Which candidate will do the most for the glbt cause?

[LarzMachine]

Re: Re: Illegitimate...

What legal precedent would that be?

Did the Supreme Court intervene in any previous Presidential elections?

No, the precedent would be 200 years of American election law, as has been stated before. Do you guys actually know anything about how this country works, or is it easier to just jump on the "I don't like the results, so I'll claim they were illegal" bandwagon than to admit the process worked the way it was supposed to?

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Re: Re: Illegitimate...

No, the precedent would be 200 years of American election law, as has been stated before. Do you guys actually know anything about how this country works, or is it easier to just jump on the "I don't like the results, so I'll claim they were illegal" bandwagon than to admit the process worked the way it was supposed to?

As a matter of fact, I have a degree in American History. But for some peculiar reason, none of my professors ever mentioned a prior intervention by the Supreme Court into the election of a President. They seemed to believe that all such previous disputes had been resolved by Congress as the Constitution mandates.

Please, enlighten me if you know otherwise.

 

[LarzMachine]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Illegitimate...

As a matter of fact, I have a degree in American History. But for some peculiar reason, none of my professors ever mentioned a prior intervention by the Supreme Court into the election of a President. They seemed to believe that all such previous disputes had been resolved by Congress as the Constitution mandates.

Please, enlighten me if you know otherwise.

Interesting that you always insist upon dodging the fact that Bush WON under standard election law. The intervention by Gore is completely irrelevant (except as a prime example of the pathetic lengths Democrats will go to if they lose an election), considering the Supreme Court merely upheld election law as it was written. Are you capable of looking at the realities of election law, or is there some bizarre pathological obsession with running off on tangents hardwired into your brain?

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Illegitimate...

Interesting that you always insist upon dodging the fact that Bush WON under standard election law. The intervention by Gore is completely irrelevant (except as a prime example of the pathetic lengths Democrats will go to if they lose an election), considering the Supreme Court merely upheld election law as it was written. Are you capable of looking at the realities of election law, or is there some bizarre pathological obsession with running off on tangents hardwired into your brain?

Gore asked the Florida Supreme Court to order a recount, as was his right under Florida law. This was affirmed in a unanimous verdict by the Florida court. The Supreme Court, in complete absence of any precedent, and in clear contradiction of the existing election law, ordered the recount stopped, citing "irreparable harm" to Bush if it were to continue.

Article II section 1 of the United States Constitution clearly grants jurisdiction over Electoral disputes to Congress. In the case of the 2000 election, since Congress was in the control of Republicans, it abjured it's responsibility.

You can attack me all you want, I will still be correct. I learned American history and government at Duke University, not from Fox News.

 

[LarzMachine]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Illegitimate...

Gore asked the Florida Supreme Court to order a recount, as was his right under Florida law. This was affirmed in a unanimous verdict by the Florida court. The Supreme Court, in complete absence of any precedent, and in clear contradiction of the existing election law, ordered the recount stopped, citing "irreparable harm" to Bush if it were to continue.

Do you actually have a source for this, or is it just more of your propaganda? At least now you're admitting it was Gore who tried to derail the election by running to the Supreme Court.

Article II section 1 of the United States Constitution clearly grants jurisdiction over Electoral disputes to Congress. In the case of the 2000 election, since Congress was in the control of Republicans, it abjured it's responsibility.

Then why didn't Gore go to Congress? Oh, becuse he knew he lost. Oops. Try again.

You can attack me all you want, I will still be correct. I learned American history and government at Duke University, not from Fox News.

If you're so smart, why are you incapable of figuring out Bush won the election under standard Electoral law? He had a majority of electoral votes, thus he won. Whine all you want about the Supreme Court getting involved, but it was YOUR candidate who ran to them when he lost in an effort to have himself appointed rather than abiding by American election laws.

On the upside, it looks like the Democrats will lose again next year, so I'll be happy regardless of your whining about the evils of Bush because of the sins of Gore. And yes, I'm sure you'll be whining again after the next election too.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Illegitimate...

Do you actually have a source for this, or is it just more of your propaganda? At least now you're admitting it was Gore who tried to derail the election by running to the Supreme Court.



Then why didn't Gore go to Congress? Oh, becuse he knew he lost. Oops. Try again.



If you're so smart, why are you incapable of figuring out Bush won the election under standard Electoral law? He had a majority of electoral votes, thus he won. Whine all you want about the Supreme Court getting involved, but it was YOUR candidate who ran to them when he lost in an effort to have himself appointed rather than abiding by American election laws.

