PM
What an AWESOME use of tax money!!

RBA
01-06-2005, 01:59 PM
What an AWESOME use of tax money!!


Yes it is! I glad you agree that making sure the voting process isn't tainted is worth the use of tax money. :D

CbusRed
01-06-2005, 02:04 PM
Yes it is! I glad you agree that making sure the voting process isn't tainted is worth the use of tax money. :D
During the 3 and a half hours I waited in line to vote on November 2nd, 4 different people were removed from the building for spouting pro-Kerry nonsense to voters waiting in line.

Perhaps the dems should investigate themselves.

pedro
01-06-2005, 02:10 PM
During the 3 and a half hours I waited in line to vote on November 2nd, 4 different people were removed from the building for spouting pro-Kerry nonsense to voters waiting in line.

Perhaps the dems should investigate themselves.

what a powerful argument! You must have eaten your wheaties this morning.

:rolleyes:

Unassisted
01-06-2005, 02:27 PM
Everyone mentioned in this story is as partisan as they come.

Kerry's lack of interest in participating gives the distinct impression that this effort is futile. Personally, I think it is more about stage-setting for 2008.

It's too bad that elections can't always be as decisive as football games, but it's even worse that the media's treatment of the two gets more similar with each passing year.

RedFanAlways1966
01-06-2005, 02:31 PM
Led by Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones of Cleveland, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Cal., the challenge won't change the outcome of the election.

No surprise... considering the sources. Didn't Rep. Conyers threaten a fellow congressman during the Pres. Clinton impeachment hearings? Rep. Conyers is a real doozy. He is the Dems version of former Rep. James Traficant IMO (except Rep. Conyers doesn't commit felony crimes). But it is okay b/c the Repubs have had these these types too (see Traficant). Sen. Boxer? No explanation needed. The name says it all. Kind of like when you hear Jesse Jackson's name... no need to bother yourself any further w/ the story. Grain of salt!

Who the hell is Tubbs-Jones? I would guess a liberal zealot like the other two. Perhaps she is the lady who falsely claimed she won the PowerBall Lottery?!!? Nice to see these types further dividing this great nation. Real nice. Divide? Who is doing it to this country? Ask Michael Moore...

pedro
01-06-2005, 02:32 PM
I certainly don't think that the election should be overturned. I would just like to see some meaningful election reform.

and Kerry's just protecting his butt for a run in 2008.

CbusRed
01-06-2005, 02:32 PM
Who the hell is Tubbs-Jones? I would guess a liberal zealot like the other two. Perhaps she is the lady who falsely claimed she won the PowerBall Lottery?!!?

LOL

:MandJ:

RedFanAlways1966
01-06-2005, 02:35 PM
I certainly don't think that the election should be overturned. I would just like to see some meaningful election reform.

And this is truly what Sen. Boxer & Rep. Conyers have in mind, right? I don't think so, pedro. And I think you know these two well enough to know better too.

Just more controversy and divide from two people who have made a career out of these type of actions. They aren't doing it for fairness. They are trying to say that Pres. Bush's 2nd term is illegitamate.

Boxer & Conyers. Consider the sources. No Googling needed. Those names say it all. Kind of like saying Traficant. It tells a person a lot. Just the name.

pedro
01-06-2005, 02:39 PM
And this is truly what Sen. Boxer & Rep. Conyers have in mind, right? I don't think so, pedro. And I think you know these two well enough to know better too.

Just more controversy and divide from two people who have made a career out of these type of actions. They aren't doing it for fairness. They are trying to say that Pres. Bush's 2nd term is illegitamate.

Boxer & Conyers. Consider the sources. No Googling needed. Those names say it all. Kind of like saying Traficant. It tells a person a lot. Just the name.

I'd have to read the report before I'd comment. I don'y know much about Conyers and not sure what his "name" means other than it's a city outside of Atlanta.

RedFanAlways1966
01-06-2005, 02:42 PM
I'd have to read the report before I'd comment. I don'y know much about Conyers and not sure what his "name" means other than it's a city outside of Atlanta.

That's cool. He is a rabble-rouser. That is all that I will say. I have known about him for years. You will usually only hear his name when there is some sort of protest or controversy (like Rev. Jackson). And as I said, the Repubs have some of their own!

pedro
01-06-2005, 02:48 PM
I do know about Trafiicants hair though. :)

RBA
01-06-2005, 02:56 PM
Damn those Democrats, can't they just accept the results of an election without all their conspiracy theories. :D


GOP presses call for revote in Washington governor's race

By REBECCA COOK
Associated Press Writer





OLYMPIA, Wash. Despite Republicans' demands for a new statewide vote and their new radio advertising campaign, the Democratic leaders who control the state Legislature say the governor's election is over.

