Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Is voter fraud happening?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

    Actually, that is simply not true. First, if you counted the ballots in any race that close 100 times, you would likely get 80 different tallies, and each successive one becoming less accurate for certain types of ballots (particular punch card) because the physical handling of the ballots degrades the reliability.. The 2000 race in Florida was truly within the margin of machine and human error to count. That recognized. The "count" you refer to, actually confirmed (to the margin of error), that the count that the Gore team and the Florida Supreme Court ordered would actually have resulted in Bush winning.

    And for the record (for those that have either never actually read, or did but not literate enough in judicial opinions to understand), the SCOTUS did NOT actually decide the election. The actual ruling regarding the constitutionality of the particular recount ordered by the FLOTUS was actually deemed unconstitutional by a 7-2 vote of SCOUTS. The 5-4 vote was on the remedial portion of the ruling, which actually did not decide the outcome. What was ordered was to remand the case BACK to the FLOTUS for review and further adjudication consistent with the 7-2 part of the ruling that the particular recount they had ordered violated the U.S. Constitution. NOTHING, in that SCOTUS ruling precluded the Florida court from coming up with revised standards for the recount to proceed.

    So, why didn't they? Not because of anything that the SCOTUS had ruled, but because the FLOTUS (which had been making up the law on the fly since the case first got to them) had previously ruled that it was the intent of the state legislature (in which the U.S. Constitution places absolute plenary authority in determining the manner electors are to be chosen) to meet the federal safe harbor deadline for selecting the state's slate of electors. That just happened to be the very next day, meaning as a matter of practicality, the Florida Supreme Court could ONLY have done so by ignoring their OWN prior ruling, which would have been so ridiculously transparent as to be impeachable.

    Of course, one little noted thing, long before that had already proven that the FLOTUS was making it up as they went along. In Bush v. Gore I, a UNANIMOUS SCOTUS remanded the case back to the FLOTUS, asking the state court to clarify if its decision to extend the contest period of the election was based on the State Constitution, or on its interpretation of the statutory scheme put in place by the State Legislature. When the case was remanded to them, the FLOTUS asked the parties for briefs on the matter...this was the smoking gun of complete judicial lawlessness. The SCOTUS had asked the FLOTUS to clarify why THEY had ruled the way they did. Why would the justices need briefs from the parties to help them explain the basis of THEIR ruling? There was no reason for it unless they knew that they had no rational way to explain it (in a manner that would be good for the candidate they were clearly choosing) and were looking for a lifeline...for the party to give them a reason in the absence of being able to think of one themselves.
    I stand corrected, in regards to the USSC. Thanks for setting that straight.

    But in regards to human beings not being able to get an accurate recount, that if you recounted 100 times, you could get 80 different totals....no, I cannot buy that. Unless you are employing chimps to do the recounts. So, that does not seem reasonable to me, given bean counters have a high degree of accuracy.

    Another thing that I know is factual is that 56 thousand black voters were purged from the florida rolls, prior to the gore vs bush election in florida, for supposedly being convicted felons, who of course in florida cannot vote. Seems like it was the Sec of State, a GOPher who made this decision, without checking to see if they were actually felons. Turned out none were felons. Is this fraud? Sure, although the CIA coined term, plausible deniability was used, So, just a mistake, nothing to see here, move along. I guess you can look at a roll from a black section, and just cull out the black males, because we all know most of them are convicted felons. And they were so busy they did not have the time to check. Or perhaps the person brought the wrong pair of glasses to work, and that caused the mistake. Looks like the dems add dead people and the GOP subtracts eligible voters. LOL

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #32
      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

      I stand corrected, in regards to the USSC. Thanks for setting that straight.

      But in regards to human beings not being able to get an accurate recount, that if you recounted 100 times, you could get 80 different totals....no, I cannot buy that. Unless you are employing chimps to do the recounts. So, that does not seem reasonable to me, given bean counters have a high degree of accuracy.

