|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
October 17th 04, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Blair P. Houghton wrote in message .. .
H. M. Leary wrote: Ičll be glad when this election is over. Then we can get back to complaining that Gore ( remembe rhim/ ) actually won the election. Got that covered. See below. A partial recount does NOT prove your point. --Blair "Amateurs." Standard answer when Gore's tactics after the 2000 election are mentioned: Gore was afraid there wasn't enough time to recount the whole state, but demanded recounts in the four largest counties start immediately. He sued in the Florida Supreme Court. It was the Bushies who pushed it up to their honeypot in the SCOTUS. Under Florida Code (102.168), Gore was REQUIRED to challenge ALL COUNTIES, not just 4 DEMOCRAT majority counties. The fact is Gore had 36 days to get a full statewide recount, but Gore was AFRAID that he would lose. That is why he tried to cherry pick 4 counties that were friendly to his cause. "Nobody asked for a contest of the overvotes," Gore lawyer David Boies told the U.S. Supreme Court in the last hearing. The media analysis shows that among those 3,690 overvotes that could be considered legitimate votes, 6 out of 10 were cast for Gore. "Instead of pursuing overvotes, the Gore team sought manual recounts of undervotes in four counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia counties." http://www.sptimes.com/News/111201/L...nt__Bush.shtml Here. Have some facts. Note that the truth is in choice #1, "Prevailing Statewide Standard," the method that would have been used had they recounted the whole state using the state's existing method: The TRUTH????? The TRUTH is the NORC did not check every disuputed ballots, thus it does NOT prove that Gore won Florida under any circumstances. The NORC claims that there where approx 180,000 disputed ballots. http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/press.asp The Orlando Sentinel backs up this claim, they found that there were as many as 179,855 disputed ballots. http://www.co.leon.fl.us/elect/blankspoilFL.pdf The NORC says that they gained access to 175,010 of the 179,855 disputed ballots, thus their recount did not include all of the disputed ballots. rbbomber (rbbomber) wrote in message news  7e483417.0308140734.33f500ff):Here's a bit of a catchup: Because five partisan members of the U. S. Supreme Court stopped any possibility of an official recount in Florida in 2000, perhaps the best data we have are from the National Opinion Research Center's report of the ballots there. Here's the result: Nine scenarios were used in NORC's Florida ballot study. Below is a quick breakdown showing the identifier for each and the result for each, horse-race style. 1. Prevailing Statewide Standard: GORE WINS 2. Supreme Court 'simple' scenario: BUSH WINS 3. Supreme Court 'complex' scenario: BUSH WINS 4. 67-county custom standards scenario: GORE WINS 5. 2-corners-detached statewide scenario: GORE WINS 6. 'Most inclusive' statewide scenario: GORE WINS 7. 'Most restrictive' statewide scenario: BUSH WINS 8. Gore 4-county recount strategy scenario: BUSH WINS 9. 'Dimples when other dimples present' scenario: GORE WINS" The most newsworthy scenario at the time was #8, in which Mr. Gore got exactly what he sought: a recount in four counties he thought favorable to him and nowhere else. As the media pointed out, he still lost Florida. To their great credit, the media also reported the results of NORC's other scenarios (above), but not much attention seemed to be paid to them at the time. When the votes were actually counted, Gore won. PROOF??? Gore fought for 36 days to make sure that ALL ballots were NOT COUNTED. Republicans hate facts, and love courts. Let me know when you decide to post some facts. 
|
| Ads |
|
#42
October 18th 04, 01:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:57:41 GMT, Blair P. Houghton wrote:
Given that they have competed and committed acts of politics in order to get into a position where their party will nominate them, it's more than a good bet that they will always vote for the ticket listed with them on the ballot. Except they haven't always voted. In fact, both parties have groups active on identifying potential wayward electoral college voters. That you have a clear record of deliberate exaggeration, if not outright lies if you go after the 60 pound (no wait, you got them up to 70 with them being double the size of a 35 pound dog), this is where I stop wasting time on a teenager who sould spend more time studying. Anything. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...
