Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

timberlandko wrote:

Some folks deal with real issues. Others prefer to overlook them and attempt to manufacture issues they find more appealing.

For example, rather than simply pulling up the FLorida election law for herself, Tartarin is spinning her wheels making an issue of the fact that I prefer not to do it AGAIN.

But let me take the wind out of her sails...

Here's the link:
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0102/ch0102.htm
* (Be sure the correct year is selected in the drop down list! You want Title IX, Ch 102 as was in place in 2000.)

And here's the relevent section, referring to what can LEGALLY be done following the manual recount of the 3 cherry-picked precincts (bold mine):

Quote:

(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:

(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;

(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or

(c) Manually recount all ballots.

The fact (there's that word again) is that the result of the original 3 precinct recount was well within the margin of error and therefor DID NOT indicate any error. Under the Florida election law in place at that time, a full manual recount of all precincts is NOT ALLOWED. Game over. You are done.

There you do, Tartarin. Now it's time for you to live up to my expectations and begin to explain why the facts don't actually mean what they mean and why your fictional version of events is what we should all believe.

(I can't wait!!!!) Cool

0 Replies

But Scrat, a literal reading of law is such a cold and dispassionate way to go about things. Wouldn't it be so much more pleasant if we could apply law in such fashion and according to interpretation we might find most convenient and comforting at the moment? Doesn't that make perfect sense? I mean, what good are laws if they can't be made to work the way we'd like them to? How dare you suggest laws be reduced to legalistic finepoints based on nothing more substantial than the wording and context of those laws? That's just so ... so ... oh, Constitutional of you! You damned Conservatives ... always being so unimaginative about laws. And then, you're so smug when some Higher Court goes right along with you ... don't people think for themselves any more, or have we been reduced to a mere nation of laws?

0 Replies

Sorry, Scratty, you're going to have to wait for PDiddie to weigh in here. He's the one closest to this subject, not me.

0 Replies

Ihat's sorta like "Lets you and him fight", ain't it Tart?

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Sorry, Scratty, you're going to have to wait for PDiddie to weigh in here. He's the one closest to this subject, not me.

That didn't stop you from whining the loudest about it, though did it? What a surprise! I knew you'd run and hide from the cold light of reality. I showed you the exact wording of the law, and all you can write in response is that someone else will have to pinch hit for you because you aren't up to it. I call that willful ignorance, and I think it is pathetic. But then, it's everything I've come to expect of liberals of your stripe.

At least PD will take the time to try to come up with some twisted rationale for not believing the facts. Confused

0 Replies

I wonder if he's ever researched which of The Supremes voted which way on the final Florida decision, and by which President each was appointed, or if he's read the decision and the dissent. That might be of interest to him.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Some folks deal with real issues. Others prefer to overlook them and attempt to manufacture issues they find more appealing.

For example, rather than simply pulling up the FLorida election law for herself, Tartarin is spinning her wheels making an issue of the fact that I prefer not to do it AGAIN.

But let me take the wind out of her sails...

Here's the link:
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0102/ch0102.htm
* (Be sure the correct year is selected in the drop down list! You want Title IX, Ch 102 as was in place in 2000.)

And here's the relevent section, referring to what can LEGALLY be done following the manual recount of the 3 cherry-picked precincts (bold mine):

Quote:
(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:

(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;

(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or

(c) Manually recount all ballots.

The fact (there's that word again) is that the result of the original 3 precinct recount was well within the margin of error and therefor DID NOT indicate any error. Under the Florida election law in place at that time, a full manual recount of all precincts is NOT ALLOWED. Game over. You are done.

There you do, Tartarin. Now it's time for you to live up to my expectations and begin to explain why the facts don't actually mean what they mean and why your fictional version of events is what we should all believe.

(I can't wait!!!!)

Well good morning, everyone!

Let's start with the rodent.

You went wrong first with 'precincts', or rather "3 cherry-picked precincts".

Try as I might, I could not find anything that clarified what you meant by this (so perhaps you will clarify).

I'm thinking you meant the four Florida counties -- Volusia, Broward, Miami-Dade and Plam Beach -- that were selected for hand recounts, following the mandated-by-state-law recount.

(Before I go any further let me say this by way of refuting your coming wail that I am motivated in this issue partisanly: this was Gore's first mistake. His rallying cry was "Count all the votes!" when in reality his strategy was focused narrowly in the counties named above that were predominatly Dem.)

In the link you post (and again, I looked; didn't see what you refer to, and by way of explanation will note that your contention is invisible in all of the pleadings, court filings and etcetera made by Jim Baker and his division of attorneys) there is no mention of "margin of error" disqualification of a recount by precinct, or by county, or anything else.

In fact (according to your link), the only qualification for conducting a recount appears to be that the request is filed within 5 days of the election (or prior to the county canvassing board certifying the election reults, whichever comes later).

So your contention that the recount was -- what, illegal? -- despite the stridency and assureity with which you express it, appears to be completely false.

