In this case you mentioned the unemployement rate and compared it with the numbers of presidents that where relected but didn't mentioned the likelyhood of people who has fallen off unemployment and aren't counted anymore.
I was sticking as much as I could to the BLS data, and I don't know where "Discouraged workers" (the category used here) is in the historical data, so I had no basis for comparison. If you can find it, please do let me know.
I did find discouraged workers + unemployed as a percentage of employed. And those numbers go back only to '94 and do look a little better in 96 than they do now, but not by a heck of a lot. e.g., seasonally adjusted discouraged + unemployed + marginally attached as a percentage in Sep 96 was 6.2, now 6.4. Without marginally attached, 5.4 and 5.7. Not seasonally adjusted, a dead heat in both.
That's about the same as the difference in actual unemployment between the two years, so I really don't think there's much to this part of the story, at least not judging by the comparison to Clinton, and if anything it would only make Bush look better in that comparison. However, including it only for 96 would be misleading, since we don't have data that goes back to Reagan or Nixon, where the comparison might be less favorable.
You also mention what he has to do to get a net job gain, but don't mention the likely hood or unlikely hood of getting those numbers compared with the last four months.
Again, I was trying to stick to the data, not make a prediction.
I think it was obvious which direction you point because of what you chose to mention.
And I think you gave two examples, one where I left out data that I couldn't find but what little data I did find does not change the story, and one where you were asking me to make a prediction, which is something I would not do in this context. So, respectfully, I think you're wrong.
Uh, yes. There is no doubt that jobs have not kept apace of the labor force growth. But that is separate and distinct from what I am referring to. I am referring to the Kerry argument, that Bush will be the first President to not "create a single job."
Since you need about 150,000 jobs added each month just to keep up with a growing population, if he averages 150,000 jobs for the last four months of his term he will merely tread water. At this point, there is absolutely no chance that Bush can avoid being the first president since Hoover in the Great Depression to have had fewer jobs at the end of his term than when he began.
Again, you're conflating two different things. If Bush ends up with more actual jobs than when he began, he would still have not matched labor force growth, yes. But he would hardly be the first President since Hoover to fail that.
Using the "total nonfarm payroll survey" and the "civilian labor force" figures from BLS, we only need to go back to GHW Bush, who had about 2.6 million more jobs at the end of his term than when it started, but the labor force grew by 3.9 million. Reagan had 13 million more jobs, but the labor force grew by 14.4 million. And so on.
If what I said holds true, Bush would be at about 0.2 million more jobs, and a labor force increase of 4+ million. It's nothing to brag about in absolute terms, but he would not be the first since Hoover to miss the mark of matching labor force growth. You're just wrong.
You think so? Hm. Last night I noted the jobs report was coming out, and it is important political news, so when I woke up I found out what the numbers were and posted them all, without commentary. I mentioned the still large deficit, I mentioned that his unemployment number remained unchanged but is historically decent... *shrug*
I think you're mistaking not making Bush look bad for making him look good. If I meant to make him look good, I'd have left out the total deficit. If I meant to spin it, I'd have mentioned that he's gained jobs since the end of the recession. I just gave the facts. Did you think I left some out I should have included, or included some I should have left out?
There are often questions about election irregularities. There were some pretty serious irregularities in SoCal when I lived there, and Bob Dornan lost a close election. But in the end, the system does what the system does, and Lorett Sanchez won the seat. She was the winner, obvious or otherwise, and no pretending is necessary. Even if you think Dornan's claims of cheating are true, she is STILL the obvious winner, because the system -- elections, and the laws that govern them and disputes about them -- determines in the end what to do, and that system picked Sanchez.
Opposing campaign finance reform, then supporting it?
He did not oppose campaign finance reform. He opposed some ways of doing it, and there was compromise.
Reversing himself on the Dept. of Homeland Security?
Same thing again. He wanted it done one way, the Congress wanted it done another. In the end, knowing he could not fight the overwhelming majority in Congress, he worked with them. Big deal.
Reversing himself on the 9/11 commission?
This is the most laughable of all. He was ALWAYS in favor of a Congressional investigation into 9/11. He wanted it done with existing Congressional committees, and Congress wanted it done with a separate commission. That was the only real difference, and in the end, Congress wanted it done that way, so Bush worked with Congress. It's their decision after all, and there's nothing to be gained by opposing them on that point.
