Rex, do you call GW Bush your president?

and are you a heterosexual?

 

Nope. He's illegitimate.

I call him president-appointed.

I don't think I've ever referred to him as "president."

 

Rex if you think he is illegitimate even though he was elected through the way of our constitution than you might want to start using another word. Also do not bring up the US Supreme Court as the democrats of the Florida Supreme Court were the real court trying to change the rules of an election during an election.

Clinton never got 50% of the vote. He was impeached by the house. He was so bad his first two years that the people elected Republicans to control both sides of congress for the first time in 40 to 50 years. His administration got our soldiers slaughtered in Somalia ignoring the advice of the military. He had the chance to get Bin Laden but did not. He let Sadam ignore the UN demands. His "economic record" was helped but the deficit reduction/tax package of the first Bush. He lied under oath. ...etc... I could not stand him or his wife, but he was still my President as I am a proud citizen of the United States. I may not always agree with our elected officials policies, but I respect the position that they hold. Even if Florida had never happened I am sure you are the type of person who would have found some reason to say Bush is not my President.

 

DT brings up some very good points.

Rex - would you have called Gore your President had the outcome been different?

 

DallasTiger does not know of what he speaks.

The Florida Supreme Court DID NOT attempt to change the rules of an election during an election. He listens to too many Republican talking heads. What the FSC rightly did was invoke the latter of two statutes previously enacted by the Florida Legislature, and consistently applied court rulings made by prior Florida courts that always recognized the primacy of the voters.

The US Supreme Court found no fault, whatsoever, with that part of the FSC ruling.

It was the US Supreme Court that changed the rules of an election after the election, by imposing a mandatory deadline on Florida's electoral votes that was not a previous part of Florida law.

The USSC actually found fault with the FSC for NOT changing the rules of an election, because when the FSC ordered a recount in all Florida counties they gave local election officials the right to determine the intent of the voter by their own local standards, ACCORDING TO FLORIDA LAW. The USSC then said that a uniform standard should have been sent to the counties. Of course, it was a trap. The crooked US Supreme Court would have chastised them for creating new law if they had done such a thing.

 

First of all you listen to too many liberals. Before the Florida Supreme Court stepped in every "law" pundit on TV (including CNN) said there was no way they could over rule the lower court which ruled in favor of Bush. The ruling was to clear cut and left nothing to overturn, but they did it anyway.They did try to steal the election.
Most also say it was doomed from the start because Gore focused on three counties. If he had asked for the whole state he would have had a better case.
Since you are willing to overlook the democrats on the Florida Court I will overlook the the Sec of State being a Republican, and she had the authority to make the call.
Also most recounts by newspapers even now say Gore did not have the votes in those counties.
You are the one that confuses fact with fiction.
The US Supreme Court is not more crooked than the FLorida court. Most state courts that I have lived in are political junkies.

If the situation was reversed and Bush won the Popular but not the electoral vote because Gore won Florida based on a questionable Supreme Court decision, would you call Gore President? DO not ignore the real question by throwing in a bunch of BS. By the way I rarely listen to pundits.

 

I doubt there's a person on this planet

who watched more election coverage than I did.

I don't even know what you're talking about when you say "every law pundit on TV (including CNN) said there was no way they could over rule the lower court which ruled in favor of Bush." There was no lower court ruling to overrule when the FSC first told Katherine Harris she had to allow the counties to continue their recounts.

Then, on the ultimate recount, it was virtually unanimous among legal experts that that country bumpkin lawyer didn't know what he was doing, and that he would be overturned.

Your statements are a confused mess that don't comport with reality.

Gore asked for recounts in 3 counties EXACTLY as was prescribed by Florida law. No, he would not have had a "better case" if he had asked for recounts in all the counties. Perhaps in the perception of the US public that might have been true, but not according to Florida law.

If all the Florida votes had been recounted as they were legally supposed to, including the overvotes (which is where a voter punched a card and then also wrote in a candidate's name) Gore would have won by tens of thousands of votes, according to the newspaper consortium that looked at the ballots.

I don't call Bush president because he was appointed criminally by a tainted US Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court acted nobly and honorably during the entire affair, always supporting the primacy of the voters.

And, as proof that they were sticking to the law and not ruling simply for Gore, do you recall that they refused to force Dade County to recount, when the election supervisors there were bullied by Tom Delay's thugs? Everyone thought at the time that Gore desperately needed those Dade votes.

 

There was a lower court ruling in Bushes favor. Maybe you did not watch as much as you thought

 

The president is a liar and the US Supreme Court is crooked. Is there a hint of paranoia there?

 

"November 12th- Volusia County begins recount. Democrats announce suit to filed in Seminole County against Republican absentee ballots
November 13th- Federal court refuses to stop recount.- Florida election official announce that they will certify the election the next day- with the exception of absentee ballots- Democrats appeal decision-
November 14th - District Court upholds the deadline but states further recounts can continue and may be included. State Secretary of State certifies results with a 300 Bush lead.
November 15th- Broward County goes ahead with manual recount- Secretary of State Harrison refuses to accept additional votes based on recount
November 16th State Supreme Courts says manual recount can continue, but lower court must decide if the secretary of state must include them
November 17th Judge Terry Lewis says Harris can certify results, but the State Supreme Court puts a hold and that decision"

... later...

"November 27th- Gore officially contests the results the results
December 1- US Supreme Court hears arguments on the earlier extension of the date for recounts by Florida
December 2nd Contest trail begins before Jude N Sander Sauls.
December 4th The US Supreme Court orders clarification of earlier Florida Supreme Court decision
December 5th Judge Sauls rules against Gore
December 6th Gore appeals to Florida Supreme Court
December 7th Oral arguments before Florida Supreme Court
December 8th Florida Supreme Court orders manual recount in all of state where no votes were recorded"



Look at Nov 14, Nov 17, and Dec 5. Three state decisions that favored Bush. Nov 14 did say recounts could continue and MAY be included but also left the deadline that the Sec of State was enforcing.
16th SC butts in but still lets lower court have decision. WHen lower court decides in Bush's favor they butt in again.
Is this really honorable???????????
It seems that only the Florida Supreme Court was in favor of Gore. Weren't they appointed by Democrats????
I think it was Saunders decision on Dec 5 that most thought could not be overturned, because of they way it was written.
The democrats on NOV 12th even tried to throw out the Absentee ballots of our military.

Would you support Gore " as your President" in the same situation Bush was in?