Survey posted 2000-11-08 16:05 by Andy Selle.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

Why is this survey posted? Most of the people who use this site are in high school, which would eliminate them from the voting pool unless they are seniors.
Americans- Who did you vote for?

<1st comment>

Out of good poll ideas i guess...

anyways the american voting system sux.

as does the rest of the country...

Yes! I got to be the first one to come from a non-democratic country! No, actually I'm from sweden.

I hope for all of your asses sake that bush doesn't get elected.

I am from Finland and I thought that Sweden is democratic country.
I thank you that I can update my knowledge about Sweden.

I am from Denmark and belive me Sweden is a democratic country. I have family in sweden and my "on and off" girlfriend live in there.


Andreas Hjordt

You all can kiss my proud american arse! The voting system in the United States allows the most freedom to its citizen. We choose the head of are armed forces unlike in a parlimental democracy where the prime minister it not voted in by the people directly. Democracy, is one of the greatest accomplisments of humanity and is the supreame government for a just and fair society!

>>We choose the head of are armed forces unlike in a parlimental democracy where the prime minister it not voted in by the people directly.

Actually we don't. We choose one party's state delegation for the electoral college, as opposed to directly. The creators of the system didn't think the people could make wise enough decisions and thought it would be better to choose indirectly. It is pretty close to being direct, though, as the electoral college's votes are predictable.

The point is, at the time this system was made (1780's), electoral college made a lot of sense.

And I think it still does, go to http://www.avagara.com/ e_c/reference/00012001.htm, an MIT prof gives an interesting argument for it.

w/out the electoral college states like north dakota would mean absolutly nothing, Right now they make up around .5% but if without the college then they would make up around .0000001% of all the votes. With that kind of thouht plus this one, Hitler was the election with the most popular votes won by and elected leader, we can see the the electoral college is important

and of course the electoral college just blows the whole thing off... either make it strict majority or the way the founding fathers wanted it (ordinary citizens don't have any influence)

The electorial college, which some feel is antiquated and not necessary, does still have a purpose, a purpose which the Constitutional framers did have in mind.

First of all, if you want a "strict majority", we have a problem. Even in this election, one of the closest ever, neither candidate have obtained a majority of the popular votes. Both are sitting at 48%. How would this be resolved? Perhaps you didn't really mean majority, and you meant plurality, in which case the Vice President would win, because he has obtained more popular votes than the other candidates (as of this posting). Ok so lets say they need to have plurality of votes instead of a majority. Well then it will most likely cause more and more special interest parties to emerge, and the result could be the minority ruling the majority. For example, if there are 5 candidates, in theory if the vote split 5 ways, one could win with 21% of the popular vote. That would mean the 79% of the people do not want that candidate as president. The system of an electoral college makes it harder for special interest groups to win, because it requires candidates to carry entire states, not just sections of the population.

Yet another reason for the electoral college is that it helps smaller states. The President of the United States is supposed to represent the people of the country. If it was a majority or plurality of the popular vote, then the candidates would most likely only campaign in larger cities, and ingore the intrests or needs of smaller states. You may argue that this happens anyway, since California, Florida, New York and others are the big electoral prizes now. That may be true, but other states are needed. For example, under the electoral system, Wyoming gets 3 votes in the electoral college. This is some where along the lines of 18 times less than California's say in the college. However, if it was done by population, Wyoming would be completly igored by candidates because of the lack of people, and voters in Wyoming. It is a compromise to give the smaller states some clout in the elections, so that they are not completly left out of the process.

You may argue that we vote for everything else directly, why not the president. Technically, that is not correct. Sure, we vote for Senators and Representitives directly, but they represent a State, not the entire nation. Our country is divided into states, hense the United States of America, and the president is the leader of the states, and the people. It only makes sense that the president be decided by the states. If the country were not divided into states, I would see the reason for direct election.

You may feel cheated that Al Gore won the popular vote, but has not won the Electoral vote (I am keeping my fingers crossed though), but don't hastily demand changes to the Constitution as a reaction. Changing the way we elect our president can, and most certainly will have profound implications down the road, so think carefully before you decide if you want the electoral college to go.

