Did Bush have a team of lawyers ready to challenge the Constitution?

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,688
5,152
126
Does anybody know if a comment on public radio today that Bush, acticipating that he would win the popular vote and loose in the electoral college, had assembled a team of lawyers to challenge the legality of that is true or not. I heard it but have seen nothing more about it but Bushlites, I mean Bullshites, er, Bushites complaining about how Gore has to accept the constitution. If so, he deserves the most rigorous and extreme challenge money can buy.

Mullah Nasrudin went to his neighbor and told him that the Mullah's bull had broken down their fence and Gored his cow. The neighbor told the Mullah that since it was his bull he, the Mullah was legally responsible and would have to pay damages and do repairs. The Mullah replied. Oh wait, I have a fact wrong. "It was your bull that Gored my cow." The neighbor answered, "In that case a completely different legal precident applies."

Everything depends on whose ox gets gored. We judge the would not with reason, but with our feelings. We don't see that, emotionally, we are children.
 

Isla

Elite member
Sep 12, 2000
7,749
2
0
I understand.

I'm just about ready to pack up my bags and leave... I really don't belong here.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
moonbeam been a while since I have read your liberal propaganda, feelin kinda silly now that bush won the electoral huh? :)

I have yet to hear of a recount that went in favor of the loser, but good luck I hope you get your greenpease hero yet, personally I really don't care who gets in, either way we lose :)

 

Isla

Elite member
Sep 12, 2000
7,749
2
0
No, bigvince, but I'm very saddened by much of what I have read. It's not about either party... it's just become very ugly in here the past few days. I can't wait for this to be over! I could never fully embrace either party. I hope change results from all this.

I just need some time to breathe.

Peace~
 

FettsBabe

Diamond Member
Oct 21, 1999
3,708
0
0
This is pure speculation. Help us stop the rumors by not passing them on to others.
 

Dameon

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
2,117
1
0
Moonbeam, you and all your liberal cronies are clutching at straws...

* the mystery ballot box
* voters being "harassed" (8 blacks , 5 whites... over a mile from polling place)
* the "confusing" ballot.


Of course you forget about your own trading cigs for votes and other nefarious deeds.
Bush has won. If your candidate manages to win by litigation, lord help him because the next 4 years of his life will be a living, breathing hell.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,118
7,277
126
Dameon,

And on the other shoe, if Bush wins, he has to live with the fact that more people wanted him out of office than wanted him in it.
 

Chef0083

Golden Member
Dec 9, 1999
1,184
0
0
Either way it's going to be a very aprehensive time in the US next year when either of them takes office. No matter who you voted for you canot be satisfied with the way things are turning out.
 

PG

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,426
44
91
Moonbeam, I think you got it backwards. The only story I have heard is that Gore's lawyers are looking into a lawsuit not Bush's lawyers, but still it's not proven. Click here

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,688
5,152
126
Isla, in reading your post and trying to understand what you may have meant, I see a way what I said could be misinterpreted. I meant that we carry old feelings of being cheated that colour our sight (reason).

To see as children, as in "Except as ye be little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.", means something else again entirely. That is us as we really are. To live by that intuition is a reasonableness that isn't the kind of reason that's coldly logical and empty.

I see kindness in your posts. I'm not sure what your post here means, but I know that by not 'belonging here' you bring what is needed. It's a square peg place for us rounded types. :D

Thought maybe I should make what I said clearer for all.

Would still like to know if anybody heard about the Bush lawyer team.

bazack, I wish you all the greenpease and other kinds of pease in the world. Pease is a good place to be. In pease one notices that the world is beautiful and deserves to be saved. I don't feel silly, maybe a little pissed though. Everything in me says that Bush is the retrograde evolutionary candidate. But if you look closely at what I said, I was and am just curious if something I heard on the radio is true. I was gonna say something bad about democrats too, but thought it was too good to give away. :D My point, the little moral lesson I added at the end, is, I think, two edged. Without self analysis and self understanding we commit the sins we accuse others of. Don't matter about the party. It's universal.
 

fdiskboy

Golden Member
Sep 21, 2000
1,328
0
0
Interesting. Just remember that Clinton had 57% of the American people vote AGAINST him in the '92 election. So what, he was still President, and we've made it eight years without a revolution.
 