On the upside, it looks like the Democrats will lose again next year, so I'll be happy regardless of your whining about the evils of Bush because of the sins of Gore. And yes, I'm sure you'll be whining again after the next election too.

You are absolutely wrong, and no amount of repeating your error will make it magically become true.

Gore did not, I repeat, did not, ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the Florida election. I never said he did (because he didn't) and your insistence that I did only proves your own inability to follow a logical argument.

George W. Bush asked the Supreme Court to stop the Florida recount.

Gore conceded because, as I already pointed out Republican control of Congress made it a foregone conclusion that any attempt to overturn the court's ruling would be futile.

Personally, I think he should have pressed the issue.

The contention that Bush won a majority of the Electoral College is based on the assumption that he won Florida. As the Florida recount was never legally completed, the allotment of the Florida Electors was the responsibility of Congress, not the Supreme Court. It is interesting that so many people who decry judicial activism had no objection to that unprecedented extra-judicial ruling.

 

[LarzMachine]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Illegitimate...

You are absolutely wrong, and no amount of repeating your error will make it magically become true.

Really? I'm the one with reality on my side here, not you.

Gore did not, I repeat, did not, ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the Florida election. I never said he did (because he didn't) and your insistence that I did only proves your own inability to follow a logical argument.

Really? How is demanding recounts until one finally goes your way anything but demanding intervention? And as for you not saying so, who cares what you said? In reality, Gore tried to make the Supreme Court intervene and appoint him President. Your useless babble on the subject doesn't change reality. Your inability to stick to the real world proves not only your inability to form a logical argument, but also your lack of anything intelligent to say.

George W. Bush asked the Supreme Court to stop the Florida recount.

After Gore tried to have himself appointed President...

Gore conceded because, as I already pointed out Republican control of Congress made it a foregone conclusion that any attempt to overturn the court's ruling would be futile.

Sure he did. The old "blame the Republicans" line regardless of reality. Does this mean the Republicans can blame Democrats for everything that ever went someone else's way all the years we had a Democrat-run Congress? Oh, wait, you'd never accept that reasoning...

Personally, I think he should have pressed the issue.

In other wods, you're willing to forgive your candidate's attempt to steal the election.

The contention that Bush won a majority of the Electoral College is based on the assumption that he won Florida. As the Florida recount was never legally completed, the allotment of the Florida Electors was the responsibility of Congress, not the Supreme Court. It is interesting that so many people who decry judicial activism had no objection to that unprecedented extra-judicial ruling.

Numerous recountes were completed after the election. In all cases, Bush won Florida. Try again.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Illegitimate...

Really? I'm the one with reality on my side here, not you.

Your reality is fantasy. Gore did not go to the US Supreme Court at any time. Bush did. In fact, Bush was the first to bring the Federal Courts into the process on November 12, 2000 when he attempted to have the recount as required by Florida state law halted. Bush was the one that tried to circumvent "American election laws" in the State of Florida by having a legally required recount stopped.

Really? How is demanding recounts until one finally goes your way anything but demanding intervention? And as for you not saying so, who cares what you said? In reality, Gore tried to make the Supreme Court intervene and appoint him President. Your useless babble on the subject doesn't change reality. Your inability to stick to the real world proves not only your inability to form a logical argument, but also your lack of anything intelligent to say.

Again, Bush was the one that went to the US Supreme Court. Gore never did at any time. Do you have even ONE link that substantiates your "reality"? I have plenty of links to prove you wrong. Let's see your real world.

Numerous recountes were completed after the election. In all cases, Bush won Florida. Try again.

Wrong.

There was one objective attempt at recounting the ballots in Florida.

Florida recount study: Bush still wins

Study reveals flaws in ballots, voter errors may have cost Gore victory


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.

NORC dispatched an army of trained investigators to examine closely every rejected ballot in all 67 Florida counties, including handwritten and punch-card ballots. The NORC team of coders were able to examine about 99 percent of them, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators. In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings.

...

Use of Palm Beach County standard

Out of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted statewide, the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore.

Inclusion of overvotes

In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes.

...

NORC reported serious problems with record keeping at many local election offices. NORC relied on these offices to produce the rejected ballots, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

 

[LarzMachine]

Nice propaganda, Pookie. I see Queersetti has stooped to calling in reinforcements to give his bizarre theories weight of numbers...