      Another thing that I know is factual is that 56 thousand black voters were purged from the florida rolls, prior to the gore vs bush election in florida, for supposedly being convicted felons, who of course in florida cannot vote. Seems like it was the Sec of State, a GOPher who made this decision, without checking to see if they were actually felons. Turned out none were felons. Is this fraud? Sure, although the CIA coined term, plausible deniability was used, So, just a mistake, nothing to see here, move along. I guess you can look at a roll from a black section, and just cull out the black males, because we all know most of them are convicted felons. And they were so busy they did not have the time to check. Or perhaps the person brought the wrong pair of glasses to work, and that caused the mistake. Looks like the dems add dead people and the GOP subtracts eligible voters. LOL
      Good points don't forget the voting machines that would only record votes for W. no matter who you entered. check out the documentary unprecedented

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #33
        Originally posted by redrover View Post

        Good points don't forget the voting machines that would only record votes for W. no matter who you entered. check out the documentary unprecedented
        What documentary?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #34
          EMAILS: Clinton Allies ‘Believe The Obama Forces’ Committed Voter Fraud In ’08

          Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/15/em...#ixzz4ND88b7FV

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #35
            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
            EMAILS: Clinton Allies ‘Believe The Obama Forces’ Committed Voter Fraud In ’08

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/15/em...#ixzz4ND88b7FV
            Don't forget this year I have personally fixed the election for Trump to lose. When Trump starts whining about it tell all your friends you know the guy responsible for putting in the fix.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #36
              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

              She will definitely get more illegitimate votes than he will.
              But the unconstutitional voter ID laws will deter more legitimiate Hilliary votes than for Dishonest Dumbass Donald.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #37
                Originally posted by RDK View Post

                But the unconstutitional voter ID laws will deter more legitimiate Hilliary votes than for Dishonest Dumbass Donald.
                That was the intent from the very beginning not an unintended consequence.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                  I stand corrected, in regards to the USSC. Thanks for setting that straight.

                  But in regards to human beings not being able to get an accurate recount, that if you recounted 100 times, you could get 80 different totals....no, I cannot buy that. Unless you are employing chimps to do the recounts. So, that does not seem reasonable to me, given bean counters have a high degree of accuracy.

                  Another thing that I know is factual is that 56 thousand black voters were purged from the florida rolls, prior to the gore vs bush election in florida, for supposedly being convicted felons, who of course in florida cannot vote. Seems like it was the Sec of State, a GOPher who made this decision, without checking to see if they were actually felons. Turned out none were felons. Is this fraud? Sure, although the CIA coined term, plausible deniability was used, So, just a mistake, nothing to see here, move along. I guess you can look at a roll from a black section, and just cull out the black males, because we all know most of them are convicted felons. And they were so busy they did not have the time to check. Or perhaps the person brought the wrong pair of glasses to work, and that caused the mistake. Looks like the dems add dead people and the GOP subtracts eligible voters. LOL
                  Yawn, and there is substantial statistical evidence to support the conclusion that the early call of Florida, before polls were closed in the panhandle negatively impacted turnout in that heavily republican area.

                  You are simply wrong that it is possible to get a perfectly accurate ballot count, especially when using partially subjective standards, ballots which become physically less reliable with each round of handling, etc. One could argue that if you want to stick with strictly objective standards, machine counts will be more accurate.

                  Now, what we should have (and it is the ONLY area of intervention on the part of the Federal Government I would support vis-א-vis the conduct of elections) is to have electronic voting machines, with verification printouts (with unique ballot IDs to match up to the electronic record) that the voter can verify and deposit into a secured ballot box to act as a check/cross reference against potential voter fraud.

                  In Florida, there was also a democrat election official caught driving around with a Votamatic ballot machine in the Palm Beach/Miami Dade area...which had a large number of precincts with a statistically significant increase in "overvotes" and a corresponding decrease in Bush votes in the mandatory machine recount. Guess what happens if you stick a bunch of already cast ballots back in a voting machine and punch for Gore. Gore votes stay Gore Votes, undervotes become Gore votes, and Bush votes become overvotes.