One last thing, I saw a good example of how the theory behind the electoral college applies to "real life".
In the World Series for example, it is a series of seven games. The games can be considered "States", and the number of runs scored "votes". A team could score a lot of runs in the first few games, but if it fails to win 4 out of 7 games, it doesn't win the series. Some times a team will go into game seven, having scored 50+ runs in the first 6 games, and the other team having scored only 30 runs. However, if the team with the lesser amount of runs comes back to win game 7, it wins the series, and no one complains that it was a spolier, and that the will of the game was for the other team to win.

Just some things to think about.

Go to http://www.avagara.com/ e_c/reference/00012001.htm, an MIT professor is giving the same type of argument as you (and with the same baseball example). Pretty relevant despite being written four years ago.

Yeah, thats the example I said I saw, I didn't remember exactly where it was.

<queue "Stars and Stripes Forever">

-another proud American Democrat. although i am only 15, we had a school "vote" thing. i voted for Gore because... well, i won't go into a really long list of political statements...

"It's obviously a budget. It's got lots of numbers in it." --George W. Bush

I want to here your "long list of political reasons" lets see if they hold up to the light.

Bush/Cheany 2000 wins!!!

what gore should have said so he didn't need to lie all those times: "you name it, i will claim to invent it"

by the way Tim Burners-Lee created the internet(not gore)...

my $0.02

- skyraid

No, Tim-Berners Lee invented HTML in 1991, the backbone of the World Wide Web. Al Gore had a lot to do with the ARPAnet, which was the original internet that was used to keep Department Of Defense computers connected if we were nuked by Russia (This was during the Cold War). Is consisted of about 15 of those mainframes that were the size of rooms and military bases and universities.

Exactly! The Internet is what formerly was called ARPAnet or (a bit later) DARPAnet. Was something about cold war, like you described.

Al Gore was only responsible for casting a vote that got Federal funding for the internet. He did not invent it.

I live in Uruguay and you vote the president directly, but the good thing is that the votation is made in a a "multi-turn" system, because the first turn you vote 1 of 3 candidats, then in the second turn you vote 1 of the 2 most voted in the first turn. That's because there's more than "republicans" and "democratics" only, here we have the "Red"s, the "white"s, and the "progresists"...

In Sweden we have seven parties that are big enough to be in our equivalent of the house of representatives (you need at least 4%.)

there is talk about using that system here in america

You shouldn't comment about our political system if you know nothing about it. Here in America we have many different political parties (not just Republicans and Democrats).

I was talking about important parties, here we have more than 5 parties too, like the green and many others, but only 3 of them have real posibility. In america only 2 of them, reps. and democrats.

Right on...don't make me come pound your butts...i hate the way you foreigners think...you know nothing about us.

-Corey

>>I hope for all of your asses sake that bush doesn't get elected.

What's so wrong with Bush? I'd have voted for him, if not for the fact that I'm slightly too young.

the only reason you would vote for him is because of his charm. When it comes down to the facts the guy is dumb as a post. If you were to ask people who has the better stance on the issues most would say gore. The only reason Bush is going to win this thing is because of his charm and famous Bush name.

>>the guy is dumb as a post

Umm, excuse me? I don't think posts are that dumb. That was an insulting comment you just made about posts.

LOL, Bush is dumber than a post. I'd compare him to something worse, like his running mate Cheney :).

It doesn't really matter who gets elected, because they are going to have to fight an even congress. Republicans only hold a two or three person lead in the senate and the house. So any supreme court judges they select will have to be moderate, because an extreme liberal or conservative will not be approved by congress. Besides, the president is just a fugurehead that shakes the hand of foreign dignataries. The guys that do his work are the cabinent members.
Mike
*Proud To Know Everything*

true, but doesn't the vice president sometimes get called in to cast a tie braking vote.


-Samuel Stearley

Usually that's done by the President Pro Tempore, who just happens to be Strom Thurmond, a 98-year-old senator from South Carolina; however, when the Vice President is there, he is the tiebreaker.

The next president WILL get to choose justices as Strict or Loose as he likes them (unless Nader wins Florida in some scandal: he HAS 2% of the vote already. In that case, the new house would elect the new President. This would be done by each state having one vote through it's house. If a majority cannot be reached, the Senate appoints a VP candidate to act as acting president. Hmm... what if there's a tie in the Senate? What? Did you hear scandal? Yes, that's right, Vice President Al Gore gets to choose the Vice President and acting President... who do you think that would be... Lieberman or Cheney?) if there's a 50/50 count in the Senate because the VP casts the tiebreaking vote in the Senate. However, if the Republicans can hold on 51/49, then only Bush would be able to choose very Strict Constructionists.

