VisorCentral.com - Who did you vote for?

Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Who did you vote for? (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=14825)

Posted by septimus on 05-10-2001 07:12 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Gore supporters like myself have to face the fact that there is only one person to blame for what happened: Al Gore

In the words of Ralph: "If he can't beat that silly, stupid numbskull from Texas, then what good is he?" (I've got the epithets wrong, but you get the idea)

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by ernieba1 on 05-10-2001 08:37 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by VTL
It's misleading because Gore's margin of victory in the popular vote is razor-thin compared to the total popular vote - essentially within the margin of error.

The margin of error that you see in a poll is there because not everyone in the country was polled. In an election, there is no margin of error. And don't say, "It's the people who didn't go out and vote," because they don't have a say.

But I do agree that it is basically a tie. I think there should be a run-off election in that type of case.

__________________
-Bernie

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'.
-Dan Quayle

Posted by Toby on 05-10-2001 08:46 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ernieba1
The margin of error that you see in a poll is there because not everyone in the country was polled.

Not exactly, but close enough.

quote:
In an election, there is no margin of error.

Wrong. Until a perfect counting machine is invented or until a perfect counting human exists, there will always be a margin of error in elections. IOW, there will always be a margin of error in elections.

quote:
And don't say, "It's the people who didn't go out and vote," because they don't have a say.

That's correct. They don't, just like the people who didn't vote properly because they either didn't follow instructions or didn't demand the assistance that they needed with the forms don't count.

quote:
But I do agree that it is basically a tie. I think there should be a run-off election in that type of case.

I think we should have run the election again with all new candidates (except for Harry Browne, he deserved to stay).

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 05-10-2001 09:43 PM:

Good Admit!

quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If he had simply won his home state of Tennessee, Florida would have been irrelevant.

And why was that? because those people in Tennessee know what Al Gore is or isn't based upon their own experience.

For an incumbent administration not to carry an election in the greatest peace time economy in the last 100 years (at the time of the election) says alot. Also, Al's own performance and waffling during the 3 debates cost him dearly.

I'd rather be entertained by Hollywood rather than being entertained by a President that is more concerned about reacting to focus groups input during these debates and looking good on TV as a result of that input.

Dubya will run this country as well as the next business man. Al would have run it as well as the next politician - that's not what I want.

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

Posted by VTL on 05-10-2001 09:48 PM:

Toby touched on this, but it is inaccurate to say there is no margin of error in an election.

I have been peripherally involved in two recounts - the one in Florida, and another in a Senate race. Every time you count the ballots, you get a different result. Ballots get lost; the get "found;" sometimes under mysterious curcumstances; they get damaged, to the point where they are unreadable or they read differently (the pregnant chad gives birth ). Sometimes, something more sinister occurs.

This doesn't even include the other imperfections in the system - bad voter rolls that include folks who shouldn't vote, and exclude folks who could, lost or mis-mailed absentee ballots, etc.

In most elections, this inherent inaccuracy doesn't matter, because one of the candidates wins by a sufficiently large precentage that it swamps the error rate in the system. The presidential campaign wasn't one of them.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop on 05-10-2001 10:14 PM:

Re: Good Admit!

quote:
Originally posted by RSGMOOSE

Dubya will run this country as well as the next business man.

I have no objection generally to the idea of having a "businessman" as president. Unfortunately, W was an abject failure at every business he attempted until Daddy's friends offered him a sweetheart deal on a piece of the Texas Rangers (which he sold at a significant profit thanks to the new ballpark the state and local government so graciously built for the team).

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 05-10-2001 10:33 PM:

You May Be Right

Don't you/I wish, though, that we had his friends and therefore could capitalize on that good fortune?

Also, I'm certain the Dubya learned from his failed business ventures and I'm not certain that A.G. ever had any business to learn from, being raised in Washington D.C. and his experience being journalism based.

I respect your opinion of Dubya as a businessman but at least he does have more experience then A.G, wouldn't you agree? A.G. is a professional politician and has not gotten good reviews as a professor from his students. I'll paraphrase what I've heard: "The students felt that Al was a bit tense and did not speak his mind".

One thing is for certain, Dubya is not afraid to speak his mind albeit maybe not as intelligent as we'd all like!

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

Posted by homer on 05-10-2001 10:52 PM:

What has Dubya accomplished in his first 100 days?

Do people think he's done good/bad/even so far?

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by dick-richardson on 05-10-2001 11:44 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
What has Dubya accomplished in his first 100 days?

Do people think he's done good/bad/even so far?

