I'm afraid

Discussion in 'Big Brother 3: The Mods Strike Back' started by Terr_Mys, Oct 19, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darth_AYBABTU Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 8, 2001
    star 6

    Once more, with feeling...

    What did the Supreme Court do to install Bush as president?

    AYBABTU

  2. AmazingB Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 12, 2001
    star 7
    It's also interesting to note that if every state did district electoral voting (like Maine and Oklahoma and possibly Colorado if the libbies get their way) rather than winner-take-all, Bush would have won some 290 electoral votes.

    Amazing.
  3. carmenite42 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 21, 2003
    star 4
    But the population map still has bush as a winner.
  4. Darth_AYBABTU Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 8, 2001
    star 6

    "It's also interesting to note that if every state did district electoral voting (like Maine and Oklahoma and possibly Colorado if the libbies get their way) rather than winner-take-all, Bush would have won some 290 electoral votes."

    It's actually ME and NE that do the district voting. The popular vote winner gets 2 EVs and then an additional EV is awarded to the winner of each Congressional District. This year Bish will get all the EVs from NE, and he has a slim chance of getting 1 EV for the 2nd CD in ME.

    The proposal on the CO ballot this year is not based on CDs but on a proportion of the popular vote. The measure is likely to go one way or the other based on whether the state goes for Bush of Kerry. If Bush wins then the measure will likely fail, and he will get all 9 EVs. If Kerry wins and the measure passes, Kerry will only get 5 EVs while Bush will get 4, so it doesn't really help Kerry all that much at all. He'd be better off without the measure on the ballot, since by winning he is likely to give Bush 4 EVs that could mean the difference in the election.

    Now let's try this one more time...

    Seldon -- "I am fine with the state thing, that is okay, I just don't like the system when the S. Court decides."

    Please tell me, Seldon, how the Supreme Court decided the presidency in 2000 or retract your implication that it did. Either read the ruling and tell me how they selected the president, or admit that you were making an assertion while ignorant of the facts. This is a very important point, and it reflects vividly on every other topic you discuss. If you won't even read the ruling itself and make an informed analysis of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, then on what other topics are you fudging and/or ignoring the truth?

    This is an easy one, because you've already posted everything you will need to make an accurate assessment, yet you seem unable to even get your head around that.

    AYBABTU

  5. Darth-Seldon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 17, 2003
    star 6
    Seven justices out of nine agreed that the recounts most end and that they are not constitutional any longer.

    The most recent recount had stated that Bush had won FLA. So despite the fact that so many ballots were punched incorrectly and the true winner was not revealed, the presidency was given to Bush.

    The Supreme Court's majority is made up of conservatives, most of them appointed during the Reagan years. They favored Bush. Yes there are more facts to it, but no one can accuratly judge their true motivations.

    -Seldon
  6. Darth_AYBABTU Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 8, 2001
    star 6

    You're right. We can't judge their motives. We can only look at the facts of the case. On what grounds did they declare the recounts unconstitutional? There are two correct answers.

    And it wasn't only the most recent recount that showed Bush ahead, it was every recount taken before or since.

    AYBABTU

  7. AmazingB Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 12, 2001
    star 7
    The Supreme Court's majority is made up of conservatives, most of them appointed during the Reagan years.

    See, it's little comments like that that show a complete inability or unwillingness to even try to be factual.

    Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (appointed by Richard Nixon in 1972 and elevated by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
    Justice Stephen Breyer (appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994);
    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993);
    Justice Anthony Kennedy (appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988);
    Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981);
    Justice Antonin Scalia (appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
    Justice David Souter (appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991);
    Justice John Paul Stevens (appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975);
    Justice Clarence Thomas (appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990).

    Three Reagan appointments. A minor point, perhaps. But facts tend to be important when debating and ignoring minor, easily found facts tends to make it likely more important facts were also ignroed.

    The More You Know.

    Amazing.
  8. Darth_AYBABTU Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 8, 2001
    star 6

    "But facts tend to be important when debating and ignoring minor, easily found facts tends to make it likely more important facts were also ignored."

    You should have seen him last night, B. He tried to tell me that Bush was responsible for a TX policy that was passed by the Democratic legislature in 1994 and signed by Democrat Ann Richards. Somehow Bush was responsible, though he didn't even take office until the next year.

    AYBABTU

  9. Darth-Seldon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 17, 2003
    star 6
    Rhett, I was citing that as evidence of the decline in academic standards in Texas.
    But then again things are twisted.

    Anyway why are is the graduation rate increasing? Lower standards? I find it funny that I'm suppose to answer all the questions when you never do.

    B: I understand about the judges. Most of the major judges in other courts were appointed in Reagan years. Now yes there are only 3 appointments on the Supreme Court, but the majority of them were still promoted under a Republican Administration.

    -Seldon
  10. AmazingB Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 12, 2001
    star 7
    B: I understand about the judges. Most of the major judges in other courts were appointed in Reagan years. Now yes there are only 3 appointments on the Supreme Court, but the majority of them were still promoted under a Republican Administration.

    But that's not what you said, which also is the basis of a debate. Besides which, if this was such a drastically conservative group, wouldn't decisions like Roe v. Wade have been long since overturned? Also remember that Reagan is the only one among those presidents who had a Republican Senate. Nixon, Ford and Bush 41 all had to contend with Democratic Senates when nominating justices.

    Amazing.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.