Chef0083

Golden Member
Dec 9, 1999
1,184
0
0


<< Interesting. Just remember that Clinton had 57% of the American people vote AGAINST him in the '92 election. So what, he was still President, and we've made it eight years without a revolution. >>



Big diference there,, there was 2 other people on that race. No one got a majority but CLinton won a higher percentage than Bush
 

Athanasius

Senior member
Nov 16, 1999
975
0
0
I know that the last few days have left me with a very sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. Keep in mind, I am not very idealistic about the political process in the first place. But I feel like this election is particularly foreboding. Sadly, I am not expecting either candidate to make a serious difference regarding their supposed ideologies. The congressional house (both sides) is deeply polarized.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I am reminded of a song by John Fischer, a Christian Contemporary artist:



<< Causes and marchings and war
are the vents of your anger.
What are you fighting for,
when its My war?

Will you legislate love
in the heart of a nation?
All you are thinking of
is your own kind.

Not by might
nor by power
but by My Spirit
says the Lord.
>>



I think we are in deep trouble if we allow ourselves to believe that either political machine is &quot;the Voice of Reason&quot; and then rationalize away our own scapegoating of the &quot;Other Party.&quot;

Oh well. Onward and upward. Is there really any other choice?
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
Reality break here folks. Regardless of who ends up winning, they will have only 47 million out of a total population of 270 million (or less than 20%) for them. That means the remaining population was not eligigble to vote, not interested in voting, or voting for other candidates...... sooooo.... if Bush wins without getting the popular vote, it makes no difference, nobody actually gets the majority of the population as a whole to vote for them.

Similarly, Gore has the popular election, but basically he has massive support in three or four states, with the remainder of the country not supporting him. That's equally 'hollow' as any Bush win.

Whomever ligitimately wins Florida should have it. End of story.
 

Athanasius

Senior member
Nov 16, 1999
975
0
0
This whole electoral college mess is really angering a lot of people. But I actually find myself approving of it. I am no historian or political scientist but my understanding is that the framers of our government were determined to recognize individual states as separate (though interdependent) entities. Hence, the electoral college forces a clear decision for one candidate on a &quot;states first&quot; level and then works from that to determine who should be president.

So Gore won the overall popular vote, but Bush won far more states than Gore, including nine states that voted Democrat in 1996.

Consider this hypothetical: an immensely popular governor of California, with 90% of the popular vote in his home state, is in office. Shortly prior to being elected, from his position as CEO of a major corporation, via the technological prowess of Anandtech :), he makes a revolutionary, cross continental technological pact with a similar corporation in New York that greatly enhances the economies of both states, but hurts other, smaller states who are squeezed out by the massive California/New York tandem.

Of course antitrust and monopoly lawsuits are started, but they drag on through the court system. Meanwhile, this governor runs for President. He carries the California popular vote by 90% and the New York popular vote by 75%. Throughout the rest of the country, the other candidate wins the popular vote by a consistent 49% to 47% margin, with the remainder split up amongst other candidates. Without an electoral college, the &quot;will&quot; of California and New York is imposed on the rest of the country because the President elect leads in the simple, popular vote.

I think this is the kind of thing that an electoral college prevents. Of course, you have elctions like this year where both the electoral college and the popular vote are agonizingly close. But I don't think we should jettison the system. In the end, I agree with tagej. Whoever truly wins Florida should, and will, get the Presidency.

[EDITED for my usual typos]
 

PG

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,426
44
91
In some ways I don't like the electoral college, but if we didn't have it none of the candidates would ever step foot in the small states. The candidates would only campaign in the states with large populations.
 