"We are following the rules and we need to live by those rules, and not just call for a do-over because we don't like the results," Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown said Tuesday.

Democrats, who hold a majority in the state House and Senate, stood firmly behind Gov.-elect Christine Gregoire, who beat Republican Dino Rossi by 129 votes after a hand recount of 2.9 million ballots cast. Rossi, who won the first count and a machine recount, has not conceded and may contest the election in court.

A top Republican, House Minority Leader Bruce Chandler, said the Legislature should delay ratifying the results of the election until more questions are answered. He disagreed with Brown's contention that the recount process followed the rules.

"The people of this state clearly have lost confidence in the election process," Chandler said Tuesday. "The truth of the matter is, we don't know who won this election and we never will." He and Brown spoke at The Associated Press Legislative Preview on Tuesday.
Also Tuesday, radio stations began running ads paid for by the state Republican Party, declaring the governor's election a "certified mess" and urging people to petition the Legislature for a new election.

More fuel for GOP concerns was added Wednesday with a Seattle Times report that some provisional voters improperly inserted their ballots into vote counting machines at polling places in King County. The ballots, from people who went to the wrong precinct or whose registrations were in question, were supposed to be set aside and counted only if the person's identity and voting status were verified.

A review of polling place records should indicate the extent of the problem, but it may be impossible to determine exactly how many provisional ballots were fed into the tabulating machines on Election Day, county Elections Superintendent Bill Huennekens said.

The new Republican ad campaign focuses on a Washington state Marine wounded in Iraq, Tyler Farmer, who didn't get his ballot until Nov. 3, the day after Election Day. Republicans argue many military voters were disenfranchised.

The issue drew about 100 people who held signs and chanted "revote" Tuesday night outside a restaurant popular with soldiers near Fort Lewis.

But Secretary of State Sam Reed, also a Republican, said there's no evidence of any systemic problems with the military vote. Counties mailed absentee ballots to registered military voters by early October, Reed said.

Gregoire's inauguration is scheduled for Jan. 12.

"The vote changed, I won, and now suddenly there's something wrong," Gregoire said Tuesday. "I won by 129. It's time for us to put it behind us and move on."

CbusRed
01-06-2005, 03:01 PM
RBA...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30910


Its allready been discussed. ;)

RBA
01-06-2005, 03:03 PM
RBA...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30910


Its allready been discussed. ;)

Yeah, but it fits in here. :thumbup:

KYRedsFan
01-06-2005, 03:09 PM
Yup, a 129 vote margin that flipped the results previously reported. It fits. Keep diverting attention from the original article; it still won't change that the hierarchy of the Democratic party is responsible for this divisiveness and rhetoric that is poisoning this nation.

RBA
01-06-2005, 03:12 PM
Yup, a 129 vote margin that flipped the results previously reported. It fits. Keep diverting attention from the original article; it still won't change that the hierarchy of the Democratic party is responsible for this divisiveness and rhetoric that is poisoning this nation.


I think you Republican need to look in a mirror. Not investigating the voter fraud in the 2004 election will further devide us.

RBA
01-06-2005, 03:14 PM
How does wanting fair elections divide us?

KYRedsFan
01-06-2005, 03:17 PM
I think you Republican need to look in a mirror. Not investigating the voter fraud in the 2004 election will further devide us.

Ohio has been investigated since the day after the election, NOTHING!!!!!!!!!! The only evidence is about as credible as any testimony on this site. You have nothing, as do any in Congress discussing this matter. It's petty, divisive, and calling it any less is illogical. Where is any credible evidence for bringing this up on the floor of the United States Congress? Jesse Jackson et al have been there for months, and they've got nothing. Suddenly these partisan officials make headlines, then rouse up the left who again can say, "He's not legitimate." GET OVER IT, AGAIN.

RedFanAlways1966
01-06-2005, 03:18 PM
How does wanting fair elections divide us?

If that is what you think Rep. Conyers and Sen. Boxer are really concerned with, then there is no sense in us discussing it. And it may also mean that you are unaware of Mr. Conyers and Ms. Boxer... their activities in the last 10-15 years in Congress.

One more thing.... was Ohio the only state with lines and such? Or is it the best state (most controversial state) for rabble-rousers to pick? I have voted in Ohio every time since I was 18 years old and I have never had a problem. But what do I know? I only live here (unlike Boxer & Conyers.. & Jesse).

RBA
01-06-2005, 03:44 PM
I'm glad there was a public debate despite the Republicans attempts to suppress it. And what did it change? Not really much, but maybe it's gets people thinking.

CbusRed
01-06-2005, 03:47 PM
Well apparently, It didnt really get anyone thinking, because the senate just voted 74-1 to reject the challenge.

the 1? Sen. Boxer.



