THE MEDIA COVER-UP OF THE GORE VICTORY
Recon
Added 10/2/01
THE MEDIA COVER-UP OF THE GORE VICTORY
By David Podvin
http://makethemaccountable.com/topic_DavidPodvin.htm
According to a source whose previous information has proven to be accurate, the Consortium
of news organizations that recounted the presidential votes in the 2000 Florida election
was shocked to find that former Vice President Al Gore decisively won the state, and it is
now concealing the news of Gore's victory from the American people.
The source is a former media executive who previously revealed information that the Bush
administration was lying about Clinton staffers having vandalized the White House. That
information led me to accuse Karl Rove of manufacturing the "crime". My accusation
appeared in an article that was posted by Buzzflash.com on January 28, 2001, and it was
confirmed by a General Accounting Office investigative report several months later.
Having previously established credibility as a well-informed and accurate conduit of
information, the executive now claims the Consortium is deliberately hiding the results of
its recount because Gore was the indisputable winner.
Originally, the Consortium believed that there were three potential outcomes of the
recount, any of which would have been acceptable to the participating news conglomerates.
The first was a Bush win, which would have resolved the issue. The second was a dead
heat/inconclusive result, which would have maintained the status quo. The third was a
narrow Gore victory, which would have given die hard Democrats a debate point, but would
have simply been another photo finish recount that most Americans would have disregarded
as being currently irrelevant.
The Consortium was stunned to discover that the recount revealed Gore won a clear victory.
Even after casting aside the controversial butterfly ballots and discarding ballots that
were "iffy", Gore decisively won the recount. While the precise numbers are still
unavailable, a New York Times journalist who was involved in the project told one of his
former companions that Gore won by a sufficient margin to create "major trouble for the
Bush presidency if this ever gets out".
Gore's victory was large enough that it became apparent he would win prior to the
Consortium recount being fully completed. And contrary to a recent claim by the New York
Times, the terrorism of September 11 was not the crucial factor that determined whether to
release the results to the American people. Prior to that time, the de facto majority
shareholders in the publicly traded New York Times Company reportedly intervened on the
side of quashing the recount results and convinced the other participants to shelve the
story. The executive claims that the most important decisions at the Times are made by the
influential money center banks that exercise actual voting control of a majority of stock.
These banks are extremely pro-Bush. In addition to their control of the Times, they have
substantial financial clout with the Washington Post Company, Dow Jones and Company, and
the Tribune Company. As a result, the banks exert tremendous influence on a majority of
the Consortium.
The story of Gore's victory has been spiked at the highest levels of the media
conglomerates that are involved, rather than at the cosmetic steering committee level of
the recount project. The Consortium reportedly has received intense pressure from members
of the Bush inner circle both in and out of government, but has not been lobbied by
representatives of Gore.
The huge disparity between the original recount and the Consortium recount stems from the
G.O.P. tactics in Florida. Their strategy was to aggressively contest every pro-Gore
ballot, even the obviously valid ones. The Republicans then accused the vote counters of
being biased because most of the challenges were resolved in favor of Gore. By using this
approach, the Bush partisans successfully intimidated the counters into bending over
backwards to show "fairness", resulting in thousands of legitimate Gore votes being
disqualified or relegated to a pile of disputed ballots.
"It was the old baseball manager's trick of crying about every call in order to pressure
the umpire to give you more than your fair share," said the executive. "And it worked in
Florida. However, in the relative calm of the Consortium recount - absent the pressure
tactics - the Bush total remained basically consistent with the original count, while the
Gore total shot way up."
As for what will happen next, the executive said, "Once the dominant pro-Gore trend became
apparent, the Consortium was never going to release the results; the pressure from the big
money boys was too great. Terrorism just provided a better excuse for withholding the
information than the 'technical difficulties' stalling tactic that was otherwise going to
be used. The Consortium is determined to make sure that the original results of their
recount will never see the light of day."
Lightning
for believing it.
"Recon" <Go...@Won.com> wrote in message
news:_puu7.33497$3d2.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Omega
"Lightning" <lightn...@striking.again> wrote in message
news:Cvvu7.34404$2H2.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> I don't know who's smoking the better stuff, the guy who wrote this or you
> for believing it.
Light'n flounders again:
http://www.miami.com/herald/special/news/flacount/photoart/day1graph_punchcard.jpg
http://www.miami.com/herald/special/news/flacount/photoart/day1graph_optscan.jpg
Dennis L. Rodgick
Nothing worth reading.
Gore lost, get over it.
Omega
"Dennis L. Rodgick" <drod...@city-net.com> wrote in message
news:3bba861a...@news.city-net.com...
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 02:07:54 GMT, "Recon" <Go...@Won.com> wrote:
>
> Nothing worth reading.
> Gore lost, get over it.
Uh, Dennis, follow the links and read the article before you give us your opinion.
plaguerat
Recon wrote in message
<_puu7.33497$3d2.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
<snip>
Yeah yeah yeah, we've heard it all before, but never from an unnamed source
who is SOOOOOOO reliable!
"Hey Mon!! Miss Cleo say Gore be dah Prez-ee-dent sha yoo rite!!"
"Miss Cleo see big ro-mance in da few-ture fo Albert, baby an dat dah
troof!!
"Hey baby, you know dis be costin $4.99 a minute ey?"
"Whatcha know aboot dat! Albert baby got dem termites in him's underpants
dontcha know!"
