KevinthePRF Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/washington.governor.ap/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Since the Dems were so concerned with election fraud, Im shocked that they arent supporting the effort to correct it in this case. I bet Barbara Boxer is crying on the inside though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 K17, why are so adamant that to one side this is about getting power, and the other side is only concerned about election fraud? Doesn't that seem a little unrealistic to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Initial count: Rossi wins by 261 votes This is too close to call. I appeal! The people have spoken. The election should end now. Machine recount: Rossi wins by 42 votes This is too close to call. I appeal! The people have spoken. The election should end now. Hand recount: Rossi loses by 129 votes The people have spoken. The election should end now. This is too close to call. I appeal! Clearly, one side in this discussion is simply a bunch of crooks who will do anything possible, even destroy the foundation of our political system, in order to gain political power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 OMG they are demanding yet another recount? Why don't they think of their country before putting the nation through this crap. It seems all the GOP wants is power. (sound familiar?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 I dont think that flash. I dont think either really care about election fraud. But when comparing these two cases (Wash vote vs Pres vote) it is obvious that fraud swung the election in Wash state, while not so evident that it existed on such and extent to swing Ohio. To say nothing of the transparent cries from the left that they werent interested in overturning the elction, only looking at fraud. All the while ignoring other states where the votes were much much closer and had even more accusations of malfeasance. I dont deny that the GOP in Wash state is doing what they are doing for power alone. The difference is, the actually have a case. Whereas in Ohio, there was not enough. The bottom line is that our election system is not designed to, and therefor cannot handle, elections decided by a few votes or thousandths of percentage points. Washington State falls in this margin. Ohio does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 The bottom line is that our election system is not designed to, and therefor cannot handle, elections decided by a few votes or thousandths of percentage points. Washington State falls in this margin. Ohio does not. 'Florida 2000 did and you were singing a different tune then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 No I wasnt Des. There was no proof of fraud in Florida. The issue there was a State Court deciding to overreach their authority and the SCOTUS setting them back in line (twice in fact). The fraud allegations in FLA were mostly the Dems keeping valid Overseas ballots from being counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 No I wasnt Des. There was no proof of fraud in Florida. The issue there was a State Court deciding to overreach their authority and the SCOTUS setting them back in line (twice in fact). The fraud allegations in FLA were mostly the Dems keeping valid Overseas ballots from being counted. There should have been a full by hand recount and an investigation. If only for the fact that state is run by Bush's brother. Seriously only in this nation of taking freedom for granted is a family tie not viewed with immediate suspision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Destino There should have been a full by hand recount and an investigation. If only for the fact that state is run by Bush's brother. Seriously only in this nation of taking freedom for granted is a family tie not viewed with immediate suspision. State Law doesnt allow for that Des. And Bush's brother didnt involve himself in the debacle at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNEET Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 You see, KevinthePRF, it's perfectly okay and rational when Republicans recount. But when Democrats want to, it's time to post pictures of Democrats crying and thump your chest to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by posse You see, KevinthePRF, it's perfectly okay and rational when Republicans recount. But when Democrats want to, it's time to post pictures of Democrats crying and thump your chest to it. Or you could offer opinions of your own or relevant facts. But that would be a first for you wouldnt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 No I wasnt Des. There was no proof of fraud in Florida. The issue there was a State Court deciding to overreach their authority and the SCOTUS setting them back in line (twice in fact). The fraud allegations in FLA were mostly the Dems keeping valid Overseas ballots from being counted. The SCOTUS was the one that overstepped its bounds. Election results are a state issue and should be decided by the states themselves. What you call overreaching real lawyers call making a ruling. Those Overseas ballots that you say were being kept from being counted were disqualified because the voters didn't fill out the ballots correctly. Using a punch card ballot incorrectly makes you a moron, but using an overseas ballot incorrectly if somehow different? The double standards and hypocrisy are disgusting. What should I expect though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 The overseas ballots were refused because they didnt have a postmark date on them. Not a result of voter error. Big difference. The SCOTUS did EXACTLY what the Constitution calls for. They stepped in and overturned a bizarre and unconstitutional ruling by a partisan court. FLA law was very specific. THe FLA SC decided they could ignore FLA law and change the rules. Even though that right belonged to the Legislature. All the SCOTUS did was 1st, tell them not to do it. Then 2nd, tell them that after they ignored them the first time, that their ruling was now invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Unfortunately, I think recounts and recalls are the wave of the future for our bedraggled