John McCain on The View - Is he really ready to be president?

Rob, if you're content to interpret "more votes" as meaning "more electoral votes," that's your prerogative. I'd prefer to be clear, saying Gore got more popular votes, and Bush got more electoral votes, and thus the Presidency, by the Supreme Court's ruling on the manner of recounting the Florida votes.

It doesn't seem to me that you are dealing with the fact that had a full state recount been undertaken, as established by a rigorous, independent panel, Gore would have taken Florida. He would have garnered the 25 electoral college votes, and he would have won the election.

Again, your right. Ultimately, the Supreme Court is the law of the land, as it was for Plessy v. Ferguson. But I don't agree with either decision. Not a fan of the notion that "separate" can be equal, and not a fan of going to a few counties when the State decided the Presidency.

 

Northpoint - I watched the recount stuff in Florida (again youre still hung up on that... its over fellas) and it was total BS, with democrats magically finding votes for Gore on every blank sheet of paper. It was a partisan joke promulgated by people unwilling to accept that they had in fact lost. The Supreme court upheld the election based on the facts. It was an interesting attempt by the DNC to overturn the vote, it failed.

As for your documentation, I've seen studies that went the other way and I'd look them up except for the fact that it doesnt matter... it is no longer significant as the 2000 results arent on the ballot for a referendum. Gore lost, he didnt become president, Bush went on to beat Kerry in the next one since.

You can argue semantics, but it doesnt change it. We elect a president by electoral votes, Bush got more, and Gore has gone on to contribute to global warming by giving speeches about it. Can we go back to the current election now?

 

Rob, you're missing this entirely. I'm "hung up" on nothing, except the desire to clarify something when one poster says "Bush got more votes," another says, "Gore got more votes." I'm clarifying what we all mean when we say, "more votes." Simple, really - why do you have a problem with the clarification?

Regarding the recount issue itself, it isn't the DNC push I'm referring to. You say you've seen studies that have gone the other way - I'd be interested to see it, because the study I've linked to was an exceedingly rigorous, independent study, and it concludes that had a full-state recount taken place, Gore would have won the presidency. Yes, it changes nothing. But neither does the study of history, and that hasn't stopped me from being curious.

 

I was clarifying your clarification. The addition of the Florida thing made it sound as if Gore won in electoral votes too. As he didnt assume the office, we can discount that.

I've seen rigorous independent studies, yes they contradict your point, and no I do not still have links to an argument I ceased worrying about two elections cycles and several laptops ago. I'm a fan of history, have an extensive library to back that, but I'm not gonna come in and argue that the south won the civil war because an independent study says so. I figure the wars that are over probably need to stay that way.

 

Rob, this will have to be my last post on the subject, because I don't know what part of:

Equates to:

Your perfect right. I'd be sincerely interested in seeing these studies, should you find them.

Rob, respectfully, you're playing games. No one is denying Gore lost the election, by the laws of the land (which gave to the Supreme Court the right to rule on the subject), nor am I arguing he actually won, because a study says he would have won had a full state recount taken place - the aforementioned final authority resting with the Court makes this an obvious point, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop playing such games. Why he lost, (or the South lost), may be of interest to some, certainly to me. Given the difference between a full state recount, and a recount from certain counties only, it merits consideration, to me; hence, I do take a look. Bottom line,

All wars are over; all history is "done." So why investigate history at all? I know the answer, for myself, which is all I can speak to.

 

I wanted to clarify something. My use of Plessy v. Ferguson, essentially, a ruling codifying the practice of American apartheid, "Jim Crow" in America, was not in any way intended to imply anything about Rob's views on the subject of Jim Crow, etc. Here's the reasoning:

I take issue with the logic of the above statement, because while one can agree the Supreme Court has final authority on any of the issues at hand in this discussion, one can also disagree with the decision the Court has taken.

