God Rigs Election: It's Bush In A "blowout"

[shereads]

Did the Bush campaign demand a state-wide recount to put to rest the confusion? No.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Oh come on now, be fair. If you can honestly say stepping down was impossible for Gore how can you possibly hold it against the winner for not demanding a recount?


-Colly

 

[shereads]

Oh come on now, be fair. If you can honestly say stepping down was impossible for Gore how can you possibly hold it against the winner for not demanding a recount?


-Colly

Colleen, you're skewering Al Gore's character because his side wanted the disputed districts recounted. I'm replying in kind, by asking why - if one follows your reasoning and agrees that the fair way would have been a statewide recount - the "lesser of two evils" didn't do the right thing and demand to know the truth.

We both know why: he wasn't sure he was the winner. He wanted the topic of recounts to go away. His brother's elections commissioner made it so. His dad's and Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court appointees made her decision final.

If you want to use the struggle over the Florida election results as a demonstration of character, apply it to both sides and ask yourself why your boy wasn't demanding the full recount that would have put the issue to rest once and for all. The answer is that there was a chance he hadn't won, and everybody knew it.

George W. knew he had lost the popular vote, so it would seem that he should have been eager to prove he won the electoral vote, rather than letting people seethe over the issue while courts debated the legality of any recount. Instead, he was willing to leave a gaping wound of doubt over the whole process, rather than risk learning once and for all that he had lost the electoral college as well as the popular vote.

Your candidate was willing to risk being the first unelected candidate to assume the presidency.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

She, I know your a Gore supporter. I know you don't like baby Bush, but this is argument that Bush should have demanded a recount is ludicrous. Nobody who wins demands a recount. Why should they? It's up to the looser to demand a recount. And the law provides for him to do just that. What the law dosen't provide for is him demanding a selective recount.

Had Gore demanded a statewide recount Bush would have to had to put his breavest face on and declare he wanted to know for sure that the will of the people was being done or some such. He didn't have to because Al couldn't face the posiblity that a statewide recount would still deny him the presidency.

If you are really saying Bush should have demanded a recount to satisfy his opponents I have to say thats a pretty self serving view and not at all realistic.

Recounts went away as a topic beacuse Al demanded only his be recounted. That was something the Republicans could fight and did successfully. It wasn't an election commissioner, nor even a supreme court justice who did away with a recount. It was Al trying to count only where he wanted.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen, you're skewering Al Gore's character because his side wanted the disputed districts recounted. I'm replying in kind, by asking why - if one follows your reasoning and agrees that the fair way would have been a statewide recount - the "lesser of two evils" didn't do the right thing and demand to know the truth.

We both know why: he wasn't sure he was the winner. He wanted the topic of recounts to go away. His brother's elections commissioner made it so. His dad's and Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court appointees made her decision final.

If you want to use the struggle over the Florida election results as a demonstration of character, apply it to both sides and ask yourself why your boy wasn't demanding the full recount that would have put the issue to rest once and for all. The answer is that there was a chance he hadn't won, and everybody knew it.

George W. knew he had lost the popular vote, so it would seem that he should have been eager to prove he won the electoral vote, rather than letting people seethe over the issue while courts debated the legality of any recount. Instead, he was willing to leave a gaping wound of doubt over the whole process, rather than risk learning once and for all that he had lost the electoral college as well as the popular vote.

Your candidate was willing to risk being the first unelected candidate to assume the presidency.

He wasn't unelected. He won. Like him or hate him if you are truthful with yourself he won. It may have only been by 500 votes in florida, but he did win. If he hadn't won then it would have been his campaign demanding a recount and not Al Gore's.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

You're ignoring the issue I raised, and that's not like you.

It was many weeks after the Supreme Court decision before the newspapers finally determined that under most but not all chad scenarios, Bush would have won Florida by a narrow margin.

I asked why, when there was doubt, only one candidate was interested in pursuing the matter further if there is such a deficiency in his character. Your answer is essentially that George W. Bush didn't need to know the exact count as long as the elections commissioner his brother appointed ruled in his favor. Her vote was the one that counted to him.

 

[shereads]

Did not! Did not! Did not!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

You're ignoring the issue I raised, and that's not like you.

It was many weeks after the Supreme Court decision before the newspapers finally determined that under most but not all chad scenarios, Bush would have won Florida by a narrow margin.

I asked why, when there was doubt, only one candidate was interested in pursuing the matter further if there is such a deficiency in his character. Your answer is essentially that George W. Bush didn't need to know the exact count as long as the elections commissioner his brother appointed ruled in his favor. Her vote was the one that counted to him.

*Sigh*

All right your absolutely right. Your candidate lost. Mine won. It should be incumbant on mine to demand a recount to legitimize his election. Goodness knows Al would have demanded one to legitimize his

Heck, G.W. should have demanded a recount only in democratic strongholds. Or better yet he should have just conceeded the elcetion since Al is such a great candidate and he is such a looser. Yeah, thats the ticket.