Now, I suppose you could argue that he really gave up a lot more than he said he wanted in re campaign finance reform, but in re DHS and 9/11 Commission, his goals were the same as Congress', all along.
Reversing himself on a US role in Israel/Palestine?
That never happened. He has certainly changed his position slightly over time, as the situation on the ground has changed. But there was no reversal of any position.
Switching from a fee-trade platform to steel tariffs?
That never happened. He was never a true free-trader. His tariffs were not inconsistent with his stated policies and beliefs.
Switching from a states rights platform to supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?
Sorry, but that's reaching. So much so that it just makes you look stupid. It's like saying, "you say you're for free speech, but you are in favor of allowing people to make death threats!" No one ever pretended his belief in states rights was absolute.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will.
Wow, and this is so incorrect it is showing you either have no idea what you're talking about, or you are attempting to deceive me. If the latter, it won't work. Bush never said he won't negotiate with North Korea, ever. He said he would not have bilateral talks with North Korea, but that he would have multilateral talks. And he's remained entirely consistent on that, so much so that Kerry criticizes him for NOT reversing himself.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote.
He did own up to that. It was in Woodward's book, at least. Bush made this promise in February 2003 (or early March?) and backed down because they knew the votes were not there, and it would have made Blair look bad. He admitted he changed his mind on it to Woodward, dunno if it was anywhere else.
Side note: some people have claimed that when Resolution 1441 was signed, there was a promise to go back for an additional resolution. This is false. No such promise was made. I assume you mean the statement he made in early 2003, and not in Nov 2002 when 1441 was passed, but if you did mean when 1441 was passed, then that never happened.
They also showed that if a recount had happened across the entire state of FL (much more than what the Democrats were asking for), Gore would've won.
Yes, but that is hardly relevant to anything I can think of. No one seriously proposed doing that.
Laws govern elections. The votes were counted according to the laws. There is no "correct" final tally except that which is done according to the law. Every possible method of counting according to the law had Bush win.
The election was never stolen. The lawsuit was to prevent the Democrats from cherry-picking where and how they recounted votes. Furthermore, a recount WAS completed in early 2001 and Bush still won.
There was more wrong with the florida election than just that. For the hardcore, Nader had 1.3% of the vote, Bush won by less than %0.1. So had Nader not ran, it is reasonable to say Gore would have won.
Sorry, but what are you smoking? What does people legally casting legitmate votes for a legitimate candidate have to do with whether the election was stolen? And how is this in any way "wrong"?
Do you hate democracy or something? Because I can't think of any other way what you describe could be "wrong."
"Pretending"? He won. Later recounts showed he would have won had the existing (unconstitutional) recount completed. This is all entirely factual, and obvious. No pretending necessary.
The point was the hiring of the lawyers. I suppose I probably should have mentioned the legal funds too, but didn't think of it. I'll give you a +1 Informative to make up for it.:-)
oh yeah, well then nothing I said applies if we're in a republic...
The part about how we should vote directly for the President does not *necessarily* apply, yes. It is certainly possible to vote for the President in a Republic, but there is no requirement for it. And I think it is a very bad idea.
how is a system that is designed to remove significance of my vote better then a system where I am represented individually?
Because you should be represented individually. The President is not supposed to be the leader of the people of America, but of the States of America.
If people vote to have the electoral college votes become distributed proportionally compared to a "all for one" style now... yes, that is change.
You were specifically talking about the wrong direction in regard to the House breaking "ties," which is what I was specifically saying was not change.
This is a democracy, right?
Ah, there's your problem. No, it is not. It is a republic.
Interesting enough that you replied
Because I believe it is worth trying to educate people.
My vote is as important as your vote
Not when it comes to the Presidency, no. This is, of course, false. A vote in Florida was worth a lot more than a vote in Texas in 2000. You could add thousands of Gore voters to Texas and Bush still would have won the state and the presidency. Do the same in Florida, and Gore wins the presidency.
If we had a true popular vote -- because voting patterns in individual states would necessarily change -- there is no reason whatsoever to think Gore necessarily would have come out on top. None. This is a fact. If you don't understand that fact, I suppose I am to blame for lacking the ability to properly explain it, but regardless, it is a fact.