:MandJ:

RBA
01-06-2005, 03:55 PM
Well apparently, It didnt really get anyone thinking, because the senate just voted 74-1 to reject the challenge.

the 1? Sen. Boxer.



:MandJ:

It wasn't about the vote. But claim victory, if you must.

CbusRed
01-06-2005, 04:03 PM
It wasn't about the vote. But claim victory, if you must.
What was it about? Obstructing process and being counter-productive as a final jab at the republicans before they take over for another 4 years? IF thats the case then we have some members of congress that simply need to grow up.

Its hilarious to watch CSPAN and listen to these liberals call in and insist that John Kerry won this election.

WVRed
01-06-2005, 04:08 PM
Its hilarious to watch CSPAN and listen to these liberals call in and insist that John Kerry won this election.

Air America is better.:)

CbusRed
01-06-2005, 04:09 PM
Air America is better.:)

Trust me, I know.. when Im having a bad day, I just flip on air america and laugh my behind off for a couple hours. :MandJ:

RBA
01-06-2005, 05:20 PM
What was it about? Obstructing process and being counter-productive as a final jab at the republicans before they take over for another 4 years? IF thats the case then we have some members of congress that simply need to grow up.

Its hilarious to watch CSPAN and listen to these liberals call in and insist that John Kerry won this election.


If you don't like what are founding fathers put in our constitution, well maybe you should consider moving to Iraq where they are free from our silly rules. :D

Steve4192
01-06-2005, 05:54 PM
Has RBA transformed into an inbred redneck fundamentalist yokel?

I thought those were the only folks allowed to use the 'love it or leave it' argument.

Redsfaithful
01-06-2005, 05:55 PM
it still won't change that the hierarchy of the Democratic party is responsible for this divisiveness and rhetoric that is poisoning this nation.

You've got to be kidding me. You'll really choke down whatever the Republican leadership tells you won't you?

Anyone that thinks this country doesn't need electoral reform is an idiot or badly misinformed. That's what today was about.

CbusRed
01-06-2005, 06:16 PM
If you don't like what are founding fathers put in our constitution, well maybe you should consider moving to Iraq where they are free from our silly rules. :D

I've said it before, and I will say it again...

I sincerely doubt that our founding fathers had a country half-full of whiners that take advantage of and abuse their rights, when they drafted our constitution.

WVRed
01-06-2005, 06:20 PM
You've got to be kidding me. You'll really choke down whatever the Republican leadership tells you won't you?

Anyone that thinks this country doesn't need electoral reform is an idiot or badly misinformed. That's what today was about.

Rush Limbaugh, err I mean Oxycontin, is intelligent sometimes.:)

That is more or less what he harps on.

pedro
01-06-2005, 06:20 PM
I've said it before, and I will say it again...

I sincerely doubt that our founding fathers had a country half-full of whiners that take advantage of and abuse their rights, when they drafted our constitution.

I agree, they'd be appalled by Ken Blackwell's behavior.

RBA
01-06-2005, 06:26 PM
I agree, they'd be appalled by Ken Blackwell's behavior.

And most of the republican party. ;)

Falls City Beer
01-06-2005, 07:31 PM
I thought those were the only folks allowed to use the 'love it or leave it' argument.

Hicks don't have to study geography--they can't 'leave it.'

WVRed
01-06-2005, 07:37 PM
And most of the republican party. ;)

Eh?

http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/701/701_image_02.jpg

KYRedsFan
01-06-2005, 08:09 PM
You've got to be kidding me. You'll really choke down whatever the Republican leadership tells you won't you?

Anyone that thinks this country doesn't need electoral reform is an idiot or badly misinformed. That's what today was about.

Thanks for identifying where I get my thought processes. But to address your point (at least the partially mature aspect), and for that matter, again the action today, what exactly is the problem that was being addressed today? What aspects of Ohio have been found to be problematic? Where is the problem that needs to be fixed?

pedro
01-06-2005, 08:13 PM
Thanks for identifying where I get my thought processes. But to address your point (at least the partially mature aspect), and for that matter, again the action today, what exactly is the problem that was being addressed today? What aspects of Ohio have been found to be problematic? Where is the problem that needs to be fixed?

have you read the report?

dman
01-06-2005, 09:50 PM
No surprise... considering the sources. Didn't Rep. Conyers threaten a fellow congressman during the Pres. Clinton impeachment hearings? Rep. Conyers is a real doozy. He is the Dems version of former Rep. James Traficant IMO (except Rep. Conyers doesn't commit felony crimes). But it is okay b/c the Repubs have had these these types too (see Traficant). Sen. Boxer? No explanation needed. The name says it all. Kind of like when you hear Jesse Jackson's name... no need to bother yourself any further w/ the story. Grain of salt!

