Like having Nader arrested when he attended a debate (with a ticket) they had excluded him from participating in? Removing Greens from the ballot all over the place, imposing unfair limits on third party ballot access?
Exactly! CanтАЩt have any unruly peasants that refuse corporate bribes getting close to being elected. People might start thinking they have the power to change things.
"...The New York Times did not do its own recount. It did participate in a consortium. Here's what the consortium actually said: "If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin."
Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder, New York Times, Nov. 12, 2001..."
I must say, though, it's interesting to encounter a New York Times fan on the TK threads.
The facts are that Bush won. His Florida margin was small because the Democratic radio and TV media called Gore the winner in Florida before the polls had closed in the most Republican part of the state. They did not know that the Pensacola region is in the Central Time Zone. Many voters in the long lines there left without voting when they heard their votes wouldn't matter. Most studies indicate that Bush would have received 5000 to 7500 more votes if the media had waited until after the polls closed to make their announcement.
We don't know who won because there wasn't a legally sanctioned--as mandated by Florida state law--recount of the entire state. The Supreme Court took care of that.
Given Gore's petulance following the election, I'm glad he didn't win. We've had two petulant Presidents now, three in a row if you count Trump. I've had enough of that.
I no longer practice psychiatry, nor any other form of medicine; hydrocephalus has me on a fast-track to non-Alzheimer's dementia. I subscribe to the NEJM and follow PubMed. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34843030/. There are better choices than Haloperidol.
NCL provides a comment so wildly at variance with the facts it suggests another CIA seeding operation. Endless efforts at propaganda. For the record, as someone old enough to remember, Gore very, very unconvincingly challenged the vote count in very heavily Democratic regions in Florida. This triggered multiple recounts absent any legal foundation to conduct such recounts. The Democratic election activists transparently were trying to "recount" at least one example where Gore's votes exceeded Bush. Each time they recounted, they gained votes. Then they started declaring ambiguous poll cards in favor of Gore, and well, everyone could see where this was going. In the meantime the Florida Supreme Court, heavily Democratic, ignored the law about counting votes and ran cover for the recounters' recounting. Finally, after stalling from Florida Supreme Court, the Bush campaign appealed that State decision to the US Supreme Court which, interpreting Florida law as it plainly read, stopped the recount scam. The votes were counted, Florida declared for Bush, and he took office.
Having been born when Harry A-Bomb Truman was president, I too was "old enough" to be around in 2000. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court's decision to allow a recount. As it then stood, Bush was only ahead by less than 400 votes. On Jan 6, 2001, House Democrats voted to contest the results. All it would take was ONE Democrat (Republican-Lite) senator to join in, but none did, so Gore gaveled the session to a close and Bush was considered to then be the president.
"a comment so wildly at variance with the facts"
While you may be relying on what Kellyanne Conway would call, "Alternate facts," I suppose.
Gore argued that after a recount that did not vindicate his campaign, that unnamed persons should conduct a manual recount of punch card ballots to discern the intention of "undervotes." Undervotes was the term used to describe punch card ballots that, when recorded, had not reflected a vote for a Presidential candidate. The idea was to cull 9000 of these in highly partisan Democratic Dad county (and around the state) and set their locals, again, undefined persons with zero defined process, to review these so called undercounted votes and let us know what the intention of voters were. I think a reasonable person would observe this was a license to cheat, like Democrats do, and to vote on behalf of persons who had not voted. The Florida Supreme Court thought this was a great idea, and could not be bothered to identify any rules for this new method that, according to the US Supreme Court's analysis, was violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Democrats love to sart the count after the selection, where they keep counting until they win, then call a halt to the election. This was done in 2020, and many objected to this subversion of our representative government.
Incidentally, the Gore campaign would be defined under today's fascistic regime, as an "insurrection," as he moved to reject the certification of the Florida votes. Democrats apparently lament that Democrat Senators in Congress would not join them in this "insurrection." But these were simpler times where the system (i.e. democratic elections) was yet respected by the government, and stealing elections was not "justified" by the imperative to defeat Orange Man.
