posted on December 27, 2000 01:01:57 AM new
One of the hardest things that the majority of American voters have to face concerning the GOP's recent overthrowing of Democracy and the voice of the people in a democratic election is what do you do next?
If you are still in shock that any politician or political party could so easily overthrow our Constitutional right to a fair and complete election process, then you will soon be replacing that feeling with anger. The first thing that the American voter should realize is that their anger is not just themselves. If you are angry at having the American people's democratic election run-over by what the GOP and what the Bush Bunch did, you are in good company. So what do you do next?
WE CAN AGREE
Anyone who understands just how fragile our democracy truly is knows the terrible damage done to it in this last election in Florida. That a political party or any branch of the government can prevent our election from happening is so mind-boggling that one has to gasp in shock. That it now has precedence and can happen anytime in any election whatsoever in the future is now the law of the land. That the tampering of votes that was condoned by the courts at any level is unprecedented, but realize that this is what took place just this last month. You are not alone in believing that we are all in Big Trouble -- even those who voted for Bush and those who support him now.
WE, THE PEOPLE, HAVE A RIGHT
We reserve the Right to refuse the election of any politician who uses criminal means to win. You may interpret the GOP's efforts to block a legal recount and to drag their feet as long as possible as a criminal act. You may refuse to accept the presidency of GW Bush as legitimate. You have the Right to refuse him as your President and have every right to call for new elections.
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
Orders issued by persons who obtained their offices by illegal means are not valid. You may feel that this extends to the Bush Presidency. You should make your feelings known and refuse to obey any orders from the illegitimate president if and when you can. You are encouraged to let others know of your decision and to encourage them to do likewise. Only be resisting this outrage from passing away and by forming protests can we hope to succeed in new elections. You are asked to gather together for the purposes of making protests and political change by peaceful means.
DO NOT ENCOURAGE CRIMINAL ACTS
However you may chose to protest, whether through forums on the Internet, articles that you write for newspapers and magazines, or even taking on an active role in restoring our Democracy, make your thoughts and feelings known. Let no branch of the government nor any political party ever again halt or stop our lawful elections. And do not let the memory of this outrage pass you by so that the guilty parties will not benefit from their acts against the people of America.
ENCOURAGE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
Start NOW in demanding criminal prosecution of those involved to the highest levels that subverted our election. SUPPORT the intervention of Special Prosecutors in hounding these wrong-doers in their offices. ENCOURAGE others to do the same. Call for the Treason Act to be implemented with the guilty parties.
YOU ARE NOT ALONE
There are millions of angry voters and many of them are not just going to take the loss of our civil right to free elections by doing nothing. You are not alone in this struggle for our voices to be heard, our anger at these powerful criminal acts against us, you desire to fight for our rights before they disappear into the history books.
posted on December 27, 2000 06:56:04 AM new
Borillar -- good post.
One of the first -- and continuing -- things we have to do is to help stiffen the spines of our Dem elected officials. They seem just a wee bit too eager to be bipartisan.
We've got to mobilize and block that Ashcroft nomination. "Conservative" is one thing -- but someone THAT racist as attorney general is a nightmare (or a fascist's wet dream, depending on your point of view, I suppose).
Numerous organizations -- some sprung up just for the occasion -- will be demonstrating in D.C. on January 20th -- the Counter-Inauguration. So far, they're expecting as many as 750,000 people, quite a turnout. Protests will be held on Jan. 20 in other cities as well.
posted on December 27, 2000 09:30:36 AM new
Thank you CleverGirl. I already planned on being there to protest the innauguration. I won't wait for the spineless Democratic party -- they're waiting for their orders from the Corporations. No, if anything is going to be done, it'll have to be by each one of us. It will be up to each of us to band together and to form resistance groups. I hope to bring along as many people I know with me when we go to make our protest. I only wish that republican voters would wake up and join us.
posted on December 27, 2000 06:15:35 PM new
Actually, the thing I was pleased about the after election, was the fact that the democratic party was stopped from gaining the right to interpert the voters "intent". I was disgusted by the attemped manipulation of the vote count via all of the definitions of "chads" and how to count them.
If the chad ain't punched out it ain't a vote. It says so right in the instructions (at least it does on my California ballot).