He's done better than I expected. I was pissed with his environmental policy right off, but I think he's rectified that some.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 05-11-2001 12:06 AM:

Tax Cut!

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson

He's done better than I expected. I was pissed with his environmental policy right off, but I think he's rectified that some.

Well, the tax cut should be effective (news reports say it's a done deal) and he has show is ability to negotiate from 1.6T to 1.3T over 11 years rather than 10 years so he hasn't alienated all of Congress.

He has made a Radio address to the Hispanic population in their native language (although I disagree with this policy I admire his willingness to address the vast variety of our population).

He did a pretty good job in getting China to give us our people back without launching missiles.

And, he has granted a pardon to a non-convicted left the country to avoid prosecution criminal such as Rich, for money. And I'm fairly certain that he won't spare Timothy McVeigh, which I wish that his administration would have televised the execution. I'm certain that the carnage seen would have been less than what happened in Oklahoma.

Just my HO.

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

Posted by homer on 05-11-2001 12:09 AM:

Well, I've been unhappy with his environmental stance completely. Alaska should not be touched...ever...and we should be putting some money into alternative energy sources.

I'm also appalled at the whole 'let's put guns into space' program he's trying to push.

That said, it is easier to point out someone's faults than it is to see their good traits.

I'm mixed on the tax cuts. I think we do need tax cuts, but I think we need to better budget the money we have BEFORE we start shrinking the bank. I also think that any surplus should first and foremost go towards paying off the national debt.

Free trade is inevitable. It is going to cause a lot of problems...for people, the economy, and the environment, but it seems like one of those "we need to to it and learn as we go along" things.

As for good things he's done...well I'm short of ideas...someone help me out!

Just some random afternoon thoughts...

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by homer on 05-11-2001 12:10 AM:

quote:
He did a pretty good job in getting China to give us our people back without launching missiles.

Yes he did. I have to give him credit for that one.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop on 05-11-2001 12:12 AM:

Re: Tax Cut!

quote:
Originally posted by RSGMOOSE

He did a pretty good job in getting China to give us our people back without launching missiles.

I can't let this one go. He completely screwed up the China spy plane mess by adopting a hard-line tone immediately after the incident happened. If he had gone through diplomatic channels up front, instead of giving speeches "demanding" the release of the servicemen and women, they would have been released a lot sooner, and without the weasily apology we ended up giving.

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 05-11-2001 12:21 AM:

You might be alone on that one!

quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I can't let this one go. He completely screwed up the China spy plane mess by adopting a hard-line tone immediately after the incident happened. If he had gone through diplomatic channels up front, instead of giving speeches "demanding" the release of the servicemen and women, they would have been released a lot sooner, and without the weasily apology we ended up giving.

All of the media reports that I've seen and the interviews with the Navy personnel felt that the President did a good job of handling the issue. And, if he'd not have taken this alleged hard line approach then we'd be hidding from the Chinese and opening the door for many other countries in the World to "push our buttons".

I think "demanding" the release of our personnel was sending a message to our people at home and involved (remember the captives didn't hear or see any "friendly" reports for about 4 days) that we were going to get them back. What would you have wanted him to say, Gee we'd really like to get our people back but if you want to keep them for awhile - that's fine?

If he'd have said anything less than demanding the press and the bleeding hearts would have stated he was a weak President.

Jimmy Carter lost the public's respect when he carried his own luggage into the White House on Jan. 20th. George W. Bush would have lost the respect of the American people as well if he didn't demand our people be returned.

The Chinese took the hard line approach by stating we were inviolation of their airspace and by sending up trial ballons that stated they wanted an apology. GW said we were sorry but never apologized....there is a difference!

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 05-11-2001 12:37 AM:

Alternative Sources

quote:
Originally posted by homer
Well, I've been unhappy with his environmental stance completely. Alaska should not be touched...ever...and we should be putting some money into alternative energy sources.

I'm also appalled at the whole 'let's put guns into space' program he's trying to push.

Homer, thanks for the agreement on China.

Living in California and being in the automotive industry, I agree with you that we need alternative sources of energy. However, opening Alaska may be a short term fix for an ongoing problem that's been around since the original gas shortages in the 70's. I'm not certain though that the American public fully understands the ramifications of alternative fuels - electric cars do not meet the demands of the horsepower crazy individuals out there. Alaska will probably wind up being as much a political decision as environmental. Gas is over $2.00 a gallon in California now and you all know what kinda of a problem we are having with electricity. And since California accounts for a large portion of the "economy" GW is going to get us some oil for the short term.

Long term, we'd all better figure out to cut back on the extras such as Lincoln Navigators and other low mileage SUV's until we can develop a truly efficient fuel cell that will burn hydrogen efficiently.

