Looks to me like its going to be President Gore

[Russ]

<< The law allows a recount, it allows a hand recount, it allows for an interpretation of voter intent. >>



What laws? You mean the ones that the micro supremes have now re-written twice? Re-written even after the REAL Supremes slapped them the first time?

Russ, NCNE

 

[DefRef]

Sorry, wrong again. (Man, the spin has really worked.)

The ballots will be observed by people from both sides, but the FINAL DECISIONS are up to the County Canvasing Boards. In the three counties that Gore tried to engineer this theft, they had ALL-DEMOCRAT canvassing boards (OK, one had a Republican, but it was 2-1 to overrule that one) and in Broward County, ANY marks was scored a Gore vote.

Some people didn't vote for either one of these guys! They were both very flawed and less-than-awesome candidates, but, if Gore gets his way, those non-voters will be converted into Gore votes, after his lackeys mystically divine &quot;the intent of the voter&quot;.

Every vote count? How can ensure that every NON-vote ISN'T COUNTED?!?

 

[Russ]

<< I read over and over again from GOP folk here that counting the ballots that were rejected by the machines means there isn't a vote, and is instead an opportunity for Gore to get some additional votes.. >>



Slugbait,

For confirmation of that, all you have to do is read the transcripts from the Broward County recount. They were manufacturing Gore votes out of nothingness by creating voter intent where none existed.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Tripleshot]

Moonbeam
Very well put, your mushroomness.

Get the 43000 ballots that are in question counted and do it now without any more roadblocks. the results will give the United States a clear winner.







Unfortunately,once again,the Bush team is setting up roadblocks in the 11th circuit court of appeals filing emergency action to stop in its tracks the order of the Florida Supreme court. From the very begining,the GW team has not wanted the true votes counted.Remember,Nov 7th,it was announced that Bush was ahead by 50,000 votes in Florida and the infamous phone call of conceding Gore was made. Then,from that moment on,Bush, at every turn of the vote counts has lost more and more. Nov 8th he had 1784 vote lead. Then Nov 18th 930. Then Nov 26th, it is pared down and certified at 537. Today,the court says count the damn votes and by the way GW,you now only have a 154 vote lead.


If the partison obstructionists quit there crying and attempts to steal the election by using every paltry legal angle they can find or the stall technique they are trying now, we can be done with this in a couple days and the healing can begin.

Bush,step up and call off the obstructionists lawyers. Count the ballots just as you would have done in Texas under Texas law. If you win the most votes,you will be my President. If you do not win the most votes, see you in 94 for the next try.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[Michael]

Tripleshot - How about using California law to judge the ballots? How about using the standard actually used in the Illinois case that was cited in the now vacated FSC opinion that extended the deadline? How about recounting Broward County using the PBC standard?

I agree that all the undervotes should be manually examined. I disagree on the standard and the timeliness.

Michael

 

[Feisters]

It ain't over yet folks. The U.S. Supreme Court is going to blow a gasket over today's Forida Supreme Court ruling.

 

[DefRef]

The CLINTON News Network's web site. A nice unbiased source! I read a piece there that was sooooooooo slanted in it's language, I was astonished when it wasn't labeled &quot;opinion&quot; or &quot;editorial&quot;.

Slugbait: I wasn't really replying only to you, but rather to ANYONE who has fallen for the twisted &quot;meaning of 'is'&quot; verbal gymnastics of the Left. Here's what I was referring to: Texas Truth Squad (I know some of y'all are gonna shriek, &quot;that's a Right-wing site!&quot;, but the liberal media is so in bed with the Left, they'd never properly explain this.)

A snip:

What you won't hear from most news accounts or commentators is that...&quot;the law does not say that we prefer manual recounts over electronic recounts. What the law says is that when two different people ask for two different recounts ? one wants a manual and one wants a computer ? in that scenario, we're going to go with the manual because you don't want a manual and a computer recount. So it's very different than saying that we prefer manual recounts in Texas.&quot;

And...&quot;you only get one shot in Texas.&quot; &quot;You can't say 'I want a computer recount' and then if that doesn't go right, that 'I want a manual recount,' and than if that doesn't go right you try osmosis or something else,&quot;...reasoning that the more you handle the ballots, &quot;the more flawed the data become.&quot;

Here's the relevant bit from election code:

§ 214.042. Counting Method for Recount

(a) A person requesting a recount of electronic voting system ballots has a choice of:

(1) an electronic recount using the same program as the original count;

(2) an electronic recount using a corrected program under Section 214.046(c), if obtainable; or

(3) a manual recount as provided by Subchapter A.

(b) The same counting method must be used in all precincts included in the recount document for which the same program was used in the original count.

(c) Unless a different counting method is requested, the ballots shall be counted electronically using the same program as the original count.

(d) Except as otherwise provided by this subchapter, a request for a specific counting method must be made in the recount document, specifying the precincts to which the request applies if it does not apply to all precincts in which electronic voting system ballots are to be recounted.

I hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make.

