posted on December 10, 2000 01:16:22 PM new
I have a depressing feeling that Bush is going to be successful in his attempt to steal this election and I wanted to grab this thread title before anyone else did, LOL.
posted on December 10, 2000 01:23:21 PM new
Ya mean you're worried that Forest Gump will become President. The only difference will be that the new refrain will be "Daddy always said...."
posted on December 10, 2000 06:36:51 PM new
Fortunately, the true thief has been caught and convicted by The Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court justices make a mockery out of the word justice. They are political hacks and nothing more.
posted on December 10, 2000 06:45:42 PM new
We've went from womanizer to idiot. Boy I miss that guy from Arkansas all ready. Here's some excerpts from the inagural address.
"Boy its a glorious day, see daddy I told you I didn't all that education and tutoring. All I needed was Jeb and some party loyalist to get here". Wait wrong speech. Somebody turn that teleprompter on.
posted on December 10, 2000 07:06:57 PM new
"A good old-fashion Revolution" is sounding pretty good, right about now....
******************** Gosh Shosh!
posted on December 10, 2000 07:48:20 PM new
The only reason you people support Gore is because he invented AuctionWatch. You can't or won't accept the fact that we have idiots on both sides of the aisle. I as a Republican was 100% against the Clinton impeachment. President Gore was as disturbing a thought to me then as it is now.
posted on December 11, 2000 03:36:12 PM new
I already miss Clinton---as sleazy as he was, he's still my favorite out of the three presidents that have been elected during my lifetime. 88 was the first year I was old enough to vote.
posted on December 12, 2000 08:39:04 PM new
krs...now you wouldn't be showing disdain for the Supreme Court, would ya? Weren't the Republicans skewered for something similar just a few weeks ago?
posted on December 13, 2000 08:30:02 AM newPlease let me understand this concept
Al Gore won the popular vote of the people of the US that voted 11/7/00.
There is an extremely high probability that Al Gore won the popular vote of the people of Flordia that voted 11/7/00.
But George W. Bush did not steal the election...he won it?
The US Supreme Court made a decision on 12/12/00 that gave the election to George W. Bush who will most likely appoint several justices to the US Supreme court that will be as conservative as the 5 that gave him the presidency, increasing the probibilities that their decisions will be the winning ones. And this shows the separation between the judicial and executive branch...how?
The US Supreme court stated in the majority opinion that each vote needed to have equal treatment...and that was done how? By just not counting all of the votes in less affluent districts of Flordia.
The US Supreme Court had an opportunity to give guidence to the Flordia Supreme Court two weeks ago. They chose instead to wait until 12/12/00, when the majority said...oh yeah, there are a few problems and shoot guys it is just too late to get them fixed this year. So we will just say Bush is president though we all know Gore won the vote of the people.
It is a political decision...not an unbiased one.
The decision should have been made by Flordia courts as it falls under Flordia State law...and is a part of the State Rights that Republicans pay lip service to all the time.
George W. Bush DID NOT win the election. The Good Ole Boy'sbought it for him. His is not a government of the people and for the people. This election was not a democratic process. Yes, he will be our next president, but not by winning the vote. We American's are the true losers...once again we have a president that we did not elect.
[ edited by grannyfox on Dec 13, 2000 08:33 AM ]
posted on December 13, 2000 09:13:40 AM new
grannyfox...could you point me to the URL that shows the "extremely high probability that Al Gore won the popular vote of the people of Flordia that voted 11/7/00." I mean from a source other than a democratic one.
You mention the three USSC rulings and claim they are political, but have no similar feelings on the decisions made by FL SC? Are they only political when they favor Republicans?
Bush won the first count and the machine recount, and Gore could still not come up with enough in the manual recounts that were held. That is why he was so intent on having Martin & Seminole & Overseas ballots rejected. The Miami-Dade recounts showing him catching up were from Democratic areas. Once the counting got to the Cuban precincts, he would have lost any lead he thought he was getting.
grannyfox...could you point me to the URL that shows the "extremely high probability that Al Gore won the popular vote of the people of Flordia that voted 11/7/00." I mean from a source other than a democratic one.
