Group taking a van across country to protest the 'inauguration' later this month needs travel advise
Jan 10th, 2001, 12:35 PM
#101
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kalena, I wasn't necessarily responding to your post directly, just getting it off my chest. I try not to begrudge those whose views differ from mine because it's all relative in many instances. As long as you have educated yourself, I feel that you are welcome to have whatever belief that you hold without me giving you a personal attack.
Someone mentioned that, had the roles been reversed that we'd be singing a different tune. Honestly, I wouldn't. I was actually prepared to accept Gore as my president, even if he didn't win the popular vote. I was prepared to give him my full support until he violated my trust. There are voting "irregularities" in every election - and these irregularities don't mean that Bush isn't the rightful president because these irregularities are not biased. Hopefully the system will get fixed and we won't have this confusion in the future. But in an election this close, Gore couldn't have condsidered himself the winner unlesss he re-counted every vote in the whole darn country. Bush won legitimately, based on our laws. Please give this man a fair shot. He is OUR president. You will do nothing except hurt this country by deligitimizing him. Isn't that what you liberals told us during the whole impeachment fiasco. Except in this case, OUR president hasn't actually done anything wrong. Until he breaks a law or violates our trust, I think you are all being a bunch of babies over this whole thing. As my mother would say, "piss or get off the pot" and "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Do something constructive with all of your energy. In the mean time, life will go on and we will continue to prosper even though Clinton has put this economy into a downward spiral and undone what Regan/Bush put into place. Wait, the liberals will likely blame Bush for that too. UGH!
Kristy
Someone mentioned that, had the roles been reversed that we'd be singing a different tune. Honestly, I wouldn't. I was actually prepared to accept Gore as my president, even if he didn't win the popular vote. I was prepared to give him my full support until he violated my trust. There are voting "irregularities" in every election - and these irregularities don't mean that Bush isn't the rightful president because these irregularities are not biased. Hopefully the system will get fixed and we won't have this confusion in the future. But in an election this close, Gore couldn't have condsidered himself the winner unlesss he re-counted every vote in the whole darn country. Bush won legitimately, based on our laws. Please give this man a fair shot. He is OUR president. You will do nothing except hurt this country by deligitimizing him. Isn't that what you liberals told us during the whole impeachment fiasco. Except in this case, OUR president hasn't actually done anything wrong. Until he breaks a law or violates our trust, I think you are all being a bunch of babies over this whole thing. As my mother would say, "piss or get off the pot" and "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Do something constructive with all of your energy. In the mean time, life will go on and we will continue to prosper even though Clinton has put this economy into a downward spiral and undone what Regan/Bush put into place. Wait, the liberals will likely blame Bush for that too. UGH!
Kristy
Jan 10th, 2001, 06:01 PM
#104
Guest
Posts: n/a
I keep reading "liberal" this and "conservative" that about the fiasco in Florida. Politics aside, it comes down to this. Al Gore’s campaign promises included fighting for the people, which he did in Florida. He said that he would honor the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, which he did, even though it left a legal opening for him to continue to fight.
He chose, instead, to end the fight for the good of the people. George W. Bush’s campaign promises included trusting the people and keeping the federal government out of the states. He did not trust the people to count the votes, even though his own state believes that hand recounts are the most accurate. He also went over the Florida state Supreme Court to bring in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, I don’t know if things would have gone differently if the roles had been reversed, but that is not the point. Al Gore kept his promises, George W. Bush did not.
He chose, instead, to end the fight for the good of the people. George W. Bush’s campaign promises included trusting the people and keeping the federal government out of the states. He did not trust the people to count the votes, even though his own state believes that hand recounts are the most accurate. He also went over the Florida state Supreme Court to bring in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, I don’t know if things would have gone differently if the roles had been reversed, but that is not the point. Al Gore kept his promises, George W. Bush did not.
Jan 10th, 2001, 06:21 PM
#105
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was just reading the conservative newspaper The Washington Post online and they have a story now that says that there may be as many as 750,000 (yes 750,000) demonstrators at the inauguration. Part of what they say is "The raw wounds left by the presidential election finale have created enough irritation to unleash one of the largest inauguration protests in years, according to veteran organizers and police officials...D.C. police are expecting about 750,000 people on Jan. 20 when President-elect Bush is sworn in, and they said they think many demonstrators will be content to voice their displeasure peacefully." So it looks like this Nando will be amid a *huge* crowd of fellow demonstrators.