There is no way to determine a voters intent. The machine count should have stood, as it was the fairest way to count the votes. When it is close, run all of the ballots through the counting machines, when you get the same count three times, that is the final count. The minute people start counting votes, you are open to interpertation of voter intent, VERY BAD!
As far as I'm concered neither party was any "better" then the other. They were both despicable.
Borillar, I guess about half of the population disagrees with you. (since they voted for Bush and were happy when he won).
I guess my question is, if Gore won and a Bush supporter wrote the same post you did (subsitituting Gore for Bush), what would your response be?
posted on December 27, 2000 06:38:29 PM newgisi:, I only am a Gore supporter as far as I can throw him. I have said in here beofr that there is not enough time and energy to rail at the whole system and how bad the Democratic party is on top of the GOP. Rather, I pick the worst of the offenders and rail on them. That happens to be the GOP and the Bush Bunch.
I can agree with Bush on one thing though: that a hand count is much more reliable than this current machine-counting system. It is not so hard to interpret a citizen's intention when they accidently double-punch and simply write in the words,"NY VOTE IS FOR GORE". The machine-count doesn't count those ballots, but it's more than obvious what the voter's intent was. Other situations were clear enough to deiscern the voter's intent to the Republican representatives who sat there and agreed with each one. Clearly, the impossible ones were not ever going to be counted at all.
I think that Gore should have called for a state-wide recount to begin with and was surprized that he did not. However, that would not have stopped the Bush Camp from attempting to block the process - lord knows you can find any reason for a lawsuit and stop the process.
I am appalled at ttwo things from this last election: the first you know and that is that Bush should not have contested the recount, but instead have gone through with his demand for a state-wide recount (which he later retracted. There's that word again!)
The second thing that appals me is how hard it is to get people out to vote, then have machines so bad throughout the nation that miscounts the election. Ever wonder why Clinton got a second term in office? That ought to be on the top of your list to Get Fixed as well. just think of all of those millions of votes nationwide that got thrown out by these old machines -- maybe Bucannon would have won?
Truely, no system or process is going to be 100% perfect (in fact, those looking for 100% perfection should go read their favorite religion's holy book). It is up to We the People to ensure that our system is both Fair and Accurate. When it is not both Fair and Accurate, then we are split and something has to be done. To call for Special Proscecutors to delve into the private sex lives of our President is certainly one option -- that having been given wide and accepted prescidence already.
posted on December 27, 2000 08:59:31 PM new
Ok, I understand that there will be a protest in Washington, DC on Jan. 20th (inaugeration day). Unfortunately, I live in SC and can't make it to Washington. I've done several searches on the net and can't find anything local.
So here's a suggestion - let's wear a black armband that day. This is something anyone can do.
posted on December 28, 2000 04:18:41 AM new
Conservatives say that they've adopted the Liberals' methods, and it's true but, more than that, the Liberals seem to have forgotten how to use the methods. Activism nowadays is in the Conservative game and one of the most active is the gang at the Free Republic.
Take back your activism. They stole it from you, steal it back. Take the page from their book that they took from yours.
Call your Congressmen, write them, email them, fax them. If you're unhappy, tell them. Tell them you think the election was stolen, if that's what you think. If you don't want your Congressmen to roll over in a bipartisan goo, tell them that. Tell your Congressman - "Hey, I elected you, now stand up and block this agenda that this pretender president wants to push through. Stonewall for however many years until you come up for re-election, if you want to be re-elected." Call, write, email and fax all the Democratic Congressman and tell them that. The black armband thing is a nice idea, but not useful for this situation, it's akin to when everyone used to turn their headlights on on the anniversary of JFK's death.
Here's a link to a couple of the Freeper pages. They've rounded up a bunch of services where you can send faxes for free, as well as a bunch of fax numbers for Congressmen and newspapers. Make a stink.
I think it was a wake up call for me and millions to find that it is common for votes on both sides that large blocks votes are not counted or rejected.
I was also not aware that there were so many different types of ballots used within a state. I assumed that they were all the same on the national level excluding the various props. I was also unaware that our voting methods were so antiquated.
Personally, I would have liked for a whole recount in states that were so close. How to do this fairly is not clear to me. We also should not have to wonder if the "chad" tray was full and whether someone let it get too full etc., etc.
I know that it is each states choice of which ballot to use but somehow there should be a standardized ballot and updated equipment that we can be assured works properly.
