Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Coronation of Hillary Clinton: sexyhilldog69@aol.comghazi The Coronation of Hillary Clinton: sexyhilldog69@aol.comghazi

04-12-2015 , 04:33 PM
Why was it vitally important to stop recounts then?

Last edited by Anais; 04-12-2015 at 04:34 PM. Reason: And not just media recounts lawl
04-12-2015 , 05:03 PM
That SexyHillDog announcement vid sucked.
04-12-2015 , 05:09 PM
im not gonna read this thread cuz Masters but i hope ikes is furious today
04-12-2015 , 05:24 PM
I wonder if this tempban will finally teach ikes his lesson

Spoiler:
probably not
04-12-2015 , 05:26 PM
Why did ikes get temp-banned?
04-12-2015 , 05:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
The supreme court stopped the partial recounting of specific counties that were favorable to democrats. Argue all you want if that was fair or not. The major media organizations completed a full recount of the state. Bush won. End of story. Claiming that they would have won if not for the supreme court is just wrong. People have already checked that. Learn your history boys.
from factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the...count-of-2000/


Quote:
According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.
so yes, the media did a full recount. and bush won in that he was president for 8 years. and the court didnt prevent gore from winning. nonetheless, bush didnt win the full media recount. gore did.

so it is more probable than not, according to the only study we have, that more votes were intended to be cast for Al Gore in florida in the 2000 election because the non disputed votes added to the most likely result of a "broad recount of all disputed ballots" would have yielded an advantage to Al Gore of around 100 votes

and using an election where the GOP lost by half a million and lost florida but for human errors...it should be viewed more as a loss.

Last edited by anatta; 04-12-2015 at 05:57 PM.
04-12-2015 , 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
"We think Republicans are crazy, so we're going to nominate the person who's the most Republican-like warmongering corporate shill among us, because gay marriage and medical marijuana are much more important issues than slaughtering foreigners and crushing the poor to make the rich richer."
04-12-2015 , 05:47 PM
ikes is banned? perfect
04-12-2015 , 05:50 PM
bunch of this thread got shipped off to PU, so presumably the temp ban was for the bush 2000 discussion? Unless the questionable post got deleted it is just this and sports in his posting history.
04-12-2015 , 06:10 PM
i liked the video. Everybody is getting ready for something!
04-12-2015 , 06:14 PM
read in kos that...Mother Jones reports that hill has selected Robby Mook, "a relatively unknown and openly gay man" who ran the 2013 campaign of Virginia Gov. McAuliffe, to be her campaign manager.

Quote:
Mook is widely known as Robby, not Robert, and at 35, he's still boyish—handsome and clean-shaven with close-cropped brown hair. His usual uniform consists of chinos and bland dress shirts rolled up to the elbows. He couldn't be more different from, say, James Carville, the loudmouth Ragin' Cajun who advised Bill Clinton's first presidential bid and now makes a living as a consultant and TV commentator. Mook rarely appears in news stories or on TV. He did not respond to repeated interview requests. He has no Facebook page. He has a Twitter account but never tweets and has forgotten the password. Mook, who will be the first openly gay manager of a major presidential campaign, is largely unknown beyond the insular world of Democratic staffers but well liked within it. In addition to the email listserv, his loyal following—the Mook Mafia—plans yearly reunions, during which they return to a state where they once operated for a weekend of bar-hopping mixed with volunteering for a local campaign.
.
04-12-2015 , 06:21 PM
with the 2 gay couples of both genders in the video and this choice, seems like she isnt going to be shy on that issue. she also hit dog and cat lovers. covering all her bases, the asian girl student...i am surrounded by them btw here in la jolla...i know tough life. god they are so hot and all wear short shorts its just so sick. i wonder if they would go out with me...like im 46 and i dont really talk to them...anyways what was i...oh yeah hill is covering all the bases. the white working man, that young blue collar guy too, hill is strongish there, stronger than obama at least.
04-12-2015 , 06:24 PM
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/12/8395547...a-new-campaign

Starts a new kind of campaign?

What, is she hoping to not get votes? Cuz McCain already tried that type of campaign.