That's the problem! The electoral college is sadly out-dated and needs to be replaced.
No, it is a wonderful innovation that needs to be emphasized more.
People think changing to proportional votes is a "more accurate representation" of the popular vote.
Why would I want an accurate representation of something I think is unimportant and the wrong way to select the President?
hat are you "not in favor of" exactly
A popular vote for President.
Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it's the right way to do things.
But you were talking about going in the wrong direction. That implies something is changing for the worse, but nothing is changing.
After the debacle that was the 2000 election, I think everybody can agree the current system doesn't work.
Eh, I thought the system as such worked just fine.
Our current system put a man into office that wasn't the choice of the majority of voting Americans
That is completely uninteresting, on any level. Under the current system, you cannot reasonably compare votes from one states to another. There is no such thing as a "popular vote" right now. Because of how the system works, you might get more people likely to vote in one state than in another. For example, in TX, people will be less likely to vote than in FL, because Bush was a shoo-in in TX. If we had a true popular vote, the numbers would be very different, because people would not be discouraged from voting.
So your implication that Gore should have been put into office, that this was the will of the people, is not supported by any facts.
Uh... that was a very commonly stated rumor, and unfortunately widely believed.
I know that this was not the reason the bill existed -- I never said it was, and I linked to the original story when Rangel introduced the bill which made the point you address here -- but the result over the past year or so is that many people thought there was some Republican plan to bring back the draft.
No, he said disarming Saddam was the right decision.
You're lying.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?
SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA): George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.
He clearly meant it was the right decision to disarm Hussein by invading. That is the decision being referred to. George mentioned the decision [to execute the invasion of Iraq]. Kerry said that decision to disarm -- which necessarily means by invasion -- was the right one. And Kerry supported that decision to disarm by invasion.
He also, consistently, opposed doing it unilaterally.
It was not done unilaterally, so who cares?
As to "mostly unilaterally" (a phrase which you seem to be implying), Kerry spoke in favor of it:
If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.
Kerry has consistently said (a) he supported the war at the time
No, he has not. He consistently said at the time it was the right decision, and he consistently says now that it is the wrong one. He does not now say he thought it was the right decision at the time. He has not said that in a long time. What he says now is that he supported the authority for war; he simply does not now say he supported the war at the time. That is false.
I still see a double standard here. Republicans are free to change their minds; Kerry is not unless he follows special rules.
Kerry is not saying he changed his mind: in fact, he has steadfastly maintained the opposite: that his position has never changed. How can you not see this problem?
At the end of your post, you finally say that he is allowed to change his mind.
Yes, if he owns up to it. He refuses to.
No, in addition it mentions flip-flops on the budget, big government, healthcare, and Saddam over al Qaeda
No, it does not. That's the problem. It mentions a high deficit, but does not say how this is a flip-flop. Same thing with Medicare problems, and the emphasis on Hussein and Iraq. It's one thing to say those things are bad, but it does not say how they are flip-flops.
You can impugn me for not reading the story, but from where I sit, it seems like you're the one who didn't.
Ok, so how about calling for Bush's resignation. He has done every one of the things you suggest, in the case of the Niger Uranium issue, if not several other places.
You mean the 16 words, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"? What was wrong with that? Bush never even mentioned Niger, his statement was not based on that forged document, and his statement has been backed up by several independent reports, including the Brits themselves, and the Financial Times in July of this year.
Last year, when Wilson came out with this story saying he proved Bush was lying in his speech, I said, nonsense. You only proved this memo was a forgery, not that Bush's statement was based on it. But no one listened to me. Thankfully, that's what everyone is saying now.
The big difference is that his lies caused the death of 1100+ americans, and thousands of others.
Sigh. First, I don't know of any lies, and I think you don't either. Second, even if he did lie, those lies did not cause any deaths, as the primary justification for war is entirely factual: that Hussein had not fully accounted for what he was previously known to have, that he was not fully cooperating with UN Resolutions in this and other ways, and he was therefore in violation of UN Resolution 1441, which the U.S. Congress said Bush had the authority to enforce with the military.
Nothing about that is disputable, and none of it is based on lies (not even the vote in Congress, as Kerry himself has many times said he stands by that vote, to this day).
That only one relatively inconsequential part of his story was discredited.
Inconsequential? It was the lead of the story. Nice try, though.
