| |
Site Navigation Main News Forums
Games Games Database Top 100 Release List Support Files
Features Reviews Previews Interviews Editorials Diaries Misc
Download Gallery Music Screenshots Videos
Miscellaneous Staff Members Privacy Statement
|
 |
|
|
Toaster
Bread Alert

Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 5475
Location: Sweden |
quote: Originally posted by Val
That first one is hardly a miracle, Darrius. The only time that didn't happen was when the South seceded from the nation.
I'm just glad this election is over. I'm also glad that Kerry had the class (or desire for political survival ) to not turn this into another stupid court battle.
Another stupid court battle? Now my source (Stupid White Men) is very, VERY biased, I know, but I must say I think Moore slant the facts presented in the book very much, but I DON'T think he simply lying about the 2k election. And based on what was written in that book, the most stupid thing in the 2k court battle was the Supreme Court cancelling the recount of votes in Florida. _________________
Tabbrowser Extensions
DictionarySearch |
Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:58 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes

Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
Toaster, if you're going to use a reference for your claim, then I'd suggest using one which is credible. I'd also suggest actually reading the reason for the Supreme Court's decision. It would have eventually ended up in front of them anyway. They took the only action reasonable at the time. Besides, the recount conducted by the news networks proved that Bush had indeed won. Just like he did in the first count. So yes, the court battle was stupid. _________________ Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:53 am |
|
|
piln
High Emperor


Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
Hmmm, I don't agree, there were people on the Supreme Court that had some kind of involvement with the Bush administration and by US law they shouldn't have been allowed to partake in that decision; I can't remember the specifics right now, but if you want to know I'll dig out the details when I get home . And wasn't that news network recount inconclusive?
Regardless... I don't think the most important issue is whether or not Bush should have won (because, as Val points out, in a fair-and-square 2000 election he may have done), it's whether or not attempts were made to rig the election, and IMO the answer to that is undoubtedly "yes." There's simply no legitimate reason for the way the Florida voter purge was carried out. Human error isn't the answer because the flaws in the approach, and the consequences thereof, were pointed out to those in charge before the event; they went ahead with it anyway, so the intention to unlawfully "widen the net" is clear. |
Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:26 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes

Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
1. None of the people on the Supreme Court were appointed by Bush. So how would they have a personal stake in this?
2. It was not unlawful for them to hear the case. They can choose to take a case that is escalated to them and it would have eventually gotten to them anyway as one of the sides would have ended up appealing the lower court's decision.
3. The news recount was conclusive. Under Florida election laws, Bush won.
I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that would convince me that any sort of fraud was commited. The seriousness of the charge isn't enough. _________________ Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:20 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord

Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
On Val's last points
1. I believe a couple of them were appointed by his Father. That is close enough to create a personal stake.
2. It is lawful for the Supreme Court to take any case. They don't have to wait until a case is presented to them. They can call a case up from a lower court and rule on it simply because they wish to create case law on the matter.
3. According to what the Bush people are being charged of nothing could be conclusive because they are also being accused of hiding/stealing vote ballots.
As someone who believes that the Bush people committed some kind of foul play in 2000 to get G.W. Bush into the White House, I would like to say to other people who believe he/they cheated in some form... ENOUGH ALREADY. MOVE ON. It makes no difference now. His power is increased, not diministhed. He has been re-elected. His party still has the Florida Legislature, Florida Governorship, Both houses of U.S. Congress and the White House. Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that we have a film of G.W. Bush himself picking up boxes of ballots from Florida in 2000 and 2004. Let say we have him on film burning the ballots himself. He can look forward to a pardon from the Florida Governor, The New President, whether it is the Vice President or the Speaker of the House. Either the US Legislature would choose a new Republican President, or the Florida Legislature would appoint Florida's electoral votes to the Republican candidate. Either way his backers would get into the White House.
We seem to think that the problem is that he cheated, he stole, he disenfranchised voters. That is not the problem. The problem is that he and his backers have all of the power, and all of the tie-breakers. His opponents don't even have the power to do an honest investigation. Thus, if you are a Bush opponent, the questions are: How did we let them get ALL of the power, and How can we get it back? _________________ Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:10 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor


Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
OK, firstly the US Supreme Court has clear rules governing whether a particular judge is conflicted on a particular case, and if so that judge should remove him/herself. One of the judges involved in this decision had two sons who had represented the Bush campaign in the Florida recount process. Another judge's wife was employed by the Bush admninistration (reviewing the resumes of potential appointees). Another judge stated publicly that she was upset at the prospect of Gore winning! So there are three violations - two due to family members whose positions could be advantaged by a ruling in favour of Bush (which did occur in at least one case - one of the first judge's sons was promoted right after the election), and one by a public admission of personal bias. And also Darrius mentioned some may have been appointed by Bush Sr. - I don't know particulars, but I've heard this too; if it's true then that's another violation in each case.
I didn't think it was unlawful for the US Supreme Court to take up the case; in fact I didn't realise that issue was in dispute, and as Val points out the case would definitely have ended up there one way or another. My point is that their decision and conduct were wrong. But Darrius' point is interesting; that "They can call a case up from a lower court and rule on it simply because they wish to create case law on the matter." Yet in this case, the only time in the US Supreme Court's entire history, they declared that their findings would apply only to the Bush vs. Gore case. Why?
And regarding the decision itself. It was illogical - they stated the reason that the lack of a uniform standard for counting votes violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and for this reason they called a halt. OK - let's ignore the fact that this situation is the same all over the US - let's also ignore, as the US Supreme Court did, the 75-year-old Florida law that states manual recounts should assess voter intent and that this assessment takes precedence over technical issues/mistakes. Let's just focus on their complaint - the lack of a uniform standard. If that was their reason for stepping in, then it makes no sense for them to simply put an end to the dispute. Surely the logical answer is to simply instruct the Florida Supreme Court to select a uniform standard and do a single, decisive recount. We're talking a few days to decide the Presidency for the next four years. It's obvious. And this isn't just my common-sense view (knowing, as I do, very little about the loopholes and technicalities of the US legal system), this is the view supported by law professors from several US universities, and all four US Supreme Court judges who opposed the decision, and to me its logic cannot be argued against (successfully, that is ).
As for the news network recount, I'm still not sure which one Val is referring to - is it the one that had ~2000 votes missing? If that's the one, it's inconclusive - it states so in the opening paragraphs, and common sense dictates that any recount that is missing ~4x the disputed winning margin cannot possibly be conclusive. Like I said, I believe the important issue here is whether or not a crime was committed, but I'd just like to know what recount we're talking about here, because if it is indeed conclusive I'd be interested to read about it. |
Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:21 am |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord

Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
I don't think that I disagree with any of what you said. However, it is a moot point because all the power goes towards Bush. Even if the Supreme Court Justices had conflicts of interest (I think some of them did BTW) there is no one to appeal to. Supreme Court justices must be impeached and convicted to get them out of office. Was the Republican Congress going to do that?...For putting a Republican in office.
The truth of right and wrong does not apply here. Only power and the absence of power apply at these levels. Bush had all the power. Once the first count said that he had one more vote in Florida, he was President. Like I said, he had all the tie breakers. _________________ Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:34 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom

Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
Well, I think this whole Saga of 2000, and the associated conspiracies and theories that have come from it are a case study not only of why we want the courts as far away from the electoral process as possible, but the extent to which urban myth and conspiracy still play a wonderfully large part in our otherwise increasingly analytical and methodical society.
For instance, I still get a big kick out of the whole "1 million African Americans disenfranchised" myth Al Sharpton to this day is still throwing around. Where would we be without ol' Reverand Al stirring thing up regularly?
He's one of our secret weapons!
I think we would be bored stiff, quite frankly. The more I see of these people, the more I realize that tho I want them powerless as we can possibly make them, I still want them out there giving us all a good laugh and making it totally clear which political party they are part of. _________________ “Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:21 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord

Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
How many African-Americans would you say actually were disenfranchised? _________________ Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:09 pm |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom

Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
First of all, I dont accept the premise in the first place. "Disenfranchisement" and a "spoiled ballot" are two completely different things, and the mythical "1 million" number itself is quite dubious. Are there irregularities on some ballots, such as not a clear discernible mark, multiple choices marked, or otherwise improperly cast ballots? Sure, they are referred to as "spoiled" ballots, and there is always a certain percentage of them in every election. Factors such as literacy or simple error otherwise on the part of the voter, and machine malfunction can all create a spoiled ballot. Although this is fairly common, the devious perception of partisan foul play was magnified in Florida because of the nature of the contested outcome of the race. The million votes number itself is a ludicrous extrapolation based on the myth that X-number of blacks were "disenfranchised" in Florida, and then assuming proportional numbers were "disenfranchised" in every other state.
This is unfortunately another example of the typical Democrat method of scaring their minority consituents into thinking the ever-evil majority is out to get them, thus they cannot get a fair shake. Every year the "Voting Rights Act is about to expire" myth gets trotted out by the race hustlers and conspiracy crowd, among other nonsense scare-tactics that are supposed to energize thru fear, their base. Now, it's the 1 million disenfranchised myth. It's truly a shame that some people would take advantage of the fears of a community who truly has in the past suffered real voter oppression in things as "poll taxes" and such.
Also, the claim itself overall is rooted in the perception that partisan Republican state officials were to blame for the spoiled ballots, and general chicanery at the polling places. The precints that were in question as high spoilage rates, unfortunately for the accusers, were Democrat-run polling places. That fact seldom seems to make it into the argument, and in my opinion sorta nukes this fantasy of devious Republican poll workers shoveling black votes into a dumpster or something, or closing polls early.
Finally, there was a six-month investigation by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, and also an investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department in which there was found to be absolutely no truth whatsoever to any of the disenfranchisement allegations. Nobody was found to have been intimidated or denied, or otherwise had their vote nullified or "stolen". As I said before, it's unfortunate that some people still to this day use as a primary political tactic, scaring and confusing their African-American consituents with the long-dead phantom of Jim Crow.
So to answer your question Darrius, I'll say this - I'm sure there was some spoiled ballots and mixups as to what polling place is where. I'm sure that some people made a mistake, and incorrectly punched or marked the ballot, or had to stand in line for a long time. Im sure there were other random irregularities that while unfortunate and obviously not desireable, was not some malevolent plot contrived by Republicans to literally nullify the votes of a certain race of people. That's just flat out childish for grown men and women to actually advance that theory in my opinion, and quite emblematic of the current desperate state of the Democrat party itself. _________________ “Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:12 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor


Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
OK Sam, but that only addresses spoiled ballots. What about the voter purge?
quote:
...an investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department in which there was found to be absolutely no truth whatsoever to any of the disenfranchisement allegations
I don't believe that's entirely true - the Civil Rights Division found no evidence of racial discrimination, but that doesn't mean that no voters' rights were denied - they were, and indeed the NAACP won its lawsuit against Harris and Database Technologies over this very issue. We know that Harris ordered DBT to use vague search criteria; we know that DBT notified her of the erroneous results this would produce; we know that Harris' office responded by saying they wanted to "widen the net" and that DBT should use the criteria they specified. All of this is a matter of record. There is no legitimate reason for this course of action - it indicates a clear intent to stop elligible voters from voting (not human error - once the error is pointed out, and that advice acknowledged and responded to, it becomes clear that the move was intentional and not a result of negligence or confusion). The motivation behind it is another matter, but the intention to defraud is unmistakeable.
You call for intelligence and maturity, Sam, and I believe I have been thoroughly logical in outlining these facts and the conclusions they lead to. Furthermore, I believe your outright dismissal of any suggestion of foul play as childish scaremongering is wrong. You know that, in the history of your country, even the highest position of power has been abused - so to ignore the possibility that it may happen again (and, indeed, that it happened in 2000) makes no sense. |
Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:08 pm |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom

Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
Still, the voter felon purge list debacle aside, there was found to be no evidence of the purposeful disenfranchisement of a targeted race of people in the 2000 election, much less a million of them. That's what these people are saying, Piln. They arent saying "a disproportionate number of minorities who might have voted wound up on a felon voter purge list". They arent saying that at all, they are saying one million black voters were disenfranchised. They were either denied their right to vote, or their vote was erased after they cast it, and that just isnt true.
I'm not saying at all that the un-investigated suspicion of foul play itself is childish or wrong in any way. But after the facts have been bared out, most certainly. I think it's quite childish and irresponsible at that point, for grown people to believe in or perpetuate such an outlandish and improbable myth after official investigations have proven otherwise. And then to actually think that the proverbial lid could be kept on such an egregious and sensational violation of electoral law and nobody would know or bear truthful witness, it's literally funny.
Not only such renowned spiritual leaders as the "Reverends" Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson throw around such an irresponsible and false claim, but literally the Democrat presidential candidate himself was saying it before the election. Im sorry Piln, that's brazen and unabashed racial fear-mongering if I've ever seen it. _________________ “Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:29 am |
|
|
piln
High Emperor


Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
Oops, I feel we're going in slightly different directions here. Sorry, my fault - since I was responding directly to you, Sam, I guess it seemed like I was disagreeing with what you said about Al Sharpton, the "1 million" claims, etc etc - but I don't disagree on that score, I do think that if there's any real interest in getting to the truth of a matter then there's no room for such speculation.
quote: Originally posted by xSamhainx
I'm not saying at all that the un-investigated suspicion of foul play itself is childish or wrong in any way. But after the facts have been bared out, most certainly. I think it's quite childish and irresponsible at that point, for grown people to believe in or perpetuate such an outlandish and improbable myth after official investigations have proven otherwise.
OK, I'd agree with that if I knew it had been proven otherwise. If that's happened, then there must be a legitimate reason for the intentional widening of the voter-purge net, and a legitimate explanation why at least three US Supreme Court judges ruled on a case in which they were conflicted. Can somebody tell me what they are? |
Sat Nov 13, 2004 10:21 pm |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom

Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
*sits n munches on huge tiger-size order of sweet and sour chicken*
None of my past argument has anything at all to do with the "Felon Voter Purge List Scandal", that last quote of mine you posted is not referring to it at all. My whole argument started with the current Democrat party leadership and spokesmen such as the Reverends acting like clowns, and while on one paw they are surely making us Republicans laugh, it isnt funny at all the way they seem work around the clock to incite and stoke the fires of racial animosity and fear. The "one million disenfranchised" is just the latest tactic, whether it's true or not means nothing to them.
On the "Felon Voter Purge Scandal" I agree with you fully. It was totally inexcuseable and quite irresponsible the way Katherine Harris not only implemented it, but then later handled it. She should have been handed her pink slip and replaced, in my opinion.
You're simply pointing out a glaring example of how the system did in fact actually disenfranchise some likely voters. I see it as more a result of incompetence and errors in judgement on the part of Harris though, than some devious partisan plot.
-edited for brevity and coherance, the next day-
I was eating and listening to samhain when i originally posted ='.'=
I'm like the king of the run-on sentence _________________ “Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
Sun Nov 14, 2004 3:27 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:59 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|