Didn't go well.
04-12-2015 , 06:31 PM
Seems like a good start to me.
04-12-2015 , 06:34 PM
That article is so terrible in basically every way
04-12-2015 , 06:43 PM
i dont see the problem with the video launch or the mccain parallels. she launched her campaign, it was short, upbeat, and a lot of folks can see themselves. and nobody can attack her for something new.

think rand paul really helped himself today. and he has that line about benghazi, how hill missed her 3am wakeup call...and the clinton foundation taking money from saudis who are bad on women rights among other things...and he came out pro amnesty. i think this helps jeb in that he wont be the only guy out there on that issue when cruz starts in on him. rand is good on justice too...u know what, f hill rand rocks! nah, he is way too conservative and weird for me.
04-12-2015 , 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
That article is so terrible in basically every way
Yeah, Vox is becoming a bit too HillaryNewsPropaganda site

Rookie mistake
04-12-2015 , 06:57 PM
I have no problem with Hillary propaganda. Just don't be loltastically abysmal at it. Like they literally started ruminating on how her video is part of a new feminine way of doing presidential politics.
04-12-2015 , 06:59 PM
Also they showed a black couple. So pro #black lives matter
04-12-2015 , 07:09 PM
Quote:
Review: Hillary Clinton’s announcement video is surprisingly bold, fascinating filmmaking
Okay, what's another news site that's good on a tablet? This is ludicrous.
04-12-2015 , 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anatta
from factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the...count-of-2000/




so yes, the media did a full recount. and bush won in that he was president for 8 years. and the court didnt prevent gore from winning. nonetheless, bush didnt win the full media recount. gore did.

so it is more probable than not, according to the only study we have, that more votes were intended to be cast for Al Gore in florida in the 2000 election because the non disputed votes added to the most likely result of a "broad recount of all disputed ballots" would have yielded an advantage to Al Gore of around 100 votes

and using an election where the GOP lost by half a million and lost florida but for human errors...it should be viewed more as a loss.
To understand what you are advocating, you feel that because somebody probably will win, actual cast ballots in a ballot box have no real meaning. That there is no real difference between a non binding poll, what someone thinks at some point in time, and a federal election.

That is an interesting system of government. Can the date of the poll be any date? Can that poll use any language to steer the respondent?
04-12-2015 , 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anais
Also they showed a black couple. So pro #black lives matter
half as much as teh gays

I don't know what is worse. That it is true that literally doing nothing outside of making sure to include a bunch of different demographic groups is actually an effective ad. Or that this is false, and Hilary's campaign is being run by people so inept they think this is true.
04-12-2015 , 07:26 PM
Quote:
The news organizations hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago to look at each untallied ballot. Trained investigators examined 175,010 ballots provided by local election officials.
From anattas' link

No, 175,010 ballots were not all of the ballots cast in Florida. There were quite a few more than that. So lol @ you if you consider 2-3% a "full recount"
04-12-2015 , 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PigeonPatrol
To understand what you are advocating, you feel that because somebody probably will win, actual cast ballots in a ballot box have no real meaning. That there is no real difference between a non binding poll, what someone thinks at some point in time, and a federal election.

That is an interesting system of government. Can the date of the poll be any date? Can that poll use any language to steer the respondent?

the actual ballots in the ballot box, if they were all counted accurately, would more than likely have shown Gore would have won florida. the actual votes have all the meaning. what did i say that made u think otherwise? what polling or whatever are u talking about? polling?? people went to the polls, that means they voted.

Last edited by anatta; 04-12-2015 at 07:38 PM.
04-12-2015 , 07:44 PM
its like if the red sox beat the yankees 4 out of last 6 games, but one of those two losses, the sox were actually ahead 5-4 after 9 innings, but the scorekeeper reversed the numbers, or he lost count, or some error, and the umps said okay thats game yankees win 5-4.

i am saying the actual score, not the mistaken (although "official") score, is what matters as an element in predicting who will win going forward. it doesnt matter a lot, its just one close game. but the "actual score" as in how many runs were scored by each team after 9 innings is what should be used. not the drunken mistaken score that was entered into the record book, unless u think these mistakes are something you can replicate and not just a freak error.

i am not saying well before that game we polled the fans who said the sox would win or whatever u think i was saying.

      
m