Alec Baldwin

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Anyone catch what this guy said. First of all Baldwin was down in Florida bringing up the 2000 election (yawn). Than Baldwin spoke at Democratic fund raiser in New York. Baldwin called the 2000 election the other catestrophy (sp) that happened in the United States. This received a small applause, and many raised eye brows in a liberal gathering. Hillary Clinton didn't even mention the comment when she spoke.

What is Baldwin thinking. He's another limosuine liberal who thinks they know what's best for everyone. Another thing that bothers me is I've only seen Fox News mention the Baldwin story. I don't watch CNN, and MSNBC alot so if someone caught the scroll underneath or a featured story on Baldwin's comments please tell me.

[Guest J*ingus]

Okay then, where the hell was Alec on the one night that should've mattered most to him, election night?  Not at the Democratic headquarters, because I was there, and he wasn't.  Sigh.  For every decent honest liberal celebrity like Tommy Lee Jones, you've got at least two or three wackos like Baldwin The Eldest.  

 

I do think the outcome of the 2000 election was questionable at the very least, more people voted for Gore plain & simple, but to compare it to 9-11 shows that Alec just ain't on the same plane of existence as the rest of us.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

According to Mr. Baldwin, he never made that promise to leave. Sigh. I guess I can always pop in the South Park movie and watch him and his family get bombed...

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Okay then, where the hell was Alec on the one night that should've mattered most to him, election night?  Not at the Democratic headquarters, because I was there, and he wasn't.  Sigh.  For every decent honest liberal celebrity like Tommy Lee Jones, you've got at least two or three wackos like Baldwin The Eldest.  

 

I do think the outcome of the 2000 election was questionable at the very least, more people voted for Gore plain & simple, but to compare it to 9-11 shows that Alec just ain't on the same plane of existence as the rest of us. >>

 

 

Actually, I'm glad this came up, because this is one of the bigger fallacies of the election.

 

Did Gore get more votes than Bush nationally? Absolutely.

 

This, however, leaves out a few, very key, points:

 

1) The press was lightning-quick in awarding Florida to Gore and slow to take it back. This cost Bush untold thousands upon thousands of votes in the Florida panhandle (the Republican stronghold). It's even odder because by every official count, Gore NEVER led in the state. The AP's own research showed that at no point on election night (nor, and this is important, any time since) did Al actually LEAD in Florida.

 

So, the press takes a MAJOR state heading in for the election, gives it to Gore with no real justification in doing so (and before polls closed) and then waits more than an hour before putting it back to undecided.

 

2) The media awarded states to Gore FAR faster than they awarded states to Bush. Just a quick comparison of the times between when a state's polls closed and it was declared for one of the candidates was astonishing. Even if the candidates won the states by identical margins, Gore's states were called considerably quicker than Bush's.

 

Bush won North Carolina by, if memory serves, somewhere in the 14% range. The state wasn't "awarded" to him until more than hour (again, if memory serves) after the polls closed.

 

Carter long complained that the press gave Reagan a huge national vote lead in the end by declaring the Presidency decided while polls were open in California.

 

In this case, the press did it to Bush. They gave Gore states very quickly and were far less quick to award states to Bush.

 

3) The Supreme Court was well within its rights to determine the case. The Florida Supreme Court FAR overstepped its bounds by issuing new deadlines as to when delegates had to be selected and (this has not been mentioned much) would have given Bush NO opportunity to challenge the results that Gore was presented.

 

The Florida legislature had the final say-so as to how the electors are chosen---not the state Supreme Court.

 

4) Every vote in Florida WAS counted. Every single one. If somebody can't puncture a friggin' ballot properly, they SHOULDN'T be voting in the first place.

 

It's not the government's job to determine what the voter's intent was. If the voter did not make their intent clear, then their vote does not count. Plain and simple.

 

The U.S Supreme Court simply stopped the running joke that Gore's challenges had become. Al should have stepped aside when the recounts were done.