Or did you get it from the Magic 8-Ball? Hmmmm... My source say no... Ask
again later, in three and a quarter years maybe?
Brickner's
King Pineapple
Omega <rig...@retards.net> wrote in message
news:Jjwu7.27218$W8.17...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Been there. Done that. Gore loses. According to the laws in effect on the
day of the election, overvotes and undervotes do not count. And all that is
required is an automatic machine recount.
Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian
Jesus and stopping all this nonsense!
THE MEDIA COVER-UP OF THE GORE VICTORY
By David Podvin
According to a source whose previous information has proven to be accurate,
--
So Close to Jesus, we're talking about taking separate vacations this year,
Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian
www.bettybowers.com
A woman known throughout Christendom for her joie d'après vivre
"King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pFEu7.792$Ya5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
philsaudio
"Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian" <be...@bettybowers.com>
wrote in message news:9pf98d$6dk$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
: Praise the Lord for the media having the good sense to listen to
their Lord
: Jesus and stopping all this nonsense!
So your lord Jezuus approves of hiding the truth under a bushel? You
and your christian fanatics should be ashamed of yourself.
I see you have learned the humility that the bible teaches Betty!
America's best christian.
Now go to hell bible thumper.
: THE MEDIA COVER-UP OF THE GORE VICTORY
: >
: >
:
:
King Pineapple
news:9pegjj$gqj$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Hey Mon!! Miss Cleo say Gore be dah Prez-ee-dent sha yoo rite!!"
> "Miss Cleo see big ro-mance in da few-ture fo Albert, baby an dat dah
> troof!!
> "Hey baby, you know dis be costin $4.99 a minute ey?"
> "Whatcha know aboot dat! Albert baby got dem termites in him's underpants
> dontcha know!"
Want some authentic Jamaican Jerk sauce to go with that? LOL
Dennis L. Rodgick
Let me repeat it so that even you can understand.
Gore Lost, Get Over It!
The only way he's gonna get in the White House is "IF" he
gets invited, so accept it and do get on with your life.
And I really do not care about the links because it
means squat to me and the rest of America.
Dennis L. Rodgick
Christian" <be...@bettybowers.com> wrote:
>Praise the Lord for the media having the good sense to listen to their Lord
>Jesus and stopping all this nonsense!
>
Here's something more realistic, Praise the Lord and keep
passing the ammo.
http://www.warroom.com
"Where the ugly truth is a beautiful thing"
plaguerat
King Pineapple wrote in message ...
Hey mon, I gots me a case o' Willie's best baby!! It be goin smoove wit dem
goats-meat a' som plantains a' fried bannanas!!
If ya be in Berkely Ca. get cho sef to Carribean Spice baby!! Id be on
SanPablo ave. jest nort o' University!! Best jerk chicken in dah planet
(cept me muddahs o' course)!!
philsaudio
: On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 04:17:45 GMT, "Omega" <rig...@retards.net>
Speak for yourself. Having the presidency and supreme court bought by
special interest means something to me, and perhaps the majority of
American Citizens who voted against bush - or for Gore. So the "rest"
of America you speak for does not agree. Speak for yourself ye
brainless folower.
:
CLINTON RAPED JUANITA BRODDERIK
they were wrong in their decision ..........
http://www.flcourts.org/pubinfo/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf
-41-
I want to make it clear at the outset of my separate opinion that I do not
question the good faith or honorable intentions of my colleagues in the majority.
However, I could not more strongly disagree with their decision to reverse the trial
court and prolong this judicial process. I also believe that the majority’s decision
cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the
United States Constitution.
My succinct conclusion is that the majority’s decision to return this case to
the circuit court for a count of the under-votes from either Miami-Dade County or
all counties has no foundation in the law of Florida as it existed on November 7,
2000, or at any time until the issuance of this opinion. ----( THIS IS HUGE , but was
Ignored by the media ! )
The majority returns the
case to the circuit court for this partial recount of under-votes on the basis of
unknown or, at best, ambiguous standards with authority to obtain help from
others, the credentials, qualifications, and objectivity of whom are totally
unknown. That is but a first glance at the imponderable problems the majority
creates.
Importantly to me, I have a deep and abiding concern that the prolonging of
judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this state into an
unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis. I have to conclude that there
-42-
is a real and present likelihood that this constitutional crisis will do substantial
damage to our country, our state, and to this Court as an institution.
On the basis of my analysis of Florida law as it existed on November 7,
2000, I conclude that the trial court’s decision can and should be affirmed. Under
our law, of course, a decision of a trial court reaching a correct result will be
affirmed if it is supportable under any theory, even if an appellate court disagrees
with the trial court’s reasoning. Dade County School Bd. v. Radio Station
WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644-645 (Fla. 1999). I conclude that there are more than
enough theories to support this trial court’s decision.
There are two fundamental and historical principles of Florida law that this
Court has recognized which are relevant here. First, at common law, there was no
right to contest an election; thus, any right to contest an election must be construed
to grant only those rights that are explicitly set forth by the Legislature. See
McPherson v. Flynn, 397 So. 2d 665, 668 (Fla. 1981). In Flynn, we held that, “[a]t
common law, except for limited application of quo warranto, there was no right to
contest in court any public election, because such a contest is political in nature
and therefore outside the judicial power.” Id. at 667.
King Pineapple
No mon, I was just in the REAL Jamaica in April. That's the best jerk.