The more important part of the story was the former Texas Lt. Gov. admitting that he used his influence to get Shrub into the guard.
I don't care. Even if Barnes -- a major Kerry fundraiser -- could be trusted, I would not care. This whole story is nonsense to me. We have four years of him as Commander in Chief, why should we judge his continued fitness based on whether he got favors before I was born? I've not run into anyone who cares at all about this, except people who already hate Bush.
My interest in this case has nothing to do with debunking the claims being made, since I don't care about them. It has everything to do with slamming reporters who intentionally and recklessly feed the public lies, so that the public can learn to be more critical and wary of what they see and hear.
Yes, it depends: on the facts. And we know the facts.:-) The Republicans had a majority of the seats in the House in 28 states, the Democrats in 17. Vermont had one rep, an independent, and the Republicans and Democrats split in the remaining four states.
R: al, ak, az, co, de, fl, ga, id, in, ia, ks, ky, la, mo, mt, ne, nh, nm, nc, oh, ok, pa, sc, sd, tn, ut, va, wy D: ar, ca, hi, me, ma, mi, mn, ms, nj, ny, nd, or, ri, tx, wa, wv, wi T: ct, il, md, nv I: vt
You understand that most congressional districts are decided through a political process, designed with political interests in mind, and then claim that any GOP advantage has got to just be random?
No, I am saying your evidence doesn't show it is anything but natural occurrence. We know that many states do not have gerrymandered districts (by state law). We know that in some states *with* gerrymandering, the totals still come out even, or even sometimes behind for the party that did the gerrymandering. Your evidence is not nearly sufficient.
why aren't there more black representatives?
More than what? Blacks make up over 8 percent of the House, and are over 12 percent of the population. That's not a huge difference, and again can be accounted for by population concentration (in most of the country, far more blacks in the inner cities than in the rural areas).
Are you going to call for Carl Cameron's resignation for inventing quotes for Kerry? Heck, that's bearing false witness, he broke a whole commandment.
Who? Doing what? Hmm... I had to look up who Carl Cameron is (though I recognized him when I saw him... I rarely watch Fox News). Heh, and now I see what happened, and no, that's ridiculous. It was an embarassing and silly mistake, but nothing remotely similar to what Dan Rather did, which was to not only intentionally ignore counterevidence, but to stonewall all attempts to get to the truth, even criticizing the people who dared to question him.
Cameron was not lying, he mistakenly filed -- or someone else mistakenly published -- a report that was never intended to be published. And you're being silly by comparing it to what Rather did.
What about Fox treating "Communists For Kerry" as a real pro-Kerry group and featuring them in their articles yesterday, when they knew very well that it was a chapter of the college Young Republicans? You want anyone to get fired for that?
Again, I have no idea about this, and I don't watch Fox News, so I just don't even really care.
It would be a really bad idea, solely because the House of Reps is incredibly gerrymandered in the GOP's favor
No, it isn't. There is a lot of gerrymandering done, but it doesn't come down in the GOP's favor.
In 2000, the popular vote went to Gore. But Bush won the congressional districts 239-196.
This is in part because urban areas are overwhelmingly for the Democrats, while rural areas, while decidedly for Bush, are split more evenly. This may demonstrate uneven voter concentration, but does not demonstrate that gerrymandering causes that uneven voter concentration.
Your analysis also does not take into consideration voting patterns, which are very hard to determine. e.g., someone in MA may be far less likely to vote than someone in FL, because their vote matters a whole lot less, because Gore was going to win MA no matter what. This happens in many states, and we don't know what the exact effect is, and it is why the "popular vote" is an absoultely useless metric to use for anything at all, as long as we have voting by state (such as for the electoral college).
To say it another way: Gore did not win the popular vote, because there is no such thing as a popular vote that has any meaning whatsoever. Adding up the votes from MA and the votes from FL into one sum and pretending both sets are proportionally equivalent is nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case you mentioned the unemployement rate and compared it with the numbers of presidents that where relected but didn't mentioned the likelyhood of people who has fallen off unemployment and aren't counted anymore.
I was sticking as much as I could to the BLS data, and I don't know where "Discouraged workers" (the category used here) is in the historical data, so I had no basis for comparison. If you can find it, please do let me know.
