BF2S Forums wot is teh tea-party movement?

FEOS wrote:

Did you miss the part where it essentially said that the outcome of the election wouldn't have changed regardless? Yes, it was ugly as hell, but Tilden would've most likely lost anyway...as stated previously.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-02-21 17:12:40)

CapnNismo wrote:

Though the American people as a voting population are stupid and will believe anything they here hear without checking the facts or giving serious thought to whatever someone tells them. Just look at the number of people that believed that Obama wanted to put in "death panels" to decide whether people lived or died under a government health care plan.

CapnNismo wrote:

That alone shows you how dumb the vast majority of the American people are (and how embarrassed I am to hold an American passport) and then you take a look at their leading intellectual, Sarah Palin, and you clearly see what the Tea Party Movement is all about.

CapnNismo wrote:

Palin was their big speaker at the first Tea Party Convention.

LividBovine wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Actually it is a collection of hard working people who is trying to stop the parasites from voting themselves deeper into their wallets.

Sounds more like a masquerade that will be inevitably swallowed up by the Republican party.

Why do yu consider this  a masquraid movment?  I beleive they are gonna help shape the future of the Republican partys.  It is to big of movment for them to not be taking seriuosly.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Did you miss the part where it essentially said that the outcome of the election wouldn't have changed regardless? Yes, it was ugly as hell, but Tilden would've most likely lost anyway...as stated previously.

Did you miss this part?...

"It is not possible to conclude definitively what the result would have been if a fair election had been held without the violence and intimidation, throughout the South, that disenfranchised many African-Americans explicitly eligible to vote under the 15th amendment. Nevertheless, in the likeliest fair scenario Hayes would have won the election with 189 electoral votes to Tilden's 180 by winning all of the states that he did ultimately carry, plus Mississippi but minus Florida. A strong case can be made that South Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi, states with an outright majority African-American population, would have gone for Hayes since nearly all African-Americans during this time voted Republican (while nearly all whites in the South during this time voted Democratic). Florida, with a majority white population, would have likely gone to Tilden in a fair election. Clearly Hayes would have won appreciably more of the popular vote in a fair election, albeit arguably still not a plurality or majority."

They say there is a very likely scenario that Hayes would have won, but at the same time, there is no way of conclusively proving that because of various uncertainties and corruption.

So no, it's not rational to simply assume Tilden would have lost.

Nevertheless, in the likeliest fair scenario Hayes would have won the election with 189 electoral votes to Tilden's 180 by winning all of the states that he did ultimately carry, plus Mississippi but minus Florida.

Turquoise wrote:

So no, it's not rational to simply assume Tilden would have lost.

LividBovine wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Why do yu consider this  a masquraid movment?  I beleive they are gonna help shape the future of the Republican partys.  It is to big of movment for them to not be taking seriuosly.

If you'll read, I didn't call it a 'masquraid' movement.

Sory, I be from the sticks of MN.  Hope I havn't affended anyone with my pour spelling and grahmer.  Forgive the stoopid hick that I be. 

I sees sarcastic peoples.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-02-24 03:54:01)

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

They say there is a very likely scenario that Hayes would have won, but at the same time, there is no way of conclusively proving that because of various uncertainties and corruption.

Read that again.  Now read this again.

It is not possible to conclude definitively what the result would have been if a fair election had been held without the violence and intimidation, throughout the South, that disenfranchised many African-Americans explicitly eligible to vote under the 15th amendment....  Clearly Hayes would have won appreciably more of the popular vote in a fair election, albeit arguably still not a plurality or majority.

It doesn't matter what the most likely scenario is when so much corruption is involved.  With something as serious as a presidential election, it's not rational to just say, "ah, it's close enough", but unfortunately, we did.

The Electoral College and the institutions connected to it each played a part in putting the will of the people second and political interests first.  The point of bringing up the EC with reference to this is that it is MUCH easier to manipulate an election with a small group of electors than it is to manipulate the overall outcome of the majority vote.  It was through vast amounts of ballot corruption that the true vote totals were thoroughly obscured as well, but having electors as part of the process just makes it that much easier to end an election without counting all of the votes.

FEOS wrote:

In reality, Hayes won. In the most likely "fair" scenario, Hayes would've won. Either way, Hayes won. Ergo...didn't affect the outcome.

And my source also specifically says that it is not possible to conclude definitively what the result would have been overall.  What is most likely is NOT the same thing as what would have unquestionably happened.

While the EC is not the only factor to blame, it was part of the problem.

So, in reality, the election of 1876 was not a fair election by any stretch of the imagination.