 

Even Nixon had the decency to not file suits over the 1960 election.

                               -=Mike

 

...As a plus, Gore's political career is probably dead.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

A message to all the liberals the president is elected by a electoral college, not by popular vote. The 2000 election was the constitution working at its best. Only Gore couldn't except that Bush won the election, and forced the Suprme Court to pick the winner.

[Guest J*ingus]

Funny thing is, you know how the electoral college originally worked, and why it was implemented?  Simply because in the formative years of our country the days before mass communications, the average citizen didn't know anything about the politicians they were voting for.  It was common to have never met, seen, or heard the candidates who were running for president.  So you didn't vote to elect any specific person.  

 

Instead, you voted for a local person whose judgement you trusted, who would go to Washington, hear the speeches and debates, and make their own decisions.  They were the electors, and that's how the electoral college began.  However, as years went by, the electors started forming up along party lines.  They told you before you voted for them who they were going to pick.  Thus, the semi-direct voting method was born, and is still prevalent today.  

 

In this day and age, it's not an uncommon argument to either abandon or re-work the electoral system, and it's one that I'm all for.  Some states like Maine split up the votes so that they go to the candidates based on what percentage of voters voted for them, instead of the "all or nothing" system which most states use.  

 

I don't care who won and who lost, but it strikes me as absolutely un-American that the guy who got the most votes lost the election.  I'd be saying the same thing if Bush, or Pat Buchanan, or Ralph Nader, or whomever was the one who got shafted.  Don't blame the media for the voting irregularities either, because the same "winner loses" situation has happened four times in presidential elections, and the other three were in the 19th century.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The electoral college is the best option. Because quite frankly I don't trust most people to make the right decision.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Also:

 

If the president was decided by popular vote than the canidates would only Campaign in highly populated states, and ignore the less populated states.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Funny thing is, you know how the electoral college originally worked, and why it was implemented?  Simply because in the formative years of our country the days before mass communications, the average citizen didn't know anything about the politicians they were voting for.  It was common to have never met, seen, or heard the candidates who were running for president.  So you didn't vote to elect any specific person.>>

 

 

Things haven't changed that much. Most voters don't have a clue what a candidate stands for.

 

 

<<Instead, you voted for a local person whose judgement you trusted, who would go to Washington, hear the speeches and debates, and make their own decisions.  They were the electors, and that's how the electoral college began.  However, as years went by, the electors started forming up along party lines.  They told you before you voted for them who they were going to pick.  Thus, the semi-direct voting method was born, and is still prevalent today.  

 

In this day and age, it's not an uncommon argument to either abandon or re-work the electoral system, and it's one that I'm all for.  Some states like Maine split up the votes so that they go to the candidates based on what percentage of voters voted for them, instead of the "all or nothing" system which most states use.  

 

I don't care who won and who lost, but it strikes me as absolutely un-American that the guy who got the most votes lost the election.  I'd be saying the same thing if Bush, or Pat Buchanan, or Ralph Nader, or whomever was the one who got shafted.  Don't blame the media for the voting irregularities either, because the same "winner loses" situation has happened four times in presidential elections, and the other three were in the 19th century. >>

 

 

Do you want a reason WHY the electoral college is GOOD?

 

It limits corruption.

 

Big cities(i.e NYC, Chicago) have LONG legacies of having fradulent vote totals. What the electoral college does is to prevent a huge state from simpl creating enough votes out of thin air to put a candidate over the top. The Chicago machine could invent however many thousands of votes that they invented for JFK in 1960---but, in the end, all they gave him was the state of Illinois.

 

Besides, I think the candidate that wins the most states has the more legitimate claim to actually represent the American people best.

                  -=Mike

[Guest J*ingus]

I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that our country should be ruled by the will of the majority?  Like I said, no matter who the fighting parties are, I simply think that whoever had the most people vote for them should have won the election.  