system. The democratic process is in trouble when partisan politics from any arena get in the way and muddy the waters of election results. It makes our nation look weak and pathetic in the eyes of our enemys and we become a laughing stock worldwide. ALL SIDES NEED TO GROW UP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 The overseas ballots were refused because they didnt have a postmark date on them. Not a result of voter error. Big difference. The SCOTUS did EXACTLY what the Constitution calls for. They stepped in and overturned a bizarre and unconstitutional ruling by a partisan court. FLA law was very specific. THe FLA SC decided they could ignore FLA law and change the rules. Even though that right belonged to the Legislature. All the SCOTUS did was 1st, tell them not to do it. Then 2nd, tell them that after they ignored them the first time, that their ruling was now invalid. The US supreme court shouldn't have even heard the case. It was purely a state issue that was ruled on by the highest court of the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 It stopped being a State issue when the FLA SC violated the Equal Protection clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 It stopped being a State issue when the FLA SC violated the Equal Protection clause. It stopped being a state issue when the Bush team decided it was in their best interest NOT to get as accurate a count as possible. After all, why not have a recount if the race is close? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNEET Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Political conversations are awesome here. Especially since literally every other post, in every political thread, is Kilmer17's overzealous neoconservative talking points straight from National Review and Sean Hannity. Yes, it's truly a wonder why intelligent political discourse has all but stopped here at extremeskins.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by posse Political conversations are awesome here. Especially since literally every other post, in every political thread, is Kilmer17's overzealous neoconservative talking points straight from National Review and Sean Hannity. Yes, it's truly a wonder why intelligent political discourse has all but stopped here at extremeskins.com. That pretty much happens every time you join a thread. Des, the Bush team didnt do a thing. The Gore camp asked for specific counts in specific places. And after they were completed and certified (as per FLA Law), the Gore team then decided that their own requests were wrong and that an entire count should be made (Not allowed by FLA law). The FL SC decided that the law didnt have to be applied (Even though the scotus HAD ALREADY RULED IT HAD TO BE), and called for a complete recount. The SCOTUS then stpped in and ruled (7-2) that the FLA SC was violating the Equal Protection clause and they overruled them. At no point did the Bush team did not do a thing regarding the counts that were legal. They fought the illegal ruling of the FLA SC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Kilmer17 you really should read the article that is cited above...the Republican Party isn't claiming fraud at all(they are claiming numerous errors) nor are they demanding a recount...they want a whole new election....which itself is a problem.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward The SCOTUS was the one that overstepped its bounds. Election results are a state issue and should be decided by the states themselves. What you call overreaching real lawyers call making a ruling. Those Overseas ballots that you say were being kept from being counted were disqualified because the voters didn't fill out the ballots correctly. Using a punch card ballot incorrectly makes you a moron, but using an overseas ballot incorrectly if somehow different? The double standards and hypocrisy are disgusting. What should I expect though? I live in FL so I feel a litle close to the matter. The FL Supreme Court overstepped IT'S bounds and the US Supreme Court did it's job and told them so. And those absentee ballots? 90% US military service people voting and the military screwed up the delivery. Un feaking believable how people like you twist things around.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Funky, this has warped from a discussion about Wash into something else. I've been saying for weeks now that Rossi should let it go. I dont support a revote at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 The overseas ballots were refused because they didnt have a postmark date on them. Not a result of voter error. Big difference. Problem: Florida law says that, to be counted, absentee ballots must be postmarked on or before election day. Now, if you want to claim that that law should be overturned, because it has the effect (unintentional, I'd bet) of disenfranchising all overseas military, then I'd agree with you. But, it's not because those dirty liberals were trying to change the law. (It's just that the law was worded in a way that, I'd bet, the authors didn't intend.) The SCOTUS did EXACTLY what the Constitution calls for. They stepped in and overturned a bizarre and unconstitutional ruling by a partisan court.FLA law was very specific. Yes, it is. Florida law says (or said, in 2000): Hand recounts can be requested, in any election, by any candidate, or a political party, (or, IIR, by any "interested party". If the margin of the count is less than 1%, then the request for a hand recount must be granted. (If it's more than 1% then the county may chose to recount or not). The request is made to the county election board. The same board makes the decision whether to grant the request, and conducts the recount (if any). (The county can also initiate a recount on it's own, without a request). The request for a recount can be made up to six months after the election. If a hand recount is conducted then the results of that recount must be considered authoritative (compared to machine counts). Glad we had such specific laws, and followed them so well, aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Larry, please link to those laws. Specifically the 6 month rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.