Paul3934
plaguerat
King Pineapple wrote in message ...
>
>plaguerat <slinger...@lookpit.com> wrote in message
>news:9pfius$iej$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
>>
>> King Pineapple wrote in message ...
>> >plaguerat <slinger...@lookpit.com> wrote in message
>> >news:9pegjj$gqj$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
>> >
>No mon, I was just in the REAL Jamaica in April. That's the best jerk.
My envy is barely contained!! You are a true bastard, telling me such things
when I'm trapped in leftist California. So, did you get your groove back?
E.E.Bud Keith
"philsaudio" <phils...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:f6Ju7.3498$W11.7...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net...
election is over gone caput,go get a life and come back in 04,than we will
see if even the democrats will have Gore.
>
King Pineapple
Ya mon. By the way, if you want to see the results of a Socialist Experiment
gone bad, Jamaica's the place. They flirted with Castro 30 years ago, and
the damage is still visible.
Dennis L. Rodgick
<phils...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>"Dennis L. Rodgick" <drod...@city-net.com> wrote in message
>news:3bbb457...@news.city-net.com...
>: On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 04:17:45 GMT, "Omega" <rig...@retards.net>
>wrote:
>:
>: >
>: >"Dennis L. Rodgick" <drod...@city-net.com> wrote in message
>: >news:3bba861a...@news.city-net.com...
>: >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 02:07:54 GMT, "Recon" <Go...@Won.com> wrote:
>: >>
>: >> Nothing worth reading.
>: >> Gore lost, get over it.
>: >
>: >Uh, Dennis, follow the links and read the article before you give us
>your opinion.
>: >
>: Let me repeat it so that even you can understand.
>: Gore Lost, Get Over It!
>: The only way he's gonna get in the White House is "IF" he
>: gets invited, so accept it and do get on with your life.
>: And I really do not care about the links because it
>: means squat to me and the rest of America.
>
>Speak for yourself. Having the presidency and supreme court bought by
>special interest means something to me, and perhaps the majority of
>American Citizens who voted against bush - or for Gore. So the "rest"
>of America you speak for does not agree. Speak for yourself ye
>brainless folower.
Dream on LOL!!!!
Take a look at the Election Map and see who exactly would be
the "Majority." (Hint) There's a lot more of the states that voted
for Bush.
Till then, Gore is the loser and will always be the loser in the
minds of real Americans.
Now go back to reading your DNC donated comic book.
Bush The Cowardly Lion
"majority" based on anything called a "state vote".
On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 13:36:35 GMT, drod...@city-net.com (Dennis L.
Rodgick) wrote:
::On Wed, 3 Oct 2001 15:00:00 -0700, "philsaudio"
philsaudio
"E.E.Bud Keith" <bud...@home.com> wrote in message
news:edSu7.26548$My2.13...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
:
: "philsaudio" <phils...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
I am over the fact that YOUR GUY WAS PLACED, but I am not over the
fact that the machinery that put him in there is still in power. I will
not rest until I see a United States that resembles what the US
Constitution perscribes and big money and oil in their place. This is a
country by the people of the people and for the people.
:
Jim Alder
news:_puu7.33497$3d2.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
> Added 10/2/01
>
> THE MEDIA COVER-UP OF THE GORE VICTORY
>
> By David Podvin
>
> http://makethemaccountable.com/topic_DavidPodvin.htm
>
> According to a source whose previous information has proven to be
> accurate...
And yet, inexplicably insists on being anonymous.
> ...the Consortium of news organizations that recounted the
> presidential votes in the 2000 Florida election was shocked to find
> that former Vice President Al Gore decisively won the state, and it is
> now concealing the news of Gore's victory from the American people.
But they were apparently willing to reveal this only to our anonymous
source and no one else.
> The source is a former media executive who previously revealed
> information that the Bush administration was lying about Clinton
> staffers having vandalized the White House. That information led me to
> accuse Karl Rove of manufacturing the "crime". My accusation appeared
> in an article that was posted by Buzzflash.com on January 28, 2001, and
> it was confirmed by a General Accounting Office investigative report
> several months later.
Buzzflash.com? Is that the New York Times website for kids?
Face it. Gore spent the week after 9/11 hyperventilating about his near
miss. Had he been president, he not only wouldn't have 'returned to the
White House' instantly after learning of the attacks, like some of you
nitwits thought Bush should have done, he'd have headed south to hide out
in Cuba till things quieted down.
We dodged a bigger bullet than we knew when Gore lost the election.
---
Never look a whore's gift in the mouth.
tos...@aol.com
ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com
ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com
ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com
u...@ftc.gov
Loki
Rodgick) wrote:
Guess what snookums... Real Estate does not vote. Nor do cactus,
fences, or cattle. People vote and more of them voted for Gore than W.
Loki
Jim Alder
news:95rorto4tdkap6hd4...@4ax.com:
> States don't vote. People vote. Therefore, Bush can't claim a
> "majority" based on anything called a "state vote".
Wrong! 100% utterly. stupifyingly wrong! This is the President of the
United States. It is the government of the United States. The STATES vote
for him! That IS the function of the Electoral College. Nobody gives a
flying you-know-what about the 'popular vote'! This is NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!!
>::>Speak for yourself. Having the presidency and supreme court bought by
>::>special interest means something to me, and perhaps the majority of
>::>American Citizens who voted against bush - or for Gore. So the "rest"
>::>of America you speak for does not agree. Speak for yourself ye
>::>brainless folower.