 

Mike, you bring up valid points towards keeping the electoral college instead of a direct-voting system.  However, I still think that a system like Maine has, where the electoral votes are split up based on percentages of popular votes, would be a lot more fair.  

 

The electoral college is the best option. Because quite frankly I don't trust most people to make the right decision.

 

Isn't the whole point of American democracy is that every person has a say?  

 

Also:

If the president was decided by popular vote than the canidates would only Campaign in highly populated states, and ignore the less populated states.

 

It's unbalanced now in that some states have a lot more electoral votes than others.  You could win California, Texas, Florida, and a few Northeastern states and win the election, despite having lost 2/3 of the other states.  The candidates don't do a lot of campaigning in underpopulated areas as it is.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Big cities (i.e NYC, Chicago) have LONG legacies of having fraudulent vote totals. What the Electoral College does is to prevent a huge state from simply creating enough votes out of thin air to put a candidate over the top."

 

I read a few months back that the place with the most corruption regarding voting tallies in Election 2000 was CHICAGO.

 

What's good about the EC is that as long as it's in place Hillary Clinton will never reside in the White House ever again, unless she divorces Bill and rides the coattails of another poor sap with a hard-on for ugly women.

 

And finally, let Election 2000 be a lesson to all you aspiring politicians. Never put the fate of your candidacy in the hands of near-sighted Jews and illiterates. You can be a representative for “the people,” but make sure “the people” know how to read a freaking voting slip.

[Guest DrTom]

"Isn't the whole point of American democracy is that every person has a say?"

 

It would be, if America were a democracy.  This is a republic, though, where every person's individual vote doesn't count.  Even the Greek democracy wasn't the true "one person, one vote" systeme everyone makes it out to be, since only certain people were eligible to participate.

 

The electoral college may not be a perfect system, but I'd much rather have it than a straight popular vote.  The history of corruption is why we need a system like the electoral college in place.  I might be amenable to a system of saying whoever wins the most states or the most legislative districts wins, but I'd have to see it drawn up first.  That would be far more egalitarian than the current system, since California wouldn't have 5000 electoral votes to throw around.

[Guest goodhelmet]

This whole argument would be null and void if Gore would have taken care of business in his home state of Tennessee. Fuck Florida. The real loss was Tenn.

 

As for the following quote...

 

"The electoral college is the best option. Because quite frankly I don't trust most people to make the right decision."

 

And what would the right decision be?

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Gore losing Tenn. was surprising, but two other states that went for Bush which shocked me were Arkansas and West Virginia.

[Guest Vyce]

I'm glad that someone brought up Tennessee.  Everyone glosses over that one, but it's true - if Gore had won his home state, it wouldn't matter who won Florida.

 

The election was a mess, true, but it wasn't just Republicans & Democrats that caused it.  A lot of different people, the media in particular, helped fuel the mess.

 

As for Baldwin's statements.....he's an idiot.  I mean, the man's an ACTOR for chrissakes.  Should we really be giving him creedence for anything he has to say?  The worst part about his little speech was that he said something to the effect that the election was a worse tragedy than 9-11.

 

Sure it was, Alec.  I'll be sure to tell that to all of the people I know who lost loved ones in the WTC attack.

[Guest goodhelmet]

"As for Baldwin's statements.....he's an idiot.  I mean, the man's an ACTOR for chrissakes.  Should we really be giving him creedence for anything he has to say?  "

 

Completely true. Sort of like accepting Heston's diatribes about gun rights because the a-hole played Moses. Or taking ted Nugent seriously because "Free For All" was a kickass song!

[Guest J*ingus]

I live in Tennessee, and NOBODY was surprised when Gore lost here.  TN is a heavily Republican conservative state, especially over the last couple of years.  Everyone here knew that Bush was taking the state.

[Guest goodhelmet]

Which once again proves that gOre didn't deserve to win since he couldn't even appeal to his own constituents. ####, reagan  won california and that's a liberal state if there ever was one.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"live in Tennessee, and NOBODY was surprised when Gore lost here.  TN is a heavily Republican conservative state, especially over the last couple of years.  Everyone here knew that Bush was taking the state."