One of the things that bothered me was that there was a system set up to contest and it was played out by the clock and I guess this happens in many court cases but it does not make it right and this goes for either side. I have voted, although not many times, Republican or split my ballot.
Donny,
While I do not care for Bush I would have felt better IF I knew he was there because he was voted in fairly but I would also want to know that Gore got there fairly too. I would like to know that each vote counted.
I do think the voter will be more aware the next time and I hope that people will not forget what happened. I also wonder how many times that this has happened before? I think the only reason it was brought to our attention this time was that the vote was so close. Was it stolen? I don't know but I would like to.
I hope this will stay fresh in the minds of every person and that we do not rest until a system is fairly set in place. While I am wishing I would also want no tv station to call a state until all polls have closed.
Thank you for the link to the addresses. Writing our Congressmen and women is a good idea. I hope that people will want to make certain that this can never happen again on either side because under the present method it can and it will.
I would like for every person in the United States to know that the voting was fair and honest. I would also like for every country to know that in the United States Of America that we have a system that is fair even if a recount has to be done that we are not afraid to say oops, something happened but if we have to recount we will because we do things right to set an example for the world to see.
[ edited by shar9 on Dec 28, 2000 05:44 AM ]
posted on December 28, 2000 05:44:07 AM newIf you are still in shock that any politician or political party could so easily overthrow our Constitutional right to a fair and complete election process, then you will soon be replacing that feeling with anger.
If you are still in shock I have one word for you, Valium. I recommend valium as a first defense, then some therapy. I would follow up with some self help books that deal with primary lessons in civics.
Bush 271 electoral votes
Gore 267 electoral votes
Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral vote. The electoral vote determines who is the president. It was a very close election, the constitutional process was never abandoned, it was a very close election. The key element that needs to be grasped is the election is over.
Till that sinks in I strongly recommend valium to ease your 'shock'. I also recommend you stay away from caffeine for a few weeks.
posted on December 28, 2000 07:16:28 AM new
I know better than to do this but here goes.
I messed up my absentee ballot, it was signed, from a small area, but what I did was considered an OVERVOTE. Nobody called me to ask what my VOTER INTENT was! Why should they do that for Sore/Loserman? While Al Sore was pitching his little fit and making an a-- on himself, I lost 6K in the stock market! Wear your arm bands, march in protest of the innaguaration. It ain't gonna stop it! Just make you look like fools. It's over. your side lost, get over it and move on. STOP WHINING!
Wah Wah Wah Wahhhh
posted on December 28, 2000 07:26:13 AM newThe key element that needs to be grasped is the election is over.
Election? What election? We had our new President to be appointed for us by a Supreme Court who disregarded every legal precedent that they have ever followed. No election in this country..we just went through the motion, and then resorted to the good old political coup. The new lesson learned here is that we the people don't need no stinkin elections.
posted on December 28, 2000 09:21:57 AM new
Gee, I heard 37 by Dems, 51 by Reps. Lawsuits, that is. It took a lot of legal action to cover up the cheating.
posted on December 28, 2000 09:27:36 AM new
The Supreme court did not appoint anyone. They Supreme court found one party was pushing the limits of existing law. And the way that law was being applied, was not in keeping with the Consititution of the United States. In other words, Gore, or his lawyers went to far in their zeal to get him elected.
Remember it was Gore who fired the first shot, and when 'war' is declared on any front, you fire back.
posted on December 28, 2000 09:57:02 AM new
That's complete nonsense.
Gore didn't "fire a shot", he simply requested a recount in three counties as his right under the Florida state law. Then Bush started shooting.
Though it is certain that the Supreme Court acted in a partisan manner, nowhere in their adjudication is there a finding or ruling that any party "went too far". That the court is/was biased can hardly be questioned considering the prior comment of Sandra on election night, the employment of Scalia's sons and the personal career goal of Scalia himself, as stated by him, and the history of nefarious political party activities in previous elections by the Chief Justice himself.
posted on December 28, 2000 09:59:02 AM newGore, or his lawyers went to far in their zeal to get him elected.
Yeah, they actually wanted to count the actual votes. Imagine that!
Remember it was Gore who fired the first shot, and when 'war' is declared on any front, you fire back.