Bush/Cheney 2000:
Why?
Oppose:
pre-natal murder
free ride (another bottle of booze on the wall theory)

Support:
the military
WORKfare, not welfare
along with many others...

Yup. I'm a conservative. Admit it: you would've voted for McCain too. But, hey: I can pick Bush, Buchanan, Gore, Nader, or someone more left- or right-wing. Bush is looking pretty good.

The fact that he is not that smart doesn't bother you. His daddy bought his way into yale, he had a c average in high school and still goes to Yale? I wouldn't have a problem if it was john mccain, alan keyes, or even dick cheney (who I think will run the government if Bush is elected) because I know that they are smart enought even thought there more conserviative.

Yes..I must agree, I love cheney, and you're right...bush is an idiot, so cheney will be running the country and that's great as far as i'm concerned...
go bush/cheney

long live republicans....the ORIGINAL 3rd party....if ya'll remember from history classes, the republican party was the 1st 3rd party to ever elect a president...abraham lincoln...and then they proceded to oust the wigs

just my 3.14 sense

i might be wrong about this, but it has been said that gore got c's at harvard... and about cheney running the country, how is that any differant then clinton? his wife has been running the country for the last 6 years -- she took over from bill, bill got to be vice pres. and gore was nothing(well maybe the mailman or something...)

my $0.02 (that's a total of $0.04 today)

- skyraid

This is a ti site, not a politics chatroom.

Not today it isnt!
Until the end of this pole or until a president is elected, This room will be solely discussing the hot debate of who our next president will be.

i admit that i'm a gore basher, so here's another one about gore... has anyone noticed how he changed his opinion about abortions? i noticed it... it seems to me that when he figure out that more people disagreed with what he thought, he did a 180(changed his mind)... he feels the total opposite.. i don't know about you, but i don't see someone waking up one morning and changing their mind like that. so, that makes it more obvious that he changed his mind so he would have the majority of the country side with him on the abortion issue(thus, more votes for him).

my $0.10 for the day -- no more posts for me tonight, i'm going to bed -- goodnight...

- skyraid

hey people dont "beat around the bush" or chew "algoretoids", vote NADER, in this case "nadir" means top.

what am i doing bs-ing almost a week after election day?

Nadir means "absolute LOWEST point" according to my dictionary.

Yeah, he mixed up a couple of foreign dignitary names a few months back. He was Governer of Texas, and that wasn't something needed for the job.
However, unlike Gore, Bush didn't flunk out of divinity school, or leave law school for bad grades. Bush didn't claim his time in the air national guard to be vietnam service; Gore claimed that he was a vietnam veteran because of 4 months doing press coverage over there.
And also unlike Gore, he's not an outright liar, whereas even Gore's own staff won't deny that he habitually exagerates anything he needs to to get his point across. I don't want the country to be in the hands of someone who cannot tell the truth, even when it hurts. Bush won't lie, even in the face of bad press. The DUI thing is a good example of that, and most people who's opinions were changed were changed FOR Bush, because of his honesty in the face of the charges and people's resentment of Gore as a result of his dirty tactics.
In conclusion, Bush might not have been an academic all-star, but he's just as smart as Gore, and many times more honest.

Bush is not an outright liar? Like all politicians in recent history, they both lie. And how could Bush possibly lie when faced with DUI charges that were proven? He had no choice but to tell the truth. Just as smart as Al Gore? Maybe if you squared his IQ. And who knows--the DUI charges might just be the beginning of his somewhat rocky past. However, I'm not saying that Gore is completely innocent either....

wow this gets pretty deep for a calc site! :)

"Bush is not an outright liar?"
Nope, 'fraid he's not, as far as I can tell.

Innocent until proven guilty.

There's a difference between saying someone is untrustworthy because he has lied many times before, and saying he's untrustworthy because he's involved in politics. Gore has a bad track record. Bush does not.

