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 hang

          • by pudge (1) on 2004.01.13 13:59 (#27342) Homepage Journal
            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 coverage as much as to the average American being sick of hearing about the election. Once the SCOTUS stopped the recount, most people I know didn't want to hear about it anymore. They breathed a sigh of relief (not at Bush winning, but at it being all over) and moved on.

            But if you read through the links I provided, you'll see that there is substantial information to suggest that crimes have been committed.

            I disagree. I see substantial evidence of disenfranchisement, but that is not, in itself, evidence of crimes.

            But how did we get evidence that Clinton committed perjury?

            Via standard pretrial interviews and discovery in a sexual harassment case. There was nothing odd or untoward or unique about it, apart from the fact that the President was the defendant. And while some conservative special interests backed Jones, it wasn't "the Republicans" (in the sense of the governing leaders of the GOP), and the case clearly had merit.

            Eventually Tripp came forward and Starr finally had something.

            Yes, after she claimed Clinton was having an affair, and Clinton's lawyer defames her in a public interview to Newsweek, saying she is not to be trusted. So she started recording conversations so they couldn't say she was lying the next time. Dumb move by the Clintons. And even then this was in the context of the Paula Jones case. It was not until Clinton and Lewinsky were proven to perjure themselves in the Jones case that it became a part of the Whitewater investigation, as decided by Janet Reno.

            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.

            Again, no. This didn't hit Starr's desk until the evidence against Clinton was handed to him by Tripp. There was no significant investigation into Clinton's affair until this, except by Jones' private lawyers.

            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 Special Prosecutor's attention did not turn to this matter until Lewinsky and Clinton perjured themselves and the evidence of it was given to Starr. A few days laterm Reno told Starr to include it as part of the ongoing investigation.

            This did not start with the Special Prosecutor. This started in a civil case with a woman who, for her own reasons, wanted to reveal some lies about Lewinsky and Clinton. Once she provided the damning evidence, the investigation by the Special Prosecutor began. To compare this to having a fishing expedition in Florida TO FIND such evidence is ludicrous.
            • 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 :/