Could this position taken by the liberals backfire on their agenda? : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and the reason for the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is becoming ever more clear. (Those who are attacking the Constitution are making the case.)

I believe, many of those who were undecided about the need for the 2nd Amendment may no longer be fence sitters.

-- Ooops (, November 10, 2000


I don't see what this situation has to do with the 2nd Amendment.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 10, 2000.

Well, hmmm, does anything make sense in this bizarre election?

Lock and load...

-- dinosaur (, November 10, 2000.

Slowly, it's soaking in to all but the most narrowly partisan among us that there must be a process of selection that is agreed on, *even when* it selects the other guy.

There is always the possibility of a very close election. And no election anywhere at any time has been without confusion, fraud, misunderstanding, or mistakes. It's unlikely that this perfection will ever happen, since even the most controlled and automated procedure stands no chance against a combination of human mendacity and human stupidity. And oh, did I mention bias?

Ordinarily we live with these things without comment because they affect a very small percentage of all votes, and tend to happen to both parties and cancel themselves out. Usually the election isn't close enough for these factors to make any difference. When it is that close, then no matter who wins, the results can be as tainted as the losing party chooses to make them. It helps nobody to approch this with the attitude of "if I can't have it than nobody can."

The Times editorialist was quite right in saying that, if an election is free of any evident fraud (even though it can never be perfect), the winner is determined by the election results. The election should NOT simply be a starting point for litigation, a source for as many different lawsuits as the losing side can dream up. Do we really want the courts rather than the people deciding our elections?

Similarly, we've always known that the Electoral College system permits the winner to get fewer popular votes than the loser. This is the system we either agree to abide by, or we amend the Constitution and agree to abide by the amendment. We agree to this ahead of time, and we agree not to change our minds about it to suit our immediate self-interest retroactively.

It's not close votes that make us look like a banana republic. It's the willingness of highly partisan people to change the rules if they lose, that makes us look stupid. Banana republics don't really have procedures except as window dressing, to be discarded, redefined or modified if they don't produce the results desired by those in power.

From the perspective of the outside world, we had an agreed procedure in place. Maybe this procedure was obsolete or not quite sensible, but it was both well defined and agreed upon. We held an election under this procedure, and according to the rules the party in power may have lost. An extremely close decision, to be sure, but still a possible loss. And the party in power is refusing to accept this loss, just like in a banana republic. They're laying the groundwork to undermine the electoral process itself, trying to bring in a new *procedure* that will let them keep their power. The new procedure might be the courts deciding elections. It might be "recounting" votes until the count comes out in their favor. It might be having selected people keep voting until those in power win.

And even those in power will readily concede that as general principles, these new procedures STINK, they reek of the most fundamental corruption. But, they argue, in the interest of "fairness", *just this once* we'll have to live with them, because otherwise we will LOSE, and that's worse in the short term. (Actually, they never mention that they ONLY think democracy requires these special measures if *their* guy stands to benefit. They only write impassioned requests to violate standard procedures because "justice" requires it. But just in *this* case, of course. Justice is being well served elsewhere, where exactly the same irregularities either helped their guy or at least didn't hurt him).

Right now we are, like it or not, setting precedent for how Presidential power is transferred following an extremely close election. Do we want to establish a precedent for a peaceful transition, or should our precedent be to "un-concede" nonpeacefully, and engage in legal battle with a barrage of lawsuits for every reason lawyers can concoct, however groundless? Do we really want a President who "won" his office this way? Because NO MATTER WHO ends up as President, this is the way he will have done it. It only takes one side to corrupt the procedure, just like only one person needs to piss in the punchbowl to ruin everyones' party.

-- Flint (, November 10, 2000.

" It only takes one side to corrupt the procedure, just like only one person needs to piss in the punchbowl to ruin everyones' party."

Flint,I agree with what youv'e said except for the last line,If I drink the pissy punch and in retribution dowse the partiers in the process of dowsing the pisser then there are two guilty people.

In this case it is firstly the Dem's but if the Rep's stir the pot with further legalities then they are tainted as well.

-- capnfun (, November 10, 2000.

I've heard a lot about the Democratic Party and litigation. AFAIK, the only litigation so far has been initiated on the private level by 8 voters in Florida. Of course there's that Newsmax rumor about the Republicans filing suit to stop a hand-count, but so far that's just ... well... Newsmax.

Personally, I like the idea of a hand-count. I don't like the idea of a punch sticking open or closed determining someone's vote or lack of vote. The rhetoric regarding counting until a desired result is obtained has not been demonstrated to be accurate. Remember, this is the FIRST recount requested by the Gore camp. The canvass performed in the past few days was mandatory by Florida law.

-- Anita (, November 10, 2000.

In this case it is firstly the Dem's but if the Rep's stir the pot with further legalities then they are tainted as well.

The legal pissing-match is already begun behind the scenes - we just don't know it yet.

If this gets hung-up in the legal system past the scheduled Inauguration Date, does Billy get to keep being Prez until this is resolved? Whew, what a tangled web they've woven!

-- What's (, November 10, 2000.

Anita - Granted, it IS (cough, sputter) Newsmax, but it seems that there's more than one rumbling about additional GOP-supporter lawsuits flying about. Where there's smoke, there's bound to be fire.

-- Wait (, November 10, 2000.


I am not an expert in this area, I doubt that anyone else is either. So I have no learned opinion on the matter. I did talk to a couple of voting rights lawyers; for what it is worth, they thought that under these conditions it would not go to the house if it is in the courts [problem of court versus legislative powers which would have to be solved by the Supreme Court and would take a year]. They thought that the Speaker of the House would become President in January and stay there until the courts solved the matter. Of course this is just opinion. Could make an interesting election for speaker if true.