Nice try. Next time try using "evidence" that isn't based on a bunch of ridiculously biased pollsters.

 

[Pookie]

Nice propaganda, Pookie. I see Queersetti has stooped to calling in reinforcements to give his bizarre theories weight of numbers...

Ummm ... Where is the evidence of your reality? Can you provide even ONE link to support your claim that Gore went to the US Supreme Court as you say? Don't dodge the question with "nice propaganda". Answer the question. I bet you can't. I can provide plenty of mainstream media links on the web to support my reality. Provide just one link to support your reality. I dare you.

Nice try. Next time try using "evidence" that isn't based on a bunch of ridiculously biased pollsters.

The "biased pollsters" as you call them were the ones who did the recount. How are they biased?

Btw, I haven't chatted with Q about this thread at all. The number of posters has nothing to do with who is right or wrong. The evidence each provides does though. Let's see yours. Answer my questions.

 

[LarzMachine]

Ummm ... Where is the evidence of your reality? Can you provide even ONE link to support your claim that Gore went to the US Supreme Court as you say? Don't dodge the question with "nice propaganda". Answer the question. I bet you can't. I can provide plenty of mainstream media links on the web to support my reality. Provide just one link to support your reality. I dare you.

When did I EVER say he went to the US Supreme Court? Everyone knows he went to the Florida Supreme Court in an attempt to be appointed President by demanding they recount the votes until he won -- the original recount everyone claims he went to the Supreme Court to demand was AUTOMATIC. He went whining to the Court after that recount didn't go his way and demanded a manual recount so his people could manufacture new votes using the archaic voting equipment in Florida.
Bush then appealed to the US Supreme Court. In other words, Gore went crying to the Supreme Court in Florida for a recount he had no real right to, which wound up being appealed in the US Supreme Court as a direct result of his Clintonesque attempted thievery and deception. Interesting how you're more bent out of shape over an appeal than the original whining that forced the appeal. One would almost get the idea you're willing to overlook any crime committed by your party as long as it results in them winning...

Incidentally, Congress (not the US Supreme Court) decided the vote on 5 January in a joint session. Last time I checked, that was the legal way to do things in this country.

I'm truly sorry you're so delusional and hellbent on supporting your martyr complex you can't accept reality if it disagrees with your conspiracy theories.

The "biased pollsters" as you call them were the ones who did the recount. How are they biased?

I take it you didn't watch the news at the time...

The manual recounts were unbelievably biased, with Democrat supporters routinely claiming any ballot that was even remotely ambiguous was a de facto vote for Gore, if not outright doctoring ballots on the spot. It was all over the news right after the election.

And incidentally, all pollsters are biased, including the ones at NORC. That's why most people don't take polls seriously. You have polls claiming 90% or more of Americans believe in gods of some form, but that doesn't prove gods exist, nor do the efforts of a bunch of pollsters prove Gore won the election in Florida.

Btw, I haven't chatted with Q about this thread at all. The number of posters has nothing to do with who is right or wrong. The evidence each provides does though. Let's see yours. Answer my questions.

Try the real world. My evidence is all a matter of public record. Besides, I'm not the one making up theories about Bush stealing the election. That would be you guys. Burden of proof is on the one making ridiculous claims, not the other way around. But hey, I know any dissent hurts your feelings by not accepting your martyr complex as valid evidence, so go right ahead and keep whining. It won't change reality in any way, and only destroys your credibility.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/11/14/164943.shtml
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/1/161949.shtml
Criminals voting illegally for Gore: http://newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2000/12/1/154220
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/1/153133.shtml
Timeline of events: http://www.indystar.com/library/factfiles/gov/politics/election2000/results.html
A nice look at the fraud committed by the Gore campaign. Full of Illuminati references, but you're spouting conspiracy theory, so I'm just following the precedent you set... http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a0b29bc441e.htm
Democrats making up new votes: http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2000-11/11132000Florida4.asp

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Illegitimate...

Really? I'm the one with reality on my side here, not you.



Really? How is demanding recounts until one finally goes your way anything but demanding intervention? And as for you not saying so, who cares what you said? In reality, Gore tried to make the Supreme Court intervene and appoint him President. Your useless babble on the subject doesn't change reality. Your inability to stick to the real world proves not only your inability to form a logical argument, but also your lack of anything intelligent to say.



After Gore tried to have himself appointed President...