>::Dream on LOL!!!!
>::Take a look at the Election Map and see who exactly would be
>::the "Majority." (Hint) There's a lot more of the states that voted
>::for Bush.
>::Till then, Gore is the loser and will always be the loser in the
>::minds of real Americans.
>::Now go back to reading your DNC donated comic book.
>
>
--
plaguerat
>fences, or cattle. People vote and more of them voted for Gore than W.
Wow, that was clever. In case you did not know, we do NOT live in a &*%#$@
"democracy"!!!
Ours is a Representative Republic! The people of the vaious states chooose
Electors to select the president, they do NOT select the president in a
popular election. The system we use was designed to prevent the tyranny of
democracy. If you want to live in a pure democracy, you are going to be
sadly disapointed. There is no such thing.
It's true that only People vote, and apparently,
DEAD PEOPLE VOTE DEMOCRAT!!
The democratic machine from coast to coast got their Oija boards, and
reached a consensus in the deceased community. The "Rot the Vote" campaign
to encourage the dead to register and vote, was wildly successful!
Dozens of jurisdictions around the nation have been trying for years to end
the practices of the Democrats in their electoral fraud, and have been shut
down again and again. Felons, the insane, the deceased, illegal aliens, the
incarcerated, and even people who have NEVER existed vote regularly. The
theft of Bob Dornan's seat in '98 is a pefect example. more people voted in
Orange county that year, than lived in the district. DOZENS of voters
registered from single addresses, One bedroom apartments with 9 occupants
registering as democrats, and voters showing up at the polls again and
again, all contributed to Loretta Sanchez's "victory", in a county that had
not gone democrat since before W W 2!! Not suspicious at all. Nope, not at
all. The partial recount required by law showed 4-6% of the "votes" for
Sanchez were suspicious, and as she won by less than 1%, she should have
been tossed out, but Democrats from around the country rallied to her cause,
and successfully sued to stop further counting. Sound familiar?
Mark
Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
> Wrong! 100% utterly. stupifyingly wrong! This is the President of the
> United States. It is the government of the United States. The STATES vote
> for him! That IS the function of the Electoral College. Nobody gives a
> flying you-know-what about the 'popular vote'! This is NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!!
Absolutely correct, the winner of the *POPULAR* vote in each state
receives the electors (or percentage of) from that state. Thus the
winner of the *POPULAR* vote in a majority of states will normally be
the winner of the Electoral College process-except for this time,
thanks to the Supreme Court. Of course since not all states have the
same number of electors, the straight-line assumption of winning isn't
always true. That's why there's so much "blue" on those maps and yet
Shrub failed to achieve even a plurality of the *POPULAR* vote nation
wide.
If you have problems with this then look at it this way: If Shrub had
lost the popular vote (and thus the electoral votes that accompany
winning the popular vote) in Texas or Oklahoma or nearly any other
state he would not be President right now-and deservably so. The fact
that he could not sustain a majority or even a plurality of voters
nation wide *is* significant. I'm sure if the tables were turned the
screaming and yelling about a "stolen" election would still be
reverberating across the country.
And finally, the Constitution is absolutely clear on what *should* have
happened-it should have gone to the House of Representatives where they
would have voted to accept one slate of electors over another. There
is no mention of any role for the Supreme Court in this process-they
inserted themselves into this and thus made a non-legal, partisan
decision which should have been left up to the House. Anything else is
in violation of the Constitution-period.
Mark
--
mark
ma...@mailzone.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Loki
wrote:
>Bush The Cowardly Lion <badk...@4america.com> wrote in
>news:95rorto4tdkap6hd4...@4ax.com:
>
>> States don't vote. People vote. Therefore, Bush can't claim a
>> "majority" based on anything called a "state vote".
>
> Wrong! 100% utterly. stupifyingly wrong! This is the President of the
>United States. It is the government of the United States. The STATES vote
>for him! That IS the function of the Electoral College. Nobody gives a
>flying you-know-what about the 'popular vote'! This is NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!!
In fact, states do not vote, electors from each state vote. But we are
splitting hairs. More Americans voted for Gore and there is still
reason to believe that more electors would have as well had it not
been for some funny business in Florida which resulted in W getting
the electors who should have rightfully gone to Gore.
However, it is history. W is president now regardless as to how he got
there.
Loki
King Pineapple
Mark <marks@*nospam*mailzone.com> wrote in message
news:041020011102368285%marks@*nospam*mailzone.com...
> Thus the
> winner of the *POPULAR* vote in a majority of states will normally be
> the winner of the Electoral College process-except for this time,
> thanks to the Supreme Court.
This is totally irrelevant, since the Florida Legislature would have named
Bush electors no matter what happened. And it would have therefore ended up
back in the US Supreme Court AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN. Except Algore
finally did the honorable thing. He said it was "time to go."
Stupendous Man
>
> Mark <marks@*nospam*mailzone.com> wrote in message
> news:041020011102368285%marks@*nospam*mailzone.com...
>> winner of the *POPULAR* vote in a majority of states will normally be
>> the winner of the Electoral College process
California 55
Texas 34
New York 31
Florida 27
Illinois 21
Pennsylvania 21
Ohio 20
Michigan 17
New Jersey 15
Georgia 15
North Carolina 15
Total: 271
Number of states: 11
You can also see the strategy for the next couple of elections from this. If Democrats take CA, NY and one of the other major states from this list, then the Republicans need to take the entire plains area to make up for it. If you then assume the Pacific NW and New England balances out the south for Democrats and Republicans, the key states remaining are along the upper Mississippi.