 

[Tripleshot]

Michael
Pick your poison. I don't care. There is only a 154 vote difference between victory and defeat.Just get the ballots counted and be done with it. The snivelling is unbecoming on anyone of us and the loudest snivelling is coming from the repubs tonight.

There are only 43000 ballots in question,(from the last I heard on the talking heads news programs tonight)and I think that I agree with the experts that that 154 vote difference can be overcome with whatever standard you use,dimples or not.I would think there are at least 155 hanging chads just waiting to be counted,probably in a republican county.

 

[Michael]

Tripleshot - No, recount the Broward County votes using the PBC standard. That 155 number will grow.

Michael

 

[Tripleshot]

Michael
I'ld say go for it. I could care less. I just want this crap over with so the country can get back on its feet and see what direction it needs to go in. There is so much damn confusion,neighbors are suspecious of neighbors,families are bickering amongst themselves over this fiasco,its dominated the water cooler gossip for a month now and its tearing hell out of the stock market. My neighboer has lost over $20,000 this month alone in the stock market jitters. Can you imagine what this has done to peoples 401k retirement accounts?

Lets have a President-Elect on December 12th,OK?

Shrub or Bore, any way you look at it, America lost.

 

[ride525]

<< It ain't over yet folks. The U.S. Supreme Court is going to blow a gasket over today's Forida Supreme Court ruling. >>



We'll see.....one legal analyst on the television said the Florida Supremes wrote the decision in such a way that there was little doubt that they used FLORIDA law in arriving at their decision. And normally, the Conservatives on the court don't like to get involved in state law.

(Who was that guy that said &quot;I trust the states&quot;?)

 

[JellyBaby]

Who was the first federal candidate to interfere with the voting process in FL? Hmmm...starts with a &quot;G&quot; I believe.

It is surprising that with all the democrats in positions of power in Florida that they couldn't quickly steal this election has Gore probably hoped they could. Even J.J.'s presence didn't incite enough craziness to let the tampering go through. The Vice President, a federal official tweaking a state election for his favor. If that's not tyrannical it's at least un-american.

 

[DefRef]

Actually, the Florida Legislature is 2-1 GOP and they have a GOP governor, so why is everyone yapping about, &quot;It's obvious that more people went to the polls INTENDING to vote for Al Gore.&quot;?

Why would they vote GOP for state government and then switch to Roboliar??

 

[ride525]

<< Who was the first federal candidate to interfere with the voting process in FL? >>



Interfere? If your talking about requesting for manual recounts, he is legally entitled to request them. I'd hardly call that interfering

 

[Static911]

If Gore becomes prez, i don't respect any authority...he is some sour@$$ loser...

Static911

 

[ride525]

It's too bad some of the posters here don't have the class that their man, Bush, has shown in public the last few days....

 

[JellyBaby]

<< he is legally entitled to request them. >>

Absolutely. Had he made that simple public statement then allowed FL to conduct everything within their own bounds I would agree. But he and his Ds threatened lawsuits, tossed in J.J., lobbied to change the standards by which votes are counted, hand-picked the areas where recounts were to occur and most recently fought to get under-votes tossed in. These are non-votes, votes where no choice for president was made. Why even look at them unless your intent is to fabricate votes? If I choose not to vote for a King I don't want a King influencing Judges to rule that my ballot by scrutinized in order to see if perhaps I possibly did choose to vote for a King. C'mon, this is madness!

 

[ride525]

<< These are non-votes, votes where no choice for president was made. >>



In some cases perhaps. In other cases a choice for president was made, but the machine just wasn't able to read it.

Lets count 'em and be on with it....

 

[veryape]

Everyone seems so sure that the USSC is going to &quot;lay the smack down. I bet they don't touch this decision,legaly at least. I say this because people will say its a state issue,which is what the republicans were saying when it served their interests. How quickly they change opinions of what is right and whats wrong.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< In some cases perhaps. In other cases a choice for president was made, but the machine just wasn't able to read it. >>

This happened in every state yet here we are changing the rules again. Now we're looking at them only in Florida to accomodate the forceful &quot;requests&quot; of a certain side. There's been no fraud so what gives here? This election has been tainted and a Gore victory cannot be valid no matter how you slice it.

I wonder if we shouldn't opt to pass a law giving future presidential candidates $10,000,000 each in order to fight legal battles in closely contested regions. This seems to be the way you win elections in modern times. I believe only registered democrats should be taxed in order to pay for it. They started it after all.

 

[Tripleshot]

>>> I believe only registered democrats should be taxed in order to pay for it. They started it after all<<<

Wrong. WRONG! Bush lawyers were first to file suit and have been party to every suit since and are sueing in the 11th circuit court of appeals in Atlanta now and in the U.S. Supreme court as we sit here typing.


But you are wrong in alot of your biased posts,but thats OK. I've been wrong too.








And I might be wrong again later. But not tonight. I'm going to bed.





Good Night All!

 

[rmblam]

WELLS, C.J., dissenting. (This is the chief justice of the Florida SC mentioned in an earlier post.) He's a Democrat I hear.