When asked by a reporter for the Dallas Morning News a while back if he had been arrested after 1968, he flatly replied "No.".

Looks like he got caught in a lie, but of course it doesn't matter, because a 30 year old being arrested for DUI is "cute" or "a youthful mistake". DUI is a serious offense.

i once knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who said that Bush had a little problem with cocaine abuse for a while... i wonder if that's true...

That could possibly be true, but is not proven. The truth is that Bush went to many parties in his day at Yale and was (is?) an alcoholic. There has been some evidence of him taking cocaine, such as when he denied to answer the press after he was faced with the same question, but none of his relatives know if he actually did take it. So it is possible that he did, but there isn't enough evidence to prove so. That is what a video I watched in my Social Studies class said.

what about the fact that gore's friends said that got high with eachother at college? one of then friends said that they smoked weed 2 or 3 times a week at college... i, myself, do not care about past convictions, they grew up in the 60's-70's how many people can actually say that they didn't get drunk or high? and it's just that, the past -- not now, as long as they don't toke up a bowl in the white house, who really cares?

my $0.06 (total for today)

- skyraid

NOT! Bush is outright brainless, and lies almost as much as his father did (and that was a LOT). Gore knows a LOT about a LOT of things, whereas Bush doesn't even know how to interpret his own plans.

BUSH IS BRAINLESS!

Correction: Gore thinks he knows a lot about a lot of things, I mean, claiming to have created the Internet? The guy should just give it up, because he obviously lost Florida.

First of all:

Do any of you guys care about anything except the way Bush pronounces his words? Bush may mispronounce his words but at least he doesn't lie every other word like some candidates that I know of (who could that be?).

Here is why Bush would be a better president that Gore:

1. Bush is going to give a tax cut to EVERYBODY (if you don't believe that take a look at the plan for yourselves on www.gop.gov) not just the "right" people.

2. Bush is out for less government spending and less beauracracy which benefits everybody.

These are just a few reasons.

No, Bush is the one that only gives the rich people tax cuts.

Less government spending benefits NOBODY. Imagine a government spending nothing. Well, do you like it?

Did you happen to read the tax cut plan for yourself at www.gop.gov or are you just going off what Gore himself says? I have read the tax cut and it says nothing about tax cuts only for the rich. In fact the rich will get a very small tax cut, the poor, especially the poor with many children will get a bigger tax cut. The middle class will get a tax cut somewhere in the middle.

Plus less and wiser government spending means more money for the people, all people. Or do you want a big Orwellian government?

Here's a few more reasons why Bush is a better choice.

3. Bush will modernize our military and make it stronger and better equipped. Is it any wonder that most military personel support Bush?

4. Bush will let you invest some of your social security money in private investments where YOU can make the choices about your future.

It just makes sense to vote for Bush. It just comes down to Bush's old saying:

"Gore trusts big government, I support you!"

Tax cuts will benifit nobody. How do you think Clinton got the country out of debt? It was by raising the tax rate. And reducing government spending doesn't really help either. The government is there to provide services for the people. Those services require money, which you can't just print for yourself. You get it from taxes!

Vasantha Crabb

We are still in debut and if we go the bush way we still be. Al gore wants to take the tax cut of GW and put it into the debet. How would you like a credit card bill over 6 trillion dollors and collecting intress every day.

opps, a small mistake I ment debt in place for debut

> No, Bush is the one that only gives the rich people tax cuts.

How can that be. Even I would get a tax cut of several hundred dollars under the Bush plan -- not a penny under Gore's.

> Less government spending benefits NOBODY.

Uh, you seem pretty ignorant of economics. When the economy is at full employment, reductions in federal spending slow down inflation and cause interest rates to decrease. No benefit there?

simple math lesson here(you shouldn't need your ticalc...) the poor get a bigger % back from taxes, but since they pay such a small fraction of what the rich pay, it doesn't seem that way... gore said that the rich benifet because they get more $$ back. well lets see, if you pay more and get the same % back, you will get more back, gore was using a form of card stacking to make it look like only the rich benifet from the tax cuts.

lesson #2(this is a lesson in life): research what you talk about before you speak(you won't sound like an such an idiot)

lesson #3(also a life lesson): speak only when it's an improvement on silence...

my $0.08

- skyraid

Or is it a "fuzzy math" lesson?

