|
On April 25 2004 11:48 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
I read about the issue fairly extensively before I say the documentary(I assume we are talking about Unprecedent: the 2000 elections). The documentary was a good summary of much of what I had already read. You insuniate that the documentary was misleading, what have you read that shows this?
Well I think it was misleading in many cases. First of all, they claim there was some sort of race factor. "Ex-Felons are not allowed to vote" is racist, right? A couple black people's name was on the voter's list and all of a sudden that makes Jeb Bush a racist that is going after black people to keep them from voting? I don't know any of those people on that documentary who claimed they weren't allowed to vote and I am not going to believe everything they say. If they never receieved their voter's registration card, do they wait to the day of the election to complain about it and say they weren't allowed to vote? There is a thing called a contested ballot. If there is a problem you can fill out that ballot and it will be taken care of later. The documentary didn't even mention this. All they talked about was Republicans not wanting black people to vote.
|
United States3552 Posts
First of all, they claim there was some sort of race factor. "Ex-Felons are not allowed to vote" is racist, right
I think you missed alot of the information presented to you. Whether or not felons should vote is a seperate issue. The issue is that people who were not felons were on a "can not vote" list, becuase they were simply just labeled as felons. A companny called Choicepoint, was hired to create such a list. The criteria to put names on the list, was nothing short of laughable. In one county, they hunted down everyone on the list. Around 5% were felons. That means 95% of the people on the list were disinfranchised by Choicepoint. 95% is a big number, when we are talking about thousands and thousands of people on the list. In the documentary, they even talk to some of these people that were disinfranchised. Racist connection? I suppose that is a strong accusation. But considering that most African-Americans vote dem, and most of those that were disinfranchised were African-American, I don't think that it is to out of line to make such an accusation. Lets not forget, this was only one of many things that happened in the 2000 elections that made it completely illegitimate. A completely stolen election...
|
to be fair, other elections might have been just as fucked up (i dont know), but they werent close enough for it to change the outcome? i doubt all these kinds of ways to cheat were invented just for the 2000 election, it's likely ppl figured it out sooner? and probably some anti-republicans cheating 2 its possible. really would cheating to get bush out of office be so immoral?
|
really would lying about wmd to get saddam out of iraq be so immoral?
that's what happens when you raise hypotheticals like that.
|
United States3552 Posts
really would cheating to get bush out of office be so immoral?
It is not a question of morality, but of legitimacy. If democrats can not do it legitematly, then they should not do it at all. Until the framework of the democratic system has completely deteriorated, then everything should be done within it. That is extremely important in the long term stability of a government.
|
On April 25 2004 13:56 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +First of all, they claim there was some sort of race factor. "Ex-Felons are not allowed to vote" is racist, right I think you missed alot of the information presented to you. Whether or not felons should vote is a seperate issue. The issue is that people who were not felons were on a "can not vote" list, becuase they were simply just labeled as felons. A companny called Choicepoint, was hired to create such a list. The criteria to put names on the list, was nothing short of laughable. In one county, they hunted down everyone on the list. Around 5% were felons. That means 95% of the people on the list were disinfranchised by Choicepoint. 95% is a big number, when we are talking about thousands and thousands of people on the list. In the documentary, they even talk to some of these people that were disinfranchised. Racist connection? I suppose that is a strong accusation. But considering that most African-Americans vote dem, and most of those that were disinfranchised were African-American, I don't think that it is to out of line to make such an accusation. Lets not forget, this was only one of many things that happened in the 2000 elections that made it completely illegitimate. A completely stolen election...
I'm aware that the computers might have generated lists that were inaccurate, which should be fixed. But where is the proof that this was done intentionally, by the Governor, in order to rig the election? I also find it hard to believe that there was some sort of "list" of all the ex-felons which told the people at the polls to not allow them to vote, not even a contested ballot. In all honesty, I don't think anyone was "robbed" of their right to vote, I think that a lot of people were too stupid or lazy to go through the proper procedures to get their vote counted. I was taking notes from the documentary as I was watching it, the total number of law-abiding citizens on the ex-felons list was 15%.
|
United States3552 Posts
|
|
|
United States3552 Posts
I have it on my comp. Got it off off of DC++. You can find it as a Bittorent file as well.
|
ok. i dont know what that means.
|
United States3552 Posts
hmm, You can download off the net.
|
The evidence shows that Governor Jeb Bush, Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, and other Republican state officials ordered the manipulation of a list of former felons to include thousands of legitimate voters who had no criminal history.
I consider it misleading because of statemtns like that. "The evidence shows." What evidence? I can just as easily say, The evidence shows that John F. Kennedy stole the 1960 election. Or the Evidence shows that Bill Clinton ordered his cronies to steal FBI files on leading Republicans. Sure there is evidence but to word it like that is completely misleading.
Here is one more to your liking:
"The Evidence shows that Iraq has WMD"
|
On April 25 2004 14:51 TeCh)PsylO wrote: It is not a question of morality, but of legitimacy. If democrats can not do it legitematly, then they should not do it at all. Until the framework of the democratic system has completely deteriorated, then everything should be done within it. That is extremely important in the long term stability of a government.
if democrats cannot beat bush (with his cheating) legitimately, they should let bush win? :| how do you know it's extremely important? its possible every election has been just as fucked up, no? only the illusion of legitimacy is what has been constant
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
