|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message nk.net... psycholist wrote: All the sources absolutely did NOT say that. What rubbish. See: "http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/701007/posts" Enough said! That's the most ridiculous, agenda-driven tripe I've read in all this thread, yet. And you buy it hook, line and sinker? That's really scary. Bob C. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:
But all the sources said later that if they had done a complete recount, rather than having it stopped by the Supreme Court, that Gore would have won. The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law dictated the election was over. Recall that the Florida Supremes arbitrarily extended the deadline to certify the results (to Nov 26). The Bush legal position was that 1) they had no constitutional authority to do so 2) those action also violate 3USC5 whereby you have to follow election standards in place prior to election day (this was regarding the whole chad issue) and 3) cherry picking only some localities and varying chad standard was a violation of equal protection. Contrary to myth, the US Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY held on points 2 and 3. That is, that the standards for a legal vote and clear intent of the voter were unconstititionally varying day to day as a result of lower court legal decisions. (see slip op p 8). Also contrary to myth, the US Supreme Court SEVEN (not 5) Justices found that the Florida Supreme's action was unconstitutional ("Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy ... The only disagreement is as to the remedy." slip op. p12). Also contrary to myth is that the decision "stopped the counting". In fact, what they did was remand the case back to the Florida Supremes. They said 'your solution violates the constitution and you grossly overstepped your authority by making up ad hoc election rules, so issue a new decision/solution.' By not taking up the issue, the Florida Supremes ended the counting (of course, there was no practical solution that could both comply with pre-election day law and the Constitutional and still allow any sort of legal recounting). Gore still lost with or without the 215 P-B and 168 Miami votes "found" in the process. When the consortium of news media recounted, only with the gross assumption that the overvote (2 pres candidates punched) was meant for Gore did he win. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:46:21 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote: But all the sources said later that if they had done a complete recount, rather than having it stopped by the Supreme Court, that Gore would have won. There is nothing wrong with what Gore did. He won, he fought for his victory, and it was taken away from him by friends of the Bush family. No, Gore wanted to count and re-count only votes for the counties that he thought would favor him. And he operated under the assumption that any "voter" so feeble and stupid that s/he couldn't poke a hole all the way through a thin sheet of cardboard must ipso facto have intended to vote Gore. Your bleat is SO last week. Find a new one. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:04:07 -0500, "psycholist"
wrote: See: "http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/701007/posts" Enough said! That's the most ridiculous, agenda-driven tripe I've read in all this thread, yet. And you buy it hook, line and sinker? That's really scary. No, it's really typical. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:01:10 -0600, Reality Check none@ wrote:
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote: But all the sources said later that if they had done a complete recount, rather than having it stopped by the Supreme Court, that Gore would have won. The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law dictated the election was over. Gee, did you forget whose brother was the governor? Bill Baka |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Reality Check none@ wrote: The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law dictated the election was over. After that election, I spent quite a bit of time reviewing the Florida election statutes. What Gore did followed FLorida law, and the method of recounting had been done in Florida for years. This method had been challenged before in the Florida Supreme Court and upheld. The US Supreme Court, right or wrong, actually did rule against the process that Florida had used for about 20 years affecting many elections. This was not something that Gore's team just made up. In any case, that's ancient history now, and I agree that it's Gore's own damn fault that the election was that close. Todd Kuzma |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Todd Kuzma wrote:
In article , Reality Check none@ wrote: The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law dictated the election was over. After that election, I spent quite a bit of time reviewing the Florida election statutes. What Gore did followed FLorida law, and the method of recounting had been done in Florida for years. This method had been challenged before in the Florida Supreme Court and upheld. Not entirely correct. Florida statute had long been that when the results were close that recounts were automatic; in other cases that close results (county by county) could be challenged and call for a recount. That's all well and good. But when those recounts did not result in enough found votes they wanted yet another chance, and in some cases with still different standards of voter intent. To quote from the USSC slip op (p 8): "The record provides some examples. A monitor in Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed that three members of the county canvassing board applied different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county changed its evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment." This completely contradicts the assertion that some set of orderly standards were in use at all, let alone for 20 yrs. The changing process described was a result of several court actions along the way in which voter intent was constantly redefined. The Florida Supreme Court you referring to sounds like the 2000 Gore v Harris. The FSC did not in fact "uphold" anything, but in fact conjured new ad hoc rules arbitratily extending the verification deadline. The US Supreme Court, right or wrong, actually did rule against the process that Florida had used for about 20 years affecting many elections. This was not something that Gore's team just made up. The main thing the FSC did was to arbitrarily set a new certification deadline. Florida almost certainly did not have a 20 year history of doing that. The USSC said you have to use the rules and standards in place prior to election day. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Baka wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:01:10 -0600, Reality Check none@ wrote: The fact is that Gore, thru the Florida Supreme Court, was pressing for another PARTIAL recount in selected, cherry-picked precincts favorable to them, NOT a complete recount. All well after state law dictated the election was over. Gee, did you forget whose brother was the governor? You don't even have to WORK at being an idiot, do you Bill? Bill "close contest between you and Blair" S. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Baka" wrote in message
news I couldn't have said it better. This time I think Bush got in by lying his ass off and the help of the corrupt Republicans he has on staff. The next four years could find the country bankrupt, financially if not morally. This is the first time in, well, forever, that I have seen a president get something so meaningless on the ballot as a vote to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages. It looks like the Vatican is going to run the White house and you know where that goes. No stem cell research, no abortions, no advancement. Other countries that are not held back by this bull**** will be taking the lead in sciences away from us and we will wind up a second class nation after it shakes out. ****, we put people on the moon 35 years ago and what have we done since? Blew up a few ****tles, built a half assed space station, bankrupt the Russian communists, left Castro alone, shake with fear at China's emerging might and North Korea's atomic bomb and rocket program. Does Bush worry about that, no, he just wants to keep the oil pipeline open. But try explaining any of this to a lower to middle class person in the midwest. They don't understand and they don't want to understand. And Karl Rove understands the danger in trying to make them understand. Hot-button issues are what matter these days; abortion, gay marriage, guns, and G-d. Democrats better descend to the level of the Republicans, and find their own Karl Rove, before the next election. Democrats counted on people voting for their own economic self-interest; the lower to middle class people that voted for Bush either didn't understand, or didn't care, that they will be worse off economically. When an economy collapses, it's always the poor and middle class that are affected first. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
ink.net... Hot-button issues are what matter these days; abortion, gay marriage, guns, and G-d. It would be interesting if there was a political party that would be the guns (pro), gays (anti), God (pro), and grizzlies (anti) party that would also meet the economic needs of those lower- to middle-class people in those red regions. What's happening now is that people are voting based on stupid things like gay marriage, when there's nobody out in their county, and hurting themselves economically. Money flows like a river out of the blue regions of the country and into the red ones in the form of taxes -- everytime they vote for a someone who wants to lower taxes in general, and especially, lower taxes for the rich, they are hurting themselves in the basics: reducing the quality of their water supply, making sure their roads in aren't going to be maintained, making their schools worse. They vote emotionally over symbols, and someone else is laughing all the way to the bank. This political party would also be pro-balanced budget, anti-interventionist abroad. To appeal to its constituency, it would probably be anti-immigrant, too. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply Home of the meditative cyclist: http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Election Results | Maggie | General | 336 | November 24th 04 10:30 PM |
Kerry: Campy Bush: Shimano | Ed Sullivan | General | 115 | October 18th 04 05:47 AM |
USA Cycling election results | Dan Connelly | Racing | 0 | September 24th 04 10:32 PM |
Twilight Results Past Top 3 for M & W? | Dahron Johnson | Racing | 3 | April 26th 04 04:44 PM |
Alpenrose Challenge Results for Friday, 18Jul2003 | Mike Murray | Racing | 6 | July 23rd 03 12:17 AM |