"To Bush, all math is fuzzy math"--
Jay Leno

I hear that the next Graphing Calculator from TI will have a Fuzzy Math button specifically to do Gore's type of budget problems.(Well not really but it would be useful in understanding where he gets those figures of his from.)

So Bush's saying during the first debate that he spent less on advertising than Gore wasn't lying? What is your definition of lying? And about the tax cuts, if you give one, you have to target someone, period. Bush by giving a general one is actually targetting the rich, giving most of the money to the top 1%. Gore, on the other hand, is targetting the middle class.

The media is getting worse and worse. If Gore makes a small mistake in one of his statements regarding a specific but insignificant fact, it's because he's a liar. If Bush makes a mistake in a major policy issue, that's ok, because he's stupid so it's not his fault.

Bush isn't targeting the rich with his tax cut. The tax cut will go to everyone. Gore was LIEING when he said that most of the budget surplus will go to the wealthiest one percent. Have you guys noticed that when Gore has nothing else to say to Bush he brings up the wealthiest one percent?

The probem is that if he gets elected, we'll have an Exxon-Mobil as president for the next four years :-( Just a dumb thought: what if us Graphing Calc nerds (nothing personal) made up a good section of the voteing population? I'd like to see an ad go somethig like this: Vote for (canidate). His his proposal includes a bill to put a TI-89 in the hands of every man woman and child in America!...ect.

THIS POST PAID FOR BY MY .02¢

Actually, my site, at ti-89.org, has given a Presidential endorsement. It endorses the TI-89 as President and TI-92 as Vice President. Go check it out, it explains why. =-)

just a little nit-picky thing

.02 cents is less than a penny

the correct way would be 2 cents or $0.02, my math teacher is obsessed with those things, i guess its contagous :)

It would be contagious, nitpicker.

Hmm...according to my calc, that would cost the government about 40 billion dollars to do. Too bad. But Bill Gates could afford it with 10-20 billion (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) to spare.

As I recall, as many as three years ago Gates had enough $$ to buy every person on the PLANET a CD (music, not ROM). Take say a $15 CD, multiply by 6 billion people on the planet and you get about $90 billion. 250 something million people in U.S., multiply by say $130 (find a good deal somewhere) to get a TI-89, and Bill wouldn't even notice the $32.5 billion dollars missing (well, maybe he would!). Then again, make him give all his money towards the national debt, and nobody would even notice $90 billion out of the several TRILLION dollar debt!

well, he's kind of a retard, don't you think? But then, so are most Americans.

Just like the Germans...

That is just a matter of opinion. However, I bet that most people can agree that both Bush and Gore have tried to appeal to everyone, in bending their policy to gain more votes.

btw, if bush wins florida's recount, which i think he will, he will win the electoral vote and be president, even though he lost the popular vote.

>>That is just a matter of opinion. However, I bet that most people can agree that both Bush and Gore have tried to appeal to everyone, in bending their policy to gain more votes.

That's because the vote has to be won on the center. That's where most of the voters are and there are only a limited amount of candidates on each side. That's why Nader was so damaging to Gore; he pushed him to the left, fighting for what should have been his base, instead of moving to the center for the election. Nader tipped enough states to Bush to cost Gore the election, if he doesn't win the recount. I honestly think that with all of the voting conditions, such as the "butterfly ballot," where over 2000 people accidentally voter Buchanan instead of Gore, this could go to the Supreme Court if not settled soon, and Bush would have a lot of pressure to concede because of Gore's winning the popular vote. Hopefully it won't be too lengthy before we know the outcome. History is being made.

The butterfly ballot was sent to all the people. It is your RESPONSIBILITY to be an informed voter.

Yes it is their responsibility, but if a ballot confuses even a small number of voters into voting for the wrong person in a way that changes the outcome, there is something wrong with that. The purpose of the election is to find out what the will of the people is, and they are badly divided.

From what I heard, Buchanan has a few relatives in that county. So it is possible that many of those Buchanan votes WERE for Buchanan.

Well I haven't heard about that but even Buchanan conceded that he shouldn't have had that many votes, and while he is no friend of George Bush he is no more a friend of Al Gore. We're talking about huge statistical irregularities here.

