Author Topic: Here we go... (Read 2450 times)

Eagler · « **Reply #30 on:** December 06, 2000, 08:14:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash:
Erhm, please explain to me Eagler.... Just *how* does she look like a democrat to you?

Don't you watch CNN?

Eagler

Nash · « **Reply #31 on:** December 06, 2000, 09:10:00 PM »

That makes no sense to me. Please explain how you think that this judge looks like a Democrat.

Eagler · « **Reply #32 on:** December 06, 2000, 09:21:00 PM »

I'll spell it out for you Nash, though I know you know what I mean... For the past 4 weeks, every African American woman CNN has had on, has been a Democrat. The majority of African American's are Democrats. Is it clearer now?

As for the judge, she seems pretty straight forward. I feel the evidence against the republicans could bite them in the arse no matter who the judge happens to be in this case. We will see.

Eagler

Eagler · « **Reply #33 on:** December 06, 2000, 09:31:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fatty:
btw Easymo, outside of this case I agree with you. I wish the Legislature would shut up and go home. I just don't see her ruling to throw out the ballots as a possibility, but should she actually do that I'd rather see Gore in office than the Legislature placing a Bush electorate anyway.

Won't happen. The Republicans will put Bush in power whatever it takes as they realize the selection of the Supreme Justices over the next four years is more important for the future of the country than any smear campaign gore and his friends can put together. I, for one, agree with the Florida Legislature if they try to force Bush in. It pales in comparison to the motivations of gore and his mentor, slick willie over the past eight years.

Eagler

Nash · « **Reply #34 on:** December 06, 2000, 10:01:00 PM »

Yah, it's clear - thanks.

Toad · « **Reply #35 on:** December 07, 2000, 08:21:00 AM »

Semi-decent explanation of the absentee ballot suits:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/06/seminole.martin.issues.pol/

Eagler · « **Reply #36 on:** December 07, 2000, 08:42:00 AM »

my understanding is that it was a printing error which did not put the voter id # on the request for ballot in the first place. Mistake they made was not to fill in all the requests for ballots as the returns would favor Bush anyway. What I haven't heard is how many democrat ballot requests were not filled due to the missing voter id #. I would not think that # to be too high at all. They should of informed the democrats of the discrepancy also and gave them the chance to fill out the info also. I do not think they were denied the chance, the demos just were not informed of the error to act on it. Then the actual method they used to complete the form can be construed as flaky also. Giving them the reign of private offices to complete the forms was stupid, opening them up to exaggerated charges we are now hearing.. stupid, stupid mistakes....

Eagler

Mighty1 · « **Reply #37 on:** December 07, 2000, 09:57:00 AM »

The Demos are saying that the Repubs were given private access to the ballot applications so they should NOT be accepted but they failed to mention that ALL Demo applications were mailed to Demo HQ and THEN taken to proper offce.

They are saying because of a glitch in the application and the attempt to correct this glitch that all ballots should be ignored.

CavemanJ · « **Reply #38 on:** December 07, 2000, 07:08:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mighty1:
The Demos are saying that the Repubs were given private access to the ballot applications so they should NOT be accepted but they failed to mention that ALL Demo applications were mailed to Demo HQ and THEN taken to proper offce.

They are saying because of a glitch in the application and the attempt to correct this glitch that all ballots should be ignored.

hmm.... wonder what they did with'em at the Dem HQ before sending them to the right office.....