Toby
Member
Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034 |
quote:
Originally posted by matty
all right, i'm willing to eat a little crow. but not so much as you'd like, toby.
You seem to be reading something into my words which isn't there. I really couldn't care less about making you "eat crow".
quote:
nixon's ethics... i've got three (not 5) historians off the top of my head: kearns, schlesinger2, and greenberg.
I might check them out sometime if I ever get really bored.
quote:
i am not trying to pigeonhole you into being a blindnixonian, either.
No, you tried to pigeonhole me as being for that sot, Buchanan.
quote:
all i'm saying is the guy's election ethics are not clean.
And what I'm saying is that his ethics circa Watergate do not necessarily prove what his ethics were like circa the Kennedy election.
quote:
and you know what, i'll also admit that clinton's personal life is not clean either. but again, the difference remains (and this is whence the argument sprung): one has actually to do with elections, the other, well, doesn't.
His personal life is irrelevant AFAIC. His conduct while performing his elected duties is what matters to me. He can screw goats on the White House lawn after hours for all I care, but when he's on the phone with other officials or meeting with foreign leaders, he should keep his pants zipped.
quote:
a political debate, by the way, so far as i know, takes more than one. you and i are more than one, this means i know and knew that i was part of the debate -- see the admitted soapbox line.
That's the catch, though. I never said I was debating (which implies two clearly opposing sides).
quote:
minority discontent... jesse jackson, and the naacp are alleging violation of the voter's rights act. nothing has yet gone to court,
Nothing will. Jesse Jackson and his ilk prefer to conduct their business via the newsmedia. Those pesky oaths to tell the truth, etc. and procedural rules don't limit them that way.
quote:
i wasn't there, i can't prove anything personally... however, as you have realized, i'm admittedly quick to jump on certain political bandwagons, and in this particular case, i'll side with jesse. sue me.
No thanks...too many frivilous lawsuits in this country already.
quote:
i'll guess again at your affiliation: browne... if i'm wrong, i'm curious, who is it?
Yes, I voted for Browne (my last comment should have been the dead giveaway).
quote:
electoral choice... i was talking u.s. constitution, not state constitution.
Doesn't matter. The U.S. Constitution basically directs the states to choose electors. The states are then free to choose their methods of selection.
quote:
admittedly that's the doc i read, not the individual state docs. of course, it looks like you used a bit of your own interpretation in reading the faq from which you posted the url: (bold is mine)
I did no such thing.
quote:
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States (24 plus DC at last count) require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.
quote:
again, i'm not saying they will do it, but under federal law, they can vote however they @$!&^%ing well choose.
Under federal law, yeah, but federal law does not rule in this case. Perhaps you've forgotten the 10th amendment?
quote:
and as far as clinton's landslides: electoral votes are still the ones that count and here're the results:
1992 370 to bush's 168
1996 379 to dole's 159
in my book, more than twice as many votes counts as a landslide.
Just remember that "electoral votes are still the ones that count" part. 
quote:
creative history... hmmm. history is what someone writes down... making it automatically subjective.
We obviously have a drastically different view of what history really is.
quote:
i'm allowed my subjective views as well as you, or has something changed.
You are fully allowed subjective views, but I prefer to deal with things on a more objective level. AFAIC, history is what actually happened. Debating intentions and all that cr@p is mental masturbation.
quote:
i'm pretty sure neither of us was in the chamber at the moment of any presidential impeachment... in any case, i am finding myself, more and more, in what you might term an an oliverstonian world. i think it's closer to orwellian or huxleyan, but you caught me... i don't believe in the single bullet. when i say jonson was impeached for being a democrat, or clinton was impoeached for getting laid, i mean in a broader sense, that there are greater forces at work than those in the legal docket.
OK, I'll refrain from trying to impose reality into your fantasy world from now on.
quote:
machine v. hand recount... by now i'm sure you've realized that a hand recount is a perfectly valid request under fla. law, and the shrub himself signed a bill into law in his very own home state saying that a hand recount is more reliable than a machine one. 'nuff said.
What's the bill and the exact language?
quote:
yet another recount will, of course, bring another tally.
And yet another handcount will likely bring yet another. So when does the process stop?
quote:
that's the issue, i believe. hand is subjective, machine is fallible, so where does one draw the line? i don't know.
It appears that the line will be drawn tomorrow evening.
quote:
look. as seen on a greater scale over this entire campaign, discussions like this can and will go round and round and nobody clearly wins.
When one devolves into considering everything subjective that tends to happen.
quote:
i admit fully that my views are skewed wildly to the left.
Actually, I doubt that they are if you support any Democrat. The Democrats and the Republicans are both waging a war for the center and have been for a long time.
quote:
and maybe someone else will read this exchange and agree with you (more likely than agreeing with me, it seems  ...)
Whether or not anyone agrees with me is largely irrelevant.
|
11-13-2000 07:23 PM
I solved our whole problem!
Re: I solved our whole problem!
Email This Page to Someone! |
Receive updates to this thread
]