I did find discouraged workers + unemployed as a percentage of employed. And those numbers go back only to '94 and do look a little better in 96 than they do now, but not by a heck of a lot. e.g., seasonally adjusted discouraged + unemployed + marginally attached as a percentage in Sep 96 was 6.2, now 6.4. Without marginally attached, 5.4 and 5.7. Not seasonally adjusted, a dead heat in both.
That's about the same as the difference in actual unemployment between the two years, so I really don't think there's much to this part of the story, at least not judging by the comparison to Clinton, and if anything it would only make Bush look better in that comparison. However, including it only for 96 would be misleading, since we don't have data that goes back to Reagan or Nixon, where the comparison might be less favorable.
You also mention what he has to do to get a net job gain, but don't mention the likely hood or unlikely hood of getting those numbers compared with the last four months.
Again, I was trying to stick to the data, not make a prediction.
I think it was obvious which direction you point because of what you chose to mention.
And I think you gave two examples, one where I left out data that I couldn't find but what little data I did find does not change the story, and one where you were asking me to make a prediction, which is something I would not do in this context. So, respectfully, I think you're wrong.
If the Post is willing to say it's a pen on the record, Kerry's spokesman doesn't need to spin it, which was what was implied.
No, it was inferred. I trust Kerry's people more than I trust the Post.
Uh, no
Uh, yes. There is no doubt that jobs have not kept apace of the labor force growth. But that is separate and distinct from what I am referring to. I am referring to the Kerry argument, that Bush will be the first President to not "create a single job."
Since you need about 150,000 jobs added each month just to keep up with a growing population, if he averages 150,000 jobs for the last four months of his term he will merely tread water. At this point, there is absolutely no chance that Bush can avoid being the first president since Hoover in the Great Depression to have had fewer jobs at the end of his term than when he began.
Again, you're conflating two different things. If Bush ends up with more actual jobs than when he began, he would still have not matched labor force growth, yes. But he would hardly be the first President since Hoover to fail that.
Using the "total nonfarm payroll survey" and the "civilian labor force" figures from BLS, we only need to go back to GHW Bush, who had about 2.6 million more jobs at the end of his term than when it started, but the labor force grew by 3.9 million. Reagan had 13 million more jobs, but the labor force grew by 14.4 million. And so on.
If what I said holds true, Bush would be at about 0.2 million more jobs, and a labor force increase of 4+ million. It's nothing to brag about in absolute terms, but he would not be the first since Hoover to miss the mark of matching labor force growth. You're just wrong.
You think so? Hm. Last night I noted the jobs report was coming out, and it is important political news, so when I woke up I found out what the numbers were and posted them all, without commentary. I mentioned the still large deficit, I mentioned that his unemployment number remained unchanged but is historically decent ... *shrug*
I think you're mistaking not making Bush look bad for making him look good. If I meant to make him look good, I'd have left out the total deficit. If I meant to spin it, I'd have mentioned that he's gained jobs since the end of the recession. I just gave the facts. Did you think I left some out I should have included, or included some I should have left out?
No, not Kerry's people, you linked the NY Post, one of the more conservative-leaning newspapers in the nation
It quoted a Kerry spokesman saying it was a pen. I read the article; you apparently did not.
There are often questions about election irregularities. There were some pretty serious irregularities in SoCal when I lived there, and Bob Dornan lost a close election. But in the end, the system does what the system does, and Lorett Sanchez won the seat. She was the winner, obvious or otherwise, and no pretending is necessary. Even if you think Dornan's claims of cheating are true, she is STILL the obvious winner, because the system -- elections, and the laws that govern them and disputes about them -- determines in the end what to do, and that system picked Sanchez.
No. But thank you for twisting my words. I was saying that the Florida election, as a whole, had multiple things wrong with it.
And you said one of those things was that people voted for Nader. And I can't see how that is in any way "wrong."
Which, in my opinion, Nader DID play a significant role because of how close the presidential race was.
Fine, but there is nothing remotely *wrong* with that.
Opposing campaign finance reform, then supporting it?
He did not oppose campaign finance reform. He opposed some ways of doing it, and there was compromise.
Reversing himself on the Dept. of Homeland Security?
Same thing again. He wanted it done one way, the Congress wanted it done another. In the end, knowing he could not fight the overwhelming majority in Congress, he worked with them. Big deal.