Who the hell is Tubbs-Jones? I would guess a liberal zealot like the other two. Perhaps she is the lady who falsely claimed she won the PowerBall Lottery?!!? Nice to see these types further dividing this great nation. Real nice. Divide? Who is doing it to this country? Ask Michael Moore...
Wasn't Trafficant a Democrat also?

RBA
01-06-2005, 09:53 PM
have you read the report?

If it's not on right wing hate radio, it doesn't exist. :MandJ:

Redsfaithful
01-06-2005, 09:57 PM
Thanks for identifying where I get my thought processes. But to address your point (at least the partially mature aspect), and for that matter, again the action today, what exactly is the problem that was being addressed today? What aspects of Ohio have been found to be problematic? Where is the problem that needs to be fixed?

You started this thread and you couldn't be bothered to do the most rudimentary of reading?

Here's a start KYRedsFan:

http://www.votersunite.org/info/mapflyerohio2004.pdf

WVRed
01-06-2005, 10:30 PM
You started this thread and you couldn't be bothered to do the most rudimentary of reading?

Here's a start KYRedsFan:

http://www.votersunite.org/info/mapflyerohio2004.pdf

Heres a better idea, why not a re-vote? :rolleyes:

Redsfaithful
01-06-2005, 10:42 PM
Heres a better idea, why not a re-vote? :rolleyes:

Or we could fix the problems for the next election.

For being the party of values you lot are a condescending bunch.

RBA
01-06-2005, 10:44 PM
Heres a better idea, why not a re-vote? :rolleyes:

A re-vote would do nothing if the flawed system is not fixed. This isn't about Bush, it's about getting it right.

RedFanAlways1966
01-07-2005, 08:09 AM
Or we could fix the problems for the next election.

For being the party of values you lot are a condescending bunch.

Why all of a sudden are there a bunch of problems with our election process? And who claims that there are problems? You, Boxer and Conyers (oh... and some lady from Cleveland). Please. I have voted in this state longer than yourself and I have never had a complaint. It works.

Did all of this happen after the 1992 & 1996 elections? How come all of a sudden we have problems? Where in God's name were Sen. Boxer, Rep. Conyers and the lady from Cleveland then? How come they were not complaining about the process then? Do tell.

Some people just cannot accept reality. Reality... that dreaded W guy beat us AGAIN. Here is the real problem that some cannot face... do not let extremists have a big say in your future campaigns. Get away from those people.

I anxiously await answers to my questions in my 2nd paragraph from those here who think we "all of a sudden" have problems. Were you complaining after 1992 & 1996? Do tell. This from someone who stood in the pouring rain for 20 minutes before I got in to vote. No complaining from me. It is my duty to cast a vote. I felt real good about the whole thing. I felt the same way in 1992 and 1996. Perhaps b/c I am not a sore loser or a rabble-rouser (always looks good to have a Boxer & a Conyers leading your effort and further dragging down your whole party).

I though Rep. Conyers was working on Impeachment charges against our President? Gee... just another idle threat from Rep. Conyers. As I stated before.. he is a real doozy.

RedFanAlways1966
01-07-2005, 08:12 AM
A re-vote would do nothing if the flawed system is not fixed. This isn't about Bush, it's about getting it right.

You looking for flawed? You are looking at the wrong election, friend. Try 1960. Google it up. Learn about the mafia and Joe Kennedy's other connections. Pretty good father to buy his son an election. A very important election at that.

Redsfaithful
01-07-2005, 08:27 AM
This from someone who stood in the pouring rain for 20 minutes before I got in to vote.

I stood in the pouring rain for about an hour. And spent about another hour inside of the church before being allowed to vote.

It was later revealed that there were quite a few voting machines that didn't get used in Columbus.


Why all of a sudden are there a bunch of problems with our election process?

There were plenty of people wanting to reform things after 2000. What do you have against simpler, easier voting laws? Shouldn't we be encouraging more people to vote? Why wouldn't you want that?

Ravenlord
01-07-2005, 08:30 AM
Why all of a sudden are there a bunch of problems with our election process? And who claims that there are problems? there are an entire crapload of problems with the system. some standardization would be nice for a change...so would getting third party people to run voting booths and such, instead of die-hard partisans.

WVRed
01-07-2005, 08:40 AM
There were plenty of people wanting to reform things after 2000. What do you have against simpler, easier voting laws? Shouldn't we be encouraging more people to vote? Why wouldn't you want that?

Would anything be wrong with the voting process if Kerry won?

:dflynn:

Ravenlord
01-07-2005, 08:49 AM
Would anything be wrong with the voting process if Kerry won?

