Who would place Reagan as our best president

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Saying someone "probably should have won" is the equivalent of saying they "really won?"

Really? In that case, you probably should be considered a moron.

As I said. Linus. Blanket. Go have a good cry.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

Too bad that's not the criteria for winning the presidency, eh?

I love the "electoral college crowd" who think that because someone wins, it means they are not an incompetent moron of near-unprecedented proportions. Looks like Linus will never lose his blanket...

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

????

following that same logic Bush takes blame for 9-11

No, Clinton takes blame for 9-11 because his admin. didn't take out OBL when he had the chance.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What did you want to happen? Would you have promoted not counting any of the ballots with hanging chads? Why not? Wouldn't your approach be a poorer reflection of the will of the people (and keep in mind that measuring the will of the people is the sole purpose of an election).

If you're too stupid to punch your ballot all the way through, you probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

If you're too stupid to punch your ballot all the way through, you probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

Similarly, if you are too stupid to pronounce simple words correctly, you probably shouldnt be running a country.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Now you're just making up rules as you go. Assuming that people who don't punch all the way through are "stupid," I will surrender the point if you can show me where the Constitution sets an intelligence standard for voting.

The fact that 51 million people actually voted for Al Gore is evidence enough that there is no intelligence standard for voting. Har har har.

Sorry, fish in a barrel, I just couldn't resist.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

First of all, you have no possible way of knowing what you are projecting onto Gore (without, ironically, making the same projection onto Bush).

Elections are held for elections' sake? You can't possibly believe that to be true. If it were, there would be no purpose in having any rules to the election, no point in registering for an election, no actual result following the election of any significance, and no reason whatsoever to vote. It would all just be a meaningless exercise designed to... hold an election?

Your final sentence is just circular.

Both of them want to win, that's why they're politicians. What do you mean? They will do what it takes to win; it's not a question of morals. I've never assumed such.

It's like what I tell my clients about trials. Trials are to make decisions, if justice happens by at the same time, that's a good thing but not expected.

Elections are about order and routine and if the will of the people is occasionally had, that's a good thing, but not expected. There is purpose in routines.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Trials aren't just about making decisions. If you aren't even expecting justice to happen as a result of a trial, you are doing something wrong.

Tell me you're not so idealistic as to believe that. Trials are not about justice, they are about getting your day in court and hoping you're not screwed too badly. Sometimes you prevail over the trier's of fact biases, sometimes you don't. I've had times when my client deserved to win but didn't and where it didn't deserve to win but did. No, it's not about justice, it's about finality so that business and economics can make decisions about results.

There is no justice at the hands of men and women. Just accept that. There is only gray.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Justice is the hoped for ideal, and it should be expected as a result of the decision reached.

Why should it be expected. You have imperfect beings using imperfect intellects struggling to even identify their own biases rendering a decision they may believe is "justice" but maybe it isn't, maybe it is.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Elections aren't just about order and routine. Again, if that were the case, there would be thousands of routines we could go through that would have nothing to do with the will of the people at all. If we don't even expect to measure the will of the people, why put on the facade at all?

You're not very practical.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, trials are about justice. The fact that justice often isn't the end result does not mean that justice is not the aim or the purpose of the trial. You are simply confusing the result with the purpose, a dangerous game for any lawyer.



Because if you expect anything less, you are certain to attain it.



If not for idealism, we wouldn't bother with trials. Duels would carry the day. Reaching for what is easily attainable is the quickest path to mediocrity.

You just need to experience more reality. I've not met any seasoned litigator who believes trials are about justice, they are about fighting hard to win. They are duels, with the biggest guns usually coming out the winner. If you throw more money at your opposition, you can overwhelm the opposition.

It's not a question of mediocrity but reality. You fight just as hard, but you don't become as disappointed that justice is ephemeral and most often not achievable.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Again, confusing the result with the purpose. Regardless of what you or other litigators believe, the purpose is justice. That so many find a way to pervert the process in an attempt to avoid justice does not change the fact that justice is the ideal.

Ideal way back when, not now.

And maybe if you're the judge, or it should be. And there are good, honest judges, but there are also a myriad of mediocre judges, who wouldn't know how to do justice if it hit them squarely between the eyes.