Sure he did. The old "blame the Republicans" line regardless of reality. Does this mean the Republicans can blame Democrats for everything that ever went someone else's way all the years we had a Democrat-run Congress? Oh, wait, you'd never accept that reasoning...



In other wods, you're willing to forgive your candidate's attempt to steal the election.



Numerous recountes were completed after the election. In all cases, Bush won Florida. Try again.

You are either woefully ignorant or a willful liar. In either case, I see no point in any further discourse with you. As you said yourself, you don't care what I think.

 

[Queersetti]

For those who are not familiar with them, both Newsmax and FreeRepublic are extremist right wing site which have no journalistic credibility.

It is also notable, in light of their being cited on this forum, that both are havens for anti-gay hate speech.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Illegitimate...

Your reality is fantasy. Gore did not go to the US Supreme Court at any time. Bush did. In fact, Bush was the first to bring the Federal Courts into the process on November 12, 2000 when he attempted to have the recount as required by Florida state law halted. Bush was the one that tried to circumvent "American election laws" in the State of Florida by having a legally required recount stopped.




Again, Bush was the one that went to the US Supreme Court. Gore never did at any time. Do you have even ONE link that substantiates your "reality"? I have plenty of links to prove you wrong. Let's see your real world.




Wrong.

There was one objective attempt at recounting the ballots in Florida.

While I acknowledge that the News Consortium's recount found that Gore got the most votes in, I believe, 7 out of the 8 possible scenarios for counting, my contention all along has been that regardless of the actual Florida outcome, the Supreme Court's actions in Bush V. Gore were extra constitutional.

It's possible, although unlikely, that Bush did, in fact, receive the most votes in Florida. My basis for regarding the installation of Bush as President is based on the Court's intervention on his behalf.

Had the Congress done it's duty, and addressed the legitimacy of the Florida Electors, I would have accepted that decision, even if I felt it was wrong.

Since the mandated constitutional steps were not followed, I will never consider the Bush Presidency legitimate.

 

[Pookie]

When did I EVER say he went to the US Supreme Court?

Hmmm ... lets look at some posts from earlier, shall we?

In the post below, you identify the "US Supreme Court" as the "Supreme Court".

Interesting that you always insist upon dodging the fact that Bush WON under standard election law. The intervention by Gore is completely irrelevant (except as a prime example of the pathetic lengths Democrats will go to if they lose an election), considering the Supreme Court merely upheld election law as it was written. Are you capable of looking at the realities of election law, or is there some bizarre pathological obsession with running off on tangents hardwired into your brain?

In Q's post below which followed yours, he clearly identifies the Florida Supreme Court as the "Florida Supreme Court", and the US Supreme Court as the "Supreme Court".

Gore asked the Florida Supreme Court to order a recount, as was his right under Florida law. This was affirmed in a unanimous verdict by the Florida court. The Supreme Court, in complete absence of any precedent, and in clear contradiction of the existing election law, ordered the recount stopped, citing "irreparable harm" to Bush if it were to continue.

In your reply to Q, you identify Gore as running to the "Supreme Court".

Do you actually have a source for this, or is it just more of your propaganda? At least now you're admitting it was Gore who tried to derail the election by running to the Supreme Court.

So you asked .., "when did I EVER say he went to the US Supreme Court?" Here we have it ... in your own words ...

If you're so smart, why are you incapable of figuring out Bush won the election under standard Electoral law? He had a majority of electoral votes, thus he won. Whine all you want about the Supreme Court getting involved, but it was YOUR candidate who ran to them when he lost in an effort to have himself appointed rather than abiding by American election laws.

Everyone knows he went to the Florida Supreme Court in an attempt to be appointed President by demanding they recount the votes until he won -- the original recount everyone claims he went to the Supreme Court to demand was AUTOMATIC.

Apparantly, you just figured out the above, after you were called out on it. Nice try to cover your ignorance. It's nice for me to have your own prior posts to reveal it though. Thanks!

He went whining to the Court after that recount didn't go his way and demanded a manual recount so his people could manufacture new votes using the archaic voting equipment in Florida.
Bush then appealed to the US Supreme Court. In other words, Gore went crying to the Supreme Court in Florida for a recount he had no real right to, which wound up being appealed in the US Supreme Court as a direct result of his Clintonesque attempted thievery and deception. Interesting how you're more bent out of shape over an appeal than the original whining that forced the appeal. One would almost get the idea you're willing to overlook any crime committed by your party as long as it results in them winning...