:dflynn:
yep. and if Gore won too. and when Clinton won, and when Bush won, and when Reagan won.....

Redsfaithful
01-07-2005, 08:52 AM
Would anything be wrong with the voting process if Kerry won?

:dflynn:

Absolutely.

Unassisted
01-07-2005, 10:07 AM
Wasn't Trafficant a Democrat also?In name only... according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Traficant) :


...he was elected as a Democrat to the Ninety-ninth and to the eight succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1985-July 24, 2002) and was known for his flamboyant and eccentric style. He would frequently end speeches to the House with the phrase, "Beam me up, Mr. Speaker." He was a constant thorn in the side of the Democratic caucus, with his eccentric behavior and his tendency to vote more often with the Republicans than with his own party.

CbusRed
01-07-2005, 01:04 PM
Absolutely.

I dont recall any outrage about the voting system back when Clinton was being elected into office.. Let me guess, There were no problems back then? People are smarter now and can figure out how to tamper with elections? :rolleyes:

Redsfaithful
01-07-2005, 01:14 PM
I dont recall any outrage about the voting system back when Clinton was being elected into office.. Let me guess, There were no problems back then? People are smarter now and can figure out how to tamper with elections? :rolleyes:

There was a bit of a difference between those two elections and the last two. Clinton's wins, partially because of a strong third party candidate, were very decisive.

Voting problems are more apt to occur in a close election, wouldn't you agree? Why would anyone bother trying to do anything shady when it's not close?

CbusRed
01-07-2005, 01:23 PM
There was a bit of a difference between those two elections and the last two. Clinton's wins, partially because of a strong third party candidate, were very decisive.

Voting problems are more apt to occur in a close election, wouldn't you agree? Why would anyone bother trying to do anything shady when it's not close?
But its not about who won the election, or how close it was, its about election reform.

:rolleyes:

WVRed
01-07-2005, 01:40 PM
I think this photo sadly sums it up.

http://www.glennbeck.com/picoftheday/01-07-05-pod.jpg

westofyou
01-07-2005, 01:42 PM
If I stood in line to vote for 3 hours I'd ponder why, especially if it was the first time it's ever happened.

CbusRed
01-07-2005, 02:15 PM
If I stood in line to vote for 3 hours I'd ponder why, especially if it was the first time it's ever happened.

Well I can give you a partial reason..

Pop-culture campaigns such "Rock the vote" and "Vote or Die" and "Choose or Lose", which do nothing but get people to vote because their favorite stars told them to, seem to have packed voting lines with uneducated voters. People that have no idea why they are voting for who they are voting for. An example.... As I was waiting in line for 3 and a half hours to vote, a girl in front of me, probably about the same age as me, struck up conversation with me. Eventually she asked me who I was voting for for president, Of course I told her I was voting for president Bush. I returned the question, said she was voting for Kerry. So I asked her, just curious, What was it that made you decide to vote for Kerry? Her response?.... "I dont know, I guess just because he likes black people" It took all the power in my body to hold back my total disgust. I feel that these hollywood-driven, and mostly liberal-driven, "get out and vote" campaigns are having an adverse effect on the elections by filling the polls with uneducated voters that are just doing it because its "the cool thing to do"

The media's pre-election hype of Ohio being one of the most important states also helped bring out a record turnout.


When we finally got to the voting machines, this woman took over 5 minutes to cast her vote, poll workers were in the booth with her trying to help her at least 3 times because she couldnt understand the machine.

It took me less than a minute to cast my vote.


I dont know if voter reform is the issue that needs to be discussed, perhaps, voter education?

westofyou
01-07-2005, 02:19 PM
Yeah... I blame Bono too.

CbusRed
01-07-2005, 02:24 PM
I think Alice Cooper put it best...

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1200052/posts

zombie-a-go-go
01-07-2005, 02:26 PM
I think Alice Cooper put it best...

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1200052/posts

Ah, sweet irony.

traderumor
01-07-2005, 02:27 PM
so would getting third party people to run voting booths and such, instead of die-hard partisansWhy would third party people be more likely to be better poll workers? Aren't they partisan as well? Is a person that is highly partial to a certain political party more likely to be dishonest?

Redsfaithful
01-07-2005, 02:28 PM
But its not about who won the election, or how close it was, its about election reform.

:rolleyes:

Your statement doesn't clash with mine, although you clearly think that it does.

I also find it hilarious the lengths you'll go to justify your hatred of those awful celebrities imploring people to vote.

I'm sure a lack of voting machines didn't have anything to do with the long lines. It was all because of first time voters, specifically first time voters voting because Puff Daddy told them to vote. Good one.

