Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I clicked on it and saw only your second article. That's OK, I like this topic better. Briefly:

    * All the justices have a far more substantial conflict of interest than whose kids work for whom: they are deciding the fate of who will probably select their next colleague, and their next leader (should Rehnquist retire).

    * There is absolutely no indication that who these removed people would have voted for. There are definitely problems with it, and it needs to be fixed, but to make it a partisan thing is
    • Some of the items you mention were addressed in my notes, but the article was going on too long and I tightened it.

      I'm at work, so I don't have the book handy, but Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy That Money Can Buy" is well worth reading. I suspect that fraud occurred, but it would be tough to prove without an actual inquiry.

      As for the way the voters might have chosen to vote, while you would be correct if you meant that we cannot pinpoint how a particular individual would have voted, I think we can

      • I think we can make some same assumptions about the trend of the voting

        It depends on what the purpose of those assumptions are. For the purpose of discussion, sure. For making assertions about who "would have been elected," absolutely not.

        And again, I know there were problems with the list. But it is something that happens a lot and was only reported because of the closeness of the election. I think the greater problem is the list itself, not who may or may not have gotten votes because of it, becaus
        • Ugh. That should have read "we can make some *safe* assumptions".

          It depends on what the purpose of those assumptions are. For the purpose of discussion, sure. For making assertions about who "would have been elected," absolutely not.

          The purpose is exactly what I stated: we could safely make assumptions about the likely trend of voting. I didn't make any claims about who would have been elected because that would have been silly.

          As for the media coverage, there was plenty: about pregnant and hanging chads. There was plenty about Katherine Harris certifying a questionable election. There was even quite a bit about the Supreme Court's actions. Still, ask the average American about the voters who were removed from the Florida voter rolls. I think you'll get blank looks. Ask the average American about DBT Online and where they got their "ineligible voter" list and you'll get blank looks. These are important issues, but they didn't get much coverage. It was the the voting and what happened afterward that received the coverage, not the preceeding five months where Harris was purging those rolls. In fact, were it not for how close the vote was, this behavior would likely have never been discovered.

          As for my "blue dress" comment, you are correct that it's apples and oranges. However, unlike the Lewinsky situation, I believe (and I'll grant that this is subjective) that someone taking away the right of people to vote is a far more serious offense than someone lying about an affair. But if you read through the links I provided, you'll see that there is substantial information to suggest that crimes have been committed. But how did we get evidence that Clinton committed perjury? The Republicans managed to have prosecutors investigate Clinton's every move since early in his Presidency. That was "Whitewater". That investigation morphed into "Travelgate". Then in became "Filegate". There was a brief investigation of the Vince Foster's death. There was a bizarre investigation where Arkansas state troopers were questioned about Clinton's alleged affairs. Eventually Tripp came forward and Starr finally had something.

          Had Bush been subjected to this sort of legal attention for the past several years, perhaps there would be an investigation of Florida. Perhaps we would have evidence of perjury. Of course, Limbaugh, Hannity and others would likely call this (with a straight face, no less) a witch hunt and an abuse of prosecutorial powers. I'm not saying that there should be a special prosecutor whose sole job is to investigate every facet of Bush's existence, but I have to reiterate that Clinton very possibly would not have been impeached if it weren't for the continual attention of a Special Prosecutor.

          • The purpose is exactly what I stated: we could safely make assumptions about the likely trend of voting.

            To what end? That's what I don't see. If you are not trying to say Gore would have won, then what is the point? To say that this is evidence the Republicans did it with malice aforethought? That's quite a stretch.

            Still, ask the average American about the voters who were removed from the Florida voter rolls. I think you'll get blank looks.

            Perhaps, but I wouldn't attribute that to lack of media co
            • Our disagreements about issues like this seem pretty entrenched, but this is why I disabled comments on my original journal entry. I find it far too easy to get dragged into a discussion like this, but if I'm going to get into an extended debate with someone, I'd much prefer to do it in my LiveJournal or in the @political forum. On the other hand, if I feel that way, perhaps I shouldn't post the links in the first place :/