I could, but I won't. Pretty much any news program one can listen to, read, look up on the internet that has written or spoken on the subject has given very high probabilities to Al Gore given statistics, exit polls, out cry since the election njrazd. If you have chosen to disregard this (perhaps they are the liberal press), then any thing I post now will be disregarded too. I will not waste my time. If the votes had been counted...in the same percentage as the ones in the more affleuent Republican districts...we would know for sure, wouldn't we. I think that is the most telling of the probabilities...the refusal to allow these people's votes to be counted.
You mention the three USSC rulings and claim they are political, but have no similar feelings on the decisions made by FL SC? Are they only political when they favor Republicans?
No. It is State Rights. The State legislature makes the election laws, the state juditial branch interpretes the laws. There were legal questions regarding several aspects in the process of the presidential election of 2000. This should be cleared up by the state judicial branch.
Yes, there was a war fought over state rights and the states lost the war. However, they were not striped of all rights...just the right to secede from the Union.
The USSC did not have jurisdiction in this case. They knew it two weeks ago and the same holds true even yet. They used the constitutional aspect by saying that they could intervene because the votes were not being counted in a consistant way. In fact, the votes never had been counted similarly...that was the issue. The more affluent districts had a much higher degree of counts. These were primarily Republican districts. The Flordia Supreme Court was much less biased in their ruling to count all votes in all districts than the USSC was in saying let's count none...the poorer people should not have the same voice in the choice of president as the more affluent should.
In addition...our founding father's set up three branches of federal government with specific functions and specific guidelines for interaction. This was to insure democracy. The president is to choose the USSC justices, not the reverse. It is not democracy for the USSC justices to choose the president who in turn will choose the justices that will sit on the USSC bench.
Bush won the first count and the machine recount, and Gore could still not come up with enough in the manual recounts that were held. That is why he was so intent on having Martin & Seminole & Overseas ballots rejected. The Miami-Dade recounts showing him catching up were from Democratic areas. Once the counting got to the Cuban precincts, he would have lost any lead he thought he was getting
VP Gore was not involved in the cases that you mention. He most probably was interested in them...but was not involved.
Yes, the anti-Castro Cuban population was predominately voting anti-Gore due to the return of Elian Gonzalas to his living parent. I have read many articles regarding the issue of the Cuban-American votes and none support what you have written. Not every Cuban-American supported keeping Elian in the US, nor have I seen anything that suggests that this population would out number the population who's vote went for Gore. Once again...only by counting the votes will we ever know...and that was not allowed because there was a high degree of fear that Gore had the popular vote in the state of Flordia, just as he did nationwide.
posted on December 13, 2000 11:15:06 AM new
grannyfox...I could, but I won't. Pretty much any news program one can listen to, read, look up on the internet that has written or spoken on the subject has given very high probabilities to Al Gore given statistics, exit polls, out cry since the election...
Actually, I have read all of the above...most of which came from liberal opinion pages, and not actual news reports.
If the votes had been counted...in the same percentage as the ones in the more affleuent Republican districts
Are you saying Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties do not include some of the most affluent areas of the country?? I have been in both places and can assure you there is no shortage of affluence in them. Do they also contain lower income areas? Yes, of course, as do the "affluent Republican counties." Like most areas of the country, each county has a pretty good mix.
The more affluent districts had a much higher degree of counts. These were primarily Republican districts.
I thought the Republican Districts (which were not requested to participate in hand recounts) only had the original count and the state machine recount. It was only the heavily Democratic Counties where Gore was looking for more votes that handcounts were originally requested.
the poorer people should not have the same voice in the choice of president as the more affluent should.
Does this count the poor people living in the Republican areas of Florida? Seems there were undervotes all over the state.
VP Gore was not involved in the cases that you mention. He most probably was interested in them...but was not involved.
If you believe that, then I have some above-sea level property for sale in Florida. I posted a link in another thread that the guy who brought those law suits was very entrenched in the Democratic party (including purchasing TV ads) and had consulted with the Gore Legal team several times before filing suit. Gore is the king of micro-management and could have nixed them if he wanted to.
The USSC did not have jurisdiction in this case.
Which is why these rulings were sent back to the Fl SC. BTW...did the Fl SC ever acknowledge or come up with an explanation on that vacated ruling last week? Didn't think so.
posted on December 13, 2000 11:21:27 AM newBTW...did the Fl SC ever acknowledge or come up with an explanation on that vacated ruling last week? Didn't think so.
posted on December 13, 2000 04:16:44 PM newActually, I have read all of the above...most of which came from liberal opinion pages, and not actual news reports.