CbusRed
01-07-2005, 02:31 PM
I also find it hilarious the lengths you'll go to justify your hatred of those awful celebrities imploring people to vote.

I'm sure a lack of voting machines didn't have anything to do with the long lines. It was all because of first time voters, specifically first time voters voting because Puff Daddy told them to vote. Good one.

Please re-read my post...

#1 I said it was a partial reason...

#2, it took me less time to vote with these voting machines than it ever did with the old punch-card style. Less than half the time actually.

CbusRed
01-07-2005, 02:32 PM
Your statement doesn't clash with mine, although you clearly think that it does.



Its called sarcasm.

Redsfaithful
01-07-2005, 02:35 PM
it took me less time to vote with these voting machines than it ever did with the old punch-card style. Less than half the time actually.

Goody.

A voting booth has a capacity, just like an elevator. Officials know roughly how many people one machine can accomodate in one day. They then estimate voter turnout based on previous elections, interest in current election, etc. and order voting machines. Inner city precincts had less machines than they should have. Voting machines that could have been used sat unused in storage.

It had absolutely nothing to do with how fast or how slow people were voting.

westofyou
01-07-2005, 02:37 PM
It had absolutely nothing to do with how fast or how slow people were voting.

I blame the bass player of Good Charlotte.

CbusRed
01-07-2005, 02:37 PM
Goody.

A voting booth has a capacity, just like an elevator. Officials know roughly how many people one machine can accomodate in one day. They then estimate voter turnout based on previous elections, interest in current election, etc. and order voting machines. Inner city precincts had less machines than they should have. Voting machines that could have been used sat unused in storage.

It had absolutely nothing to do with how fast or how slow people were voting.

So this is why Kerry lost the election?

Redsfaithful
01-07-2005, 02:43 PM
Its called sarcasm.

Gee I missed that. No, wait I didn't, it was pretty clearly indicated by the obnoxious emoticon that you always seem to use.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, you asked why no one ever screamed election fraud before the last two elections. I answered that it might be because the past two elections were very close, and the two elections before that were not. Fraud is more appealing in a close election, since it might give a candidate the last edge they need.

That's ignoring the fact that the right wing did scream fraud in the two elections before that, and many on the far right refused to give Clinton any authority because he never had a plurality due to the strong third party influence in 92 and 96.

Then for you said "But its not about who won the election, or how close it was, its about election reform." Which didn't really make sense, as I hadn't said anything different. If that's sarcasm it's a pretty weak attempt. I very well may have missed what you meant, but you're not giving me much to work with, so the onus is really on you. Emoticons can only say so much.

Redsfaithful
01-07-2005, 02:45 PM
So this is why Kerry lost the election?

No, Kerry lost the election because more people voted for the other candidate.

I have to ask, why are you against election day being easy and simple and structured in a way in which it encourages the maximum number of people to vote? Are some people not as worthy of the vote in your eyes?

CbusRed
01-07-2005, 02:46 PM
Gee I missed that. No, wait I didn't, it was pretty clearly indicated by the obnoxious emoticon that you always seem to use.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, you asked why no one ever screamed election fraud before the last two elections. I answered that it might be because the past two elections were very close, and the two elections before that were not. Fraud is more appealing in a close election, since it might give a candidate the last edge they need.

That's ignoring the fact that the right wing did scream fraud in the two elections before that, and many on the far right refused to give Clinton any authority because he never had a plurality due to the strong third party influence in 92 and 96.

Then for you said "But its not about who won the election, or how close it was, its about election reform." Which didn't really make sense, as I hadn't said anything different. If that's sarcasm it's a pretty weak attempt. I very well may have missed what you meant, but you're not giving me much to work with, so the onus is really on you. Emoticons can only say so much.
:rolleyes: :cry:

traderumor
01-07-2005, 02:48 PM
obnoxious emoticonEmoticons are people too, sounds like hate speech to me.

CbusRed
01-07-2005, 02:54 PM
No, Kerry lost the election because more people voted for the other candidate.

I have to ask, why are you against election day being easy and simple and structured in a way in which it encourages the maximum number of people to vote? Are some people not as worthy of the vote in your eyes?
Im not against election day being simple. It seems very simple to me right now. You go in, you press the little blinking red button next to the one you want to vote for, when all the blinking lights are done blinking, you press the BIG green button that says "VOTE". How hard is that? Im certainly no scholar, yes I have a college degree, but Im no genius.

But It seems to be a little hard for ghetto Julie who is voting for Kerry "because he likes black people." It takes her 7 minutes to vote. (BTW she was white so dont try to throw the race card)


Maybe more voting machines will help make your voting experience faster, but it wont make the election more fair.

Redsfaithful
01-07-2005, 02:56 PM
It seems very simple to me right now.

