Comic Genesis Forums

'Nuff said

Actully being tetacle raped would be far far kinder

Well looking for the silver lining in all this, as a Canadian I'd have to say that when Bush took office in 2000 the Canadian dollar was worth 60 cents on the US dollar. Now it's over 80 cents on the US dollar. After 4 more years of Bush the Canadian dollar might once again be worth more than the US dollar.

Of course the downside is I get a lot of cheques in US dollars.

emegrating is starting to sound real good about now

How does that Canadian Anthem go?

Captain Tylor wrote:How does that Canadian Anthem go?

I think I can rember it all...

Oh Canada
A great big empty land.
We look to America
For a helping hand.
With Bannock bread
And... Caribou eggs
The true north big and cold.
Oh Canada
We are on top
We're close to... the North Pole.
Fermez La Bouche
Mangez Poutine.
Can-a-da
A lovely winter dream.
Oh Canada!
La la la la
LA
LAAAAA.

maybe i'm delusional, but i'm still holding out hope. after all, there's still absentee ballots and provisional ballots to be counted, and computer glitches to be checked for. (wasn't there already one area where they acknowledge they lost, but supposedly recovered, over 13,000 votes?)

on top of that, every prior poll has had every key state well within the margin of error, and the media is DEFINATELY not known for infallibility in elections... though i admit it was naive of me to hope they'd at least keep their yaps shut until ALL the polls closed after the chaos they helped cause in 2000.... but there is still hope.

I'm expecting two US$ for one Euro by 2006. Of course that will make it harder for me to make substantial money on the internet, where trade is conducted in dollars.

I should add though, that Kerry always reminded me of a Dilbert cartoon in which Dogbert is group counsellor to a dysfunctional work group. When one of them asks Dogbert what he thinks he'll achieve for the group, his answer is "we may be able to postpone cannibalism".
The US is pretty fucked no matter who wins.

tonight i lost alot of faith in the american people.

for four years i held out hope that in the end that the nuber of dumb people was firmly trumped by the number of smart ones.

It looks like i was wrong.

I'll hold out hope till the bitter end though, though it looks like the end might be bitter indeed.

kite-san wrote:maybe i'm delusional, but i'm still holding out hope. after all, there's still absentee ballots and provisional ballots to be counted, and computer glitches to be checked for. (wasn't there already one area where they acknowledge they lost, but supposedly recovered, over 13,000 votes?)

on top of that, every prior poll has had every key state well within the margin of error, and the media is DEFINATELY not known for infallibility in elections... though i admit it was naive of me to hope they'd at least keep their yaps shut until ALL the polls closed after the chaos they helped cause in 2000.... but there is still hope.

As I have been watching the electyion coverage for about 12 hours solid now I have to say that CNN, my choice, has been very good about it's reporting. The margin of error applies to exit polls, which especially after the 2000 fiasco are mentioned only covered in cavatas(sp) in hte mainstream media, it is the things like small talk radio and internet sites which are messing with those now. Most of the numbers coming out (of the mainsteram media CNN NBC CBS ect)are as the reports come in from the states of their counts. These are the official reports from the states, and almost always I have seen at the bottom of the prestate report a list of the % of counties reporting.

Because of this it is not incorrect of the media to say they expect person X to win this state because he currently has 50-52% of the votes, with 97% of the precints reporting, because the fact is he likley will win that state. You simply have to watch the larger media corperations for things like this, because they have more to loose by fucking up
*EDIT: I have looked at MSNBC and it seems they are relying more heavily on exit polls than CNN's coverage did, however they atleast have a 'guide to how we are supposed to listen to the polls" IE those are for seeing which demographs tend towards each candidate...

Ohio is the key right now, and I doubt ohio will have enough provisional ballots to name Kerry the winner, very likley though they will make the election close enough (assuming there are upwards of 200,000 provisional balots out) for kerry to easily and legitamatly be able to ask for a recount(since the majority of the provisional balots cast are likley from black voters.), but for that the diference should really be within a few thousand.