                  BTW, the press review cited earlier evaluated the ballots by four different standards, only one of which resulted in a Gore victory...by a 3 vote margin. 3 out of nearly 6 million, only a fool believes that you could ever know for certain the accuracy of a vote that close.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                    Yawn, and there is substantial statistical evidence to support the conclusion that the early call of Florida, before polls were closed in the panhandle negatively impacted turnout in that heavily republican area.

                    You are simply wrong that it is possible to get a perfectly accurate ballot count, especially when using partially subjective standards, ballots which become physically less reliable with each round of handling, etc. One could argue that if you want to stick with strictly objective standards, machine counts will be more accurate.

                    Now, what we should have (and it is the ONLY area of intervention on the part of the Federal Government I would support vis-א-vis the conduct of elections) is to have electronic voting machines, with verification printouts (with unique ballot IDs to match up to the electronic record) that the voter can verify and deposit into a secured ballot box to act as a check/cross reference against potential voter fraud.

                    In Florida, there was also a democrat election official caught driving around with a Votamatic ballot machine in the Palm Beach/Miami Dade area...which had a large number of precincts with a statistically significant increase in "overvotes" and a corresponding decrease in Bush votes in the mandatory machine recount. Guess what happens if you stick a bunch of already cast ballots back in a voting machine and punch for Gore. Gore votes stay Gore Votes, undervotes become Gore votes, and Bush votes become overvotes.

                    BTW, the press review cited earlier evaluated the ballots by four different standards, only one of which resulted in a Gore victory...by a 3 vote margin. 3 out of nearly 6 million, only a fool believes that you could ever know for certain the accuracy of a vote that close.
                    I think the only answer is to elect Trump and be done with all this voting nonsense.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by redrover View Post

                      I think the only answer is to elect Trump and be done with all this voting nonsense.
                      Why do you keep making responses that have absolutely nothing to do, let alone logically flow, from what I have posted? My point was that the SCOTUS did not "decide" the 2000 race, nor is there any objective, reasonable standard by which Gore was cheated out of it anymore than the same could have been said for Bush had it gone the other way.

                      There is such a thing as margin of error, particularly in hand recounts with subjective standards of nearly 6 million votes. Anyone who declares that Gore coming out 3 votes ahead in one of four standards applied can be presented as him "really" being the winner is just being willfully obtuse about the limits of human ability.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                        Why do you keep making responses that have absolutely nothing to do, let alone logically flow, from what I have posted? My point was that the SCOTUS did not "decide" the 2000 race, nor is there any objective, reasonable standard by which Gore was cheated out of it anymore than the same could have been said for Bush had it gone the other way.

                        There is such a thing as margin of error, particularly in hand recounts with subjective standards of nearly 6 million votes. Anyone who declares that Gore coming out 3 votes ahead in one of four standards applied can be presented as him "really" being the winner is just being willfully obtuse about the limits of human ability.
                        I know how it feels to lose when the fix is in. I'm a Mets fan and they were eliminated in the wild card game when the Giants cheated by putting something on the field his name is Madison Bumgarner pitcher.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by redrover View Post

                          I think the only answer is to elect Trump and be done with all this voting nonsense.
                          Might never have another election with Dumbass Dishonest Donald as Dictator.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by RDK View Post

                            Might never have another election with Dumbass Dishonest Donald as Dictator.
                            Right what would be the point Hitler didn't bother with elections. It would just be a waste of tax payer money printing all those ballots with only Trump's name on them.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by redrover View Post