яВ╖ Sections 102.141(7) and 102.166, Florida Statutes, and Rules 1S-2.027, 1S-2.031, and 1S-2.051 Fla. Admin. Code,
govern recounts.
"If the returns for any office reflect that a candidate was defeated or eliminated by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office ... the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a recount of the votes cast with respect to such office or measure."
"...one of the simplest and most clearly written bits of legislation I've ever seen anywhere. The Florida court thought so too and ordered a recount. Then the United States Supreme Court stepped in and shut the recounts down. Bush was left as the victor and became the president."
You write: "This triggered multiple recounts absent any legal foundation to conduct such recounts."
Correct, which is why it was irrelevant, not worth mentioning, and a waste of time for those busybodies doing their own recounting, and consequently would have been dismissed forthwith once the proper legal recount began.
In closing, it's interesting to travel back in time and excavate yet another example of conservative and right-wing duplicity and hypocrisy.
The conservative Supreme Court, long one of the loudest klaxons touting the doctrine of "states rights," here with a 5-4 conservative majority, overrode not only Florida State Law but also high-hatted the Florida Supreme Court, the judicial body constitutionally responsible for executing the state law, effectively usurping their legally codified duties.
Republicans to democrats or anyone else in on the constitutional conversation: No states rights for thee...minority rule for we...
"At least the Dems accept the results of elections and never deny the legitimacy of a president."
You mean like in 2000?
You mean like Stacy Abrams accepting the losing outcome of her gubernatorial race in Georgia in 2018? (NOT)
Like having Nader arrested when he attended a debate (with a ticket) they had excluded him from participating in? Removing Greens from the ballot all over the place, imposing unfair limits on third party ballot access?
Exactly! CanтАЩt have any unruly peasants that refuse corporate bribes getting close to being elected. People might start thinking they have the power to change things.
In 2000, Dems in the house wanted a recount. If only ONE Dem senator had signed on, the results of 2000 may have changed to Gore with the win.
There isn't really two parties. It's the Republicans and the closet-Republicans.
Recall the research done by the NYT and others that showed Bush winning.
The definitive study was done by USA Today. It found that Bush indeed won Florida.
"...The New York Times did not do its own recount. It did participate in a consortium. Here's what the consortium actually said: "If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin."
Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder, New York Times, Nov. 12, 2001..."
I must say, though, it's interesting to encounter a New York Times fan on the TK threads.
https://www.alternet.org/2008/05/new_york_times_perpetuates_the_myth_that_george_bush_won_the_2000_election/
The facts are that Bush won. His Florida margin was small because the Democratic radio and TV media called Gore the winner in Florida before the polls had closed in the most Republican part of the state. They did not know that the Pensacola region is in the Central Time Zone. Many voters in the long lines there left without voting when they heard their votes wouldn't matter. Most studies indicate that Bush would have received 5000 to 7500 more votes if the media had waited until after the polls closed to make their announcement.
We don't know who won because there wasn't a legally sanctioned--as mandated by Florida state law--recount of the entire state. The Supreme Court took care of that.
Given Gore's petulance following the election, I'm glad he didn't win. We've had two petulant Presidents now, three in a row if you count Trump. I've had enough of that.
The current President just warned of Armageddon....Your hand-wringing over the admittedly horrible leadership of GW rings hollow.
Haloperidol may help, but please consult your doctor first.
I no longer practice psychiatry, nor any other form of medicine; hydrocephalus has me on a fast-track to non-Alzheimer's dementia. I subscribe to the NEJM and follow PubMed. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34843030/. There are better choices than Haloperidol.
Didn't the Supreme Court take the final stand on that? They decided it, no one else did.