This is inacurate and anyone that has followed this election is aware of that. In a discussion such as this one expects there to be a common knowledge base, but all people in the discussion have to acknowledge that common knowledge.
It is true that it is not a fact that Gore won the state of Flordia popular vote...it is a educated guess based on statistical evidence. It could only become fact as to who won the state of Flordia if the votes were counted.
Are you saying Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties do not include some of the most affluent areas of the country?? I have been in both places and can assure you there is no shortage of affluence in them. Do they also contain lower income areas? Yes, of course, as do the "affluent Republican counties." Like most areas of the country, each county has a pretty good mix.
Statistically the primarily Democratic districts in Flordia are populated by a larger number of minorities and have a much lower income level that the more affluent districts that are primarily Republican. This is determined by the US Census.
I thought the Republican Districts (which were not requested to participate in hand recounts) only had the original count and the state machine recount. It was only the heavily Democratic Counties where Gore was looking for more votes that handcounts were originally requested.
This seems to be difficult for people to understand. Each candidate can contest X amount of districts under Flordia law. Al Gore chose the ones he wanted contested. George W. Bush did not choose to contest any. Al Gore said it was OK with him to hand count them all...but under Flordia law he was limited to how many he could contest.
The more affluent districts in the State of Flordia had more up to date election equipment. There was an average under vote in these districts of 1:300. In the poorer districts the voting equipment was old, in poor repair and the under vote was 10, 20, even 50 times what it was in the more affluent districts.
Under Flordia law (and also Texas law signed by George W. Bush) a hand count to determine the will of the people is appropriate. And it is the only way that we as American's would know who took the popular vote of the state of Flordia.
Does this count the poor people living in the Republican areas of Florida? Seems there were undervotes all over the state.
Already covered this.
If you believe that, then I have some above-sea level property for sale in Florida. I posted a link in another thread that the guy who brought those law suits was very entrenched in the Democratic party (including purchasing TV ads) and had consulted with the Gore Legal team several times before filing suit. Gore is the king of micro-management and could have nixed them if he wanted to.
I respect your opinion, but do not agree with your conclusion. You chose to discredit VP Gore based on innuendo, yet you support a presidential candidate that chose a VP from the same state who simply changed his voting place four days before the big announcement. Still lives in Texas, still works in Texas, etc., but is very convinced that this little act would confuse the American people.
It is not a matter of Democrate vs. Repulican, nor Bush vs. Gore. Any American that believes in the ideology that America was built on and professes yet today, any American that believes in democracy, any American that believes every person should have the chance to vote and every vote should be counted, any American that believes in the separation of powers, should be appalled and outraged at the way our 43rd president was chosen. I do not care who it was that was chosen...I have not run down your choice of candidate to make my point...it was wrong for the USSC to interfere and chose the president, be it Bush, Gore or me. It is not supported by our constitution or ay rule of law. The fact that they chose to do so shows that these are not justices that respect the beliefs that our country is based on. It insted shows a political bias and an unsupportable lack of the separation of the judicial and executive powers. It is wrong, based on the fact that this is a country who's government is based on these concepts.
So attempt to belittle my opinions, my outrage...simply because you cannot respectfully come up with a counter point based upon our constitution or rule of law. It is your short coming, not mine.
Which is why these rulings were sent back to the Fl SC. BTW...did the Fl SC ever acknowledge or come up with an explanation on that vacated ruling last week? Didn't think so.
The five USSC justices sent the ruling back to the FSC after tying their hands behind their back. It is a farce. They did not send it back to the Flordia Supreme Court in respect for State law and respect for State rights. They sent it back there so someone else could clean up the mess they made.
Thanks Julsey for covering the rest of this. BTW, how are ya doing? Semester over for you yet?
posted on December 13, 2000 04:29:48 PM new
Hiya Charlotte --
I had three finals today; Biology, German 3, and Modern Greece...and a 14 page take-home that's due tomorrow. I'm so looking forward to this break, as you can imagine. Next semester is my last so I can at least see the light at the end of the tunnel...
The only difference will be that the new refrain will be "Daddy always said...."