Reversing himself on the 9/11 commission?
This is the most laughable of all. He was ALWAYS in favor of a Congressional investigation into 9/11. He wanted it done with existing Congressional committees, and Congress wanted it done with a separate commission. That was the only real difference, and in the end, Congress wanted it done that way, so Bush worked with Congress. It's their decision after all, and there's nothing to be gained by opposing them on that point.
Now, I suppose you could argue that he really gave up a lot more than he said he wanted in re campaign finance reform, but in re DHS and 9/11 Commission, his goals were the same as Congress', all along.
Reversing himself on a US role in Israel/Palestine?
That never happened. He has certainly changed his position slightly over time, as the situation on the ground has changed. But there was no reversal of any position.
Switching from a fee-trade platform to steel tariffs?
That never happened. He was never a true free-trader. His tariffs were not inconsistent with his stated policies and beliefs.
Switching from a states rights platform to supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?
Sorry, but that's reaching. So much so that it just makes you look stupid. It's like saying, "you say you're for free speech, but you are in favor of allowing people to make death threats!" No one ever pretended his belief in states rights was absolute.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will.
Wow, and this is so incorrect it is showing you either have no idea what you're talking about, or you are attempting to deceive me. If the latter, it won't work. Bush never said he won't negotiate with North Korea, ever. He said he would not have bilateral talks with North Korea, but that he would have multilateral talks. And he's remained entirely consistent on that, so much so that Kerry criticizes him for NOT reversing himself.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote.
He did own up to that. It was in Woodward's book, at least. Bush made this promise in February 2003 (or early March?) and backed down because they knew the votes were not there, and it would have made Blair look bad. He admitted he changed his mind on it to Woodward, dunno if it was anywhere else.
Side note: some people have claimed that when Resolution 1441 was signed, there was a promise to go back for an additional resolution. This is false. No such promise was made. I assume you mean the statement he made in early 2003, and not in Nov 2002 when 1441 was passed, but if you did mean when 1441 was passed, then that never happened.
They also showed that if a recount had happened across the entire state of FL (much more than what the Democrats were asking for), Gore would've won.
Yes, but that is hardly relevant to anything I can think of. No one seriously proposed doing that.
Laws govern elections. The votes were counted according to the laws. There is no "correct" final tally except that which is done according to the law. Every possible method of counting according to the law had Bush win.
The election was never stolen. The lawsuit was to prevent the Democrats from cherry-picking where and how they recounted votes. Furthermore, a recount WAS completed in early 2001 and Bush still won.
There was more wrong with the florida election than just that. For the hardcore, Nader had 1.3% of the vote, Bush won by less than %0.1. So had Nader not ran, it is reasonable to say Gore would have won.
Sorry, but what are you smoking? What does people legally casting legitmate votes for a legitimate candidate have to do with whether the election was stolen? And how is this in any way "wrong"?
Do you hate democracy or something? Because I can't think of any other way what you describe could be "wrong."
Pretending that Bush was the obvious winner
"Pretending"? He won. Later recounts showed he would have won had the existing (unconstitutional) recount completed. This is all entirely factual, and obvious. No pretending necessary.
Diebold has publically supported GW's candidacy.
No, a person publically supported his candidacy, not the company.
The point was the hiring of the lawyers. I suppose I probably should have mentioned the legal funds too, but didn't think of it. I'll give you a +1 Informative to make up for it. :-)
oh yeah, well then nothing I said applies if we're in a republic...
The part about how we should vote directly for the President does not *necessarily* apply, yes. It is certainly possible to vote for the President in a Republic, but there is no requirement for it. And I think it is a very bad idea.
Er, I mean, because you should NOT be represented individually.
how is a system that is designed to remove significance of my vote better then a system where I am represented individually?
Because you should be represented individually. The President is not supposed to be the leader of the people of America, but of the States of America.
If people vote to have the electoral college votes become distributed proportionally compared to a "all for one" style now... yes, that is change.
You were specifically talking about the wrong direction in regard to the House breaking "ties," which is what I was specifically saying was not change.
This is a democracy, right?
Ah, there's your problem. No, it is not. It is a republic.
Interesting enough that you replied
Because I believe it is worth trying to educate people.