Jan 11th, 2001, 05:12 AM
#107
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gore did not fight for the people. He faught to win. If he was truly fighting for the people, he would have wanted all of the votes to be counted - not just the ones that would benefit him. Bush wanted to give states power in terms of education and social programs. The supreme court in there to intervene when a consitutional crisis or a breech of our rights has been committed and that's what they did. Gore only abided by their decision because he was running short on time and the people were telling him to give up. Bush did trust the people. He trusts them to make their own decisions and make them in an intelligent manner. Because he disagreed with the democrats about the election doesn't mean that he doesn't trust the people. The people elected him - as fairly as can be expected in an election this close. There is no "real" winner per se, but there is a ligitimate winner and that man is Goerge W. Bush.
Kristy
Kristy
Jan 11th, 2001, 05:35 AM
#108
Guest
Posts: n/a
I just have to reply to some of the things Kristy keeps saying.
George W. didn't trust the people; his opposition to the same manual recounts that would take place in Texas was that the recounts would be biased by human intervention.
The Supreme Court decision is indefensible. Any legitimate Constitutional law scholar will tell you that. Kristy, I think that if you read the decision, you will be quite uncomfortable with it. For instance, it rests on the premise that the vote has to be certified by December 18, so Florida had to stop counting. This assertion ignores the fact that states frequently miss this deadline. And, of course, the stay of the counting over the weekend was a joke because it was premised on the idea that Bush would suffer irreparable harm if the vote count showed him not to be the winner.
You keep saying Gore couldn't be the legitimate winner unless the votes were counted nationwide. This would be true if the nationwide popular vote decided the winner. As you point out, it does not. The only issue was who should get Florida's 25 electoral votes, and the only way to know that was to count the votes in accordance with Florida law. No other state was close enough to make a difference in the electoral totals, so why keep saying all states would have to be recounted?
You mention that there are lots of irregularities, and these irregularities are not biased. Wowee! Yes, the irregularies are quite biased, in two ways. The voters who were allegedly prevented from voting were black. The faulty equipment was located mostly in minority or poor areas. Those are biases, my friend.
Finally, you say Bush did nothing wrong. I strongly disagree. The most honorable thing for these two candidates to do was agree early on to a state-wide manual recount (including all overseas ballots, not just military ones), which would have given us the most reliable count possible. Gore offered this early on, and offered to meet with Bush to discuss it. Bush fought this tooth and nail. That, in my opinion, was what he did wrong. There is a chance that he would have won the statewide manual recount and would be the legitimate winner. As it stands, he lost my respect when he chose the low road.
I hope you'll consider some of this instead of just spouting back the same stuff you've heard on talk radio.
George W. didn't trust the people; his opposition to the same manual recounts that would take place in Texas was that the recounts would be biased by human intervention.
The Supreme Court decision is indefensible. Any legitimate Constitutional law scholar will tell you that. Kristy, I think that if you read the decision, you will be quite uncomfortable with it. For instance, it rests on the premise that the vote has to be certified by December 18, so Florida had to stop counting. This assertion ignores the fact that states frequently miss this deadline. And, of course, the stay of the counting over the weekend was a joke because it was premised on the idea that Bush would suffer irreparable harm if the vote count showed him not to be the winner.
You keep saying Gore couldn't be the legitimate winner unless the votes were counted nationwide. This would be true if the nationwide popular vote decided the winner. As you point out, it does not. The only issue was who should get Florida's 25 electoral votes, and the only way to know that was to count the votes in accordance with Florida law. No other state was close enough to make a difference in the electoral totals, so why keep saying all states would have to be recounted?
You mention that there are lots of irregularities, and these irregularities are not biased. Wowee! Yes, the irregularies are quite biased, in two ways. The voters who were allegedly prevented from voting were black. The faulty equipment was located mostly in minority or poor areas. Those are biases, my friend.
Finally, you say Bush did nothing wrong. I strongly disagree. The most honorable thing for these two candidates to do was agree early on to a state-wide manual recount (including all overseas ballots, not just military ones), which would have given us the most reliable count possible. Gore offered this early on, and offered to meet with Bush to discuss it. Bush fought this tooth and nail. That, in my opinion, was what he did wrong. There is a chance that he would have won the statewide manual recount and would be the legitimate winner. As it stands, he lost my respect when he chose the low road.
