Occupy Wall Street protest

[BluegrassCat]

But what about all of the seats in the House that NY gets because of the population? Montana doesn't get that many seats. You're argument is absurd. Plus, you make the assumption that 2 Sentators from Montana would vote differently than 2 senators from New York. They may in 2012, but this is simply coincidence. What about the 2 senators from Hawaii? They would balance out the 2 from Montana easily. The Senate was never intended to represent population distributions - the house is. Your argument fails here on the facts as does the rest of your blather.

I'm concerned about your lack of civics knowledge. You're getting less sensible and more antagonistic the more you post. It's sad you don't understand this but let me try to help you. See, there are 50 states and each state gets 2 senators for a total of 100 Senators. Still with me? Now each senator has the ability to hold up business indefinitely in the Senate if he or she were to decide to do so. Remember Jim Bunning a few years back? Now each state has 2 of these powerful people who can stop business in one of the two houses of Congress. Even if every Representative from a particular state would act together they would never approach this amount of negative power. This is why people in less populous states are MORE represented. This is introductory political science. Try not being an ideologue for a second and start worrying about reality.

[BluegrassCat]

This is just a blatant lie. Bush won the recount in Florida and actually picked up more votes on the recount (which was thrown out anyway)

The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.

Al Gore was a LOSER by any standard you want to come up with, but it tickles me pink that some people are still bitter about it 10 years after the fact! Hey, I'm not a big fan of 'dubbya', but I'm sure as hell glad that Al Gore lost so he could spend the next decade lying to world about global warming.

Even the article that you copy and pasted (twice) admits that Gore wins if all the ballots are counted. Get your head out of your ass.

[hard4janira]

I'm concerned about your lack of civics knowledge. You're getting less sensible and more antagonistic the more you post. It's sad you don't understand this but let me try to help you. See, there are 50 states and each state gets 2 senators for a total of 100 Senators. Still with me? Now each senator has the ability to hold up business indefinitely in the Senate if he or she were to decide to do so. Remember Jim Bunning a few years back? Now each state has 2 of these powerful people who can stop business in one of the two houses of Congress. Even if every Representative from a particular state would act together they would never approach this amount of negative power. This is why people in less populous states are MORE represented. This is introductory political science. Try not being an ideologue for a second and start worrying about reality.

Are you talking about a filibuster or Senate holds? If you're talking about holds then it isn't so much an individual move as it is a 'party' move, because you need leadership to agree to it. But still, you automatically asume that Montana Senators and New York senators are at odds, a contention that I disagree with. A senator from California could do the same thing to you, but you don't imagine that as a possibility because you think alike politically.

[hard4janira]

Even the article that you copy and pasted (twice) admits that Gore wins if all the ballots are counted. Get your head out of your ass.

Oh lord, read the last sentance you fucking dummy.

[BluegrassCat]

No, I made a very important point.

So your point was that you agreed with me. Took you a while to get there.

What would make you happy? Give me something in quantitative terms that you could be happy with. Hell, the progressives can't even come up with a fair number to tax the rich. Every time they are asked the question they balk and walk the other way. The only answer they ever have is 'more'.

I would be happy with the current rates if they weren't riddled with loopholes. But there is no absolute moral tax rate for the rich. It depends upon the economy and the level of inequality.

I don't acknowledge any 'gross levels' of inequality,

So you don't recognize that inequality has reached levels unseen since the Gilded Age? It wouldn't surprise me, you deny most other inconvenient facts.

Isnt' that exactly what the progressives and the OWS crowd is clamoring for right now? Tax hikes on the evil 1%! The rich aren't paying thier fair share! Lets' get them!

Taxes should be higher on the top earners, once the economy has recovered. Raising taxes during a slump is your contractionary game, not mine.

You just make up bollocks don't you? 'Averted disaster', saved 2 million jobs.....the nutty 'x2' multiplier.........lol.

It's not my fault you don't read and it's not my job to educate you. The numbers are real and easily verified. Google is your friend.

Ummm.... how can I be the one who wants to bankrupt the country when YOU'RE the one who wants to spend all of the borrowed money? I don't want to bankrupt the country!

Ahem.

I honestly hope that the US goes bankrupt one day !

Maybe you've changed your mind, I hope you have. It was a terrible goal, but at least your policies fit that goal. My goal remains the same: grow the economy, shrink unemployment, expand the middle class and the policies I espouse are backed by the best available evidence. Your position is backed only by your own fury and sense of indignation.

[BluegrassCat]

But still, you automatically asume that Montana Senators and New York senators are at odds, a contention that I disagree with. A senator from California could do the same thing to you, but you don't imagine that as a possibility because you think alike politically.

No, you dummy I don't assume that. YOU assume that. Good grief, think before you type.

[hard4janira]

Well BluegrassCat, I think we are finished here. I certainly am. I don't care to further any of this conversation. You may have the last word (I'm sure that it is very important to you).

[BluegrassCat]

Knock off the partisan hackery. Gore won by the tens of thousands of ballots.

"Using ballot-level data from the NORC Florida ballots project and ballot-image files, I argue that overvoted ballots in the 2000 presidential election in Florida included more than 50,000 votes that were intended to go to either Bush or Gore but instead were discarded. This was primarily due to defective election administration in the state, especially the failure to use a system to warn each voter when too many marks were on a ballot and allow the voter to make corrections. If the best type of vote tabulation system used in Florida in 2000—precinct-tabulated optical scan ballots—had been used everywhere in the state, Gore would have won by more than 30,000 votes. Florida's election experience points to the need to gather ballot-level data to evaluate the success of election reform efforts now underway in much of the United States"

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=246603

[Stavros]

It is a bit off kilter, but it occurred to me at the time that it would make sense for US voters to have a completely separate ballot paper for the Presidency, maybe even a diffierent colour, rather than have those weird looking ballot papers that look like lottery cards or a list of special offers from WalMart-I understand you have local country and state posts to vote for, but to put the whole lot on one ballot paper seems excessive to me -and it would, presumably, make counting the vote easier and more efficient.

Incidentally, here in the UK, we are given one small sheet of paper on which the candidates names and addresses and political affiliation are printed; and there is a pencil in the booth which we use to mark our preference with an X. We then fold up the ballot paper and put it in a black box.

[Silcc69]

It would be nice if we could have online voting. But for some reason we haven't even gotten there and I don't we will ever get there. Which is highly ironic given the technical advances of these days.