However, I don't think Kerry will do this even if he could, my reasoning: bush's astounding majority (not plurality) in recieving popular votes. One of the biggest things the democratics were upset about in 2000 was that gore had won the popular vote. (also I strongly feel that the demos' would rather have hillary clinton on the ticket in 08 since she would likley create more feverant support---most of kerrys support comes from him not being bush in alot of respects and were he to be elected this would present a problem in 08 I suspect)

Yet I pause here to contradict myself, I also thing kerry will request a recount, should the provisional ballots make the elction very close, due to the fact that 3/4 of the precints in ohio use the punch card balots, the ones which caused so much trouble.

So the question is this, will the democrats try and avoid being hipocrytical, or will they fight against a type of ballot which has been hightly contested?

Well I wake up this morning and CNN tells me Bush 254 Kerry 252 with Iowa and New Mexico uncounted and Ohio too close to call.

You know in Canada we mark an X with a pencil on a paper ballot and they're counted by hand, in one night, and we know who the winner is before the end of the night. I don't think Iowa or New Mexico have larger populations than Canada, and even if they did that just means there's more people to count the ballots. American democracy seems needlessly chaotic.

Goddessmisca wrote: So the question is this, will the democrats try and avoid being hipocrytical, or will they fight against a type of ballot which has been hightly contested?

It wouldn't be hypocritical of them: they'll point out that the rules are the rules and precedent was set in the 2000 election (and apparently one other in the last two centuries, IIRC).

As for being screwed, look at what has really happened in four years:

- The recession that started under Clinton was ended.

- The financial effects of the stock-market bubble bursting and September 11 have been largely counteracted.

- Vast amounts of corporate malfeasance that started in the 1990s has been uncovered and prosecuted.

- People who violate federal gun laws are actually prosecuted for doing so.

- The Democrats got a big say in education reform: Bush had no less a partisan than Ted Kennedy take the lead on the education bill, telling him to get it passed in both houses and he'd sign it (which he did).

- Needy seniors actually have prescription drug aid.

- Women's rights have improved dramatically. (Just ask any women in Afghanistan and Iraq.)

- The government funds some stem cell research, which it never did before. (And, as always, there is no ban on pharmaceutical companies and research facilities doing all the fetal stem cell research they want with any other sources of funding.)

- Libya finally broke down and will dismantle their nasty weapons programs.


Of course, [A] we lost (and are still losing) too many soldiers by fighting in a "politically-correct" manner, and [B] we discovered that the intelligence system is more than a little flawed. (Hey, even if the weapons existed and were moved then why didn't we know where they were moved to?) While the unemployment rate is lower than it was at Clinton's re-election, [C] real employment has actually dropped because many people have "left the system" (i.e. they aren't counted as "unemployed" anymore because they are no longer eligible for unemployment benefits). [D]The borders are still porous as heck (which is a thoroughly bi-partisan failure). [E] Airport security is a shameful joke. Then there's the spending -- [ F'in'!] OH GOD, THE SPENDING!

BTW, having too strong of a currency deters exports. While a stronger U.S. dollar would be good for Canadian exports (because we could afford to buy more stuff from Canada) it would slow down foreign investment in the U.S. and what manufacturing exports we still have. This is also why Japan has been fighting like mad for a couple of years to keep the yen from getting any stronger. (While the U.S. officially has a "strong dollar policy," the Treasury Secretary, John Snow, did let slip that we don't really mind having a not-so-strong dollar... and that upset a lot of people in other countries.)

P.S.

Ghastly wrote:American democracy seems needlessly chaotic.

Ghastly, you are 100% correct.

The thing that bothers me most about this election is the use of electronic voting machines. While I'm a proponent of the technology, I know enough about it to know that it is not the best method for this application.

First off, there was no security. All of the diebold machines all have the same administrative password that was set at the factory, and is given to every single repair tech.

There was no way to get a paper recipt of your vote. A la, no paper trail.