I hope you'll consider some of this instead of just spouting back the same stuff you've heard on talk radio.
Jan 11th, 2001, 07:18 AM
#111
Guest
Posts: n/a
I AM a Constitutional scholar and the SCOTUS acted exactly as it is supposed to. It upheld the 14th Amendment and realized that the 12th was a "hard" date that could not be LEGALLY changed for this election. It could only be changed to impact FUTURE elections.
As for the claims that Gore offered to recount the entire state, this is a fallacy. Gore made that comment in a speach AFTER the legal date to ask for such a count had passed. Furthermore, in arguments before the FLa SC Both sides were asked if they wanted a full statewide recount of all of the votes, Gore atty Boies answered first with a resounding " NO your honor, we are not interested in a full recount"
If anything was indefensible it was Ginsberg and her band of Liberal activists that thought ignoring the Constitution was the better solution.
It is also a shame that the Liberals continue to throw the race card into the fray. There is no evidence of any racial bias in this election. There is only the empty rhetoric spewed by TRUE RACISTS like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Alcee Hastings.
As for the claims that Gore offered to recount the entire state, this is a fallacy. Gore made that comment in a speach AFTER the legal date to ask for such a count had passed. Furthermore, in arguments before the FLa SC Both sides were asked if they wanted a full statewide recount of all of the votes, Gore atty Boies answered first with a resounding " NO your honor, we are not interested in a full recount"
If anything was indefensible it was Ginsberg and her band of Liberal activists that thought ignoring the Constitution was the better solution.
It is also a shame that the Liberals continue to throw the race card into the fray. There is no evidence of any racial bias in this election. There is only the empty rhetoric spewed by TRUE RACISTS like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Alcee Hastings.
Jan 11th, 2001, 07:19 AM
#112
Guest
Posts: n/a
NANDO-If you truly wanted travel advice, you could have phrased your question something like, Driving cross country and need travel advice, instead of putting your political OPINIONS in it. You would have gotten much more information and not have openned up this whole damn can of worms again!!
The Forum was just getting back to normal again after all the election bull**** that was being posted on here and here you come, starting it all up again! Shame on you! And, shame on Fodors for allowing this to contiue!
The Forum was just getting back to normal again after all the election bull**** that was being posted on here and here you come, starting it all up again! Shame on you! And, shame on Fodors for allowing this to contiue!
Jan 11th, 2001, 07:28 AM
#113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Two comments to help clear the air. Marian refers to the WASHINGTON POST as a conservative newspaper. It is proudly and strongly liberal, however. Also, some of the more liberal posters consider abortion to be a religious question. Though it is true that religious people generally condemn abortion and non- or anti-religious people are generally for abortion rights, religion is not a prerequisite to taking a stand on the question. Two atheists of the Left, columnists Christopher Hitchens and Nat Hentoff, are very much anti-abortion. Just something to ponder.
Jan 11th, 2001, 08:14 AM
#114
Guest
Posts: n/a
I should have said no NON-PARTISAN constitutional scholar would defend the Supreme Court's decision. Also, I question whether the person billing him/herself is in fact a Constitutional Scholar, as I do not read the opinion as "upholding" the 14th Amendment. What a strange way to put it. The way I read it, the Court construed and expanded the protections of the 14th Amendment to require a uniform standard in manual recounts, ignoring the undisputed record that manual recounts are the only way to be accurate in a close election. The Court thereby leaves us with a situation in which the counting process is flawed, but any attempts to improve it and obtain a result that more closely reflects the will of the voters somehow violate equal protection. So equal protection requires that if something is bad and unreliable, you can't fix it unless you can fix it perfectly. Does that make sense?
Also, you and the Supremes say the December 12 deadline embodied in Federal law is carved in stone. Remember, that deadline is the date by which the state has to make a choice. Failure to do so means only that Congress does not have to respect a later choice. No one was suggesting that this deadline be changed, only that FL would lose its safe harbor IF its final vote total showed Gore won. To say that the safe harbor concept is more important than getting the most accurate vote count possible is to have the tail wag the dog, don't you think?
