Coup Completed
Gabriel E.Lee
done it's job, and taken this election away from the people. I simply don't
see how Bush will ever be respected or even considered a President under
these circumstances. Soon, those votes in Florida will be counted under the
freedom of information act, and we will all see that the Republicans have
orchestrated the biggest political Coup in all of History.
Have a nice four years, "Mr. President."
www.gryphonart.com/bushwacked.htm
Bill Bonde
"Gabriel E.Lee" wrote:
>
> Well, it now seems as though the Coup is complete. The Supreme Court has
> done it's job, and taken this election away from the people. I simply don't
> see how Bush will ever be respected or even considered a President under
> these circumstances.
>
LOL. In six months virtually NO ONE will care about this. I watched some
interviews with people on the street. The answer pretty uniformly was,
"Just get it over with; we don't care who gets it, Bush or Gore."
There's your uninterested middle speaking.
> Soon, those votes in Florida will be counted under the
> freedom of information act, and we will all see that the Republicans have
> orchestrated the biggest political Coup in all of History.
>
You really are so sure that Gore won? That is absurd. Even if you
recount carefully by hand, there will be disagreement about what
constitutes an actual vote. Even if you get that figured out,
Republicans can point out the huge felon vote likely largely for Al Gore
and then they will bring up the non-citizen vote which if excluded could
actually give California to Bush. This is over. If you need to pretend
about it to get over it, fine. But don't claim that you are talking
anything but silliness.
> Have a nice four years, "Mr. President."
>
There's nothing you can do. The independent council statute has expired
and Democrats don't control the Congress. Sorry.
Tim Crowley
on 12/12/00 11:58 PM:
>>
> You really are so sure that Gore won?
I think the main point is the Bush camp thought Gore won. Why wlse would
they have fought so hard to stop any and all handcounts.
Eric da Red
I'm looking forward to the Senate hearings when the Shrub nominates
Antonin Scalia for Chief Justice.
I'm also wondering if the Shrub (more accurately, his advisors) are stupid
enough to choose Ken Starr to fill the next vacancy on the Court.
>www.gryphonart.com/bushwacked.htm
>
>
--
Quote Of The Week: "Although we may never know with complete certainty
the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the
identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in
the judge as an impartial guardian of the law." -- Justice John Paul Stevens.
DLagergren
have to agree with the US Supreme Court on that one. Every vote needs to be
counted, but *objectively*, not *subjectively*. There needs to be criteria
set up before the election. Then everyone needs to abide by those rules,
not try and convince a court to write new rules for them. If you can't
comprehend this, I am truly sorry for you.
Tim Crowley <tcro...@olywa.net> wrote in message
news:B65CD06F.709D%tcro...@olywa.net...
Tim Crowley
It was created by the Florida legislature. It matters little at this point.
I do think at some point we will know with some certainity who got the most
votes. In the meantime. I wish George the best of luck. He's really going to
need it.
in article 3a37e4bd$2...@huge.aa.net, DLagergren at dlage...@win-comm.com
wrote on 12/13/00 1:02 PM:
Bill Bonde
As the SCOTUS said, the recounts using whatever standards that partisan
Democrats could invent and then change were unconstitutional.
Tim Crowley
on 12/13/00 4:09 PM:
> Democrats could invent and then change were unconstional
Um, the standard the florida supreme court used was the one imposed by the
Republican legislature. pay attention bill.
Bill Bonde
Tim Crowley wrote:
>
> in article 3A380FD7...@mail.com, Bill Bonde at std...@mail.com wrote
> on 12/13/00 4:09 PM:
>
> >
> >
> > Tim Crowley wrote:
> >>
> >> in article 3A372C22...@mail.com, Bill Bonde at std...@mail.com wrote
> >> on 12/12/00 11:58 PM:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>> You really are so sure that Gore won?
> >>
> >> I think the main point is the Bush camp thought Gore won. Why wlse would
> >> they have fought so hard to stop any and all handcounts.
> >>
> > As the SCOTUS said, the recounts using whatever standards that partisan
> > Democrats could invent and then change were unconstional
>
> Um, the standard the florida supreme court used was the one imposed by the
> Republican legislature. pay attention bill.