NCL provides a comment so wildly at variance with the facts it suggests another CIA seeding operation. Endless efforts at propaganda. For the record, as someone old enough to remember, Gore very, very unconvincingly challenged the vote count in very heavily Democratic regions in Florida. This triggered multiple recounts absent any legal foundation to conduct such recounts. The Democratic election activists transparently were trying to "recount" at least one example where Gore's votes exceeded Bush. Each time they recounted, they gained votes. Then they started declaring ambiguous poll cards in favor of Gore, and well, everyone could see where this was going. In the meantime the Florida Supreme Court, heavily Democratic, ignored the law about counting votes and ran cover for the recounters' recounting. Finally, after stalling from Florida Supreme Court, the Bush campaign appealed that State decision to the US Supreme Court which, interpreting Florida law as it plainly read, stopped the recount scam. The votes were counted, Florida declared for Bush, and he took office.
Having been born when Harry A-Bomb Truman was president, I too was "old enough" to be around in 2000. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court's decision to allow a recount. As it then stood, Bush was only ahead by less than 400 votes. On Jan 6, 2001, House Democrats voted to contest the results. All it would take was ONE Democrat (Republican-Lite) senator to join in, but none did, so Gore gaveled the session to a close and Bush was considered to then be the president.
"a comment so wildly at variance with the facts"
While you may be relying on what Kellyanne Conway would call, "Alternate facts," I suppose.
To review the case I would recommend reading the actual US Supreme Court Opinion, located at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/
Gore argued that after a recount that did not vindicate his campaign, that unnamed persons should conduct a manual recount of punch card ballots to discern the intention of "undervotes." Undervotes was the term used to describe punch card ballots that, when recorded, had not reflected a vote for a Presidential candidate. The idea was to cull 9000 of these in highly partisan Democratic Dad county (and around the state) and set their locals, again, undefined persons with zero defined process, to review these so called undercounted votes and let us know what the intention of voters were. I think a reasonable person would observe this was a license to cheat, like Democrats do, and to vote on behalf of persons who had not voted. The Florida Supreme Court thought this was a great idea, and could not be bothered to identify any rules for this new method that, according to the US Supreme Court's analysis, was violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Democrats love to sart the count after the selection, where they keep counting until they win, then call a halt to the election. This was done in 2020, and many objected to this subversion of our representative government.
Incidentally, the Gore campaign would be defined under today's fascistic regime, as an "insurrection," as he moved to reject the certification of the Florida votes. Democrats apparently lament that Democrat Senators in Congress would not join them in this "insurrection." But these were simpler times where the system (i.e. democratic elections) was yet respected by the government, and stealing elections was not "justified" by the imperative to defeat Orange Man.
APPLICABLE LAW (Florida State Law)
яВ╖ Sections 102.141(7) and 102.166, Florida Statutes, and Rules 1S-2.027, 1S-2.031, and 1S-2.051 Fla. Admin. Code,
govern recounts.
"If the returns for any office reflect that a candidate was defeated or eliminated by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office ... the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a recount of the votes cast with respect to such office or measure."
"...one of the simplest and most clearly written bits of legislation I've ever seen anywhere. The Florida court thought so too and ordered a recount. Then the United States Supreme Court stepped in and shut the recounts down. Bush was left as the victor and became the president."
You write: "This triggered multiple recounts absent any legal foundation to conduct such recounts."
Correct, which is why it was irrelevant, not worth mentioning, and a waste of time for those busybodies doing their own recounting, and consequently would have been dismissed forthwith once the proper legal recount began.
In closing, it's interesting to travel back in time and excavate yet another example of conservative and right-wing duplicity and hypocrisy.
The conservative Supreme Court, long one of the loudest klaxons touting the doctrine of "states rights," here with a 5-4 conservative majority, overrode not only Florida State Law but also high-hatted the Florida Supreme Court, the judicial body constitutionally responsible for executing the state law, effectively usurping their legally codified duties.
Republicans to democrats or anyone else in on the constitutional conversation: No states rights for thee...minority rule for we...
Again, I think you're taking the comment without an iota of irony. And I'm rather sure it is sarcasm. The last sentence makes that pretty clear.