"Gore went crying to the Supreme Court in Florida for a recount he had no real right to" is an interesting quote. The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. The position of the majority on the US Supreme Court was that the Florida Supreme Court had not given the guidance necessary for the recounting of the questionable votes. That was the reason it was overturned, not because a recount wasn't called for.

I would remind you that Gore went to the First District Court of Appeal. They decided to pass the matter to the Florida Supreme Court, instead of ruling themselves.

Incidentally, Congress (not the US Supreme Court) decided the vote on 5 January in a joint session. Last time I checked, that was the legal way to do things in this country.

I didn't call that into question though, did I?

I'm truly sorry you're so delusional and hellbent on supporting your martyr complex you can't accept reality if it disagrees with your conspiracy theories.

What conspiracy theory did I state? And you talk about me being delusional. Quote me.

If you're going to insult me for something I said, make sure it's something I said, will ya?

I take it you didn't watch the news at the time...

The manual recounts were unbelievably biased, with Democrat supporters routinely claiming any ballot that was even remotely ambiguous was a de facto vote for Gore, if not outright doctoring ballots on the spot. It was all over the news right after the election.

I take it you don't watch much news at all. Bush gained votes just as Gore did. I have yet to see or read any claim where votes were doctored for Gore. Are you claiming their was a conspiracy? That would be a major felony offense, and right in front of the cameras too.

And incidentally, all pollsters are biased, including the ones at NORC. That's why most people don't take polls seriously. You have polls claiming 90% or more of Americans believe in gods of some form, but that doesn't prove gods exist, nor do the efforts of a bunch of pollsters prove Gore won the election in Florida.

Your ignorance is showing again. They didn't conduct a poll. The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies - The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, the St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post, The Washington Post and the Tribune Co., which includes the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel and Baltimore Sun, as well as other papers.

You really need to do some research on what you're talking about. They didn't sample the ballots in question. They looked at all of them, except a small number that election offices were to inept to provide.

As a side note, your ignorance on the science of statistical polling and anaylses is rather revealing with what you said. But that is a whole different topic unrelated to this thread.

Try the real world. My evidence is all a matter of public record. Besides, I'm not the one making up theories about Bush stealing the election. That would be you guys. Burden of proof is on the one making ridiculous claims, not the other way around. But hey, I know any dissent hurts your feelings by not accepting your martyr complex as valid evidence, so go right ahead and keep whining. It won't change reality in any way, and only destroys your credibility.

I see you don't let facts get in the way of your "real world". Did I say Bush "stole" the election? Quote me if I did. Again, if you're going to try to insult me on things I said, find out what they are first. That way you don't look like an idiot. If you want credibility yourself, present something that at least shows you are informed on the topic.

Oh yeah ... "One would almost get the idea you're willing to overlook any crime committed by your party as long as it results in them winning".

Who said I was a Democrat?

 

[Pookie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Illegitimate...

While I acknowledge that the News Consortium's recount found that Gore got the most votes in, I believe, 7 out of the 8 possible scenarios for counting, my contention all along has been that regardless of the actual Florida outcome, the Supreme Court's actions in Bush V. Gore were extra constitutional.

It's possible, although unlikely, that Bush did, in fact, receive the most votes in Florida. My basis for regarding the installation of Bush as President is based on the Court's intervention on his behalf.

Had the Congress done it's duty, and addressed the legitimacy of the Florida Electors, I would have accepted that decision, even if I felt it was wrong.

Since the mandated constitutional steps were not followed, I will never consider the Bush Presidency legitimate.

I agree with you as far as the outcome. The US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction at that time. The dissenting opinions of the US Supreme Court were interesting to read too.

The whole voting process was really screwed up in Florida to begin with. The result was a number of traditionally Democratic precincts had under and over votes thrown out. A number of them could never have been recounted under any legitimate criteria. Therefore, their votes were not heard. I'm certain Gore would have won Florida my thousands of votes if they had been recorded properly in the first place.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Illegitimate...

I agree with you as far as the outcome. The US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction at that time. The dissenting opinions of the US Supreme Court were interesting to read too.

The whole voting process was really screwed up in Florida to begin with. The result was a number of traditionally Democratic precincts had under and over votes thrown out. A number of them could never have been recounted under any legitimate criteria. Therefore, their votes were not heard. I'm certain Gore would have won Florida my thousands of votes if they had been recorded properly in the first place.