Also, perhaps our Constitutional Scholar will explain why the court declined to consider the equal protection question the first time it was presented. Recall that when Bush raised it in his first cert petition, the manual recounts would have been limited to only three counties. Why is there a more troubling equal protection violation when the FL Supreme Court orders a state-wide undervote recount than when Gore sought a recount of three counties? The answer, I think, is that the Supremes didn't think Bush needed to be saved the first time around. The second time around, they knew Bush might lose, so they had to act.
And by the way, I think it is not very imaginative so say that the deadline for a full recount had already passed when Gore made his offer, so there was no way such a recount could occur. If these two potential leaders of the free world decided to end this thing through a reasonable resolution, they could have made it so. An example would be a stipulation that the vote be certified based on the machine total, with both parties to file a contest seeking a statewide manual recount under a particular standard.
Also, you and the Supremes say the December 12 deadline embodied in Federal law is carved in stone. Remember, that deadline is the date by which the state has to make a choice. Failure to do so means only that Congress does not have to respect a later choice. No one was suggesting that this deadline be changed, only that FL would lose its safe harbor IF its final vote total showed Gore won. To say that the safe harbor concept is more important than getting the most accurate vote count possible is to have the tail wag the dog, don't you think?
Also, perhaps our Constitutional Scholar will explain why the court declined to consider the equal protection question the first time it was presented. Recall that when Bush raised it in his first cert petition, the manual recounts would have been limited to only three counties. Why is there a more troubling equal protection violation when the FL Supreme Court orders a state-wide undervote recount than when Gore sought a recount of three counties? The answer, I think, is that the Supremes didn't think Bush needed to be saved the first time around. The second time around, they knew Bush might lose, so they had to act.
And by the way, I think it is not very imaginative so say that the deadline for a full recount had already passed when Gore made his offer, so there was no way such a recount could occur. If these two potential leaders of the free world decided to end this thing through a reasonable resolution, they could have made it so. An example would be a stipulation that the vote be certified based on the machine total, with both parties to file a contest seeking a statewide manual recount under a particular standard.
Jan 11th, 2001, 08:16 AM
#115
Guest
Posts: n/a
I consider myself a moderate. Haven't heard an anti-choice comment/argument yet that wasn't steeped in their own particular brand of religion.
I am firmly pro-choice, meaning that I have as much right telling someone expecting a severely deformed mentally retarded baby that they should abort as I would telling an unmarried pregnant preteen that they must carry their baby to full term at any cost to their own health. Until you are in that position, you cannot know what is the best for you. Any dcision made will be a difficult one. And yes, I am very active in my mainstream Christian religion.
I am firmly pro-choice, meaning that I have as much right telling someone expecting a severely deformed mentally retarded baby that they should abort as I would telling an unmarried pregnant preteen that they must carry their baby to full term at any cost to their own health. Until you are in that position, you cannot know what is the best for you. Any dcision made will be a difficult one. And yes, I am very active in my mainstream Christian religion.
Jan 11th, 2001, 08:32 AM
#117
Guest
Posts: n/a
The SCOTUS did not act on the first cert because it was allowing FLa the opportunity to fix their own problem. When they could not fix it in accordance to the Constitution they had no choice but to act. I would have rather seen the SCOTUS stay out of it. However, the actions and legislating of the Fla SC had to be addressed.
Both sides had the opportunity to get a full state recount. As I pointed out before, Boies turned that offer down in front of the Fla SC. Gore's statements in front of the cameras took place after the LEGAL date to request a recount had passed. Changing that deadline would have also been illegal, because, election contests must be held using laws in effect PRIOR to the election itself. Changing the deadline is tantamount to changing the law. Thus, it is illegal.
Both sides had the opportunity to get a full state recount. As I pointed out before, Boies turned that offer down in front of the Fla SC. Gore's statements in front of the cameras took place after the LEGAL date to request a recount had passed. Changing that deadline would have also been illegal, because, election contests must be held using laws in effect PRIOR to the election itself. Changing the deadline is tantamount to changing the law. Thus, it is illegal.
Jan 11th, 2001, 09:46 AM
#118
Guest
Posts: n/a
THE KENNEBUNKPORT HILLBILLY
(sung to the tune of The Beverly Hillbillies theme song)
Come and listen to my story 'bout a boy name Bush. His IQ was zero
and his head was up his tush. He drank like a fish while he drove all about.