|
|
#44
October 18th 04, 03:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:57:41 +0000, Blair P. Houghton wrote:
Curtis L. Russell wrote: On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:20:48 GMT, Blair P. Houghton wrote: Since the elctoral college voters are not bound by the votes of the people, ...In some states... In all states. There is nothing preventing them from putting Joe Liebermann in as president and John McCain in as Vice-President, for instance. The people vote for the electoral college who usually, but not absolutely always, votes the ticket they are supposed to represent. Last time some elector actually voted for someone other than who he/she was pledged to was 1972. He voted for the Libertarians. In 2000, an elector from DC abstained, and in 1988, an elector swapped prez/veep votes. Both of these were protests. The ballot (here in Arizona, for one) lists the names of the electors for each candidate. Some states do list them, others don't. -- David L. Johnson __o | A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems. _`\(,_ | -- Paul Erdos (_)/ (_) |
|
|
#45
October 18th 04, 06:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:57:41 GMT, Blair P. Houghton wrote: Given that they have competed and committed acts of politics in order to get into a position where their party will nominate them, it's more than a good bet that they will always vote for the ticket listed with them on the ballot. Except they haven't always voted. In fact, both parties have groups active on identifying potential wayward electoral college voters. You don't read very well. That you have a clear record of deliberate exaggeration, if not outright lies if you go after the 60 pound (no wait, you got them up to 70 with them being double the size of a 35 pound dog), this is where I stop wasting time on a teenager who sould spend more time studying. Anything. Hey. ****head. Check this out: http://www.uticaod.com/outdoors/colu...si/john107.htm --Blair "You just learned something."
|
|
#46
October 18th 04, 06:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
David L. Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:57:41 +0000, Blair P. Houghton wrote: Curtis L. Russell wrote: On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:20:48 GMT, Blair P. Houghton wrote: Since the elctoral college voters are not bound by the votes of the people, ...In some states... In all states. "In twenty-four states, electors face no punishment if they change their pledged vote. " http://www.edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_34_47.html Here's about 20,000 more places to check that fact: http://www.google.com/search?q=elect...utf-8&oe=utf-8 There is nothing preventing them from putting Joe Liebermann in as president and John McCain in as Vice-President, for instance. The people vote for the electoral college who usually, but not absolutely always, votes the ticket they are supposed to represent. Last time some elector actually voted for someone other than who he/she was pledged to was 1972. He voted for the Libertarians. In 2000, an elector from DC abstained, and in 1988, an elector swapped prez/veep votes. Both of these were protests. Yes, it doesn't happen often. That's the result of the political part of the process that selects loyal thralls, rather than the law, because even with official sanctions the civilly disobedient will commit the proscribed act and take the punishment as a point of pride. The ballot (here in Arizona, for one) lists the names of the electors for each candidate. Some states do list them, others don't. I don't recall them being on the ballot last time; but they were pretty clearly listed on the sample I got in the mail yesterday. --Blair "Handy, that."
|
|
#47
October 18th 04, 06:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pete wrote:
"Blair P. Houghton" wrote And Saddam, by 2003, had no weapons of mass destruction. When did this statement become true? Name the day. You name the day it became false, and GW Bush will find you a job in his administration. He knew he had no credible evidence, and lied about it, saying he had incontrovertible evidence. On White House letterhead, no less: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021014-4.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021028-5.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021028-4.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021031-1.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021101-5.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021102-2.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021102-3.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021103-2.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021103-1.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021103-3.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021104-9.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021104-7.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021104-5.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030317-7.html Instead of asking impertinent questions, how about evaluating the pertinent facts? --Blair "Bush lied."
|
|
#48
October 18th 04, 06:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#49
October 18th 04, 03:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(rbbomber) wrote in message . com...