 

I don't live in TN, so I was surprised. I agree w/ the conservative status of your state -- you guys don't even have a state income tax, or at least not yet.

[Guest J*ingus]

Lots of people here want one, the sales tax is at frickin' 8.25% and it covers EVERYTHING, food, medicine, going to a movie, everything.  But voting for the income tax is often seen as political suicide around here.  

 

"Which once again proves that gOre didn't deserve to win since he couldn't even appeal to his own constituents."

 

Gore hasn't been seen as a real Tennessean for a long time.  He lived in Washington for eight years, while the demographics here got more and more heavily conservative.  Anecdote: I once saw a couple of young wrestlers get angry at another one for saying the word "goddamn".  Afterwards, it occured to me how weird that was; wrestlers are probably overall some of the most profane people on earth, and it's weird that they'd get offended over anything.  Only in the South, I guess.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Lots of people here want one, the sales tax is at frickin' 8.25% and it covers EVERYTHING, food, medicine, going to a movie, everything.  But voting for the income tax is often seen as political suicide around here.>>>>

 

 

 

People might want to think HARD about that.

 

Just because you get an income tax doesn't necessarily mean that the state will lower the sales tax.

 

If somebody IS an income tax advocate (you know, I'd STILL love to see a good book detailing how the heck the income tax amendment (I think it's the 19th, but I can't swear to it) ever passed as an amendment in the first place), I'd demand the sales tax go down to about 5% before I'd even consider implementing an income tax.

 

Get the income tax before the sales tax gets lowered and I can basically guarantee that you will have the income tax and your 8.25% sales tax to boot.

                 -=Mike

 

...Governments aren't fond of lowering their tax base

[Guest Vern Gagne]

"As for Baldwin's statements.....he's an idiot.  I mean, the man's an ACTOR for chrissakes.  Should we really be giving him creedence for anything he has to say?  "

 

Completely true. Sort of like accepting Heston's diatribes about gun rights because the a-hole played Moses. Or taking ted Nugent seriously because "Free For All" was a kickass song!

I agree that the opinions of any actor don't mean jack. The problem I have is that Nugent, Heston and celebrities with more right-wing thinking ideas are called whacko, racist, hate mongers by the main stream media. But Alec Baldwin and other left-wing, quasi-socialist are oh so wise.

[Guest teke184]

Of the "enlightened Liberal celebrities" who spoke out against Bush, Baldwin is the only dumbass still running his mouth.  I mean, uber-liberals like Barbra Streisand and Robert Altman shut up shortly after the election and didn't say a #### word after Sept. 11.

 

 

Besides that, does anybody ELSE find it funny that some of the richest people in the country are the most liberal?  They can afford to push the liberal agenda because their tax lawyers are good enough that they don't have to pay anything compared to the average taxpayer.  

 

Dammit, I think that if a mega-rich person wants to be a liberal, they should put their money where their mouth is and become philanthropists like the railroad robber-barons of the 1800's instead of promoting programs that people abuse while they don't pay their fair share of the bill.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Of the "enlightened Liberal celebrities" who spoke out against Bush, Baldwin is the only dumbass still running his mouth.  I mean, uber-liberals like Barbra Streisand and Robert Altman shut up shortly after the election and didn't say a #### word after Sept. 11.

 

 

Besides that, does anybody ELSE find it funny that some of the richest people in the country are the most liberal?  They can afford to push the liberal agenda because their tax lawyers are good enough that they don't have to pay anything compared to the average taxpayer.  

 

Dammit, I think that if a mega-rich person wants to be a liberal, they should put their money where their mouth is and become philanthropists like the railroad robber-barons of the 1800's instead of promoting programs that people abuse while they don't pay their fair share of the bill. >>>>

 

 

 

Indeed.

 

It's laughable to hear Streisand et al bemoan the plight of the poor when they have done far less than "evil" guys like Carnegie did years ago.