Barring a “hot war” at the time of election, the best choice for Democrats would appear to be an upper-midwest candidate, perhaps paired with a southern Democrat from NC or GA. Even though I hate Daschle, he could play the “loyal opposition” well enough to be that candidate.
Or Republicans could luck out and face Hillary instead. :D
>> -except for this time,
>> thanks to the Supreme Court.
> This is totally irrelevant, since the Florida Legislature would have named
> Bush electors no matter what happened. And it would have therefore ended up
> back in the US Supreme Court AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN. Except Algore
> finally did the honorable thing. He said it was "time to go."
>
>
The Reagan expansion set a record for duration, created over twenty
million new jobs and saw across the board gains in wealth and income.
http://reagan.webteamone.com/ --THE Ronald Reagan site.
Lightning
news:95rorto4tdkap6hd4...@4ax.com...
> States don't vote. People vote. Therefore, Bush can't claim a
> "majority" based on anything called a "state vote".
Where were you during civics class? States do vote. The Electoral College
is precisely that, letting the states vote like Congress. Each state
legislature Constitutionally could take the vote away from the various and
sundry citizens of the state if they so chose.
Dennis L. Rodgick
<badk...@4america.com> wrote:
>States don't vote. People vote. Therefore, Bush can't claim a
>"majority" based on anything called a "state vote".
Hmmm, I suggest that you take Political Science 101
and bone up on the Electorial College, only then will you
realize what kind of a stupid statement you made above.
(Hint) we are a representative government.
Dennis L. Rodgick
Guess what Loser, he who has the "Most" Electorial College votes
wins. Take Political Science 101, get the real facts and quit reading
left leaning comic books.
BTW, quit yer crying, your keyboard will get rusty and gore still
lost.
Loki
Rodgick) wrote:
I realize that with the Florida electors being stolen Bush had more
electoral votes, however, the electors were people, not states. States
are real estate and real estate does not vote.
Loki
Dennis L. Rodgick
LOL!!!!!
BTW, hate to break the bad news to ya, but the Fla. electors
"being stolen" would be nothing but a DNC failed attempt
of spin. Anways, at least America has the Right man for
the job.
Too bad that algore own home "real estate" wouldn't even
vote for him. They didn't even have to figure out that he's
a loser, just like the other 32 states of the Union. Yep, that
big ole Election Map shows the real picture.
Loki
Rodgick) wrote:
Not at all. It would not have happened if the SCOTUS had not
overstepped it's bounds and made a ruling which they said in the
ruling was not intended to be any legal precedent.
>Too bad that algore own home "real estate" wouldn't even
>vote for him. They didn't even have to figure out that he's
>a loser, just like the other 32 states of the Union. Yep, that
>big ole Election Map shows the real picture.
It does indeed. It shows that in the states in which the people out
number cattle, Gore won.
Loki
Jim Alder
news:041020011102368285%marks@*nospam*mailzone.com:
> In article <Xns91307D12A7963...@207.126.101.100>, Jim
> Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Wrong! 100% utterly. stupifyingly wrong! This is the President of the
>> United States. It is the government of the United States. The STATES
>> vote for him! That IS the function of the Electoral College. Nobody
>> gives a flying you-know-what about the 'popular vote'! This is NOT A
>> DEMOCRACY!!!!!
>
> Absolutely correct, the winner of the *POPULAR* vote in each state
> receives the electors (or percentage of) from that state. Thus the
> winner of the *POPULAR* vote in a majority of states will normally be
> the winner of the Electoral College process-except for this time,
> thanks to the Supreme Court.
{sigh...} And I was so sure you were going to agree with me.
The Supreme Court said Florida couldn't change the rules after the game
is over because you didn't like the score.
> Of course since not all states have the
> same number of electors, the straight-line assumption of winning isn't
> always true. That's why there's so much "blue" on those maps and yet
> Shrub failed to achieve even a plurality of the *POPULAR* vote nation
> wide.
Reference the "flying you-know-what" comment above. It's called
'apportionment.' It's also called the law. That's kind of the specialty of
the Supreme Court.
> If you have problems with this then look at it this way: If Shrub had
> lost the popular vote (and thus the electoral votes that accompany
> winning the popular vote) in Texas or Oklahoma or nearly any other
> state he would not be President right now-and deservably so.
And if I had wings I could fly. They'd have to be BIG wings, but still,
the world is full of "IFs." The fact is they did vote for him. And the word
is 'deservedly.' And since he DID win all those states, and Florida, he is,
deservedly, the President.
> The fact that he could not sustain a majority or even a
> plurality of voters nation wide *is* significant.
No, it would't be. Not in any real way, hence not in any 'significant'
way.
> I'm sure if the tables were turned the screaming
> and yelling about a "stolen" election would still
> be reverberating across the country.
Yeah, you guys are always sure of that. One of the tenets of the liberal
mindset is "You guys are as bad as I am!" Facts are, conservatives rarely
show the kind of childish whining that we hear from the left.
Jim Alder
news:85dprtsce7ckevtoh...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 16:17:00 -0000, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Bush The Cowardly Lion <badk...@4america.com> wrote in
>>news:95rorto4tdkap6hd4...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> States don't vote. People vote. Therefore, Bush can't claim a
>>> "majority" based on anything called a "state vote".
