Butthole Bandits 7 and a throwback to Jim Crowe

[a completely inoffensive name]

What would make you question its legitimacy? Yes, it was a close election, but so what? A very close result in an of itself does not imply any problems with the process. It amplifies certain issues that usually do not matter, but beyond that there's nothing wrong with it. There will always be people who can't properly fill out a ballot or what have you. Those ballots were invalidated and rightfully so.

A close election of that kind of magnitude inherently carries with it suspicion. The United States is no stranger to rigged elections and ultimately you had what is culturally viewed as a public election ending by a court decision.

Why do you go to such extremes to toss aside common sense and plead ignorance on the controversy of what has been and will undoubtedly continue to be called one of the most controversial decisions made by the court.

[rvg]

A close election of that kind of magnitude inherently carries with it suspicion. The United States is no stranger to rigged elections and ultimately you had what is culturally viewed as a public election ending by a court decision.

Boss Tweed? Seriously, that's your example?
/Tribesman mode off
It's a bit dated.

Why do you go to such extremes to toss aside common sense and plead ignorance on the controversy of what has been and will undoubtedly continue to be called one of the most controversial decisions made by the court.

Because I like to base my viewpoints on evidence. Solid, concrete evidence. Not hearsay, not gut feelings. Evidence.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Boss Tweed? Seriously, that's your example?
/Tribesman mode off
It's a bit dated.

Yeah....I don't know whether you should be the first person I ignore on the org or not. You always seem to derail a conversation from the substance of the matter by either brushing off someone entirely or by diving into trivialities. Obvious to anybody coming into this conversation on a fair level is that the reference is to cement the point that the US is far from the shining example of one man, one vote. Quite frankly, whats even more obvious (except to you) is that such manipulation is to be expected when we are talking about elections concerning the most powerful positions on the planet.

Because I like to base my viewpoints on evidence. Solid, concrete evidence. Not hearsay, not gut feelings. Evidence.

Star Trek: TNG S3 Ep.10 The Defector

Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: I don't know, Data, my gut tells me we ought to be listening to what this guy's trying to tell us.
Lt. Commander Data: Your gut?
Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: It's just a... a feeling, you know, an instinct. Intuition.
Lt. Commander Data: But those qualities would interfere with rational judgment, would they not?
Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: You're right, sometimes they do.
Lt. Commander Data: Then... why not rely strictly on the facts?
Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge: Because you just can't rely on the plain and simple facts. Sometimes they lie.

[rvg]

Yeah....I don't know whether you should be the first person I ignore on the org or not. You always seem to derail a conversation from the substance of the matter by either brushing off someone entirely or by diving into trivialities.

False. I do not brush off anyone. Those whose opinion I do not value are on my ignore list, and I never engage in any conversation with them. Let's just say that your example of shady US electoral practices wasn't great. It's 140ish years old, well over its expiration date as far as relevant evidence is concerned.

Obvious to anybody coming into this conversation on a fair level is that the reference is to cement the point that the US is far from the shining example of one man, one vote.

You say that citing evidence from the 19th century.

Quite frankly, whats even more obvious (except to you) is that such manipulation is to be expected when we are talking about elections concerning the most powerful positions on the planet.

There is a world of difference between the possibility of something happening and it actually happening. You say that such manipulations are probable based solely on the fact that they are possible. That's just not good enough.

[Husar]

Because I like to base my viewpoints on evidence. Solid, concrete evidence. Not hearsay, not gut feelings. Evidence.

False. I do not brush off anyone. Those whose opinion I do not value are on my ignore list, and I never engage in any conversation with them.

Have you never thought about all the evidence you might be missing out on?
I don't think a rational, fact-based world view goes well with selecting the facts you want to read or hear about.
If you select the facts you're exposed to according to your own opinion then you may not be influenced by a lot of opinions but only by your own. While I can understand that you value your own opinion, it's nowhere near as factual as your statement about a reliance on facts suggests because the facts are apparently hand-picked.

As for the Bush v. Gore, maybe a new election would've helped. Or, ahem, not using FPTP.

[drone]

As much as I despised the Bush (43) administration, the complaints over the Florida results are just sour grapes. Gore was the Veep for one of the more popular presidents in modern times, with the economy pumping right along, and he couldn't even win his home* state. If he takes Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have mattered. The Dems just blew the election.

* I've said before, that in reality DC is his home. Which was a huge problem with his chances, one the Dems should have taken into account during the primary campaign.