Reading the posts that followed Lea's original in this thread, I am led to a matter of concern. I see that people will see pretty much what they want to see, so, I've devised a hypothetical scenario. I'd like any interested parties to participate.<br><br>Let's just say that a person ran for president and knew the race was close. Let's also say that this person had a history of shady deals, and had been a governor of another large state, like New York, and had practiced governing there by decree, ordering the change of state laws so that polluters could pollute all they wanted to, and big businesses could get everything they wanted from the state. He was so popular that one big business, a huge, controversial company which had changed the face of, let's say... the oil business, and had caused other states to suffer with energy blackouts because they didn't want to pay the usurious prices they were charging for energy contracted through shady practices. This candidate had been a part of the success of that shady company. Let's say that the candidate had someone close to him in position as governor of a pivotal state like California, with lots of electoral votes. Now, let's say that this person—his uncle, perhaps—used a lot of questionable tactics to swing the state's vote, some of which were illegal enough to cause the State of California to be sued later by the federal government. <br><br>When the election occurred, the vote was very close. Immediately the guy's uncle swung into action and they managed to scuttle the facts so that nobody could tell what was going on. As people would unravel the facts, they threw in more confusion till nobody could say anything without half the people chanting the opposite. <br><br>Now, let's say that this candidate's father had previously been vice president and president and had installed some hard-line party-driven politicians on the Supreme Court. At this moment, these people came together to issue an unprecedented, and arguably illegal, decree to name the new president. They chose, of course, the candidate we've been talking about. <br><br>This new president then, let's say, immediately got to work undoing decades of legislation. He changed environmental laws so that companies could pollute more. He negotiated secret deals for that same shady energy company right there in the White House. He made a mockery of foreign policy by ignoring his predecessors, ignoring the rest of the world, and laying out a new plan of action that dramatically favored certain American businesses. People were now tying together strings of facts that heavily indicted this new president as a tool for some very rich and very powerful private interests. Some of the actions of this new president were so bizarre as to be unbelievable, and consequently nobody would believe them. Presidents just don't do those kinds of things, so people assumed that the whistle-blowers were just lying to them. <br><br>The new president started tightening the noose on the public, taking tighter controls over their travel, their communications, their mail, their Internet, their civil rights, their taxes, and unleashed the FBI to spy on them. At every turn he said phrases like "we're a bunch of good people who love America, and we're fighting to make it a better place." He always threw in that "love America" phrase, and called one of his most oppressive new sweeping changes of law "the Patriot Bill."<br><br>Now... let's just assume that all this really happened. Let's assume it was really true, and that you knew about it. How would you tell the world? How would you make the disbelievers believe? Every fact you dug up was countered with disinformation which was placed with equal validity alongside it in other sources. Every bad thing that this president did was countered by experts who said it was a good thing. Every bad thing that happened was blamed on the previous president. <br><br>Nobody wanted to believe that this new president could do any of these things. How would you change their minds? How could you show them that this man who looked so good on tv was doing things that were so bad behind their backs?<br><br>I really, really want to know the answer to this. I don't think there is a way to do it. People believe what they want to believe so strongly, and are so powerfully indoctrinated with party politics, that they can be led right up to the truth, they can put their hands on it, but like the blind men and the elephant, they will describe something entirely different. Due to their political leanings, everything this president does they will see as a wonderful, magical thing. Those who tell the truth about him will be called "biased," or simply crazy or troublemakers or whatever. <br><br>So, you experts, tell me how anyone could ever make these hypothetically blind people see? Alll in the interest of just supporting a good hypothetical discussion, of course. <br><br>Shooshie<br><br>Shooshie's Stuff
Loc: Alexandria, VA
I mean, surely you have read what the papers have found out upon tallying up the votes in FL...Bush won, get over it. You are telling me you would rather have Gore as president<br><br>Actually, those tallies were inconclusive - depending on which votes were considered, either candidate "won" the election ...<br><br>IIRC, considering undervotes, overvotes, etc., the results were:<br><br>Bush won if:<br>- the votes were counted the way the Bush camp wanted<br>- the votes were counted the way the Gore camp wanted<br><br>Gore won if:<br>- all the votes in the state were counted<br><br>(Grossly simplified here for brevety's sake =)<br><br>FWIW,<br><br>***matt<br><br>
#8594 - 06/02/0203:35 AMRe: John Ashcroft? Monty Python?
Hey OSXaddict, the fact is that the vote count was stopped and never completed. <br><br>If the vote count had been allowed to run its course without intervention and shenanigans, the outcome would have been the other way around. <br><br>You can't have a fair and open election, much less a legitimate government, when you don't count all the votes. <br><br><br><br>
I don't think you can Shooshie. Good post BTW, but you can't fix brainwashing once it has been completed. <br><br>My own little personal theory is that the whole thing goes back to '92 when Bush Sr. was defeated by Clinton. Add to that the reelection of Clinton in '96 and the loss by Dole, and you have some mighty ticked off people. These defeats angered the Republicans so much, that the decision was made to deny the presidency to any Democractic opponent in 2000, regardless of what means they had to take to do it. Hey, it is just a pet theory of mine, but not inconceivable. I don't have proof, but I can smell it a mile away.<br><br>I can just imagine it, late night conversation in the Bush Sr household.<br><br>"Don't worry Barb, our son will be President, come hell or high water. I will see to it that he doesn't lose. Jeb is going to help out and we have friends on the bench you know. George Jr isn't going to be humiliated like I was."<br><br>I kind of almost have doubts that we will even see elections in 2004 for reasons of 'national security.' I hope I am wrong, but in this political climate, who the hell knows for sure. <br><br>So humor me. <br><br>
You forgot to mention that the person responsible for making sure the votes got counted was the "winner's" campaign chair for that state....<br><br>Greetings everyone. I think I like this forum....<br><br>Cheers<br>Scott<br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.