>>
>> Wrong! 100% utterly. stupifyingly wrong! This is the President of
>> the
>>United States. It is the government of the United States. The STATES
>>vote for him! That IS the function of the Electoral College. Nobody
>>gives a flying you-know-what about the 'popular vote'! This is NOT A
>>DEMOCRACY!!!!!
>
> In fact, states do not vote, electors from each state vote. But we are
> splitting hairs. More Americans voted for Gore and there is still
{sigh...} Okay, a small retraction; Nobody who knows much of anything
gives a flying you-know-what about the "popular vote!"
> reason to believe that more electors would have as well had it not
> been for some funny business in Florida which resulted in W getting
> the electors who should have rightfully gone to Gore.
And by "rightfully" you mean "Not according to the law as written when
the vote was cast?"
Jim Alder
news:IJXG52GY3716...@anonymous.poster:
> In article <Xns91307D12A7963...@207.126.101.100>
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bush The Cowardly Lion <badk...@4america.com> wrote in
>> news:95rorto4tdkap6hd4...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > States don't vote. People vote. Therefore, Bush can't claim a
>> > "majority" based on anything called a "state vote".
>>
>> Wrong! 100% utterly. stupifyingly wrong! This is the President of
>> the
>> United States. It is the government of the United States. The STATES
>> vote for him! That IS the function of the Electoral College. Nobody
>> gives a flying you-know-what about the 'popular vote'! This is NOT A
> DEMOCRACY!!!!!
>
> No, nowadays presidents are chosen by the courts.
Democracies don't vote for representation. Republics do. And did.
Oh, and I re-edited the story you quoted. I thought it said more this
way. No suppositions about what Bush MIGHT do, just the prevailing attitude
of the left. "If we win, then we win. If THEY win, then we'll still try to
win."
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Bush Set to Fight An Electoral College Loss
>
> They're not only thinking the unthinkable, they're planning for
> it.
>
Quietly, some of George W. Bush's advisers are preparing for the ultimate
"what if" scenario: What happens if Bush wins the popular vote for
President, but loses the White House because Al Gore's won the majority of
electoral votes?
>
"Then we win," says a Gore aide. "You play by the rules in force at the
time. If the nation were really outraged by the possibility, then the
system would have been changed long ago. The history is clear."
And what would happen if the "what if" scenario came out the other way?
"Then we'd be doing the same thing Bush is apparently getting ready for,"
says a Gore campaign official. "They're just further along in their
contingency thinking than we are. But we wouldn't lie down without a fight,
either."
http://www.nydailynews.com/2000-11-01/News_and_Views/Beyond_the_City/a-
86769.asp
mark
Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
> Yeah, you guys are always sure of that. One of the tenets of the liberal
> mindset is "You guys are as bad as I am!" Facts are, conservatives rarely
> show the kind of childish whining that we hear from the left.
I'm guessing that was an attempt at humor. Nice try for a conservative.
Mark
--
mark
ma...@mailzone.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Given a conflict, Murphy's law supercedes Newton's."
Loki
wrote:
>Mark <marks@*nospam*mailzone.com> wrote in
>news:041020011102368285%marks@*nospam*mailzone.com:
>
>> In article <Xns91307D12A7963...@207.126.101.100>, Jim
>> Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong! 100% utterly. stupifyingly wrong! This is the President of the
>>> United States. It is the government of the United States. The STATES
>>> vote for him! That IS the function of the Electoral College. Nobody
>>> gives a flying you-know-what about the 'popular vote'! This is NOT A
>>> DEMOCRACY!!!!!
>>
>> Absolutely correct, the winner of the *POPULAR* vote in each state
>> receives the electors (or percentage of) from that state. Thus the
>> winner of the *POPULAR* vote in a majority of states will normally be
>> the winner of the Electoral College process-except for this time,
>> thanks to the Supreme Court.
>
> {sigh...} And I was so sure you were going to agree with me.
>
> The Supreme Court said Florida couldn't change the rules after the game
>is over because you didn't like the score.
You are right. They cannot. However, when Al Gore asked for the manual
recount which he is entitled to under Florida State law, and Katherine
Harris prevented that from happening, the Florida State SC stepped in,
as is their duty. The SCOTUS did not like their ruling and changed the
rules for this one specific case. And they did so without legal
precedent, saying that this was not to be interpreted as precedent, or
law, but an isolated case.
>
>> Of course since not all states have the
>> same number of electors, the straight-line assumption of winning isn't
>> always true. That's why there's so much "blue" on those maps and yet
>> Shrub failed to achieve even a plurality of the *POPULAR* vote nation
>> wide.
>
> Reference the "flying you-know-what" comment above. It's called
>'apportionment.' It's also called the law. That's kind of the specialty of
>the Supreme Court.
Never in history has the SCOTUS stepped in and said that a decision
was not intended to be case law. And the Constitution does not give
them the power to do so. Yet, that is what they did.
>> If you have problems with this then look at it this way: If Shrub had
>> lost the popular vote (and thus the electoral votes that accompany
>> winning the popular vote) in Texas or Oklahoma or nearly any other
>> state he would not be President right now-and deservably so.
>
> And if I had wings I could fly. They'd have to be BIG wings, but still,
>the world is full of "IFs." The fact is they did vote for him. And the word
>is 'deservedly.' And since he DID win all those states, and Florida, he is,
>deservedly, the President.