Best wishes,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, November 10, 2000.


Do you seriously think those lawsuits would have been brought if EITHER Florida had had a one-sided result, or if Florida's electoral votes had proved irrelevant? Do you think ANY of those "private" parties to those lawsuits were Bush voters who just wanted to see justice done, whatever justice might turn out to be? Do you think it's pure coincidence that the same problems every election in the past didn't lead to any lawsuits at all? Do you think things would have been much different if the recount had Gore ahead by 300+ votes? Wouldn't the Republicans be doing this same thing?

My point was, extremely close elections with a lot at stake tend to cause *extreme* reductions in politicians/lawyers fields of focus. They are willing to abandon time-tested procedures in favor of *anything*, however shortsighted or unviable, to win THIS election THIS time, and devil take the hindmost. The result might be a President sitting in office thanks to a local (Democrat) judge deciding that ONLY senile Jews in Palm Beach County who couldn't read a ballot deserved to get a second vote.


I meant what I said. If that judge decides those Palm Beach senile Jews do NOT deserve a second vote, this places Bush in the oval office. In either case, the Presidency is decided by a judge, due to the lawsuit brought by whoever pissed in the soup. I consider this a bad precedent.

-- Flint (, November 10, 2000.

I agree Flint, I find this whole thing disturbing as hell.

As to Clinton, he is no longer President as of 12:01 pm, January 20, 2001. Who fills his spot is up in the air right now, but he is gone.

-- Uncle Deedah (, November 10, 2000.


It's unlike you to jump to conclusions such as "senile Jews." From the folks I've seen complaining, many were young, educated, etc. I would agree that the election shouldn't be determined in the courts, but litigation has become a part of our society, and I'm not going to complain about these folks filing suits anymore than I'm going to complain about the Republican who claims that the news media resulted in thousands of Republicans giving up and going home. He's suing, as well.

I don't think we'll see a revote. Most litigation involves money, NOT an action on the part of thousands of others. It may be, however, that the litigation will affect the ballots of the future and perhaps even prevent the media from "jumping the gun." I would consider both desirable.

-- Anita (, November 10, 2000.


If that judge decides those Palm Beach senile Jews do NOT deserve a second vote

It has been a long time since I lived in the south. I had forgotten. Sorry.

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, November 10, 2000.


I'm not really jumping to conclusions. As Z makes clearer, it's no mystery who these people are. Of the overseas ballots we're waiting 10 days to arrive, nearly all are from two places -- Israel, and overseas military. About 50-50. Perhaps it's politically incorrect to assume that those in Israel are Jews? Do you seriously think that if 19,000 errors had been made in a county that runs 2-1 Bush, the Dems would be making a peep?

And anyway, they could be Green Martians, and that wouldn't change the fact that politicans and lawyers are trying to win regardless of the damage this does to the elective process. If Gore were 300 votes ahead, these lawsuits would be brought on behalf of uneducated rednecks from mobile homes in the sticks. And Bubba out there would bring a much more convincing case that he couldn't understand the circle the arrow pointed to.

-- Flint (, November 10, 2000.

Flint, you are a racist anti-semitist insensitive right-wing extremist intolerant bigot and I hope you BURN IN HELL!!

-- Joan Rivers (you'll@get.yours!), November 10, 2000.


Hey, I resent that. I'm a semitist myself, and I support them all the way.

-- Flint (, November 10, 2000.


Flint, you are a racist anti-semitist insensitive right-wing extremist intolerant bigot and I hope you BURN IN HELL!

I have never met Flint, but based on years of talking to him, I have no reason to believe what you say is true. There.

Now if you are talking about someone really pompous like Cin, well, I don't know. :^)

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, November 10, 2000.

I can't begin to explain the sequence but there is a scenario wherein the next President could be Sen Strom Thurmond. LOL, that should give the nitpickers pause.

-- Lars (, November 10, 2000.

Question Unk,

What is the overall mood of your circle of friends in Florida? Is there a feeling of shame that this crap is taking place in your home state? Why not start a grass roots effort with the real solid citizens and have your say. If 500 black students from Florida A&M can squat all over the capital, there must be some white folk willing to counter balance these protests. It seems that only the blacks are in a position to complain anymore. So I will just jump back into my robe and await your response.

-- I (h@ve.spoken), November 10, 2000.


Even Unk isn't redneck and stupid enough to waste time on a racist KKK member like your worthless ass.

-- (brothers@gonna.getya!), November 11, 2000.


Yes,I think it sets a terrible precedent too.I was making a point using your illustration of the punch pisser to address the initial question"Could this position taken by the liberals backfire on their agenda?" I wasn't engaging ya,I thought your analogy taken a step or two further,demonstrated how the legal tactics that are being taken or considered will come back to bite them(the D &R's)in the ass.

-- capnfun (, November 11, 2000.

I have yet to meet someone in real life down here who thinks that those folks should be allowed to re-cast their vote, then again, I don't tolerate whiners well and do not have any as friends. As to gathering up a group of folks to protest the protesters, of the people I know nearly all took the time to vote, but we have things to do, places to go, people to see, and do not have the time to stand around holding signs and yelling at people.

On a side note of humor...

Seen on the news, a protester holding a sign that said; "If you can read this, you must be Republican", which I found quite funny.

-- Uncle Deedah (, November 11, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