[OT] Bush vs. Gore - Was: [Sussex] Linux is capitalism, Microsoft is communism?

[Stephen Williams]

On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 22:26, Geoffrey John Teale wrote:
> > I can't imagine that the US Supreme Court would have tolerated any kind
> > of electoral fraud.
> 
> Then you have a more limited imagination that I would have suspected for
> a man of your intelligence.
> 

Now now Geoffrey old chap.

> If you think the court system of the USA, the UK or any other country
> you care to mention is infallable then you are have been walking around
> with your eyes closed for too long.
> 

I don't think the courts of either the US or UK are infalliable. The
point is that I would take their opinion over the usual crop of lefty
whinging.


> >  Both sides argued their respective cases at great
> > length, and the result was upheld. The US Supreme Court judges are
> > politically appointed it is true, but it is worth bearing in mind that
> > there had been a Democrat administration for the previous 8 years.
> > Consequently I suspect that the Supreme Court would have tended to
> > incline towards the Democrats, if at all.
> 
> Now, now Mr Williams, do at least pay some attention to the facts,
> supreme court appointments happen only very rarely - indeed it is the
> habit of appointees to remain in their positions until a government they
> favour is in power (and thus able to appoint a similarly partisan
> replacement).
> 

-----%<-----

Nice to see you've done your homework Geoff. Personally I'm not
concerned enough to worry about it. I'm more concerned that John
Prescott (and others) are campaigning for a referendum in favour of
regional authorities contrary to UK electoral law. Do we really need
more politicians?

However, I still do not believe that the US Supreme Court, or the US
people, would tolerate electoral fraud.

> > It is very frustrating for the loser to miss out by a tiny margin, but
> > it happens. I've seen local election results determined by a single
> > vote; this usually results in a number of recounts until both parties
> > are satisfied - hard on the loser, but there we go.
> 
> Well, yes I agree.  Someone always has too lose, and close margins are
> perhaps more difficult to accept than landslide victories.  Although for
> the entire period you have known me I have been ranting and raving about
> how terrible this is, and various other political points do believe me
> when I say that I am not inclined to fantasy nor do I generally believe
> conspiracy theories.  I genuinely believe, from all the evidence put
> before me - not least that the recounts (audited by republican,
> democratic and non-partisan bodies) all show that Gore won florida by a
> significant margin - that George W. Bush does not sit in the oval office
> as the result of a free, fair electoral process.  
> 
> ... of course, even if he was the choice of the majority of the US
> public (as he may well be this time around) I would still be in
> fundemental opposition to his standpoint on the majority of topics.
> 
> > When it comes to conspiracy theories'r us versus the US Supreme Court, I
> > put my faith in the latter.
> 
> Each to their own... ...one last thing.  I don't think Kerry is whiter
> than white, I know he has sold his soul to corporate America a millions
> times over, just as Bush has, but as the only alternative on the plate
> he has the undeniable lure of four years of things not getting any
> worse, and from where I'm sitting that's a lot better than the
> alternative.
> 

Interesting program on Channel 4 on this very topic last night. Not very
edifying for those involved.

In the end I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree when it comes to
politics.