jlpiece
|
posted on July 17, 2001 07:27:59 AM new
Apparently you weren't aware that those votes that the Democrats so heartily promised would be recounted when they lost, actually were recounted - a few times. Of course even without Harris, Jeb or any of the Supreme courts (The U.S. or Florida) Gore still didn't have enough votes. No matter how many manipulative recounts were performed, nobody has been able to make Gore have more votes. Those are the facts. I understand that some people can't face the truth and like to live in their own dreamworld, but here in reality, he didn't have enough votes. I realize Bush isn't the brightest guy on the planet, but that doesn't mean the guy didn't get enough votes. Facts are facts, whether they agree with your preconceived beliefs or not. Guess what? Some people in the real world base their beliefs on facts that are present. Others such as yourself believe only the facts that agree with what you prematurely believe before all of the facts are presented.
|
krs
|
posted on July 17, 2001 08:08:16 AM new
Blah, blah. But the state of Florida is interested in what happened even now and might "call for an
investigation into why aides to Katherine Harris, Florida's secretary of state, said work
done on computers during the Florida stalemate had been erased, a potential violation
of state public records laws.
"We have to look at trying to see if criminal action needs to be taken against
Katherine Harris," Bob Poe, chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, said in an
interview, "particularly for the destruction of public records. It's very clear that
Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush, for that matter, never took off their campaign hats
during the whole postelection process — and they always claimed that they did."
|
KatyD
|
posted on July 17, 2001 08:11:03 AM new
FACT, JL: Harris, Jeb, & Dumbya et. al were the FIRST to file lawsuits to prevent accurate recounts of the various precincts in question.
FACT, JL: When it became clear that the State Courts were not going to roll over, these same parties filed with the Supreme Court.
FACT, JL: The Supreme Court stepped into what was essentially a State matter and decided the "victor" of the Florida election, by refusing to allow an accurate recount.
Now I'm done on this topic. I can't seem to get through your posts without my eyes glazing over, and it's too early for a nap. 
KatyD
|
jlpiece
|
posted on July 17, 2001 08:34:14 AM new
FACT KATYD: Without any of this, Bush still had more votes than Gore.
FACT KATYD: Therefore, Bush is the rightful President of the United States.
FACT KATYD: You will probably never be able to accept the truth.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on July 17, 2001 09:06:06 AM new
FACT KATYD: Without any of this, Bush still had more votes than Gore.
Correct. Without an accurate counting of the votes Bush did achieve a majority of votes in Florida.
|
roofguy
|
posted on July 17, 2001 09:19:42 AM new
Many find themselves in the position of the fan who KNOWS that the pitch was not a strike. The ref was blind, or favored the other team. It was an inaccurate call.
And they know this not because they were at the ballpark, but because their team lost.
|
roofguy
|
posted on July 17, 2001 09:29:11 AM new
There is a principle of American democratic government called "separation of power".
IF the courts could decide the results of elections, the courts would quickly become an aristocricy.
There were three players in the court battle.
1. The election process (as represented by the State of Florida)
2. The Florida Supreme Court (all lower courts quickly deferred)
3. The US Supreme Court
The election process cannot be fraudulent, or the courts can de-legitimize the election. However, short of such fraud, the separation of powers removes the process of the election from court supervision. The Florida Supreme Court declined to uphold that principle. The US Supreme Court did uphold it.
A true constitutional crisis would have arisen had the results been any different.
The courts have no business passing judgement on the election process.
|
arttsupplies
|
posted on July 17, 2001 09:38:57 AM new
...George Bush always looks like he has to go pee.
I enjoy reading the "Round Table" but this made me crack up.
I was up early (West Coast) and watching CNN when they broke live to Bush giving a Vietnam Veteran the Medal of Honour. After he spoke, and while the official proclamation (?) was being read, Bush could hardly keep still. He rocked back and forth like an autistic child at times. I watched this elderly Veteran stand ramrod straight for the complete time. I felt proud of this Veteran and I'm in complete awe (in a BAD way) of George W. Bush.
arttsupplies (webmaster)
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on July 17, 2001 09:50:16 AM new
I'm just curious jlp. Why do you think most people don't agree that Bush won fair & square? I think it's because nobody knows for sure whether he did win fair & sqaure. It's very important for people to believe in their President, but when the Presidency starts off shady, I'm sure even 'staunch conservatives' would be questioning the honesty and decency of this election.... ie: it's hard to support a 'moral, decent' human being that got to the top by being dishonest in the eyes of Americans, left or right.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on July 17, 2001 09:57:02 AM new
I recall Bush's "people" frantically turning over every legal stone all the while denouncing Gore for doing the same and stonefacedly declaring him president just about every day on the off-chance that declarations would settle it for most Americans.
Considering that Bush squeaked through by any reckoning one would think he'd have welcomed a chance to certify his legitimacy in the eyes of all Americans. I also remember shortly after his ascension an attempt was made by his "people" to have the Florida ballots sealed away for ten years.
Why?
|
roofguy
|
posted on July 17, 2001 09:58:24 AM new
I'm sure even 'staunch conservatives' would be questioning the honesty and decency of this election....
No one has ever presented any credible evidence that the election was either dishonest or indecent.
What it was was messy, imprecise.
|
roofguy
|
posted on July 17, 2001 10:02:17 AM new
Considering that Bush squeaked through by any reckoning one would think he'd have welcomed a chance to certify his legitimacy in the eyes of all Americans.
Clinton's first election was another one of those squeakers. The Ross Perot effect.
That's politics. This "lacking legitimacy" stuff is not accepted at all by the winners of elections. It's seen as carping by the opposition, and nothing else.
|
arttsupplies
|
posted on July 17, 2001 10:04:41 AM new
No one has ever presented any credible evidence that the election was either dishonest or indecent.