DefRef

Diamond Member
Nov 9, 2000
4,041
1
81
Chef0083: There have been third party &quot;spoilers&quot; in the last three elections, Perot twice and Nader this time. If you add up the opposition to the winner in each of those races, it can be argued that the majority didn't want the winner, since the winner only achieved a plurality and not a majority.

Isla: I agree. It's gotten really nasty around here. Hopefully, people will just just shrug at the results, one way or the other, and try to get on with life.

If the final spread remains about 200,000 votes out of about 100,000,000 cast, that's 2/1000th of 1% which says to me that the people weren't too crazy about EITHER major candidate. If Gore wasn't such a liar and Bush didn't seem so clueless, then they might've been able to open a decisive gap. As it was, people had a Hobson's choice. Might as well have flipped a coin for as good as it would've done.

What does it say about the party system that this is the best they can come up with? Ugh.:(
 

Chef0083

Golden Member
Dec 9, 1999
1,184
0
0


<< There have been third party &quot;spoilers&quot; in the last three elections, Perot twice and Nader this time. If you add up the opposition to the winner in each of those races, it can be argued that the majority didn't want the winner, since the winner only achieved a plurality and not a majority. >>



And that goes agains what I said?
I said:


<< Big diference there,, there was 2 other people on that race. No one got a majority but Clinton won a higher percentage than Bush >>


What I meant by that was, because it was 3 way race Clinton didn't get the majority of the vote(over 50%). Sorry if I wasn't clear in my statement.
 

slunk

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2000
1,325
0
0
This is actually a pretty good topic. I listened to a few right-wing radio shows here in Texas during the campaign. No one ever thought the race would turn out like this. They all thought it would be the other way around. Each time I listened, they spoke about how the electoral college should be thrown out, how they would arrange huge protests, and how they would file lawsuits against the process by which the electoral college is used. They sure did shutup once there was a reversed outcome. Bunch of puss*ies.

Has anybody heard the quote from Jesse Ventura that he made to George Bush the other day? It was something along the lines that if he had been the one to lose the popular vote, he would be embarrased to accept the presidency. I think I would be also.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,688
5,152
126
slunk, I mentioned in a number of threads that if Bush had character he'd refuse the presidency if he got fewer votes than Bush. :)

Athanasius, the reason the framers established the electoral college was not that they liked it. It was a political compromise required to get the Constitution ratified. How about counties or whatever other state divisions we have counting local votes and casting mini blocks to preserve local power. We are fifty states but one country. A president that governs in this climate without the popular vote, and even Gore if he wins both, should be profoundly humble. Hehe, humble, imagine that.

Of all in the Constitution, the electoral college is the most antithetical to the American spirit of fairness.
 

Pennstate

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 1999
3,211
0
0
Isn't the electoral college kind of a quota system :) It says that in electing a president, votes from one state can only count so much. I thought you guys are all against quotas. :)
 

Chef0083

Golden Member
Dec 9, 1999
1,184
0
0
You know MoonBeam I see you in a lot of threads trying to spread your love and I defenetly respect that but saying things like:

<< I mentioned in a number of threads that if Bush had character he'd refuse the presidency if he got fewer votes than Bush. >>

(and I assume the last name should be Gore) is not what I would consider loving. If you want to talk about character how can you not mention Gore's Character? Gore lied and exaggerated at every avenue during his campaign. At one point he conceeded the race then immediately took it back. Now granted he probably was a bit premature in conceeding but that still doesn't say much about his character. Keep in mind Gore conceeded because he thought he was going to lose the electoral college vote, he and Bush both know that to win the election they had to win the electoral college. Do you honestly think if things were reversed that Gore would conceed? Do you think if he lost the popular vote and won the electoral college he would give the presidency( though he can't ) to Bush? I seriously doubt it. I'm not defending Bush by any means because the man is human and he has made mistakes and lets not forget we are talking about politicians here.
 

saxman

Banned
Oct 12, 1999
1,264
0
0


<< slunk, I mentioned in a number of threads that if Bush had character he'd refuse the presidency if he got fewer votes than Bush. >>



That wouldn't be character, that would be stupidity.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY