Did bush steal the 2000 elections.

[actsnoblemartin]

Florida 2000. The florida supreme court says makes a ruling, I believe they said, continue recount, then the bush team, goes to supreme court of the entire u.s., and they say no re-count

this seems like a state rights vs government rights case

who wins?

florida ballots were not only deciding for florida at that point, but for the whole united states, because the winner of florida would get the presidency, still i do NOT want to give my personal opinion here, i want yours

what do you think?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

does nobody have an opinion on this?

 

[red states rule]

Bush still wins Florida in newspaper recount



April 4, 2001
Web posted at: 11:26 a.m. EDT (1526 GMT)

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- If a recount of Florida's disputed votes in last year's close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won the White House, two newspapers reported Wednesday.

The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month.

Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.

"In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States," said Mark Seibel, the paper's managing editor. "I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked."

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/index.html

 

[red states rule]

Media stars refuse to concede election

By Nicholas Stix
web posted November 8, 2004

White, Christian evangelicals are the Rodney Dangerfield of American politics: They don't get no respect.

After being responsible for spearheading the re-election of their candidate, Pres. George W. Bush, instead of receiving congratulations, Christian evangelicals got to hear NBC stars denigrate their intelligence, turn their support for Pres. Bush into a negative, and even seek to nullify Pres. Bush's electoral victory.

At noontime the day after, NBC "election anchor" and Hardball host Chris Mathews, who during the campaign had not sought to hide his hardcore Democrat partisanship, said of white Evangelicals, "they're believing, not analytical," a statement that would have applied perfectly to your typical socialist mainstream media (SMSM) journalist or tenured professor.

Imagine if a network star said of blacks, "They're believing, not analytical." His producer would cut his mike, before the next sentence came out of his mouth. But at the networks, such disrespect for the intelligence of arguably the most powerful voting bloc in America is not only permitted, but encouraged. (Note that on some social issues, such as gay marriage, black evangelicals think the same way as their white brethren.)

In emphasizing that 97 per cent of Republicans voted for Bush, and that Evangelicals are the GOP base, Mathews said that evangelicals "love Bush," as if that were a negative, rather than observing the real negative of the election, John Kerry's failure to inspire Democrats to vote for him.

George W. Bush received 52 per cent of the popular vote and 286 electoral votes to John Kerry's 47 per cent and 252, respectively. The Republicans increased their control of the Senate from 51 seats to 55, and picked up four seats in the House, raising their total to 228. No incumbent president had enjoyed such re-election success since FDR in 1936.

On NBC with Mathews, Today host Katie Couric, who rose to fame playing the sweet, all-American girl, before revealing her mean streak, refused to concede the election. That was one hour <i>after</i> Kerry had called Bush to congratulate the latter on his victory. When Mathews noted that Bush had won a majority of the popular vote, Couric parroted the Democrat party talking point, that Bush had won "A majority, not a mandate."

People like Couric will apparently never concede a presidential election to a Republican. Not even Mathews would engage in Couric-style denial, responding, "The rule is 50 percent," a rule that does not, however, apply to Democrats.

They keep moving the goalposts.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1104/1104mediaelection.htm

 

[Gunny]

Florida 2000. The florida supreme court says makes a ruling, I believe they said, continue recount, then the bush team, goes to supreme court of the entire u.s., and they say no re-count

this seems like a state rights vs government rights case

who wins?

florida ballots were not only deciding for florida at that point, but for the whole united states, because the winner of florida would get the presidency, still i do NOT want to give my personal opinion here, i want yours

what do you think?

So do you think the Presidency of the United States is a state issue, or a Federal issue? Looks pretty easy to me.

Bush won. Gore demanded a recount that included late votes in a Democrat dominated county, while denying late military votes in Duval county because he know they would be Republican votes. Not to mention he tried to claim every dent, crimp, wrinkle, flyspeck, dogear and/or any other blemish on the paper that was not CLEARLY a vote for Bush as a vote for Gore; whether or not, it was near his name.

When the recount was finished, Bush won by an even wider margin than thought originally.

It's pretty cut-n-dried who was trying to do the stealing for anyone except Democrats and/or Bush-haters in denial.

 

[Annie]

So do you think the Presidency of the United States is a state issue, or a Federal issue? Looks pretty easy to me.

Bush won. Gore demanded a recount that included late votes in a Democrat dominated county, while denying late military votes in Duval county because he know they would be Republican votes. Not to mention he tried to claim every dent, crimp, wrinkle, flyspeck, dogear and/or any other blemish on the paper that was not CLEARLY a vote for Bush as a vote for Gore; whether or not, it was near his name.

When the recount was finished, Bush won by an even wider margin than thought originally.

It's pretty cut-n-dried who was trying to do the stealing for anyone except Democrats and/or Bush-haters in denial.

Yep, that sums it up. Check out USA today or NY Times and they'll tell you the same thing.

 

[Gunny]

Nobody touches this thread for two days. I figure what the hell, and respond.