While we are both off in dreamland can I have a pony?

-Colly

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BUSH IN 30 SECONDS

... If you plan on standing up for what you believe you had best make sure you have researched it from angels other than your leanings.

Lovely typo, Colly. Or maybe not?

Perdita

 

[KenJames]

All right She, my view of the election debacle. I think I posted this somewhere already, but I will post it again.

Florida is disputed and that state's electoral votes can swing the election to one or the other candidate. Bush has won the election in the initial voting.

3 Choices for Al.

1.) Bow out gracefully like others have in the past.

2.) Call for a state wide recount, a recount that Florida election law provides for and which could not be challeneged on the federal level by the republicans.

3.) Call for a recount only in heavily democratic precincts. This is not provided for in anyone's election law and will most certainly face a federal challenge.

Leaving one, which is the traditional and usually deemed honorable answer aside for a moment lets look at two and three.

. . .

3 is not leagal, nor fair and will certainly face a challenge in the USSC. However, if you count only the votes again where there is a firm Democratic majority the odds of you picking up enough votes, especially since those recounting in those precincts will be Democrats is about 80-90%.

. . .

-Colly

So it's dishonorable to request a recount in precincts where massive voting irregularities occurred? Maybe so, but a lot of disputed elections have been settled by recounts. I doubt if you'd be so indignant if the shoe had been on the other foot.

I'm going to assume your statement "especially since those recounting in those precincts will be Democrats" is based on ignorance, rather than just being a malicious flat lie.

In the recounting process, each ballot was examined by a Republican and a Democrat. The ballot was counted only if both agreed on the candidate who had received the vote.

It's interesting that the self-proclaimed party of "state's rights" instantly went to federal court to stop the recount, rather than going to local courts or the Florida Supreme Court. And the Republicans never asked for a state-wide recount, they simply fought tooth and nail to keep any recount from occurring.

Incidentally, the Florida Supreme Court eventually ruled the recounts were legal and proper. I guess they don't know anything about Florida law or the Florida Constitution.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BUSH IN 30 SECONDS

Lovely typo, Colly. Or maybe not?

Perdita

They don't call me the typo queen for nothing. My spell checker gets union scale



-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

So it's dishonorable to request a recount in precincts where massive voting irregularities occurred? Maybe so, but a lot of disputed elections have been settled by recounts. I doubt if you'd be so indignant if the shoe had been on the other foot.

I'm going to assume your statement "especially since those recounting in those precincts will be Democrats" is based on ignorance, rather than just being a malicious flat lie.

In the recounting process, each ballot was examined by a Republican and a Democrat. The ballot was counted only if both agreed on the candidate who had received the vote.

It's interesting that the self-proclaimed party of "state's rights" instantly went to federal court to stop the recount, rather than going to local courts or the Florida Supreme Court. And the Republicans never asked for a state-wide recount, they simply fought tooth and nail to keep any recount from occurring.

Incidentally, the Florida Supreme Court eventually ruled the recounts were legal and proper. I guess they don't know anything about Florida law or the Florida Constitution.

Um...Piss off

A little arcane election law for you. In florida the party controlling the county controls the votes counting and recounts in a federal election. The other party may send an observer, but the actual decisions are up to the party in charge.

A little more law for you, the Florida supreme Court's decision was questioned by the USSC. Rather than respond they just said we know what we are doing and ordered another recount. I don't really care what they thought, but the highest court thought they had some explaining to do. the decision was clearly partisan and had no basis in law or they would have responded to the USSC request.

It's dishonorable to ask for a recount where you are strongest and not anywhere else. As to voting irregularities here's another tidbit for you. Democrats controlled the precincts in question. They sent out a lovely premarked ballot (just a tad bit illegal, but hey you know how it goes). Then for some unkown reason they changed the ballot design and forgot to send out premarked copies of the new one. Oopsy. So a lot of people smuggled thier premarked ballot in and voted for good old Pat Buchanan. Ouch, but hardly the republican's doing.

If the shoe had been on the other foot I would have been just as indignant if Bush had asked for recounts only in Republican strongholds. Believe it or not I am all for fairness and do give a damn about everyone having their say. You don't know me, you obviously haven't paid much attention to what I say or where I stand, so kindly refrain from telling me how I would react to something.

I have been argung with Shereads for a while now and she dosen't presume to tell me where I stand on something or how I would react. Nor does Pure or Doc M or any of the others who have read my posts and disagreed with me. Just where the fuck do you get off telling me how I would react to something?

-Colly

 

[Gary Chambers]

Big Picture

While we are both off in dreamland can I have a pony?