The machines use MS Access, one of the shittiest databases ever developed.

These three things together mean that all votes cast electronically are suspect. It doesn't matter who they were for; from a security stand point, none of the data is valid.

What I want to know, is why aren't the ballots made into scantron sheets? The US public school systems processes millions of scantron sheets a day with nearly zero error, and the sheets are somewhat difficult to tamper with. They are read optically, there are no hanging anythings, and a good portion of the population already knows how to use them.

Ghastly wrote: American democracy seems needlessly chaotic.

No kidding. It's mostly our Presidential race that's complicated. And you have to take into account the Electoral College. Which is a system by which we tally all our votes and then throw them out and have a competely seperate group of people, as determined by state, vote. There's nothing that says they have to vote according to how the rest of the country voted, and can (if I remember) even make write in votes. Of course, they typically vote according to the popular vote but don't have too.

As a reminder, I'm running for President in 2012.

Don't worry about getting tentacle raped from behind, because I promise to be upfront about it.

squidflakes wrote:The thing that bothers me most about this election is the use of electronic voting machines. While I'm a proponent of the technology, I know enough about it to know that it is not the best method for this application.

<snip>

These three things together mean that all votes cast electronically are suspect. It doesn't matter who they were for; from a security stand point, none of the data is valid.

Well, as they say, (they, apparently, being varilous scholars of the "old" ballot) electronic voting is really no less secure than the old method; it's just that more people can see the flaws. Which, if you think about it, is probably better; at least there will be call to fix them. And the problem with simple paper recipts is they can be used for voter fraud (buying votes). I like the reciept system that's cryptographically strong; saw it on Slashdot some months ago...

squidflakes wrote:What I want to know, is why aren't the ballots made into scantron sheets? The US public school systems processes millions of scantron sheets a day with nearly zero error, and the sheets are somewhat difficult to tamper with. They are read optically, there are no hanging anythings, and a good portion of the population already knows how to use them.

They use scantrons in Illinois. At least in my part of it. Except with felt-tipped black markers instead of pencils.

RavenxDrake wrote:No kidding. It's mostly our Presidential race that's complicated. And you have to take into account the Electoral College. Which is a system by which we tally all our votes and then throw them out and have a competely seperate group of people, as determined by state, vote. There's nothing that says they have to vote according to how the rest of the country voted, and can (if I remember) even make write in votes. Of course, they typically vote according to the popular vote but don't have too.

Well, my understanding is that, while that's technically true, the "people" who cast the electoral votes are chosen so as to be hyper-loyal to their respective party (IE, gunshot to the head before voting for the other guy), and then the state election is to choose what group of these electoral voters actually get to vote.

Toawa wrote: Well, as they say, (they, apparently, being varilous scholars of the "old" ballot) electronic voting is really no less secure than the old method; it's just that more people can see the flaws.

Once these machines are hooked into a network, they can be cracked from anywhere in the world. THAT is why I think they are much less secure than paper ballots.

squidflakes wrote:

Toawa wrote: Well, as they say, (they, apparently, being varilous scholars of the "old" ballot) electronic voting is really no less secure than the old method; it's just that more people can see the flaws.

Once these machines are hooked into a network, they can be cracked from anywhere in the world. THAT is why I think they are much less secure than paper ballots.

That is true, though if they were designed properly (::orbital strike on Diebold HQ::) it wouldn't be as big an issue. Like I said, they flaws are more visible to a larger number of people.

feeling rather sick to my stomach atm

cuteswan wrote:

Goddessmisca wrote: So the question is this, will the democrats try and avoid being hipocrytical, or will they fight against a type of ballot which has been hightly contested?

It wouldn't be hypocritical of them: they'll point out that the rules are the rules and precedent was set in the 2000 election (and apparently one other in the last two centuries, IIRC).

But if just last election they made such a fuss about bush's not winnign the popular vote, then started shit when, unfortunatly(IMHO) he did win it, it is hippocrytical in alot of ways.