As with Plessy, the Court has been known to screw up, and each of us will have to answer for ourselves when, and why, the Court has erred, when it has. In other words, one can agree the Court has final authority to rule - in the case of the 2000 election, can agree the Court had the final authority to to rule on the recounting process, and thereby to rule on who won the 2000 Presidential election - and disagree with the ruling itself, at the same time. One can both agree with the decision in Roe v. Wade, and disagree with Plessy v. Ferguson; which is why I disagree with the logic of Rob's statement above.

If any were concerned or confused about any subterranean (or not so subterranean) attempt on my part to malign Rob (some kind of implication that "a Texan supports Jim Crow"), I wanted to clearly state my inclusion of Plessy had zero to do with such an attempt, rather, it was included as an example of a decision I disagreed with, distinguished from a decision I agreed with. on the merits. Hope that clarifies.

Paul

 

Cool. Like I said via PM... didnt seem your style to take a shot that was entirely unsupported for the sake of a gig. [And yes, to a degree BOTH politicians we're supporting seem to have done that some and/or a lot. Argh.

Yeah, there are a few SC decisions I'd differ with, not to mention a lot of refusals to rule that seemed like they were dodging things they needed to address. Being appointed for life has its pros and cons.

Incidentally my prime objection to Biden is precisely that... I wanted his head on a platter early in his career when I listened to the Bork hearings live. He and Teddy reworked the "advise and consent" role to effectively circumvent the Presidents role and usurp power for the legislative branch by going after hjim on the grounds that he actually supports the constitution. Biden will always be remembered by constitutional literalists for that one.

My vote is definitely supported by more than the idea that McCains VP pick has a great rack. Thats why I get a little tired of the guys that insist that anyone voting for McCain is "ignorant", mis-informed", etc.... The guys that go that route have an IQ rivaled only by fenceposts if they cant find an argument besides "well you're stupid!". LOL Occasionally we get into discussions that rise above that, which hopefully is why we stay.

 

Neither one of them realize that. That's the point.

 

Wow such a great response.

You did not state electoral, you stated 'votes'.

 

Would you rather I said your head was up your ass?

Well, you've pretty much confirmed my last statement. You don't win with the popular vote. But now you know that...

If you both need me to be more specific, I would be more than happy to explain the Electoral College.

 

It only works when the other parties head is up their ass, you know like yours usually is.

Nope you do not, 'votes' however is not 'electoral votes' you know it and I know it.

Yeah like I would need it explained by you.

 

You sure are awfully infatuated with my ass lately.

Seems I should probably explain it then, eh..

Actually, you kinda do. You already indicated several times that Bush did not have enough votes to win the election in 2000, even though several recounts proved that he did.

 

When that's where you speak from it's hard not to notice.

Nope 'votes' the generic term is not meant for 'electoral votes' never have I witnessed it being used that way. Had you meant it that way you could have easily clarified, something you never did.

Where did I say this? Please show me where I state Bush did not win...

Having the facts out there, that Bush did not have more 'votes' is not saying he did not win.

 

Get over it. He had more votes, and he won. Its a fact. If you want to re-write history, go ahead. I'm not stopping you.

Calm down. You're going to give yourself a heart attack.

 

You were caught with your pants down, keep with facts, they are not so scary.



So I'll take that as yet another accusation you can not prove. Figures.

 

Excellent post. Seems that pretty much sums it up.

They're still not gonna get it, but great post non the less!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsDh4cjfb_A
what a joke. look who is ready

 

So many vital current issues going on... seems a shame for us to spend time on an election from years past. LOL... then again we DO have a talent for that in the P&R forum.

Guess the big boys have the same problem, given that we have a national economic crisis looming and the two guys running for the highest office a busily engaged in a contest of who can write the singularly most bullshit ad while complaining the others the one doing it. There's a certain amount of greenhouse gases being produced by both sides lately.

 

As opposed to the Carlton dance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsWpvkLCvu4

 

lol
he wasn't crying about his interview with view . Mccain should take his mother on the next show to protect him. his wife is not working out so good.
I think they showed pailin a few foreigners today also.
when do you think she will be ready? 35 years