There is a question as to whether he won Florida. (The other states
are all irrelevant. Gore won more popular votes, Bush won more states.
The winner of Florida got all the marbles. As such, the rest of the
country, for the sake of this conversation is irrelevant)
And when the Florida SC did their job and stepped in to interpret the
rules for a state election, and how they were to be followed, the
SCOTUS stepped in with out cause or authority and made a political
decision.
>> The fact that he could not sustain a majority or even a
>> plurality of voters nation wide *is* significant.
>
> No, it would't be. Not in any real way, hence not in any 'significant'
>way.
You are not then one of those people who claimed that Clinton's
victory's were tainted because he never got the majority of the
popular vote? I will take you at your word if you say that you were
not, but for the eight years that he was president the message boards
and talk radio were filled with people making just that claim.
>> I'm sure if the tables were turned the screaming
>> and yelling about a "stolen" election would still
>> be reverberating across the country.
>
> Yeah, you guys are always sure of that. One of the tenets of the liberal
>mindset is "You guys are as bad as I am!" Facts are, conservatives rarely
>show the kind of childish whining that we hear from the left.
>---
>Never look a whore's gift in the mouth.
See above.
Loki
Loki
wrote:
>Loki <cubby...@aol.com> wrote in
>news:85dprtsce7ckevtoh...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 16:17:00 -0000, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Bush The Cowardly Lion <badk...@4america.com> wrote in
>>>news:95rorto4tdkap6hd4...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> States don't vote. People vote. Therefore, Bush can't claim a
>>>> "majority" based on anything called a "state vote".
>>>
>>> Wrong! 100% utterly. stupifyingly wrong! This is the President of
>>> the
>>>United States. It is the government of the United States. The STATES
>>>vote for him! That IS the function of the Electoral College. Nobody
>>>gives a flying you-know-what about the 'popular vote'! This is NOT A
>>>DEMOCRACY!!!!!
>>
>> In fact, states do not vote, electors from each state vote. But we are
>> splitting hairs. More Americans voted for Gore and there is still
>
> {sigh...} Okay, a small retraction; Nobody who knows much of anything
>gives a flying you-know-what about the "popular vote!"
Tell that to Rush Limbaugh and his spitto heads who constantly
criticized Clinton for never getting a majority vote.
>
>> reason to believe that more electors would have as well had it not
>> been for some funny business in Florida which resulted in W getting
>> the electors who should have rightfully gone to Gore.
>
> And by "rightfully" you mean "Not according to the law as written when
>the vote was cast?"
No, I mean according to the law. The State Law of Florida which is
very specific in allowing a candidate to request a manual recount if
the election is close enough. Katherine Harris prevented that recount.
At which point, it is up to the Supreme Court of the state to step in
and interpret the state laws and their application.
Loki
Jim Alder
news:shjsrtghj3cauv8p2...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 15:45:39 -0000, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Nobody gives a flying you-know-what about the 'popular
>>>> vote'! This is NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!!
>>>
>>> In fact, states do not vote, electors from each state vote. But we
>>> are splitting hairs. More Americans voted for Gore and there is still
>>
>> {sigh...} Okay, a small retraction; Nobody who knows much of
>> anything gives a flying you-know-what about the "popular vote!"
>
> Tell that to Rush Limbaugh and his spitto heads who constantly
> criticized Clinton for never getting a majority vote.
You can either criticize them for stressing the popular vote, or you can
do it yourself. You can't to both. Unless, of course, you're a hypocrite?
Dennis L. Rodgick
The only way gore won would be in the dreams
of losers. Nuff said and End Of Story LOL!!!!!!
Loki
wrote:
>Loki <cubby...@aol.com> wrote in
>news:shjsrtghj3cauv8p2...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 15:45:39 -0000, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>>>> Nobody gives a flying you-know-what about the 'popular
>>>>> vote'! This is NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> In fact, states do not vote, electors from each state vote. But we
>>>> are splitting hairs. More Americans voted for Gore and there is still
>>>
>>> {sigh...} Okay, a small retraction; Nobody who knows much of
>>> anything gives a flying you-know-what about the "popular vote!"
>>
>> Tell that to Rush Limbaugh and his spitto heads who constantly
>> criticized Clinton for never getting a majority vote.
>
> You can either criticize them for stressing the popular vote, or you can
>do it yourself. You can't to both. Unless, of course, you're a hypocrite?
I am doing neither. Limbaugh and his cretonic followers criticized
Clinton for never getting the popular majority.
I asked you if you subscribed to this and you did not answer.
As for the Electoral College which Constitutionally chooses our
President, I challenged the appointment of the Florida electors who
ultimately broke the tie.
You did not respond to that challenge.
What does that say?
Loki
Jim Alder
news:nnusrtgvpdr0dfqfg...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 02:59:33 -0000, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Loki <cubby...@aol.com> wrote in
>>news:shjsrtghj3cauv8p2...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 15:45:39 -0000, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>>> Nobody gives a flying you-know-what about the 'popular vote'! This
>>>>>> is NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, states do not vote, electors from each state vote. But we
>>>>> are splitting hairs. More Americans voted for Gore and there is
>>>>> still
>>>>
>>>> {sigh...} Okay, a small retraction; Nobody who knows much of
>>>> anything gives a flying you-know-what about the "popular vote!"