But that didn't matter 'cuz his daddy bailed him out.
DUI, that is. Criminal record. Cover-up.
Well, the first thing you know little Georgie goes to Yale. He can't spell his name but they never let him fail. He spends all his time hangin' out with student folk. And that's when he learns how to snort a line of coke.
Blow, that is. White gold. Nose candy.
The next thing you know there's a war in Vietnam. Kinfolks say, "George, stay at home with Mom. Let the common people get maimed and scarred. We'll buy you a spot in the Texas Air Guard."
Cushy, that is. Country clubs. Nose candy.
Twenty years later George gets a little bored. He trades in the booze, says that Jesus is his Lord. He says, "Now the White House is the place I wanna be." So he called his daddy's friends and they called the GOP.
Gun owners, that is. Falwell. Jesse Helms.
Come November 7, the election ran late. Kinfolks said "Jeb, give the boy your state! Don't let those colored folks get into the polls." So they put up barricades so they couldn't punch their holes.
Chads, that is. Duval County. Miami-Dade.
Before the votes were counted five Supremes stepped in. Told all the voters "Hey, we want George to win." "Stop counting votes!" was their
solemn invocation. And that's how George finally got his coronation.
Rigged, that is. Illegitimate. No moral authority.
>Y'all come vote now. Ya hear?
_____________
Financed by the Katherine Harris Foundation for Corrective Plastic Surgery.
(sung to the tune of The Beverly Hillbillies theme song)
Come and listen to my story 'bout a boy name Bush. His IQ was zero
and his head was up his tush. He drank like a fish while he drove all about.
But that didn't matter 'cuz his daddy bailed him out.
DUI, that is. Criminal record. Cover-up.
Well, the first thing you know little Georgie goes to Yale. He can't spell his name but they never let him fail. He spends all his time hangin' out with student folk. And that's when he learns how to snort a line of coke.
Blow, that is. White gold. Nose candy.
The next thing you know there's a war in Vietnam. Kinfolks say, "George, stay at home with Mom. Let the common people get maimed and scarred. We'll buy you a spot in the Texas Air Guard."
Cushy, that is. Country clubs. Nose candy.
Twenty years later George gets a little bored. He trades in the booze, says that Jesus is his Lord. He says, "Now the White House is the place I wanna be." So he called his daddy's friends and they called the GOP.
Gun owners, that is. Falwell. Jesse Helms.
Come November 7, the election ran late. Kinfolks said "Jeb, give the boy your state! Don't let those colored folks get into the polls." So they put up barricades so they couldn't punch their holes.
Chads, that is. Duval County. Miami-Dade.
Before the votes were counted five Supremes stepped in. Told all the voters "Hey, we want George to win." "Stop counting votes!" was their
solemn invocation. And that's how George finally got his coronation.
Rigged, that is. Illegitimate. No moral authority.
>Y'all come vote now. Ya hear?
_____________
Financed by the Katherine Harris Foundation for Corrective Plastic Surgery.
Jan 11th, 2001, 10:46 AM
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
thinkagain:
Give me a break. I have read the ruling and I agree with it. There was a blatant violation of our rights. Why don't you stop spouting your liberal spin. Bush felt that human intervention would change things because there was no statewide processs in place and humans have biases. He may have also been afraid of losing, but the fact remains that there was not standard and different people interpret a vote in different ways. In terms of a national recount, well think about it. There are more states than just Florida that were very close so why just focus on Florida. That's because that's all Gore needed to win. If we wanted to find the "real" winner then he would want to recount all the votes in all the states that were close. He didn't want to find the real winner, all he wanted to do is re-count his way into the presidency.
Kristy
Give me a break. I have read the ruling and I agree with it. There was a blatant violation of our rights. Why don't you stop spouting your liberal spin. Bush felt that human intervention would change things because there was no statewide processs in place and humans have biases. He may have also been afraid of losing, but the fact remains that there was not standard and different people interpret a vote in different ways. In terms of a national recount, well think about it. There are more states than just Florida that were very close so why just focus on Florida. That's because that's all Gore needed to win. If we wanted to find the "real" winner then he would want to recount all the votes in all the states that were close. He didn't want to find the real winner, all he wanted to do is re-count his way into the presidency.
Kristy