) wrote in message . com... Blair P. Houghton wrote in message .. . H. M. Leary wrote: Ičll be glad when this election is over. Then we can get back to complaining that Gore ( remembe rhim/ ) actually won the election. Got that covered. See below. A partial recount does NOT prove your point. --Blair "Amateurs." Standard answer when Gore's tactics after the 2000 election are mentioned: Gore was afraid there wasn't enough time to recount the whole state, but demanded recounts in the four largest counties start immediately. He sued in the Florida Supreme Court. It was the Bushies who pushed it up to their honeypot in the SCOTUS. Under Florida Code (102.168), Gore was REQUIRED to challenge ALL COUNTIES, not just 4 DEMOCRAT majority counties. The fact is Gore had 36 days to get a full statewide recount, but Gore was AFRAID that he would lose. That is why he tried to cherry pick 4 counties that were friendly to his cause. "Nobody asked for a contest of the overvotes," Gore lawyer David Boies told the U.S. Supreme Court in the last hearing. The media analysis shows that among those 3,690 overvotes that could be considered legitimate votes, 6 out of 10 were cast for Gore. "Instead of pursuing overvotes, the Gore team sought manual recounts of undervotes in four counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia counties." http://www.sptimes.com/News/111201/L...nt__Bush.shtml Here. Have some facts. Note that the truth is in choice #1, "Prevailing Statewide Standard," the method that would have been used had they recounted the whole state using the state's existing method: The TRUTH????? The TRUTH is the NORC did not check every disuputed ballots, thus it does NOT prove that Gore won Florida under any circumstances. The NORC claims that there where approx 180,000 disputed ballots. http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/press.asp The Orlando Sentinel backs up this claim, they found that there were as many as 179,855 disputed ballots. http://www.co.leon.fl.us/elect/blankspoilFL.pdf The NORC says that they gained access to 175,010 of the 179,855 disputed ballots, thus their recount did not include all of the disputed ballots. rbbomber (rbbomber) wrote in message news 7e483417.0308140734.33f500ff):Here's a bit of a catchup: Because five partisan members of the U. S. Supreme Court stopped any possibility of an official recount in Florida in 2000, perhaps the best data we have are from the National Opinion Research Center's report of the ballots there. Here's the result: Nine scenarios were used in NORC's Florida ballot study. Below is a quick breakdown showing the identifier for each and the result for each, horse-race style. 1. Prevailing Statewide Standard: GORE WINS 2. Supreme Court 'simple' scenario: BUSH WINS 3. Supreme Court 'complex' scenario: BUSH WINS 4. 67-county custom standards scenario: GORE WINS 5. 2-corners-detached statewide scenario: GORE WINS 6. 'Most inclusive' statewide scenario: GORE WINS 7. 'Most restrictive' statewide scenario: BUSH WINS 8. Gore 4-county recount strategy scenario: BUSH WINS 9. 'Dimples when other dimples present' scenario: GORE WINS" The most newsworthy scenario at the time was #8, in which Mr. Gore got exactly what he sought: a recount in four counties he thought favorable to him and nowhere else. As the media pointed out, he still lost Florida. To their great credit, the media also reported the results of NORC's other scenarios (above), but not much attention seemed to be paid to them at the time. When the votes were actually counted, Gore won. PROOF??? Gore fought for 36 days to make sure that ALL ballots were NOT COUNTED. Republicans hate facts, and love courts. Let me know when you decide to post some facts. Such facts as can be ascertained have been posted, Mark, many times. Where we can agree, I believe, is that we'll never know which 2000 presidential candidate got most votes in Florida, and, thus, never know who won in the Electoral College. We already know beyond a shadow of a doubt who won the Electoral College. The challenge by the Democrats to Bush's Florida Electors failed. No a single Democrat, in the Senate that they controlled, would support that challenge. The reason we won't know, of course, is that five radical partisan members of the U. S. Supreme Court chose to substitute their judgment for that of Florida's voters. Let's do what we can to assure that that does not happen in 2004. --Russ You are completely ignoring the ramifications of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, and the actions of the FSC. Under that act, there was no remedy available to Gore that would have allowed the court to remove state certification from Bush and award it to Gore. Thus, Gore's only recourse after state certification had been given was in