>>>
>>> Tell that to Rush Limbaugh and his spitto heads who constantly
>>> criticized Clinton for never getting a majority vote.
>>
>> You can either criticize them for stressing the popular vote, or you
>> can do it yourself. You can't to both. Unless, of course, you're a
>> hypocrite?
>
> I am doing neither.
Neither? Really?
"More Americans voted for Gore and there is still reason to believe that
more electors would have as well had it not been for some funny business in
Florida..."
That's you.
"Limbaugh and his cretonic followers criticized Clinton for never
getting the popular majority."
"Rush Limbaugh and his spitto heads who constantly criticized Clinton
for never getting a majority vote."
That's you, too.
You're doing neither? You're doing both.
> I asked you if you subscribed to this and you did not answer.
I don't recall ever caring one way or the other about Clinton's
percentiles, no. If I ever brought it up, it was because someone said the
majority wanted him.
> As for the Electoral College which Constitutionally chooses our
> President, I challenged the appointment of the Florida electors who
> ultimately broke the tie.
You challenged their appointment? I must have missed that post.
> You did not respond to that challenge.
>
> What does that say?
If I didn't respond, it doesn't really say anything.
Loki
wrote:
There is no inconsistency there.
> "Limbaugh and his cretonic followers criticized Clinton for never
>getting the popular majority."
Still no inconsistency.
> "Rush Limbaugh and his spitto heads who constantly criticized Clinton
>for never getting a majority vote."
>
> That's you, too.
>
> You're doing neither? You're doing both.
No inconsistency. I was pointing out the hypocriticalness of Clinton
bashers, led by Limbaugh who criticized our former president for never
getting the majority of the vote, even though he got more popular
votes than any of his opponents and came out way ahead in the
Electoral college.
In which of those statements do I say something hypocritical? No
where.
>> I asked you if you subscribed to this and you did not answer.
>
> I don't recall ever caring one way or the other about Clinton's
>percentiles, no. If I ever brought it up, it was because someone said the
>majority wanted him.
Then I will take you at your word and rescind that. However, it was
quite common during the Clinton presidency to hear that criticism, and
Rush Limbaugh was one of the biggest complainers.
>> As for the Electoral College which Constitutionally chooses our
>> President, I challenged the appointment of the Florida electors who
>> ultimately broke the tie.
>
> You challenged their appointment? I must have missed that post.
As you know, there were two groups of Electors up in Florida. Those
for Gore and those for Bush. (I know... Nader had a group as did
Buchanan, but I am referring specifically to those of G & B)
The Florida SC wanted a full state manual recount, as was Gores right
to get under Florida law. The SCOTUS stepped in and stopped that from
happening and in effect appointed Bush's electors to represent the
state of Florida.
Loki
Patriot
Spinmeister Pineapple wrote as if he had a clue:
> plaguerat <slinger...@lookpit.com> wrote in message
> news:9pgqbr$bil$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>>King Pineapple wrote in message ...
>>
>>>plaguerat <slinger...@lookpit.com> wrote in message
>>>news:9pfius$iej$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
>>>
>>>>King Pineapple wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>plaguerat <slinger...@lookpit.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:9pegjj$gqj$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>><snips>
>>
>>>No mon, I was just in the REAL Jamaica in April. That's the best jerk.
>>>
>>My envy is barely contained!! You are a true bastard, telling me such
>>
> things
>
>>when I'm trapped in leftist California. So, did you get your groove back?
>>
>
> Ya mon. By the way, if you want to see the results of a Socialist Experiment
> gone bad, Jamaica's the place. They flirted with Castro 30 years ago, and
> the damage is still visible.
Could you elucidate for the uneducated?
>
>
>
Jim Alder
news:8mmtrt8uqms3k53cu...@4ax.com:
{sigh...} Fine. Let me take you by the hand and explain what hypocrisy
is. It's criticizing someone else, in this case calling them spittohead and
'cretonic' for criticizing Clinton's not having the popular majority, while
you yourself are criticizing Bush for not having the popular majority.
>>> I asked you if you subscribed to this and you did not answer.
>>
>> I don't recall ever caring one way or the other about Clinton's
>>percentiles, no. If I ever brought it up, it was because someone said
>>the majority wanted him.
>
> Then I will take you at your word and rescind that. However, it was
> quite common during the Clinton presidency to hear that criticism, and
> Rush Limbaugh was one of the biggest complainers.
That's because Clinton and his minions spoke consistently about the
'mandate' he had received on election day.
>>> As for the Electoral College which Constitutionally chooses our
>>> President, I challenged the appointment of the Florida electors who
>>> ultimately broke the tie.
>>
>> You challenged their appointment? I must have missed that post.
>
> As you know, there were two groups of Electors up in Florida. Those
> for Gore and those for Bush. (I know... Nader had a group as did
> Buchanan, but I am referring specifically to those of G & B)
>
> The Florida SC wanted a full state manual recount, as was Gores right
> to get under Florida law. The SCOTUS stepped in and stopped that from
> happening and in effect appointed Bush's electors to represent the
> state of Florida.
As I recall, the SCOTUS stepped in because the Florida SC (almost
entirely democratic) made the political decision, creating an ex post facto
situation. I have no desire to go back and go through the whole thing
again, just for the fun of it. It will change little, unless undermining
the Bush presidency is your goal. Not that you could do it here in a
newsgroup.