I would consider the New York Times credible.
but I guess people will see what they want to see.
arttsupplies (webmaster)
|
roofguy
|
posted on July 17, 2001 10:05:48 AM new
I would consider the New York Times credible.
A vacuous reference?
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on July 17, 2001 10:06:01 AM new
Those are just words. 'Messy' and 'imprecise' sound better than 'dishonest' or 'indecent'.
In a situation where the candidate without the most votes appears to win the electoral vote, don't you think precision is called for more so even than in any other election?
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on July 17, 2001 10:07:46 AM new
Clinton's first election was another one of those squeakers. The Ross Perot effect.
Clinton received a majority of the votes cast [as split three ways] and a majority of the electoral votes. No, he never got a shining mandate. But his wins are incomparable to Bush's.
That's politics. This "lacking legitimacy" stuff is not accepted at all by the winners of elections. It's seen as carping by the opposition, and nothing else.
Oh, I am well aware. However, the 'opposition' is the majority of Americans who voted in the election, not Al Gore. Bush can pretend he received a welcoming mat from Americans rather than one from American territory. He'd do well to "unite" and not "divide" as he promised or else he'll lose unamibguously next time around.
He can smirk all he wants, but those smirks may land him back to Austin.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Jul 17, 2001 10:12 AM ]
|
roofguy
|
posted on July 17, 2001 10:20:28 AM new
In a situation where the candidate without the most votes appears to win the electoral vote, don't you think precision is called for more so even than in any other election?
The precision simply was not there.
We measured. We got 1.0000 units. It turned out that we would have liked to know if that was 0.99998 or 1.00002, but we just couldn't know for sure. The measurement process simply could not deliver that level of precision.
That's very different from declaring the measurement dishonest.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on July 17, 2001 10:22:57 AM new
james -
Can you even imagine a "next time around" for this guy??
roofguy - I understand what you are saying, but question whether you seriously believe that there was no dishonesty in this election?
|
roofguy
|
posted on July 17, 2001 10:28:10 AM new
I understand what you are saying, but question whether you seriously believe that there was no dishonesty in this election?
There is always some level of dishonesty in an election. People lie to vote. Maybe some election official cleaned up a chad or two.
What we have not seen is any systemic dishonesty, any reason to suspect that the results, as counted and recorded, were the results of a dishonest process.
|
toke
|
posted on July 17, 2001 10:34:08 AM new
This argument is going to go on in perpetuity. What's done will not be undone until '04...no matter the righteous wrath on both sides.
What is really worrying me is...who's going to run next time? I couldn't vote for either Gore or Bush in the last election, and that won't change.
Scary.
|
uaru
|
posted on July 17, 2001 10:42:00 AM new
What is really worrying me is...who's going to run next time?
The junior senator from New York has the contacts to run as the democratic candidate.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on July 17, 2001 10:46:12 AM new
toke -  .....another sad reality....
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on July 17, 2001 10:58:45 AM new
The junior senator from New York has the contacts to run as the democratic candidate.
I bet the country is ready for a female president. So why would any party be dumb enough to put forth a candidate with so much baggage and who evokes so much loathing like Hillary?
My prediction is that the first female president will be Republican.
In any case, to the prospect of candidate Hillary, I say: 
|
uaru
|
posted on July 17, 2001 11:11:35 AM new
So why would any party be dumb enough to put forth a candidate with so much baggage and who evokes so much loathing like Hillary?
She did win New York in a landslide. I'm not sure what that says about New York. 
|
arttsupplies
|
posted on July 17, 2001 11:13:47 AM new
A vacuous reference?
What is vacuous about this reference. This thread is titled..
Documenting Vote Count Impropriety in Florida
There were a few articles in last Sunday's New York Times. Many people a using these articles as a reference.
Do you know what the word vacuous means?
This is the main reason I'm in lurk mode most of time on this list. Most of the time it's a bunch of BLOWHARDS not interested in discussing anything but just spewing whatever they can to pacify themselves. most of the time it's entertaining but sometimes it kind of makes you wonder...
Where do you get your information?
Or should I ask...how was the weather in, and did you enjoy your trip to, Florida last November?
arttsupplies (webmaster)
[ edited by arttsupplies on Jul 17, 2001 11:42 AM ]
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on July 17, 2001 11:16:05 AM new
She did win New York in a landslide. I'm not sure what that says about New York.
That pandering works?
Trust me, I was wondering the very thing myself.
|
uaru
|
posted on July 17, 2001 11:34:18 AM new
In fairness to New York it should be pointed out that they didn't elect Al "Liquid Diet" Sharpton. They could have done worse than Hillary.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on July 17, 2001 11:36:58 AM new
During her campaign she revealed that her husband was the first black president, that she's Jewish, that she's been a lifelong Yankee fan. I'm sure I can think of others if I think about it.
The pandering I could have lived with. What really annoys me is that she thinks it's smart to paint a line between herself and the other 99 senators. We effectively have one functioning senator now.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Jul 17, 2001 11:39 AM ]
|
toke
|
posted on July 17, 2001 12:10:04 PM new
I forgot about Hillary. That would be revolting. 
Who do you think for the Republicans? McCain? I liked him initially, but now I'm not so sure. He seems to be less independent than I thought, and may end up a Democrat anyway.
I'd love to see a strong woman candidate emerge...but I can't imagine who it would be, at this point.
|
bobbi355
|
posted on July 17, 2001 12:15:40 PM new
Gore or Bush - personally I can't stand either one of them. But can you imagine if it had been Gore that won ..... and it had been the Republicans who couldn't figure out a ballot? heh...... STUPID REPUBLICANS CAN'T EVEN READ A BALLOT ...... and the jokes woulda went on 4-ever.
|