-Colly

It's obviously best for foreigners to stay out of the Gore recount vs Bush recount debate, but I thought you might be interested to know how people beyond those United States see the whole American electoral process.

At this point, those of us who bother to pay any attention at all are sure the real drama is being played out in the backrooms of the Democratic Party, where the grey men and women of the military industrial complex are surely working to make certain that whoever runs against Bush this year is also a puppet, so that no matter who wins the military industrial complex wins.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Ouch

-Colly

Indeed.

 

[minsue]

Um...Piss off

A little arcane election law for you. In florida the party controlling the county controls the votes counting and recounts in a federal election. The other party may send an observer, but the actual decisions are up to the party in charge.

A little more law for you, the Florida supreme Court's decision was questioned by the USSC. Rather than respond they just said we know what we are doing and ordered another recount. I don't really care what they thought, but the highest court thought they had some explaining to do. the decision was clearly partisan and had no basis in law or they would have responded to the USSC request.

It's dishonorable to ask for a recount where you are strongest and not anywhere else. As to voting irregularities here's another tidbit for you. Democrats controlled the precincts in question. They sent out a lovely premarked ballot (just a tad bit illegal, but hey you know how it goes). Then for some unkown reason they changed the ballot design and forgot to send out premarked copies of the new one. Oopsy. So a lot of people smuggled thier premarked ballot in and voted for good old Pat Buchanan. Ouch, but hardly the republican's doing.

If the shoe had been on the other foot I would have been just as indignant if Bush had asked for recounts only in Republican strongholds. Believe it or not I am all for fairness and do give a damn about everyone having their say. You don't know me, you obviously haven't paid much attention to what I say or where I stand, so kindly refrain from telling me how I would react to something.

I have been argung with Shereads for a while now and she dosen't presume to tell me where I stand on something or how I would react. Nor does Pure or Doc M or any of the others who have read my posts and disagreed with me. Just where the fuck do you get off telling me how I would react to something?

-Colly

#342 on my list: I shall make every effort to be sure that I do not piss off Colly.



(I suppose that means I shall stop branding you a liberal. Oh well, I should have stopped beating that particular dead horse a while ago. )

- Mindy

 

[Colleen Thomas]

#342 on my list: I shall make every effort to be sure that I do not piss off Colly.



(I suppose that means I shall stop branding you a liberal. Oh well, I should have stopped beating that particular dead horse a while ago. )

- Mindy

Picking on me is fine Mindy

Specially by people who I have developed a mutually respectful relationship with. Insult my looks, or my writing and I will let it pass. Insult my integrity and I will get irate very quickly.

*hugs*

-Colly

 

[shereads]

Your candidate lost. Mine won.

You've claimed George W. Bush as your candidate, Colly. You lose too.

Sorry. (Draws KenJames into my arms and offers bandaid and cookies.)



The phrase "to piss off": origins.

Please discuss.

 

[shereads]

NOTE TO PRESIDENT BUSH: If we're going to establish a moon base and walk on Mars and make tax cuts permanent in addition to rebuilding Iraq and on top of the largest budget deficit in history, can we throw in a pony for Colleen?

 

[minsue]

You've claimed George W. Bush as your candidate, Colly. You lose too.

Sorry. (Draws KenJames into my arms and offers bandaid and cookies.)



The phrase "to piss off": origins.

Please discuss.

New Topic

Who is this mysterious person in sheread's new signature?

Please discuss.

- Mindy

 

[Colleen Thomas]

You've claimed George W. Bush as your candidate, Colly. You lose too.

Sorry. (Draws KenJames into my arms and offers bandaid and cookies.)



The phrase "to piss off": origins.

Please discuss.

I never claimed a victory for me. I have openly questioned my choice and will most likely do so again considering the man in question.

-Colly

 

[Lauren Hynde]

New Topic

Who is this mysterious person in sheread's new signature?

Please discuss.

- Mindy

That's exactly what I was thinking about! *chuckles*



Apparently, piss off has its origins in 1946. A little before my time...

 

[shereads]

I'm enjoying YOUR signature, min. Is that the same mysterious person who accused the Democrats of treating Social Security like "some kind of federal program?"

 

[Guest]

Min, I would do nearly anything for delicious lower lips, but I haven't a clue. Hmmm, note to memoirs: "Lower lips I have known, and those that got away."

Perdita

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Does 'lower lip' mean 'lower lip' or 'lower lip'?

Is this mystery person tied up or just having too much fun? Or both?

 

[minsue]

I'm enjoying YOUR signature, min. Is that the same mysterious person who accused the Democrats of treating Social Security like "some kind of federal program?"

Why it is! He also said we should put more effort into oil development in Mexico so that we wouldn't be so dependant on "foreign oil".

I will not be deflected from the original discussion, though. I don't get out much and I'm starved for gossip & intrigue.

- Mindy