>
If you mean 'the intent of the voter' as defined individually by each
county and even by each table counting the votes, that is what the
SCOTUS is saying is unconstitutional. Laws can be that way.
Tim Crowley
on 12/13/00 7:18 PM:
>
>
> Tim Crowley wrote:
>>
>> in article 3A380FD7...@mail.com, Bill Bonde at std...@mail.com wrote
>> on 12/13/00 4:09 PM:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Crowley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> in article 3A372C22...@mail.com, Bill Bonde at std...@mail.com wrote
>>>> on 12/12/00 11:58 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You really are so sure that Gore won?
>>>>
>>>> I think the main point is the Bush camp thought Gore won. Why wlse would
>>>> they have fought so hard to stop any and all handcounts.
>>>>
>>> As the SCOTUS said, the recounts using whatever standards that partisan
>>> Democrats could invent and then change were unconstional
>>
>> Um, the standard the florida supreme court used was the one imposed by the
>> Republican legislature. pay attention bill.
>>
> If you mean 'the intent of the voter' as defined individually by each
> county and even by each table counting the votes, that is what the
> SCOTUS is saying is unconstitutional. Laws can be that way.
then we are beholden to design a uniform voting standard nationwide. laws
work this way all around the country. county to county they have different
machines, ballots and standards. It's clearly time for this to change.
Bill Bonde
Tim Crowley wrote:
>
> in article 3A383BF2...@mail.com, Bill Bonde at std...@mail.com wrote
> on 12/13/00 7:18 PM:
>
> >
> >
> > Tim Crowley wrote:
> >>
> >> in article 3A380FD7...@mail.com, Bill Bonde at std...@mail.com wrote
> >> on 12/13/00 4:09 PM:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Tim Crowley wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> in article 3A372C22...@mail.com, Bill Bonde at std...@mail.com wrote
> >>>> on 12/12/00 11:58 PM:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> You really are so sure that Gore won?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the main point is the Bush camp thought Gore won. Why wlse would
> >>>> they have fought so hard to stop any and all handcounts.
> >>>>
> >>> As the SCOTUS said, the recounts using whatever standards that partisan
> >>> Democrats could invent and then change were unconstional
> >>
> >> Um, the standard the florida supreme court used was the one imposed by the
> >> Republican legislature. pay attention bill.
> >>
> > If you mean 'the intent of the voter' as defined individually by each
> > county and even by each table counting the votes, that is what the
> > SCOTUS is saying is unconstitutional. Laws can be that way.
>
> then we are beholden to design a uniform voting standard nationwide.
>
I think we are to design a uniform standard in each state.
> laws
> work this way all around the country. county to county they have different
> machines, ballots and standards. It's clearly time for this to change.
>
Yes, it is. This important job can be headed by Al Gore.
Dave Lagergren
there were really 3 standards, all used at different times in Broward
County. The FSSC *did not* call out a standard, because the legislature did
not set one up when they enacted the law.
"Tim Crowley" <tcro...@olywa.net> wrote in message
news:B65D35CD.70D3%tcro...@olywa.net...
Tim Crowley
there was a standard, the us supremes basically said it was not specific
enough. It's pretty much a mute point now, isn't it. Many people are coming
to the conclusion that with the new rulings, for the next federal election
to pass constitutional muster we must have nation wide stanards to meet the
equal protection clasue. In a sense, the supremes found the whole election
to be unconstitutional.
in article 3a3859fe$1...@huge.aa.net, Dave Lagergren at
DLage...@win-comm.com wrote on 12/13/00 9:31 PM:
Paul Mitchum
> > If you mean 'the intent of the voter' as defined individually by each
> > county and even by each table counting the votes, that is what the
> > SCOTUS is saying is unconstitutional. Laws can be that way.
>
> then we are beholden to design a uniform voting standard nationwide. laws
> work this way all around the country. county to county they have different
> machines, ballots and standards. It's clearly time for this to change.
We can't do that, because states aren't even required to hold elections
for President.
--
"In a world full of lies / Which tug at the truth
I'm taking no sides.. Now I recognize you."