Simple to you involves standing in line for two hours?

CbusRed
01-07-2005, 03:00 PM
Simple to you involves standing in line for two hours?

If you are passionate about the election and the candidate you vote for, then how long you wait in line shouldnt matter. Of course, since your candidate lost, You naturally feel that your time was wasted. To use this as a "reason" that the election was unfair is ludicrous. I highly doubt that waiting 2 hours in line is enough to change someone's mind to vote for Bush.

westofyou
01-07-2005, 03:04 PM
Simple to you involves standing in line for two hours?

If I stood in line for 2 hours I would wonder why some folks could mail theirs in in some states, or get it done in a half an hour on the other side of the same county I was voting in.

dsmith421
01-07-2005, 03:07 PM
Im not against election day being simple. It seems very simple to me right now. You go in, you press the little blinking red button next to the one you want to vote for, when all the blinking lights are done blinking, you press the BIG green button that says "VOTE". How hard is that? Im certainly no scholar, yes I have a college degree, but Im no genius.

But It seems to be a little hard for ghetto Julie who is voting for Kerry "because he likes black people." It takes her 7 minutes to vote. (BTW she was white so dont try to throw the race card)

Obviously this post is dripping with contempt for any number of groups of people, but what makes this any worse of a reason for voting for a candidate than the millions who voted for Bush because they felt that "God was in the White House"?

dsmith421
01-07-2005, 03:13 PM
Or we could fix the problems for the next election.

For being the party of values you lot are a condescending bunch.

It's really gotten to the point where it's not even worth trying to have a meaningful discussion about anything political with right wingers. You are better off slamming your head against a wall.

CbusRed
01-07-2005, 03:22 PM
It's really gotten to the point where it's not even worth trying to have a meaningful discussion about anything political with right wingers. You are better off slamming your head against a wall.
Your exactly right. I wish democratic higher political office holders would adhere to your philosophy. Us right wingers are tired of slamming your heads against walls, do it yourselves.


Welcome to the boards by the way! :)

Rojo
01-07-2005, 03:37 PM
I have to ask, why are you against election day being easy and simple and structured in a way in which it encourages the maximum number of people to vote? Are some people not as worthy of the vote in your eyes?

The short answer for a lot of folks is "yes"?

And I think we all know who "some people" are.

dsmith421
01-07-2005, 03:37 PM
Your exactly right. I wish democratic higher political office holders would adhere to your philosophy. Us right wingers are tired of slamming your heads against walls, do it yourselves.


Welcome to the boards by the way! :)

Thanks for your kind words. I think. Is it necessary to be condescending in every single post?

The ultimate irony, of course, is that you would be screaming and tearing your hair out if Gore or Kerry had won a tight, contested election, calling bloody murder, fraud, and worse. (See the post above about 1960.) But since the system has favored your guy twice in a row, it is reasonable to me that you don't want to see it changed.

The pendulum will swing the other way soon enough. It would just be nice if we could get beyond short-term self-interest and construct a system that is actually fair. Then our campaigns might result in an actual exchange of ideas and reasoned debate.

Roy Tucker
01-07-2005, 03:38 PM
I blame the bass player of Good Charlotte.
My guitar-playing 14 yr. old daughter loves Good Charlotte.

However, she has learned not to play it on the car CD player after I threatened to frisbee it out the open car window after the 37th playing.

CbusRed
01-07-2005, 04:01 PM
The short answer for a lot of folks is "yes"?

And I think we all know who "some people" are.
:rolleyes:

RBA
01-07-2005, 04:10 PM
What this thread need is more emoticons. :D Too bad "for some" they can't put out an audible grunt, fart, or burp to get their point across. :p:

Rojo
01-07-2005, 04:31 PM
:rolleyes:

Ouch! That one hurt. Put that tongue away before you hurt someone.

WVRed
01-07-2005, 10:20 PM
Ok, instead of using the obnoxious emoticons, how about this.

WE HATE BUSH!!!!;)

(wait, I used an emoticon, nevermind)

Ravenlord
01-08-2005, 08:01 AM
Why would third party people be more likely to be better poll workers? Aren't they partisan as well? Is a person that is highly partial to a certain political party more likely to be dishonest?
because i voted, and when i went to Cincinnati to pick up Lady Raven, and take her to vote, there were so many :censored: violations being committed by the people running it wasn't funny. Democratic ones at mine, Republicans at her. i'd rather it mostly be ran by Libertarians, AIM(?), and i can't think of what the other group of "crazies" is called at the moment.

at the very least, i want anything that stops this :censored: poll tampering crap, and people like Moore to not to exist in the form of polling cameras.

the thought of letting independents or progressives run the polls is amusing to me. independent is code for Republican, and progressive is code for Democrat.

i would say let it be ran by half of each, but they'd probably kill each other in some places.