 

The reason that so many actors are so liberal is that they feel somewhat guilty at being paid as much as they are paid for a job that is not all that demanding.      

                                  -=Mike

[Guest Kingpk]

<<you know, I'd STILL love to see a good book detailing how the heck the income tax amendment (I think it's the 19th, but I can't swear to it) ever passed as an amendment in the first place)>>

 

Basically, the people were sick of guys like Rockerfeller and Ford holding all the wealth in the country and wanted to close the gap.  

 

Hasn't really worked though.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"I agree that the opinions of any actor don't mean jack. The problem I have is that Nugent, Heston and celebrities with more right-wing thinking ideas are called whacko, racist, hate mongers by the mainstream media. But Alec Baldwin and other left-wing, quasi-socialist are oh so wise."

 

Point 1: Something that always rubs me the wrong way is when I used to watch Vh1 and they'd do specials on artists. They'd call Nugent and company "right-wing," among other terms, but then label Mike Stipe, Moby and others "activists." I love that double standard...

 

Point 2: In regards to a previous post about the ultra-rich entertainment stars voting for Gore, I remember seeing a chart that broke down who voted for Gore and who voted for Bush. Education-wise Gore won a majority from demographics whose educational experience peaked at high school and also from the those with PhDs -- you know the enlightened professors that don't know how to operate the classroom VCR. Bush won in every other educational bracket. I thought it was an interesting stat.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The high school dropout group votes for whoever will make them work less. Usually the Dems want Universal Health Care and Welfare. In the eyes of some  drop out those are both free.

 

The teachers are all stuck in 1969. They still probably burn fake draft cards.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The high school dropout group votes for whoever will make them work less. Usually the Dems want Universal Health Care and Welfare. In the eyes of some  drop out those are both free.

 

 

 

This, of course, begs the question---how is this MORE moral than taking campaign contributions from large companies?

 

Selling votes is selling votes, isn't it?

 

 

 

The teachers are all stuck in 1969. They still probably burn fake draft cards.

 

 

Well, going by the liberal arts profs I had in college, they don't bathe consistently.  :-)

                    -=Mike

[Guest J*ingus]

"Point 1: Something that always rubs me the wrong way is when I used to watch Vh1 and they'd do specials on artists. They'd call Nugent and company "right-wing," among other terms, but then label Mike Stipe, Moby and others "activists." I love that double standard..."

 

Actually, it's funny that you mention this.  Just last night on NPR's Fresh Air program, a guy was on who'd actually run a search engine on aboout 30 different newspapers to see how often a "conservative" or "liberal" politician, judge, movie star, or whatever were actually called such.  

 

The surprising total: a liberal was 2.5 times as likely to be identified as such as a conservative.  I wish I could reprint the guy's results here verbatim, because he had tons of details and had gone at the data several times in several ways, but kept coming up with those same numbers.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

"Point 1: Something that always rubs me the wrong way is when I used to watch Vh1 and they'd do specials on artists. They'd call Nugent and company "right-wing," among other terms, but then label Mike Stipe, Moby and others "activists." I love that double standard..."

 

Actually, it's funny that you mention this.  Just last night on NPR's Fresh Air program, a guy was on who'd actually run a search engine on aboout 30 different newspapers to see how often a "conservative" or "liberal" politician, judge, movie star, or whatever were actually called such.  

 

The surprising total: a liberal was 2.5 times as likely to be identified as such as a conservative.  I wish I could reprint the guy's results here verbatim, because he had tons of details and had gone at the data several times in several ways, but kept coming up with those same numbers.

 

 

I'd like to see it as I have NEVER seen a liberal called a liberal. No offense to the author, but that is a crock. He's either flat-out lying or distorting reality in a major way.

 

I'd also like to know what publications he read.

 

His results seem vastly different than the results of every other study of the media ever done.

                     -=Mike

 

...Then again, he was on NPR which tends to silence conservative voices.