<< Plaintiffs asked the trial judge to grant the very
remedy?a recount of the under-votes?he prays for without first establishing that
remedy was warranted. Before any relief is granted, a plaintiff must allege that
enough legal votes were rejected to place in doubt the results of the election.
However, in order for the plaintiffs to meet this burden, the under-vote ballots
must be preliminarily manually recounted. Following this logic to its conclusion
would require a circuit court to order partial manual recounts upon the mere filing
of a contest. This proposition plainly has no basis in law.

I cannot find that the Miami-Dade Board?s decision that all the
ballots could not be manually recounted between November 22 and November 26,
2000, to be anything but a decision based upon reality. Moreover, not to count all
of the ballots if any were to be recounted would plainly be changing the rules after
the election and would be unfairly discriminatory against votes in the precincts in
which there was no manual recount. Thus, I agree with the trial court that the
Miami-Dade Board did not abuse its discretion in discontinuing the manual
recount.

As I stated at the outset, I conclude that this contest simply must end.
Directing the trial court to conduct a manual recount of the ballots violates
article II, section 1, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, in that neither this
Court nor the circuit court has the authority to create the standards by which it will
count the under-voted ballots.

I love this part:

Also problematic with the majority?s analysis is that the majority only requires that the
?under-votes? are to be counted. How about the ?over-votes?? Section 101.5614(6) provides
that a ballot should not be counted ?f an elector marks more names than there are persons to be
elected to an office,? meaning the voter voted for more than one person for president. The
underlying premise of the majority?s rationale is that in such a close race a manual review of
ballots rejected by the machines is necessary to ensure that all legal votes cast are counted. The
majority, however, ignores the over-votes. Could it be said, without reviewing the over-votes,
that the machine did not err in not counting them?
It seems patently erroneous to me to assume that the vote-counting machines can err
when reading under-votes but not err when reading over-votes. Can the majority say, without
having the over-votes looked at, that there are no legal votes among the over-votes?

Thus, under the majority?s time line, all manual
recounts must be completed in five days, assuming the counting begins today.
In that time frame, all questionable ballots must be reviewed by the judicial
officer appointed to discern the intent of the voter in a process open to the public.31
Fairness dictates that a provision be made for either party to object to how a
particular ballot is counted. Additionally, this short time period must allow for
judicial review. I respectfully submit this cannot be completed without taking
Florida?s presidential electors outside the safe harbor provision, creating the very
real possibility of disenfranchising those nearly six million voters who were able
to correctly cast their ballots on election day.

Another significant problem is that the majority returns this case to the
circuit court for a recount with no standards.

I am persuaded that Justice Terrell was correct in 1936 when he said:
This court is committed to the doctrine that extraordinary relief
will not be granted in case where it plainly appears that although the
complaining party may be ordinarily entitled to it, if the granting of
such relief in the particular case will result in confusion and disorder
and will produce an injury to the public which outweighs the
individual right of the complainant to have the relief he seeks. >>




The other dissenting justice predicts



<< if by some miracle a portion of the statewide recount is completed by December 12,
a partial recount is not acceptable. The uncertainty of the outcome of this election
will be greater under the remedy afforded by the majority than the uncertainty that
now exists. >>





<< I am more concerned
that the majority is departing from the essential requirements of the law by
providing a remedy which is impossible to achieve and which will ultimately lead
to chaos. >>




Rather interesting opinions(?) don't you think?

[edit]link added[/edit] http://abcnews.go.com/sections/pdf/sc00-2431.pdf

 

[JellyBaby]

Hey Tripleshot. Long time no flame, eh?

Yeah I'm biased. These damn democrats always bring out the pseudo-R in me. Even though I'll probably never vote for an R at the national election again (last time was in '88), Gore's antics place me fighting alongside the nasty partisan Rs time and time again. Oh well, thems the breaks.

Actually, I believe it was Gore's attornies who filed first. Due to some bizarre reason their initial suit was disenfrancised and later had to be recounted. By then Bush had filed a suit.

Oh and Triple, you're always wrong while I'm wrong only 50% of the time. G'nite.

 

[JellyBaby]

rmblam,

Regarding:

<< I am persuaded that Justice Terrell was correct in 1936 when he said:
This court is committed to the doctrine that extraordinary relief
will not be granted in case where it plainly appears that although the
complaining party may be ordinarily entitled to it, if the granting of
such relief in the particular case will result in confusion and disorder
and will produce an injury to the public which outweighs the
individual right of the complainant to have the relief he seeks. >>

The next time a democrat says, &quot;that's a dangerous, risky scheme&quot;, point them toward Florida 2000 and ask them just what the hell that was.

 

[rmblam]

I predict that Gore will eat his words yet again. He said they will abide by the courts decision &quot;no matter what&quot;. BS this is no where near over. I predict that it has been planned for some time now to take this to congress and the senate. They know very well that this cannot be resolved anymore. It'll go to congress, they will elect Bush and the senate will elect Lieberman as Vice. The next election will be in 2002 if the democrats get their way. Hey, isn't that better than having to wait 4 years to get Hillary in the limelight?

The doublespeak and spin is getting me nauseated.