GAC
01-08-2005, 12:23 PM
How anyone can still respect Jessie Jackson is totally beyond me. This man, as far as I'm concerned, has no character or integrity.

You don't understand folks. You have to keep counting until they win. Until then, the election was fraudulaunt.

The Democratic Party is gaining the reputation of always being known as "challengers"..... You vote.... They challenge.

The loss of this election hurt far worse then the 2000 one. The Democrats, and their supporting cast such the Hollywood elite, the Micheal Moores, the George Soros', the MoveON.orgs, the Bruce Springsteens and Dixie Chicks, just weren't able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again and correct this huge injustice that they feel was perpetrated on them. :lol:

When I think of today's liberals, and their reaction to this current election, I get this image of Vizzini from Princess Bride, in all his pride, knowledge and arrogance, yelling "INCONCEIVABLE!"

I'm laughing so hard at all the intelligencia of the far left now trying to figure out and ponder how in the world they could have lost, and how this could have hapened? It's like Wiley Coyote "super genius" scratching his head over how the ignorant road runner got the best of him once again.

The liberals need answers, and the only one they can seem to come up with is that the election was a fraud. There is no other logical explanation.

Or you can go to RF's thread that basically calls/implies that everyone who voted for Bush, living in those insignificant and backward red states is a facist.

I guess it's not hate speech if he is advocating it. :rolleyes:

So for the next 4 years (at least) we're gonna have to endure all times of hyperbole, name calling, and labels, by those "progressives" whose agenda is to "educate" the rest of us neanderthals in the red states. Because it is obvious that we haven't been listening, and these guys are gettting tired of repeating themselves. So pay attention you morons! ;)

Ravenlord
01-08-2005, 12:30 PM
Democrat Party sucks, Republican Party sucks, and America will one day die because of them.

America, the place bipartisanship goes to die

one Civil War and counting. :gac:

:(

westofyou
01-08-2005, 12:58 PM
So............... did anyone read the report?

Or are we too busy prejudging it?

http://www.pdamerica.org/field/final%20status%20report.pdf

traderumor
01-08-2005, 01:02 PM
because i voted, and when i went to Cincinnati to pick up Lady Raven, and take her to vote, there were so many :censored: violations being committed by the people running it wasn't funny. Democratic ones at mine, Republicans at her. i'd rather it mostly be ran by Libertarians, AIM(?), and i can't think of what the other group of "crazies" is called at the moment.

at the very least, i want anything that stops this :censored: poll tampering crap, and people like Moore to not to exist in the form of polling cameras.

the thought of letting independents or progressives run the polls is amusing to me. independent is code for Republican, and progressive is code for Democrat.

i would say let it be ran by half of each, but they'd probably kill each other in some places.
"Violations" such as?

Ravenlord
01-08-2005, 01:07 PM
in ohio, you can not so much as have a sign up with a candidates name with 100 yards of a poll station. not only were there signs plastered everywhere, but there were people handing out flyers on why i should vote for this or against that, and why this candidate is good and the other bad. there was even one chick at Lady Raven's place who offered a couple guys oral sex in exchange for votes.

Redsfaithful
01-08-2005, 01:23 PM
in ohio, you can not so much as have a sign up with a candidates name with 100 yards of a poll station. not only were there signs plastered everywhere, but there were people handing out flyers on why i should vote for this or against that, and why this candidate is good and the other bad. there was even one chick at Lady Raven's place who offered a couple guys oral sex in exchange for votes.

And to think I vote at a church. I never catch a break.

Ravenlord
01-08-2005, 01:25 PM
her and i both voted at a church.

Phoenix
01-08-2005, 01:29 PM
I always found it curious why people would want to speak with voters approaching polling places. Everything else be equal, I would tend to vote against the person/issue the guy was promoting just for stopping me and assuming he could change my opinion.

Redsfaithful
01-08-2005, 01:41 PM
I always found it curious why people would want to speak with voters approaching polling places. Everything else be equal, I would tend to vote against the person/issue the guy was promoting just for stopping me and assuming he could change my opinion.

I think it's probably a valid strategy for lesser races that people might not know as much about. But I think it's probably pointless for high profile contests.

Phoenix
01-08-2005, 01:46 PM
When I was going to the poll in November there was a guy in the parking lot who just kind of shouted over to me... "Vote for Prop 200".

And I'm wondering how many people actually were voting for the Proposition becase this stranger yelled at them.

Chip R
01-08-2005, 08:15 PM
her and i both voted at a church.
That must be some church. :lol:

I despise electioneering. I feel the polling places should be free of that kind of stuff. But it's not real enforceable.