If the people couldn't correctly punch the ballot then they probably shouldn't have been voting. And it's not like nobody knew about George W's past, but it's the past it has no bearing today.
Since Bush really did win the election, and since Gore conceded defeat(later taking it back), Bush is the next president. And by know means could the country be driven into the ground with W in the Whitehouse, he'll have a whole team of advisors to help him just like any other President would. Frankly I'm glad that Gore didn't get elected that guy wants to do some pretty stupid things(like ban the internal combustion engine).

**Bush-Cheney 2000**

Have you seen the punch card that they were using? it had Al Gore and Pat Bucananon right across from each other and it was hard to tell which punch to punch. Also they threw out any ballots that the punch was still partly attached, just barely hanging on. You say that W is not going to run the country into the ground but he will. The senate is split 50/50 with ties going to the vp, dick cheney. the house is still controlled by the republicians. The next president will have to select 2 or 3 new supreme court justicis. This counrty will become a monarchy because anything the republicains want they will get. This counrty has always done better with a diverse senate, house, and presidentce. These last 8 years of econmic gain came not from the republicains or the democrats but the two working together. The idea behind Gore wanting to get ride of the internal combustion engine is because the fuel we have now is disappering and we can't depend on it, we need a new source of engery. You're proboly on of those nuts that want to drill for oil in national parks. Bush wants to put money for social security in the stock market and play with a furture. The stock will drop during his 4 years (not just because of him, but the good times are about to run out).

well, I will admit you're half right...we were prospering because of a diverse congress, however, it was because they couldn't agree on anything! It's called lasse-faire, when the government fights amongst itself, & does nothing, everyone prospers! long live pointless bickering

There were arrows pointing to each punch on the ballot. If someone cannot take the time to figure out where their punch should go and ensure it punches completely, they do not deserve the vote.

Go Bush!
This vote is currently carrying 19 states and 4 countries.

Actually, the punches were also misaligned.

Gore must and will win!

Bzzzt! Warning! Overly-impressionable mind! Danger!

Click on my link and take a look at it for yourself. You'd have to have the I.Q. of a grapefruit to think those holes are misaligned. You're just repeating what you've heard.

Ballots being thrown out if the punch was still partially attached would not only involve votes for Gore, it would effect both canidates, making almost no difference in the end.

Bush-Cheney!!!

I've seen that ballot and Bush's name is right above Buchanan's does that mean people voted for Buchanan instead of Bush. And the Democrat's as well as the other parties approved that ballot along time ago. If they had a problem with it they should have brought it up then. I live near Chicago and use a quite similiar ballot here does that mean people here voted for the wrong person or any where else were they use a butterfly ballot

>> (like ban the internal combustion engine)

Gore didn't want to do that. But, if I remember correctly, somebody actually did try to do that back in the 70's, but their attempt badly failed. I read that in a car magazine, Motor Trend, Car and Driver, or Road and Track, I can't remember (I receive 4 different car magazines monthly).

Another case of a mis-informed voter... I don't know where you are getting this "banning the internal-combustion engine" information.

Well if your argument holds true that the people were dumb and shouldn't be voting, then perhaps they should be voting for someone stupid like them like Bush, and not Buchanan. Seriously, though, it isn't like they were dumb, it only confused a small percentage but it was confusing nontheless, preventing the will of the people from being executed (as opposed to being executed in Texas). The point of the election is to find out what the people want and this ballot helped to prevent this, for while it was less than 1% of ballots, it potentially decided the election. Dubya should concede.

Those people complaining that they voted for the wrong person is a bunch of crap. On TV they brought the same ballod around NYC and asked people which one would be for Gore, everyone got it right, even the elderly people. It's just something for the Gore supporteres to complain about. When this ballod thing isn't holding up anymore, they make up something else. The same stuff was happening last election, it's just that it wasnt as big of a deal, considering it wasn't as close of an election as this one.

I voted for Bush, since he was clearly the superior candidate. He doesn't want to bloat the bureaucracy and government like Algore does. Algore needs counseling. I don't want the government to destroy the economy by nationalizing health care and the like. It promotes laziness and high taxes. This is the case in countries like Germany. Bush has what I think one of the greatest plans for social security: you can put about 2% tax free into an investment(i.e. an IRA). Over the long term, in which the economy and stock market will most certainly grow, this can add up to so much more than one would get from just social security, and the incoming money into the market will make the economy grow.

