Vote for Bush, get blasted by hurricanes
by Volker Weber
Comments
Incredible, haven't laughed that much for a long time :-) OK; besides: this one, but that's completely off-topic...
Excellent... both, the Florida-one and the 0190-one :-)
Just one question:
What numbers is the coloring of the map based on?
The official count of votes as it was used for determining the representative for Florida, I assume. Or one of the manual recounts? Or maybe even the actual votes (hey, God should be able to know without any counting, shouldn't he)?
If the later is the case, why is he then punishing Florida again? I mean, they (and the rest of the world) have been punished enough by this guy taking offive, right?
Just my two cents,
If it's God vs Bush, how do you explain this map?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm
Also, maybe it's just that I don't have a sense of humor about this kind of stuff, but the storm tracks are wrong. Maybe since it's supposed to be funny, accuracy isn't important but as weshould have learned recently, it isn't a good idea to make stuff up even if you do want it to be true.
Ivan's landfall was a few miles outside of Florida (Gulf Shores, Alabama...still a "red" county, but as you can see from the previous map, it's not hard to hit a "red" county). Frances crossed out into the Gulf before turning north and probably going through one of the three "blue" counties in the panhandle. Charley took a more eastward track as it approached Florida's Atlantic coast.
I'll try to find the NOAA/NHC maps of their tracks later and try to match them up with counties.
Also, for Ragnar, it's the final official vote result by county.
Most states have a 'winner take all' system for the electoral vote. Whoever gets the most votes in the state get all of the state's electors.
There are two exteptions...New Hampshire is one, I can't remember the other. In these states, they do an odd split, where they assign a portion of the electors based on what percentage of the vote that the candidate got, and then there's a pool of leftovers that the winner gets. I don't live in a state that does that so I'm not 100% sure how that works.
The point that I was trying to make is that what is shown in the map that Volker posted (and the national one that I refered to previously) isn't used for anything official. It shows more detail than the usual red state/blue state electoral college map. It shows how you can win the popular vote but lose the election (concentrate on the population centers and ignore broad national/gepgraphical support).
Also, for those of us that support our president, it illustrates how silly the whole "stolen election" argument is.
There's an irony in here. Bush is
anti-science and beholden to energy companies and has been putting his head in the sand denying global warning. But global warning is just going to increase the destructive of hurricanes, (although it can't be proven that in particular that these three hurricanes were more destructive due to global warning--only the general case can be proven that over time they get worse.)
for those of us that support our president
I am not entirely sure whether that means "support the president no matter if it is Bush or Clinton" or if it is newspeak for "will vote for Bush no matter what".
If I was using 'newspeak' I would have added something along the lines of 'in a time of war' which seems to be a popular excuse for supporting stupid things.
Do I agree with the Bush administration on everything they do? No. I wouldn't say that I'd vote for Bush no matter what, but it would take a Clinton-esque scandal to change my mind.
Modern politicians are far from perfect so in today's world a voter has to decide what's important to them and picking a candidate that more closely aligns with that.
It still boggles my mind, that an affair with an intern is a scandal, but an illegal war (Kofi Annan's words) is not.
Vowe for President!
it would take a Clinton-esque scandal to change my mindNone of the other scandals quite do it for you then? Good Lord...
It boggles my mind that anyone puts any stock in what Kofi Annan thinks. I don't recall anyone at the UN having a press conference to say that the corruption of the Iraq oil for food program was illegal. If the UN didn't want to enforce the resolution(s) on Iraq, they shouldn't have voted for them.
Clinton had other problems besides the intern thing. Kerry has some of the same problems plus some new ones.
At least Clinton knew how to run a campaign. I'm so tired of Vietnam. I don't care where Clinton was, whether Bush showed up for Guard duty, or how Kerry was or was not a hero. The Gore campaign tried to make it an issue in 2000, but it didn't work then either. John Edwards seems to have the good sense to keep out of that mess. What about Kerry's record in the senate? If it's a record to be proud of, the Kerry campaign isn't communicating that effectively...I haven't even heard much about it on the Air America radio shows. What about the stuff that directly affects us as Americans (presidential elections always come down to "what's in it for me?")? I know Kerry's talking about that (healthcare, jobs, taxes) too, but constantly bringing up his Vietnam service is distracting and tiring to me.
There's enough lies and distortion coming from both sides through the media and the candidates and their campaigns that it's almost impossible to have a constructive political debate anymore. The left is always going to hate Bush and consider it another stolen election if he wins in November. The right is going to consider Kerry a weak flip-flopper til 2 November...at which time, either he'll go away or have a chance to prove that he can do a better job than Bush has. I just hope that things can be a little more civil and rational (on both sides) in '08. I miss the good old days when everyone remembered that all politicians at that level are scum. :)
I miss the good old days when everyone remembered that all politicians at that level are scum.That’s a great line Scott, I like it very much :o)
By the way...I said I'd redo the map for the hurricane tracks. My head hurts (I'm an admin, not a programmer).
I'm going to be lazy and say that since I found one error that the whole premise is flawed. :)
Here's the advisory just before landfall...(30.2N 87.8W):
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/pub/al092004.public_b.055.shtml?
Here's the advisory just after landfall...(30.9N 87.7W):
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/pub/al092004.public.056.shtml?
There wasn't an alert on the exact landfall point. Here's the Ivan archive though for disclosure:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/IVAN.shtml
For the pre-landfall position, Terraserver shows 4km West of Gulf Shores, AL:
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?Lon=-87.8&Lat=30.2&w=1&ref=G|-87.8,30.2
Post landfall position on Terraserver is 41km NorthEast of Mobile, AL:
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?Lon=-87.7&Lat=30.9&w=1&ref=G|-87.7,30.9
Charley did land at Punta Gorda, FL. Frances was Stuart, Fl which is in Martin County as far as I can tell and about where the Frances line hits land.
It's wrong enough for me. :P
Ooh....here's one....it's on Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/hurricane.asp
Volker, I live in Orlando. People died in these storms, and others lost everything - house, car, family photographs, everything. Trying to make a political point off of that is cheap and sleazy.
Come on, buddy. My parents live in Orlando and this morning, my mom call me to say: (1) we're alive and we've got power and (2) you've got to check this website out. It's called a joke. Learn to laugh people.
