Author Topic: Now that Gore let the recount cat out of the bag, elections will never be the same. (Read 1831 times)

JBA · « **Reply #60 on:** October 04, 2003, 10:00:57 PM »

MT, you keep sighting this "under vote" WTF is that? Dimples, hanging Chad, intent?

Lets not forget Gore tried to have the military vote not counted, knowing they vote Rep. in greater %.

Dems don't like results they sue, In NJ they blow off the law and put in Toracelie(?) with in to few days of election in violation of NJ law, In Ca they are already preparing Law suits

Kieran · « **Reply #61 on:** October 04, 2003, 10:06:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
So how was Bush treated unfairly? How was Bush harmed by the recount of ALL undervotes? I can cite SC rulings that specify that violation of the Equal Protection covered in the 14th Amendment must be PURPOSEFUL.

The only possible problem with a hand recount of the 60,000 undervotes would be that each County might specify different criteria for the recount. This in no way violates the 14th as each person in said County gets the same treatment. No discrimination can occur across Counties. Thus no one is harmed if the recount continues..... except the Republican Party.

Scandalous.

Think bigger... like in the whole state... no, the whole country. Those specific counties in a specific state were receiving more scrutiny (call it "protection" if it makes you feel better) than any other votes in the country. That isn't equal protection. And you honestly don't see any problem with your logic? It's not ok to use the same recount mechanism because votes won't be counted fairly, but you aren't going to use the same criteria for the recount in each county? That's pretty selective outrage.

Hortlund · « **Reply #62 on:** October 05, 2003, 01:47:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by FTndr
This sounds like ELITISM to me.

just my 2 cents......

I dunno..is it elitism to only let pilots fly airliners?

Hortlund · « **Reply #63 on:** October 05, 2003, 01:48:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Yeah, so am I.

It amazes me Hortlund, how for someone who is supposedly an attorney, how really really poorly you argue. And whole whenever a legal arguement is made you sit back and make some generalistic statement that may or may not have any bearing on the specific matter being discussed.

Oh look...a generalistic statement that has no bearing on the specific matter being discussed...

Hortlund · « **Reply #64 on:** October 05, 2003, 01:54:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The "waivable" issue is taken from book by Vincent Bugliosi entitled the "Betrayal of America". Mr Bugliosi is a former District Attorney for the City of LA, and the prosecutor of the Manson FAmily. He had a conviction record of 120-1 and was 20-0 in capital crime cases. He also wrote a book blasting the Prosecution in the OJ trial. He is hardly a liberal mouthpiece.

So fear not about us mere "normal" people interpreting the law Hortlund.

Ok, and this changes what I said in what way? It doesnt change it all does it? Its just you trying to score some point on your source.
"Well, if mr Bugliosi said so, then it MUST be true..." pathetic.

strk · « **Reply #65 on:** October 05, 2003, 08:11:19 AM »

In an effort to steer the conversation back to its pre-hijacked status, I present you with the following link

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html

you may now resume your regularly scheduled bickering

strk

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #66 on:** October 05, 2003, 09:31:49 AM »

I'm still pissed off about Harrison stealing the election from Cleveland...

Damn republicans.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #67 on:** October 05, 2003, 09:51:58 AM »

Not that I hold a grudge...

midnight Target · « **Reply #68 on:** October 05, 2003, 11:27:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Oh look...a generalistic statement that has no bearing on the specific matter being discussed...

Oh look...a generalistic statement that has no bearing on the specific matter being discussed...

midnight Target · « **Reply #69 on:** October 05, 2003, 11:35:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JBA
MT, you keep sighting this "under vote" WTF is that? Dimples, hanging Chad, intent?

Lets not forget Gore tried to have the military vote not counted, knowing they vote Rep. in greater %.

Dems don't like results they sue, In NJ they blow off the law and put in Toracelie(?) with in to few days of election in violation of NJ law, In Ca they are already preparing Law suits

"undervotes" IIRC included all ballots that recorded votes for other offices or statutes but no recorded vote for president.

What Gore tried is irrelevent. The problem is with the SC ruling. A ruling that had nothing to do with Gore's suits about selective Counties or absentee ballots or the price of tea in China.

And you and Kieren keep harping on about the selective request by Gore.... Get over it. The Florida SC took care of that by ordering a STATEWIDE RECOUNT. I am thinking plenty big Kieren, but you seem to be in a mental quagmire. If the recount was Statewide... how could Bush be harmed?

AKIron · « **Reply #70 on:** October 05, 2003, 11:40:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
What Gore tried is irrelevent.

Not only is what Gore tried to do relevant, it's the whole point of this thread.

It may be easy to get away with a wild spin amongst those sympathetic to your cause but it's blatantly obvious to those not.

midnight Target · « **Reply #71 on:** October 05, 2003, 11:52:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Not only is what Gore tried to do relevant, it's the whole point of this thread.

It may be easy to get away with a wild spin amongst those sympathetic to your cause but it's blatantly obvious to those not.

It is irrelevent to the SC decision. Thought that was clear.

Hortlund · « **Reply #72 on:** October 05, 2003, 12:09:07 PM »

Not much here is clear MT. To be honest I have yet to understand your beef with the SC desicion really. This just reeks of bitterness. And you have targeted the SC desicion to vent your frustration that Bush won. Well, the SC desicion was completely correct, get over it.

AKIron · « **Reply #73 on:** October 05, 2003, 01:32:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
"undervotes" IIRC included all ballots that recorded votes for other offices or statutes but no recorded vote for president.

What Gore tried is irrelevent. The problem is with the SC ruling. A ruling that had nothing to do with Gore's suits about selective Counties or absentee ballots or the price of tea in China.

And you and Kieren keep harping on about the selective request by Gore.... Get over it. The Florida SC took care of that by ordering a STATEWIDE RECOUNT. I am thinking plenty big Kieren, but you seem to be in a mental quagmire. If the recount was Statewide... how could Bush be harmed?

Maybe your problem was with the SC not supporting Gore MT. My problem was with Gore being underhanded in the whole thing.

k2cok · « **Reply #74 on:** October 05, 2003, 01:56:21 PM »

It's funny how no repubs here will comment on strks link.

Looks like dirty tricks are OK as long as it's their guy benefiting.

I believe the reason why republicans go to such extremes to defend Bush is that deep down they know he's a fraud, they just won't openly admit it.