FDR, btw, whose "Bad" Deal legislation started this whole mess, has turned out to be one of the worst presidents in American history. His domestic plans were heavily flawed. His only saving grace was WWII on the international scene.

its that big government that has help you and every other amercain out these last 8 years. Everyone was better off now then they were 8 years ago.

btw that "Bad" Deal legislation didn't come out of the hands of FDR that was a republicain by the name of Hoover. The despression start when he was in office and none of his programs help the people bounce back. Your and the rest of your republicain party can't stand to see some one else run this country then your own kinds. I did like the regean government but I think the Clinton era was much better. You probably don't like Kennedy either how do you feel about Jefferson or Jackson. What Teddy roosevelt just as evil. Don't just a hate someone because of a D by their name.

That big government hasn't helped me one iota the past eight years. I've worked hard through school on my own, despite the obvious flaws of the California educational system. I don't need nor want the government's help.

BTW, Der Schlick Meister INHERITED the economy and the military from the great presidents Bush and Reagan. If you'll notice now, the military is in dismail shape (just look at the stats on morale and the number of people leaving the military). Blame it on Willy's use of our troops overseas without a clear goal.

Jefferson and Jackson are too far back to make a call. The definitions of GOP and Democrats obviously evolve over time. FDR was the person who got all the credit for the Bad Deal, not Hoover.

Also, I don't completely trust someone's opinion who can't spell and use proper grammar. It's one thing to blunder a word when you're speaking in front of a bunch of people, but another to do so when you can actually edit the words you want to post.

Sorry for my dyslexia, I can't spell all that good. So your saying the biggest deficit in our nation history(under the Bush admin) was given to clinton. I'm sorry but the economy was in a poor state when Clinton took office and he and the Republican (are you happy) Senate working against each other to come to some common ground make this economy. There is no cerdit for bush or reagen. For the military we were still fighting a war at that time ( a little thing called the cold war). Now we are in peace and less need for a huge army. I do agree that we need a strong army but I don't think there is anything major wrong with the military right now.

Sorry you feel that way, but you need to take a closer look at the actual state of the country.
Apathy and immorality run rampant. Gore wants targeted tax cuts that will only apply to a measly percentage of Americans. He also wants us to pay for other's prescriptions and health care. Listen to the stats and facts. It's all there. It's not as good as it could be.

I sorry but this government is not setup to make sure everyone is moral. Most people learn Morals from their religion. What you think is immoral I might disagree. Dush wants to have a medicare also but he wants an HMO to take charge. An accountant instead of a doctor taking care of you. You must come from a well to do family because those are the only ones that suffered from a tax incresse. You want to take charge of your own life and thats great but there are some people that need help to make ends meat. You know we're just going to keep going for neither one of us think we are wrong. You have your views and I have mine so this Agurment will go one and one.

> I sorry but this government is not setup to make sure everyone is moral.

The governments seem to have a lot of interest in preventing people from robbing and killing each other. So obviously, at least partly, it IS their job to enforce morality.

I should have know you would have a picture of Rush Limbaugh on your site.

What's wrong with Rush? Unlike the Liberal Media, he actually tells THE TRUTH.

I say Tomato you say tomoto. I don't know about you but this agruing is a lot of fun. I say we put jesse jackson and Rush in a ring and let them fight it out. I would pay to see that.

El Rushbo in 2 rounds easy.

Are you saying that the country's current prosperity is entirely do to Clinton/Gore? Did Clinton dress up as Santa Claus and Gore as Rudolph and fly around the country handing out money. I think not, however amusing that would be.

Remember what Clinton said last week:

"Voting for my buddy Al Gore is the next best thing to a third term for me."

Gee, that makes me want to vote for Gore!

Oh and by the way Bush is our next president the Florida reccount is nearly through.

Bush/Cheny 2000!!!

BUSH'S STUPID PLAN IS GONNA MAKE PEOPLE POOR! You see, with Bush's plans the economy will get overheated and collapse. That means all the invested money goes down the drain. Gore's plans are much better at regulating the economy and keeping it stable.