                              I know how it feels to lose when the fix is in. I'm a Mets fan and they were eliminated in the wild card game when the Giants cheated by putting something on the field his name is Madison Bumgarner pitcher.
                              The "fix", if there was anyone the "fix" was in for, it was Gore. From what was pretty clearly vote tampering between the first count and the automatic recount (the democratic official driving around with the Votamatic punching already cast ballots for Gore (which perfectly explains the statistically unlikely change in the number of Bush vote decrease and overvote increase in that area in the recount) to the state Supreme Court which made several utterly baseless legal rulings (all favoring Gore):
                              - Barring the Secretary of State from certifying the election to extend the protest phase (which required them to interpret the word may to mean must) and extending the protest phase (which every legal analyst in the world waying in correctly argued helped Gore because the legal standard he would have to meet in the contest phase was significantly higher than in the protest phase;
                              - Imposing such a ridiculously low legal standard in the contest phase, that it actually meant that in practice Gore had a lower burden of proof in the contest phase than the in the protest phase
                              - Asking for the parties to provide briefs to the court on the issue of whether the courts own ruling was based on the state constitution or its interpretation of state law (this question was posed when the case was UNANIMOUSLY remanded to the state supreme court by the SCOTUS). Nobody has yet to explain what possible reason there would be for the state supreme court justices to ask for briefs from the parties to help the justices explain their own reasoning behind their earlier ruling.
                              - Taking a provision of state law that specifically applied to DAMAGED ballots that could not be run through vote tabulation devices (which were to be counter based on the clear intent of the voter) and applied it to ALL BALLOTS (including those which could be read by the machine tabulators), which opened the whole process up to the ridiculously subjective nonsense we saw of people holding ballots up to the light with magnifying glasses.

                              In the end, it was the Florida Supreme Courts own ruling that put them between a rock and a hardplace. Upon the SECOND remand of the case from the U.S. Supreme Court, the only way the Florida Court could have helped Gore (again) would have been to ignore their OWN prior ruling stating that it was the intent of the state legislature (which is case closed vis-א-vis how electors are to be chosen) to meet the federal "safe harbor" deadline. If they had done that, it would have been so completely transparent as to be impeachable.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                                The "fix", if there was anyone the "fix" was in for, it was Gore. From what was pretty clearly vote tampering between the first count and the automatic recount (the democratic official driving around with the Votamatic punching already cast ballots for Gore (which perfectly explains the statistically unlikely change in the number of Bush vote decrease and overvote increase in that area in the recount) to the state Supreme Court which made several utterly baseless legal rulings (all favoring Gore):
                                - Barring the Secretary of State from certifying the election to extend the protest phase (which required them to interpret the word may to mean must) and extending the protest phase (which every legal analyst in the world waying in correctly argued helped Gore because the legal standard he would have to meet in the contest phase was significantly higher than in the protest phase;
                                - Imposing such a ridiculously low legal standard in the contest phase, that it actually meant that in practice Gore had a lower burden of proof in the contest phase than the in the protest phase
                                - Asking for the parties to provide briefs to the court on the issue of whether the courts own ruling was based on the state constitution or its interpretation of state law (this question was posed when the case was UNANIMOUSLY remanded to the state supreme court by the SCOTUS). Nobody has yet to explain what possible reason there would be for the state supreme court justices to ask for briefs from the parties to help the justices explain their own reasoning behind their earlier ruling.
                                - Taking a provision of state law that specifically applied to DAMAGED ballots that could not be run through vote tabulation devices (which were to be counter based on the clear intent of the voter) and applied it to ALL BALLOTS (including those which could be read by the machine tabulators), which opened the whole process up to the ridiculously subjective nonsense we saw of people holding ballots up to the light with magnifying glasses.

                                In the end, it was the Florida Supreme Courts own ruling that put them between a rock and a hardplace. Upon the SECOND remand of the case from the U.S. Supreme Court, the only way the Florida Court could have helped Gore (again) would have been to ignore their OWN prior ruling stating that it was the intent of the state legislature (which is case closed vis-א-vis how electors are to be chosen) to meet the federal "safe harbor" deadline. If they had done that, it would have been so completely transparent as to be impeachable.
                                Then we have the theft of the 2004 election where the exit polls in Ohio were wildly out of sync with the official vote totals.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X