Take the money from "Star Wars" and send it to development of alternative fuels and we'd both be happy!

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

Posted by VTL on 05-11-2001 12:37 AM:

Bush is doing a great job.

1. He's going to get the majority of what he wants on his top priority, the education bill - by compromising with the Democrats, part of the "new tone" he is setting.

2. He is going to get the majority of his tax cut, his second priority.

3. He handled the China hostage crisis (hey, let's call it like it is) well. Tough talk was necessary. Contrary to popular belief, it got the Chinese leadership's attention.

4. He is in fact setting a more productive tone in D.C.

5. His only alleged "mis-steps" have been on the environment, and those are much exagerated. The media consistently make it sound like the Administration is "anti-environment" by casting his decisions in the worst light possible and by not providing any context for the decision.

For example:

The Kyoto Treaty - If memory serves, the overwhelming majority of the Senate (like 95 members) indicated it would NOT confirm the treaty - including the bulk of the Democrat members. In other words, the treaty is dead and has been dead for a while. The President merely recognized reality. However, the President is portrayed as being for global warming for backing away from the treaty.

Arsenic - The standard for arsenic in drinking water has been the same for something like 50 years. The Clinton/Gore administration took seven years and
360+ days to pass the new standard. The decision was made at the same time, and in roughly the same manner, as the Marc Rich pardon decision. It was also made over the objection of political leaders in parts of the country that will be most impacted by the implementation of this very costly change.

The President - rather sensibly - said the rule deserved more study. The Administration has signaled that the limit will be lowered at some point, but perhaps not by as much as the Clinton rule called for.

How does the media portray the decision? Like the President has somehow decided to put MORE arsenic in kids drinking water, that he has increased the exposure level. This is patently untrue.

All in all, a pretty good start if you ask me.

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 05-11-2001 12:41 AM:

VTL

Well,

I guess there are two of us Left Coasters that aren't completely considered Liberal. You don't know how much it hurts me to say Liberal.

And oh by the way, The treaty was an Al Gore failure. He was the one that went to Japan and represented the US on that one and missed the boat. He didn't have a pulse on reality to whether the Senate would endorse it.

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

Posted by homer on 05-11-2001 02:12 AM:

quote:
However, opening Alaska may be a short term fix for an ongoing problem

Destroying one of the last great natural spaces on this planet so we can get a few barrels of oil? How is that a good thing?

There are better solutions.

How about fuel efficient cars?

How about better mass-transit?

Why are we a country dependant on oil in the first place? If we're the most technologically advanced country in the world how come we can't figure this one out?

quote:
He is going to get the majority of his tax cut, his second priority.

But convince me that the tax cut is something we need first.

quote:
The President merely recognized reality. However, the President is portrayed as being for global warming for backing away from the treaty.

What was wrong with the treaty? It would cost us a few bucks to clean ourselve up? Sad.

quote:
The President - rather sensibly - said the rule deserved more study. The Administration has signaled that the limit will be lowered at some point, but perhaps not by as much as the Clinton rule called for.

Why do we tolerate any arsenic in our water?

Ok, I concede that the above issues are much more complicated, but it frightens me that as a society, we put money above all else. All of the above issues (pollution, oil dependence, arsenic, etc...) could easily be resolved if we weren't so damn greedy.

Is that bush's fault? Of course not. He just doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot to change that situation.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by RSGMOOSE on 05-11-2001 02:22 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer

Destroying one of the last great natural spaces on this planet so we can get a few barrels of oil? How is that a good thing?

There are better solutions.

I never said it was a good thing just a short term fix to an long term problem. Just to be clear.

You are correct that we are too greedy and as a result - society will have to change, gradually though and not radically overnight.

__________________
Moose Man
I may be from the LEFT coast but that's not the correct political view in my mind!

Posted by homer on 05-11-2001 02:34 AM:

quote:
I never said it was a good thing just a short term fix to an long term problem. Just to be clear.

My apologies if I made it sound like you were for it. I was just yelling out into space out of frustration more than anything!

To add to the frustration, I get home tonight, and the big story on the news was the gas issue again. Of all the things to talk about in this country, we're putting high gas prices as our top priority? So what. Gas is going to cost more this summer. It still is nothing compared to what the rest of the world pays.

I'd like to ask who really cares if the gas price goes up? Of course, no one likes paying higher prices for anything, but I guess I can accept the price of gas being whatever it is. The higher it goes, hopefully the less I'll be inclined to drive my car around. Maybe I'll get in shape and use that bike for once.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:20 PM.

Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page