After all, the Democrats caused the big economical gain THAT IDIOT CALLED BUSH now wants to profit from.

BUSH IS SUCH AN @$$H013!

You don't know waht your talking about. Read the facts and don't just go on what Algore has said.

Bush/Cheany 2000!!!

And how... taking everyone's money and spending it to keep a drastically oversized government running? Seems to me that this is the bigger waste of money... I say let the people have their money

BTW most of the economic gains have nothing to do with Clinton although he loves to take credit for them.

Haven't your guys realized that Bush is already the president? He was elected, Gore conseded (then retracted that), and after recounting the votes Bush has still won. The democrats are spreading stories of fraud, but how stupid do you have to be to vote for to people?

Bush/Cheany 2000 wins!!!

(Now America needs to move on!)

I guess I missed out on the Electoral College voting him in, then Congress approving that vote, and then him being sworn in on Inauguration Day... dang where have I been?

Also, I like how you spell Cheney different in each post, reminds me of W.

"Is are children learning?" - George W. Bush

Sure. No fraud. That explains why a bag of 400 uncounted votes were found in Florida.

BTW: And those votes weren't for Bush

Hey! Watch your mouth!!!
Gore is the lier...
Doesn't ticalc.org filter the content they put up???

well, i find myself in a uniqu position in the TI Community.

First, I support the make-believe inventor of the internet (he actually DID have a lot to do with growing ARPANET, but that makes me sound older than my parents)

Second, I reside in Florida - the one state, where less than 2000 votes will determine the president for the next 4 years.

Moreover, I live in Palm Beach County, where some $HlT-for-brains Democratic election supervisor wedged Buchanan's box between Bush and Gore, so thousands of blue-hairs thought they voted for Gore when they in fact voted for Buchanan (fully 1% of Buchanan's votes in the nation came from my county, full of Jews and Italians - this is a statistical impossibility). Those few hundred votes from some wheelchair-bound condo-fogeys will decide the election for EVERYBODY...

What I am saying is, If I hadn't have voted, Gore would have only gained 993 votes in today's recount. If the friends I eat lunch with didn't vote, he would only have gained 988 votes. Add another acquaintance or 2, and that is 10 votes, or fully 1% of Gore's recount margin behind Bush. To me, that is mind-boggling. I will not be able to comprehend the phrase 'my vote doesn't count' any longer. Through the most absurd circumstances, the election will be drawn out for days, maybe even weeks.

Jeez, I talk to much...

-DL

Florida is not deciding the election. There were several other close states that would have rendered Florida irrilevent if they had gone a different way. Florida is just the last state to be counted because of that damn ballot and Bill Dailey thinking he can overturn an election because of a bunch of tards that can't punch a hole for their candidate with a big arrow pointing to it.
All I can say is this ballot BS better stay in Florida. If Gore's Machiavelian campaign manager starts demanding infinite recauonts and law suits, Bush will have to counter with asking for cecaunts in several other close states. It could get very bad.
Finally, this has to be resolved quickly. If the electoral vote does not take place on Dec. 18, as it should, we could have one of the biggest Constitutional crises ever. Hopefully Gore will do the honorable thing and conceed the election he has really lost, even if by a hair, as Nixon did against JFK.
Also, if the U.S. Supreme Court getts involved, that will be saying that the federal government has the right to say how state elections should be run. Very dangerous.

saaaaaaay, you aren't a Republican, are you?!? =P

anyways, I was intrigued by the fact that, if Gore wins Florida but loses the other close states, it could possibly fall 269-269. Nevermind the fact that the electors could break with a popular difference of a few dozen votes much more easily than they could otherwise (and it HAS happened before: Reagan got one vote in 1978, i think, but was a distant loser in the popular vote)

BOTH camps have royally screwed thigs up in the past week - it was extremely presuptuous for 'dubya to start forming a 'transition comittee' long before the final count was in. And since when was asking a question 'being snippy'? This whole thing is ridiculously out-of-hand, and it says a lot for democracy that the nation is still functioning despite this severe constitutional crisis. It WILL end soon, at least I hope so, so maybe the NASDAQ can get back some of the 400+ points it lost this week =( I think more recounts won't change much, and a revote would screw everything even more. We can only wait for the absentee votes, but even then we may not know for sure until the college meets...