It is also worth noting that evidence was presented in the NAACP lawsuit against the state of Florida that only 9,000 of the 54,000 predominately African American voters who were denied the right to vote in the so-called "felon purge" were actually felons.

In addition, Republican officials in both Seminole and Martin counties admitted in court that they tampered with absentee ballots. No such similar charges have ever been made against Democrats in Florida.

Well, perhaps such charges were made by the crackpots at Newsmax, but not by anyone credible.

 

[Dannyblake]

I have read thru this thread with great interest. BTW, I am straight, but occasionaly flip thru the G/L chat to get a feel for where the G/L community is at on social issues. After having spent a week in DC lobbying on the hill and personally interviewing several Presidential candidates I thought that I would weigh in on the topic. Now, the facts:

Bush is beatable. His approval rating has slipped and will continue to slip. Voters in the U.S. need to support a candidate that will support their issues. Does Bush really support G/L issues?

Does anybody out there know that Rep Gebhardt has a daughter who is a lesbian, and that he loves and support very much? If I were a G/L and concerned about G/L issues, this man may receive some priority.

Howard Dean is very electable. This election cycle will see an incredible turn out from organized labor, as well as other special interest groups that are tired of getting their ass kicked by a republican agenda. Dean may very well be the man--don't get too caught up in the northern Dem thing.

The Dem's are not dead--take a look at battleground states, and you will see that several of these states are very winable, especially after dealing with four years of "W".

Smart money is on getting motivated, and supporting candidates that support your interests. Good Luck it should be a great election season.

 

[SensualMan]

Why do you even post Pookie....

Why do you even post when all you do is cut and paste what other people say? The whole third page of this thread has been a pointless argument over nothing more than a person's choice of words. The bottom line is that Larz is exactly right in how he laid down the sequence of events. After the automatic recount was initiated after the election in Florida, Gore was not satisfied the results would go his way and went to the Florida Supreme Court to try to get a hand recount. The second he filed suit with that court, he assured that the election was going to be resolved in the courts. Bush, in response to the suit Gore filed, filed a counter suit in a higher court...the US Supreme Court. Now why is Bush wrong for filing a suit when it was Gore that initiated the legal action? Explain to me how Bush tried to steal the election when it was Gore that first filed a suit and got the courts involved? And the US Supreme Court did not "appoint" or "select" Bush, they simply stated that the ridiculous number of hand recounts taking place was a violation of election law....which is EXACTLY what courts are supposed to do, uphold the law! The opinions of the justices can be found online if anyone wants to take the time to actually read what they were thinking when they made their ruling. One of the reasons they ruled the hand recounts as violating the law was that there was no st standard as to what counted as a vote. Many people were trying to argue that we had to take into account voter intentions....hence the arguments over "pregnant" and "hanging" chads. Some went so far as to say that ANY mark on the chad next to Gores name should be counted as a vote. Still others said that some voters were confused by the allignment of the ballot, so some votes for OTHER CANDIDATES were actually votes for Gore!

Like I said before, the election was chaotic and unorganized, but the courts were brought into the battle only after Gore first filed suit. The US Supreme Court had the wisdom to see that after all of the handling and manipulating of ballots, getting an honest, accurate hand recount was nearly impossible. All the talk of "disenfranchised" voters from the left is propoganda....Gore made every effort to get ballots excluded as well, namely from men and women in the military that have to exercise their right to vote by the absentee ballot system. Gore tried to have absentee balots thrown out because of the post mark date! Yet in the recount, he was the one saying we should count pregnant chads as votes because we need to considr voter intent! I would say an absentee ballot post marked a day late is a much more cleal indication of voter intent than a "pregnant chad".

As for newsmax and other sites being extreme right and not recognized as reputable news sources, that is just a matter of opinion really. But it is my recollection that more than a few major newspapers and networks had people involved in the recount, and a number of them felt that even with the recounts, Bush would have won. And just because a site publishes stories and articles opposed to the "gay cause" does not make them anti-gay as you claim.

 

[SensualMan]

Here is the link...

Here is the link to the Supreme Court decision in Bush V. Gore.....it is from the Cornell Law School site if that makes a difference queer......

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=bush&url=/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html


The basic premise of the ruling was that the manula recount going on in Florida after the election was a violation of due process.

"This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment." - A quote from the ruling....

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Why do you even post Pookie....