Out of freakin' NOWHERE, RSR posts two freakin' links before I can evey type my post and post it.

 

[Annie]

Nobody touches this thread for two days. I figure what the hell, and respond.

Out of freakin' NOWHERE, RSR posts two freakin' links before I can evey type my post and post it.

Well there were at least 2 before him...

 

[red states rule]

Nobody touches this thread for two days. I figure what the hell, and respond.

Out of freakin' NOWHERE, RSR posts two freakin' links before I can evey type my post and post it.

Mine were up 45 minutes before you posted your first one

 

[Gunny]

Mine were up 45 minutes before you posted your first one

Interesting. You must have had them in invisible mode, because i didn't see them.

Were you going to add commetnary to them, or just let them speak for you?

 

[red states rule]

Interesting. You must have had them in invisible mode, because i didn't see them.

Were you going to add commetnary to them, or just let them speak for you?

They make the point very well

 

[Gunny]

They make the point very well

So did I. And look, no links.

 

[red states rule]

So did I. And look, no links.

Well good for you

 

[actsnoblemartin]

My personal opinion is, because the results of florida would determine the results of federal election of the entire u.s.a., The federal government had jurisdiction.

Therefore, there was no theft, and the right decision was made, even if, the shoe was on the other foot.

 

[Gunny]

My personal opinion is, because the results of florida would determine the results of federal election of the entire u.s.a., The federal government had jurisdiction.

Therefore, there was no theft, and the right decision was made, even if, the shoe was on the other foot.

IMO, states should not be conducting Federal elections. It is done as a matter of expediency, and not duplicating effort. However, the ultimate authority for a Federal election should be the Federal government.

It doesn't matter how foolproof a system is used anymore. Gore opened a can of worms, dragging the partisan quest for power further into the gutter.

 

[jillian]

IMO, states should not be conducting Federal elections. It is done as a matter of expediency, and not duplicating effort. However, the ultimate authority for a Federal election should be the Federal government.

It doesn't matter how foolproof a system is used anymore. Gore opened a can of worms, dragging the partisan quest for power further into the gutter.

I see things differently. The law prior to Bush v. Gore was that each state's highest court was the last word in resolution of election law cases. That's pretty straightforward. The Bushies on the Supreme Court turned that upside down when they reversed Florida's highest Court. Interestingly, the decision specifically states that it has no precedential value so that if a similar issue ever comes up again, the prior holdings will apply... if the Court wants them to, of course.

 

[Gunny]

I see things differently. The law prior to Bush v. Gore was that each state's highest court was the last word in resolution of election law cases. That's pretty straightforward. The Bushies on the Supreme Court turned that upside down when they reversed Florida's highest Court. Interestingly, the decision specifically states that it has no precedential value so that if a similar issue ever comes up again, the prior holdings will apply... if the Court wants them to, of course.

I base my opinion on the election being Federal. The state does not supercede the Federal governmenet in authority, and should not be the final authority in a Federal election.

It's called "chain of command" in the military. Subordinates do not make decisions for seniors.

 

[jillian]

I base my opinion on the election being Federal. The state does not supercede the Federal governmenet in authority, and should not be the final authority in a Federal election.

It's called "chain of command" in the military. Subordinates do not make decisions for seniors.

I agree, except that the Feds delegated that right, whether by caselaw or statute.

As for the Feds superceding in authority, seems to me I hear an awful lot about State's rights when it comes to protecting individual liberties.... which is really where the weight of the Federal Government is needed.

 

[Gunny]

I agree, except that the Feds delegated that right, whether by caselaw or statute.

As for the Feds superceding in authority, seems to me I hear an awful lot about State's rights when it comes to protecting individual liberties.... which is really where the weight of the Federal Government is needed.

I am a proponent of state's rights. I just don't see state's rights as having anything to do with decisions at the Federal level. If it was for state governor, I can see it. The President however is elected by all 50 states to a Federal position.

I think there should be a Federal voting system, that even if the states run it, the Fed oversees, and I don't think a postion at the Federal level should be decided by the courts of a single state.

That of course, IMO, not the way it's currently done. I just see every election from now on being held up with the cry of "foul."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What no one that supports the "Idea" that Bush stole the election ever manages to note is that the original court held for no recount every time it came before the court. The Florida Supreme Court was made up of 7 Democrats that made an obvious "political" ruling that would have cast Florida electoral college votes into being unable to participate in the vote for President. THAT is what made it a Federal issue.

The 3rd recount ( remember 2 official recounts had already occurred and Bush won both) would have pushed the final decision for who won official past the required deadline for submitting Electors to the College. By law that would have invalidated ANY electors selected by Florida and would have caused a federal problem with how to legally, constitutional decide who won. Gore would have been ahead in total numbers but the LAW requires a base number based on total electors possible and neither had that.

The Florida Supreme Court decision would have disenfranchised the entire State in the election process and would have done what Gore wanted, which was to give him more votes in a truncated College.