My vote is as important as your vote
Not when it comes to the Presidency, no. This is, of course, false. A vote in Florida was worth a lot more than a vote in Texas in 2000. You could add thousands of Gore voters to Texas and Bush still would have won the state and the presidency. Do the same in Florida, and Gore wins the presidency.
If we had a true popular vote -- because voting patterns in individual states would necessarily change -- there is no reason whatsoever to think Gore necessarily would have come out on top. None. This is a fact. If you don't understand that fact, I suppose I am to blame for lacking the ability to properly explain it, but regardless, it is a fact.
That's the problem! The electoral college is sadly out-dated and needs to be replaced.
No, it is a wonderful innovation that needs to be emphasized more.
People think changing to proportional votes is a "more accurate representation" of the popular vote.
Why would I want an accurate representation of something I think is unimportant and the wrong way to select the President?
hat are you "not in favor of" exactly
A popular vote for President.
Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it's the right way to do things.
But you were talking about going in the wrong direction. That implies something is changing for the worse, but nothing is changing.
After the debacle that was the 2000 election, I think everybody can agree the current system doesn't work.
Eh, I thought the system as such worked just fine.
Our current system put a man into office that wasn't the choice of the majority of voting Americans
That is completely uninteresting, on any level. Under the current system, you cannot reasonably compare votes from one states to another. There is no such thing as a "popular vote" right now. Because of how the system works, you might get more people likely to vote in one state than in another. For example, in TX, people will be less likely to vote than in FL, because Bush was a shoo-in in TX. If we had a true popular vote, the numbers would be very different, because people would not be discouraged from voting.
So your implication that Gore should have been put into office, that this was the will of the people, is not supported by any facts.
great... so now we go from a system that sorta works on popular vote to a system that could potentially lead to the farthest thing FROM a popular vote
You say that like it is a bad thing. The Constitution doesn't require a popular vote for President, and I am not in favor of it.
When all of California equals one vote, and all of Montana also equals one vote this is NOT a push in the right direction...
It's not about directions: it has always been this way. How do you think John Quincy Adams became President?
The argument isn't that Republicans favor a draft
... that was a very commonly stated rumor, and unfortunately widely believed.
Uh
I know that this was not the reason the bill existed -- I never said it was, and I linked to the original story when Rangel introduced the bill which made the point you address here -- but the result over the past year or so is that many people thought there was some Republican plan to bring back the draft.
You're lying.He clearly meant it was the right decision to disarm Hussein by invading. That is the decision being referred to. George mentioned the decision [to execute the invasion of Iraq]. Kerry said that decision to disarm -- which necessarily means by invasion -- was the right one. And Kerry supported that decision to disarm by invasion.
He also, consistently, opposed doing it unilaterally.
It was not done unilaterally, so who cares?
As to "mostly unilaterally" (a phrase which you seem to be implying), Kerry spoke in favor of it:
Kerry has consistently said (a) he supported the war at the time
No, he has not. He consistently said at the time it was the right decision, and he consistently says now that it is the wrong one. He does not now say he thought it was the right decision at the time. He has not said that in a long time. What he says now is that he supported the authority for war; he simply does not now say he supported the war at the time. That is false.
I still see a double standard here. Republicans are free to change their minds; Kerry is not unless he follows special rules.
Kerry is not saying he changed his mind: in fact, he has steadfastly maintained the opposite: that his position has never changed. How can you not see this problem?
At the end of your post, you finally say that he is allowed to change his mind.
Yes, if he owns up to it. He refuses to.
No, in addition it mentions flip-flops on the budget, big government, healthcare, and Saddam over al Qaeda
No, it does not. That's the problem. It mentions a high deficit, but does not say how this is a flip-flop. Same thing with Medicare problems, and the emphasis on Hussein and Iraq. It's one thing to say those things are bad, but it does not say how they are flip-flops.
You can impugn me for not reading the story, but from where I sit, it seems like you're the one who didn't.
I just got my second robotic vacuum cleaner (to replace the first broken one) on Friday, and I have a robotic lawnmower which just rules.
Ok, so how about calling for Bush's resignation. He has done every one of the things you suggest, in the case of the Niger Uranium issue, if not several other places.
You mean the 16 words, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"? What was wrong with that? Bush never even mentioned Niger, his statement was not based on that forged document, and his statement has been backed up by several independent reports, including the Brits themselves, and the Financial Times in July of this year.