Actually, Bush filed the first lawsuit, this after publically appealing to keep the election out of the courts. Hypocrisy? As for "war", that's an interesting term to use for what is supposed to be a "democratic" process. Don't you mean "coup" as in taking political control by force, in this case through fraudulent means? Nevermind.
posted on December 28, 2000 10:09:40 AM new
Didn't appoint anyone?
"So at an election night party on Nov. 7, surrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, she let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical returns shortly before 8 p.m.
"Sitting in her hostess' den, staring at a small black-and-white television set, she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. 'This is terrible,' she exclaimed.
"She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant that the election was 'over,' since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois.
"Moments later, with an air of obvious disgust, she rose to get a plate of food, leaving it to her husband to explain her
somewhat uncharacteristic outburst. John O'Connor said his wife was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant they'd have to wait another four years"
posted on December 28, 2000 10:11:25 AM new
Does anyone have any links to the timeline of the events that took place after the second machine count, on what happened?
posted on December 28, 2000 10:28:42 AM newGore didn't "fire a shot", he simply requested a recount in three counties as his right under the Florida state law. Then Bush started shooting
Bush didn't start 'shooting' until after the second recount, which Gore requested, because he didn't like the results of the first.
Even the Supreme Court recognized that the rules had changed in mid stream.
Didn't anyone see this, or did you just buy Gore and Daleys (mostly Daley) propaganda, hook line and sinker?
posted on December 28, 2000 10:31:23 AM newBush didn't start 'shooting' until after the second recount, which Gore requested, because he didn't like the results of the first.
That simply isn't true. Talk about eating propoganda.
posted on December 28, 2000 10:37:02 AM new
Authority? no..... I just don't read 'Politex' or whatever it is your getting your sources from on the internet...
Yeah I thought it pretty much propaganda bs, yeah.
posted on December 28, 2000 10:44:20 AM new
Oh I see now...the US Supreme Court was partisan, but the all Democratic Florida Supreme Court was not! Gee, that sure explains it!
posted on December 28, 2000 10:58:24 AM new
maybe this will explain it for you, njrazd. The Florida Supreme Court's rulings were consistant with previous rulings from that court indicating that there was no deviation from their previous idealogical legal opinions. The US Supreme Court made a 180 degree about face departure from previously followed precedents by that Court which reinforces the belief that political partisanship, not to mention blatant conflict of interests on the part of at least one Justice played a role.
And by the way, I thought you were tired of political threads.
posted on December 28, 2000 11:06:07 AM new
How can you say one court is partisan and the other isn't? If what you say is true the FL Supreme Court is consistently Democratic.
So is it your opinion then, that you are entitled to disregard rulings of the US Supreme Court or any court, based on your perceptions of their political leanings?
posted on December 28, 2000 11:06:46 AM new
KatyD...guess I was just missing the company.
Actually, I believe it was the 2nd decision by the Fl SC in favor of Gore where several members (including the Chief Justice) denounced the decision. Seems the 2nd arbitrary date they selected when their 1st arbitrary date was not going to give Gore enough votes just didn't sit well with some of them.
posted on December 28, 2000 11:09:44 AM new
What I am finding interesting is that most of the people protesting the election "results" on this board are non-partisan themselves and yet are being attacked as though they were "dyed in the wool democrats". I am one who thinks this whole election stinks to the high heavens and I have always voted in a non-partisan manner. [I believe that will be changing now] All I see from the "other side" is the same retoric over and over. No facts. Several from the "other side" come in screaming that we need to get over it OUR guy won. Neener, neener. Gads. That is so elementary school. Yes, whether I like it or not Bush will be President for four years. BUT he did not win.
As I have no party I have no party line. My thoughts on this election are my own and I am delighted to see that there are many out there who feel as I do about the results.
There really is no "other side" don't you see? We should all be concerned about the way our elections are run. There is no longer any will of the people. No one would really care that Bush is President if he had actually won the election but the facts are showing he did not. No republican party retoric can change that. The people have a right to protest however they see fit and it does not make them look like fools. It makes them look like concerned citizens that care about our government and want to see it run by the people for the people the way it was meant to be.The only fools I have seen are the ones that follow any political party's retoric without question, without even looking at the reality of any given situation.
Read, Watch CNN, Search the internet and listen to what people are saying and then make a descision. Do not base what you believe on any party line. Both parties are over the line and it must be fixed or we the people will pay the price.