Why do you even post when all you do is cut and paste what other people say? The whole third page of this thread has been a pointless argument over nothing more than a person's choice of words. The bottom line is that Larz is exactly right in how he laid down the sequence of events. After the automatic recount was initiated after the election in Florida, Gore was not satisfied the results would go his way and went to the Florida Supreme Court to try to get a hand recount. The second he filed suit with that court, he assured that the election was going to be resolved in the courts. Bush, in response to the suit Gore filed, filed a counter suit in a higher court...the US Supreme Court. Now why is Bush wrong for filing a suit when it was Gore that initiated the legal action? Explain to me how Bush tried to steal the election when it was Gore that first filed a suit and got the courts involved? And the US Supreme Court did not "appoint" or "select" Bush, they simply stated that the ridiculous number of hand recounts taking place was a violation of election law....which is EXACTLY what courts are supposed to do, uphold the law! The opinions of the justices can be found online if anyone wants to take the time to actually read what they were thinking when they made their ruling. One of the reasons they ruled the hand recounts as violating the law was that there was no st standard as to what counted as a vote. Many people were trying to argue that we had to take into account voter intentions....hence the arguments over "pregnant" and "hanging" chads. Some went so far as to say that ANY mark on the chad next to Gores name should be counted as a vote. Still others said that some voters were confused by the allignment of the ballot, so some votes for OTHER CANDIDATES were actually votes for Gore!

Like I said before, the election was chaotic and unorganized, but the courts were brought into the battle only after Gore first filed suit. The US Supreme Court had the wisdom to see that after all of the handling and manipulating of ballots, getting an honest, accurate hand recount was nearly impossible. All the talk of "disenfranchised" voters from the left is propoganda....Gore made every effort to get ballots excluded as well, namely from men and women in the military that have to exercise their right to vote by the absentee ballot system. Gore tried to have absentee balots thrown out because of the post mark date! Yet in the recount, he was the one saying we should count pregnant chads as votes because we need to considr voter intent! I would say an absentee ballot post marked a day late is a much more cleal indication of voter intent than a "pregnant chad".

As for newsmax and other sites being extreme right and not recognized as reputable news sources, that is just a matter of opinion really. But it is my recollection that more than a few major newspapers and networks had people involved in the recount, and a number of them felt that even with the recounts, Bush would have won. And just because a site publishes stories and articles opposed to the "gay cause" does not make them anti-gay as you claim.

Pookie did not raise the issue of the credibility of Newsmax and Free Republic. Apparently, you read her posts with the same attention to detail you brought to your study of the 2000 election.

 

[SensualMan]

Obvious...

I thought the last paragraph of my post in which I referrenced your post about newsmax was obvious enough. I'm sorry I did not clearly indicate that I was referring to you in that post. Yet in the other thread you very clearly acknowledge that I knew it was your post. You can't have it both ways...you know damn well I was referring to you when I mentioned newsmax.....

And my understanding of the election appears to be much greater than yours....I have facts on my side, you have yet to post a single fact with support. Everything I said can be substatiated from source documents.

 

[SensualMan]

Expertise....

Earlier you cited your degree in history as the basis for your expertise....if that is how it works here I guess my degree in poli sci trumps your degree and makes me more qualified than you.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Obvious...

I thought the last paragraph of my post in which I referrenced your post about newsmax was obvious enough. I'm sorry I did not clearly indicate that I was referring to you in that post. Yet in the other thread you very clearly acknowledge that I knew it was your post. You can't have it both ways...you know damn well I was referring to you when I mentioned newsmax.....

And my understanding of the election appears to be much greater than yours....I have facts on my side, you have yet to post a single fact with support. Everything I said can be substatiated from source documents.

It's interesting that you couldn't see your way clear to using my name here, when you have no trouble throwing it into other discussions.

If you pride yourself so greatly on your use of facts, I would ask again that you answer my previous question to you. You claimed that the Supreme Court followed established precedent in Bush V. Gore. What precedent would that be?

 

[SensualMan]

Precedent

The legal precedent is very clear....when someone files a suit in a state level court.....every defendant has the right to appeal to a higher court. In this case, Gore filed a suit in state court, and Bush appealed to a higher court....all perfectly legal. And as for the actual ruling, read it for yourself....they did not rule on anything except procedure....they said that the lack of a uniform standard for counting votes was a violation of the Constitutional right to equal protection and the principle of "one man, one vote"....If you would read the decision you would know....numerous previous Supreme Court cases are cited as evidence.