Last year, when Wilson came out with this story saying he proved Bush was lying in his speech, I said, nonsense. You only proved this memo was a forgery, not that Bush's statement was based on it. But no one listened to me. Thankfully, that's what everyone is saying now.
The big difference is that his lies caused the death of 1100+ americans, and thousands of others.
Sigh. First, I don't know of any lies, and I think you don't either. Second, even if he did lie, those lies did not cause any deaths, as the primary justification for war is entirely factual: that Hussein had not fully accounted for what he was previously known to have, that he was not fully cooperating with UN Resolutions in this and other ways, and he was therefore in violation of UN Resolution 1441, which the U.S. Congress said Bush had the authority to enforce with the military.
Nothing about that is disputable, and none of it is based on lies (not even the vote in Congress, as Kerry himself has many times said he stands by that vote, to this day).
That only one relatively inconsequential part of his story was discredited.
Inconsequential? It was the lead of the story. Nice try, though.
The more important part of the story was the former Texas Lt. Gov. admitting that he used his influence to get Shrub into the guard.
I don't care. Even if Barnes -- a major Kerry fundraiser -- could be trusted, I would not care. This whole story is nonsense to me. We have four years of him as Commander in Chief, why should we judge his continued fitness based on whether he got favors before I was born? I've not run into anyone who cares at all about this, except people who already hate Bush.
My interest in this case has nothing to do with debunking the claims being made, since I don't care about them. It has everything to do with slamming reporters who intentionally and recklessly feed the public lies, so that the public can learn to be more critical and wary of what they see and hear.
You understand that most congressional districts are decided through a political process, designed with political interests in mind, and then claim that any GOP advantage has got to just be random?
... I had to look up who Carl Cameron is (though I recognized him when I saw him ... I rarely watch Fox News). Heh, and now I see what happened, and no, that's ridiculous. It was an embarassing and silly mistake, but nothing remotely similar to what Dan Rather did, which was to not only intentionally ignore counterevidence, but to stonewall all attempts to get to the truth, even criticizing the people who dared to question him.
No, I am saying your evidence doesn't show it is anything but natural occurrence. We know that many states do not have gerrymandered districts (by state law). We know that in some states *with* gerrymandering, the totals still come out even, or even sometimes behind for the party that did the gerrymandering. Your evidence is not nearly sufficient.
why aren't there more black representatives?
More than what? Blacks make up over 8 percent of the House, and are over 12 percent of the population. That's not a huge difference, and again can be accounted for by population concentration (in most of the country, far more blacks in the inner cities than in the rural areas).
Are you going to call for Carl Cameron's resignation for inventing quotes for Kerry? Heck, that's bearing false witness, he broke a whole commandment.
Who? Doing what? Hmm
Cameron was not lying, he mistakenly filed -- or someone else mistakenly published -- a report that was never intended to be published. And you're being silly by comparing it to what Rather did.
What about Fox treating "Communists For Kerry" as a real pro-Kerry group and featuring them in their articles yesterday, when they knew very well that it was a chapter of the college Young Republicans? You want anyone to get fired for that?
Again, I have no idea about this, and I don't watch Fox News, so I just don't even really care.
It would be a really bad idea, solely because the House of Reps is incredibly gerrymandered in the GOP's favor
No, it isn't. There is a lot of gerrymandering done, but it doesn't come down in the GOP's favor.
In 2000, the popular vote went to Gore. But Bush won the congressional districts 239-196.
This is in part because urban areas are overwhelmingly for the Democrats, while rural areas, while decidedly for Bush, are split more evenly. This may demonstrate uneven voter concentration, but does not demonstrate that gerrymandering causes that uneven voter concentration.
Your analysis also does not take into consideration voting patterns, which are very hard to determine. e.g., someone in MA may be far less likely to vote than someone in FL, because their vote matters a whole lot less, because Gore was going to win MA no matter what. This happens in many states, and we don't know what the exact effect is, and it is why the "popular vote" is an absoultely useless metric to use for anything at all, as long as we have voting by state (such as for the electoral college).
To say it another way: Gore did not win the popular vote, because there is no such thing as a popular vote that has any meaning whatsoever. Adding up the votes from MA and the votes from FL into one sum and pretending both sets are proportionally equivalent is nonsense.