What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) [LWN.net]

What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes)

Posted Jun 19, 2003 4:06 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047)
In reply to: What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) by ronaldcole
Parent article: What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes)

Ok, then, I'll step up to the plate and say it: pull your head out. The US president is NOT elected by popular vote. Never has been. Go google for "electoral college" and educate yourself before spreading misinformation as if it were an apt analogy.

Except that ncm did not say that the US president was elected by popular vote. In fact, popular vs. electoral votes wasn't even MENTIONED in ncm's comment. Nor is that issue particularly germane to ncm's argument. So this is simply irrelevant distraction, much like...well, everything you see coming from SCO these days. Or President Bush, for that matter.

(Log in to post comments)

What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes)

Posted Jun 19, 2003 6:48 UTC (Thu) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link]

He implied that if the Supreme Court hadn't appointed the President, then the popular vote would have produced the opposite result. He's wrong on both counts. Not only didn't the Supreme Court "appoint" the President, but how can he know that the democratic slate of Electors wouldn't have been so appalled at the actions of their party that enough electoral votes would have been cast for Bush to achieve the same result?

Simple answer: he can't.

What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes)

Posted Jun 19, 2003 14:05 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link]

He implied that if the Supreme Court hadn't appointed the President, then the popular vote would have produced the opposite result.

No, sorry, he didn't. He implied that if the Surpreme Court hadn't intervened a different set of electors would have been in place and that enough would have chosen Gore to change the outcome. Regardless of whether that's true there is nothing in ncm's post about the popular vote of the nation as a whole (which did favor Gore but doesn't affect the election under present law). Your churlish demand that he search Google for "electoral collage" remains both impolite and irrelevant.

And as for your latest witterings, they are wrong on both counts. Not only is there no reasonable chance that Democratic electors in Florida would have voted for Bush (they are partisan flacks who are as likely to be "appalled" by the antics of their party as Republican electors), but this is unrelated to the point ncm was making. That point, since you clearly failed to read the message you replied to, is that conservative interests do indeed run to the courts when it suits them -- a fact you haven't yet been foolish enough to dispute.

What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes)

Posted Jun 19, 2003 15:15 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]

Your churlish demand that he search Google for "electoral collage" remains both impolite and irrelevant.

Churlish? Impolite? Irrelevant?

The post that started this discussion is 90% innuendo, but despite this maybe you where expecting a resonse more along the lines of:

"I'm sorry, but despite the fact that I'm a conservative son of a bitch and responsible for war, world poverty, and the depletion of the world's natural resources, could I please take exception to what you just said?"

Some templates might be useful for some of us so that we can post more politically correct responses. I mean I'd just hate to be impolite and offend anyone on a Linux message board..