-DS
Tim Crowley
mil...@usa.net wrote on 12/14/00 8:44 AM:
> Tim Crowley <tcro...@olywa.net> wrote:
>
>>> If you mean 'the intent of the voter' as defined individually by each
>>> county and even by each table counting the votes, that is what the
>>> SCOTUS is saying is unconstitutional. Laws can be that way.
>>
>> then we are beholden to design a uniform voting standard nationwide. laws
>> work this way all around the country. county to county they have different
>> machines, ballots and standards. It's clearly time for this to change.
>
> We can't do that, because states aren't even required to hold elections
> for President.
Actually, since WE are the Government WE can do anything WE put our minds
to.
Jim Lovejoy
It would require a constitutional amendment. I am all but certain that
there would be at least 13 states that wouldn't agree to it.
Edmund E. Freeman
used completely different voting technologies, thus blowing the
"objective standards" argument into bits. The COTUS (Constitution of
the United States) punts election standards to the states, and FL
punted it to the counties.
+---------------------------------------------------+
| Edmund E Freeman If there is no such thing|
| www.blarg.net/~efreeman as magic, why do we have |
| the word? |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Paul Mitchum
> in article 1ellw77.kzw210f7muycN%mil...@usa.net, Paul Mitchum at
> mil...@usa.net wrote on 12/14/00 8:44 AM:
>
> > Tim Crowley <tcro...@olywa.net> wrote:
[..]
> >> then we are beholden to design a uniform voting standard nationwide.
> >> laws work this way all around the country. county to county they have
> >> different machines, ballots and standards. It's clearly time for this
> >> to change.
> >
> > We can't do that, because states aren't even required to hold elections
> > for President.
>
> Actually, since WE are the Government WE can do anything WE put our minds
> to.
No matter what happens, the next Presidential election will end up in
front of the supremes again, especially with new uniform voting
standards. You know that, right?
I mean, we'll go to the trouble of having legislation pass through
congress and in front of SHRUB (hah), and then we'll create a new Office
Of Presidential Elections. And who will be the Commander-In-Chief of the
Office Of Presidential Elections? Katherine Harris, or some other
partisan wank of whatever party, and it'll be the same story all over
again, except the states will have lost some measure of their autonomy,
and the chain of responsibility will become even more vague and
non-specific. They'll all say: "We were all just doing what was legal,"
right up to the top.
I think that what is needed is to find the perfect lawsuit for a voter,
or a class of voters, to file against their state, which will ultimately
be appealed before the supremes, and hopefully make them clarify exactly
what the fuck they're talking about.
Forgive me if I sound cynical, but I've gotten suddenly older in the
past week. And yes, Clave, you can say you told me so. :-)
Bill Bonde
"Edmund E. Freeman" wrote:
>
> The observant reader will have noticed that different counties
> used completely different voting technologies, thus blowing the
> "objective standards" argument into bits. The COTUS (Constitution of
> the United States) punts election standards to the states, and FL
> punted it to the counties.
>
At first it was claimed that punched ballots were less accurate. This
was claimed by Democrats who had punched ballots in counties that they
had greater support. But it turns out that the bubble type ballots also
have their flaws. They are more consistently accurate if the voter fills
out the ballot properly but they are MORE likely to have fools not
follow directions.
For example, the stylus with a punched ballot is pretty obvious. You
punch it through the chad. With the bubble ballot, you are supposed to
fill in the bubble like on a SAT test. But stupid people put X's or
checks or other marks. These don't real properly.
The bubble type ballot is more consistent than the punch type, but that
doesn't mean that it brings in more votes for your candidate if used in
an area that favors your candidate.
DLagergren
*three* different standards to count votes. We need to decide *how* we are
going to count BEFORE the election, not after. That is fair.
Edmund E. Freeman <efre...@blarg.net> wrote in message
news:s21g3tkjieccr907f...@4ax.com...
Paul Mitchum
> The observant reader will also have observed that at least one county used
> *three* different standards to count votes. We need to decide *how* we are
> going to count BEFORE the election, not after. That is fair.
In that case, the last election was conducted according to the current
election law, and was completely legal.
Thank you for playing.