Congress, not the courts. Of course, we all watched this attempted fail. In fact, it was Gore himself who rule the challenge out of order. From The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, 12/12/2000....... "More political than legal" MARGARET WARNER: Stuart Taylor, weigh in on this. What do you see could be the reason for, or the benefit to Republicans of the Bush forces to have the Florida legislature act? STUART TAYLOR: I think I agree with the thrust of what has been said, which is it's more a political benefit than legal. There are already Bush electors sitting - figuratively speaking -- in Washington, D.C. Nothing makes them disappear. The legislature weighing in is probably a debating point for people in Congress who want to say, here's another reason we should take the Bush electors if it ever comes to that. MARGARET WARNER: So you don't think they're afraid, though, that there could be a court ordered recount and a court could order the current slate of Bush electors replaced, say, with a Gore slate? STUART TAYLOR: I suppose that's a remote contingency. But my reading of the United States Code provisions, which Congress passed in 1887 on this, is that it would violate federal law for any court to try and make the slate of electors that's already certified disappear, and that if you get another slate certified, the solution is Congress figures out which ones to count and the courts have no part in it. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/elect...gal_12-12.html "CONGRESSWOMAN BARBARA LEE AND CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS OPPOSE FLORIDA ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES" Washington, DC - Congresswoman Barbara Lee today joined members of the Congressional Black Caucus in opposition to counting Florida's 25 electoral college votes for George W. Bush. A formal objection to counting Florida's electoral votes must be presented in writing, signed by at least one Senator and one Representative, under 3 U.S.C. section 15. Unfortunately, not one single Member of the Senate submitted an objection, thereby rendering the objection out of order. http://www.house.gov/lee/releases/01Jan06. Upholding the 7-0 ruling of the FSC, i.e. that the 12th was the final deadline does NOT make them "radical partisans", it goes to show that the court was BI-PARTISANS. The radicals were the 4 members of the SC who forgot that the US Constitution gives the exclusive right to enact election law to the State Legislatures. They should know that the Court does NOT have the authority usurp the power let to the legislature. From: Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris, 11/21/2000. "Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate only if the returns submitted the Department so late that their inclusion will compromise the integrity of the electoral process in either of two way: (1) by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayer from contesting the certification of an election pursuant to section 102.168; or (2) by precluding Florida voters from participating fully in the federal electoral process." (reference to footnote 55) "Footnote #55 See: 3 U.S.C. § § 1-10 (1994)." The Safe Harbor date can be found in the above US Code. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf Also see their decision on 12/11/2000 http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/...346-remand.pdf
|
|
#50
October 18th 04, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blair P. Houghton wrote in message . ..
wrote: Under Florida Code (102.168), Gore was REQUIRED to challenge ALL COUNTIES, not just 4 DEMOCRAT majority counties. The fact is Gore had 36 days to get a full statewide recount, but Gore was AFRAID that he would lose. That is why he tried to cherry pick 4 counties that were friendly to his cause. I do not dispute that Gore ****ed up. I also do not dispute that Bush didn't actually win the vote in Florida. He won under the laws that were in place before the election. The NORC says that they gained access to 175,010 of the 179,855 disputed ballots, thus their recount did not include all of the disputed ballots. They gained access to more ballots to recount than anyone else did. So what?? And showed, using Florida's actual standard, that Gore had more votes. It does not prove that Gore won. --Blair "America was robbed."
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| George Bush crashes mountain bike, again | dreaded | Social Issues | 0 | July 27th 04 07:04 AM |
| Lance vs George W Bush | John | Racing | 0 | July 20th 04 06:30 AM |
| Bush crashes mountain biking. | Callistus Valerius | Racing | 36 | May 26th 04 04:42 PM |
| Sierra Nevada - Tioga/Sonora Pass | [email protected] | Rides | 1 | November 3rd 03 07:52 AM |
Linear Mode