If there were something to it, then I feel the brilliant legal minds of the Bush team would have been able to recognize it and use it.

Now then, let's examine what's left in the appropriate thread, which would be located here. Cool

0 Replies

Scrat -- You're looking like someone trying to fight their way out of a paper bag. I admired PDiddie's analysis and comments a while back and thought he laid them out well. Couldn't have done it myself, not being an expert in Florida election law -- only in the heinous behavior of the Republicans during that contest. But it was not my place to pretend I was as well-informed as PDiddie.

But you tried to cut Diddie off at the knees with a flat, unsupported statement. I asked you to clarify -- to bring in your ammunition. PDiddie is fully capable of refuting your angry, rude comebacks and has done so well, quietly, and expertly. I think you've got mud all over your face (before you even had time to wipe it off from your last spinout) and are not, frankly, worth engaging with.

0 Replies

My that was rude!

0 Replies

She's not sugary, she's Tart!

0 Replies

Constitutionally, the President is empowered, with "The advise and consent of The Senate", to appoint judges to the various Federal Benches. The operative word in The Constitution on this issue is "consent"; consent means majority vote, that, and nothing more. When The Constitution requires more than a simple majority, such as in the case of the ratification of treaties, it says so in specific. Nowhere is there provision that judicial nominations be confirmed by anything other than a simple majority. By invoking filibuster, the Democrats create the situation that 2/3 of the members of The Senate must provide the consent. Using the filibuster in such manner, the letter and intent of the Constitution are subordinated to partisan obstructionism.

IMO, the Dems, deprived by The Electorate of the power of automatic majority in the Legislative Houses, have abandoned due legislative process. Without the support of The Electorate, the Dems strive to assert unwarranted control through resort to extra-Constitutional practice, sidestepping law. Faced with the probability of defeat by ballot, The Dems seek to prevent the balloting. That is neither in accord with nor in the interest of the principles on which this nation was founded.

I see the Democrat use of the tactic as nothing more than a blatant and base attempt to extract "Payback" for the defeat they suffered in 2000, when the US Supreme Court held there was no legal basis for their claims in the matter of the Florida Elections.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

You went wrong first with 'precincts', or rather "3 cherry-picked precincts".

Try as I might, I could not find anything that clarified what you meant by this (so perhaps you will clarify)...

Perhaps you would understand if you bothered to read the LAW. And no, your attempt at understanding failed. I did not mean the four counties you mentioned, I meant the three PRECINCTS chosen for recount by Gore's team.

I can't tell whether you are committed to being wrong, or simply wrong, but in either case, you are wrong. The law CLEARLY reads that the ONLY way to proceed to a full manual recount is if the first 3 precinct recount indicates an error in vote tabulation which could effect the outcome of the election. IT DID NOT. (If you think you can prove that it did, please hang me out to dry. Otherwise you are simply clinging to a fantasy and choosing to be ignorant.)

Please educate yourself better about the facts and get back to us. We'll wait.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Scrat -- You're looking like someone trying to fight their way out of a paper bag. I admired PDiddie's analysis and comments...

Both of these opinions are based purely on your ignorance of the facts.

And I offered direct support of my claims with citation of source documents. That you are either unwilling or incapable of consulting and understanding same does not mean I did not support my claims.

(This is increasingly like arguing with a child. And a none too bright one, at that.) Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

<sigh>

0 Replies

Yes, <sigh> indeed. When seemingly intelligent people choose to cling to fantasies despite being shown solid factual proof that they are wrong, I guess all you can do is sigh.

0 Replies

"Operative words" are fine when they work equally for both sides of the isle.

0 Replies

Gee, so much <sighing> going on around here. It must be hard to be right all the time, huh?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Operative words" are fine when they work equally for both sides of the isle.

Unless such is the case, the word is not operative. Regardless which party did what when, the Dems, IMO, currently are abusing the Constitution as regards the use of the filibuster in the matter of judicial appointments, and is in fact arrogation of powers not specifically allotted to The Legislative Branch by The Constitution.

0 Replies

An interesting thought occurs ... given the fact they have been so energetically filibusterial in the matter of judicial nominations, the Dems have pretty much backed themselves into a corner on Medicare Reform.

I just can't resist saying they find themselves between a Bench and an AARP place. Perhaps Bush the Younger should thank them.

0 Replies

Note to Soros: Bring it on

Quote:

AP Exclusive: GOP Plans Fund-Raising Group to Rival Effort by Billionaire George Soros
By Sharon Theimer Associated Press Writer
Published: Nov 18, 2003

WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Bush's lawyers during the 2000 Florida recount is creating a group to spend millions advocating Bush's re-election, hoping to counter efforts by billionaire George Soros and others to help Democrats capture the White House.
Attorney George Terwilliger and Republican political consultants Frank Donatelli and Craig Shirley are asking the Federal Election Commission for advice on whether their plan is legal under the new campaign finance law, according to a copy of the letter ...

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know