| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/17/2004 09:35:59 AM · #351 |
| My son is Marine in Afghanistan. Their absentee ballots did not arrive in time for them to vote. Instead they used a "provisional ballot" which is a write in ballot. These are the ballots that were never counted in the 2000 election. I find it ironic that 8 million Afghani's got to vote last Saturday yet 8,000 Americans in Afghanistan will not. Of all the people who deserve a vote, I think my son in the Marines should be near the top of the list. |
|
|
|
10/17/2004 10:17:59 AM · #352 |
Originally posted by emorgan49:
My son is Marine in Afghanistan....... Of all the people who deserve a vote, I think my son in the Marines should be near the top of the list. |
I agree!
I will pray that the "provisional ballots" are counted this time. Regardless of who it favors.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2004 10:19:56 AM · #353 |
Originally posted by emorgan49:
My son is Marine in Afghanistan. Their absentee ballots did not arrive in time for them to vote. Instead they used a "provisional ballot" which is a write in ballot. These are the ballots that were never counted in the 2000 election. I find it ironic that 8 million Afghani's got to vote last Saturday yet 8,000 Americans in Afghanistan will not. Of all the people who deserve a vote, I think my son in the Marines should be near the top of the list. |
Who is responsible for getting the ballots to them on a timely basis? I would think it would be the state where your son is registered to vote.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/17/2004 11:52:29 AM · #354 |
| No, they dont have home addresses, they are counted as "military" and it is the militarys responsibility to get them ballots. He thinks his unit will be for Bush but either way, they deserve to be counted. |
|
|
|
10/17/2004 06:03:05 PM · #355 |
Originally posted by emorgan49:
No, they dont have home addresses, they are counted as "military" and it is the militarys responsibility to get them ballots. He thinks his unit will be for Bush but either way, they deserve to be counted. |
By about 4 to 1 at least according to polls.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2004 03:07:44 PM · #356 |
Found this list interesting but obviously no idea of the bias of the person who put it together, nor the accuracy of the content. Interesting none the less.
Message edited by author 2004-10-18 15:07:59.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2004 03:13:21 PM · #357 |
You have no idea? Who you trying to bullshit?
Originally posted by Gordon:
Found this list interesting but obviously no idea of the bias of the person who put it together, nor the accuracy of the content. Interesting none the less. |
|
|
|
|
10/18/2004 03:15:30 PM · #358 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
You have no idea? Who you trying to bullshit?
|
No one. It was a true statement. I don't know the person. I have no idea about his biases for or against any candidate or party. All I know is he (again - I'm assuming that they are male) runs the site that produces the various graphs that get posted on predicted election results.
I still found the list interesting, which was the only reason I posted it. If the content is incorrect - feel free to correct it though - I'd be interested in that too. Certainly more interested than in discussing the merits of the messenger.
Message edited by author 2004-10-18 15:21:28.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2004 03:41:31 PM · #359 |
I believe what you said, but a few clues do point to it being (purposefully?) slanted:
- The author of the site its posted on (www.electoral-vote.com) is very open about being a democrat and a Kerry supporter. (I'm not sure he put it together, but I do believe he would be biased in what info he does post.)
- There is at least one fairly prominant Republican congressman (though he's my congressman, so maybe not as prominant as it seems to me) that is missing from that list, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, so it would take quite a bit more research to determine how complete the list is.
- The sarcastic descriptions of some of the Republican's service (or lack thereof).
- The list is slanted just in sheer numbers to indicate a bias. 26 Democrats listed vs. 42 Republicans (not including the "Pundits, Preachers and Judges" section). I'm sure one could easily find another 16 Dems who didn't serve to balance out the list a bit.
- A key bit of information which is missing or obsured: the age of the individuals. All but one of the Dems with service listed are Vietnam-era or prior. I'm curious how many of the Republicans listed would have been of an age to serve at a time when 1) there was no draft, 2) there was no war, and 3) military service was less of a "given" for the average young person. The results could probably be spun both ways, but I think a valid case can be made that a smaller percentage of the population servered in general in the late 70s and 80s than during the various Democratic (sorry, couldn't resist) wars of the preceding three decades.
- The "Pundits, Preachers and Judges" section. Hand picked to include only conservatives strictly to make a point. As stated above, one could quickly create a list of liberal "pundits, preachers and judges" which would balance that list.
I know you're a smart guy Gordon. You may be able to claim ignorance in regards to direct knowledge of the bias of the lists creator, but you're inteligent enough to figure it out. |
|
|
|
10/18/2004 04:00:15 PM · #360 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
I believe what you said, but a few clues do point to it being (purposefully?) slanted:
|
Absolutely, it looks at first glance, as if it could be biased, at least in selection, though if so, I'd ask who on either side you'd add. They appear, again, at first glance, to be the major participants on either side. I certainly haven't heard of the congressman you mentioned. That was why I made the statement that I made. But as facts, they appear to be correct, unless someone wants to dispute them. Again - my point is that the list as stands is interesting - biased collator or not.
It doesn't change the fact that I don't know if the person who put the list together is biased, or if the content is true or not. Personally, I don't see the sarcasm you refer to , other than perhaps the comment about the NFL player who had knee problems, but then played professionally for another 8 years.
Could you find another 26 prominant republicans in Bush's administration who served to balance out the list ?
Message edited by author 2004-10-18 16:03:00.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2004 04:45:17 PM · #361 |
| Would be interesting to see if those numbers are correct. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 09:16:58 AM EDT.
