Republicans Are Casting Doubt On Normal Election Processes For The Sake Of Winning

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Yes, following the "exact letter of the law", which were the actual words I used, can be stupid sometimes.  Law enforcement uses discretion all of the time even when laws are violated, often for good reason.  My point here, which has not been refuted, is that it's more important to get it right than it is to be expedient with the process.  Either way, the results aren't going to change with the recounts.

In essence, you are arguing that impositions of the law in this context are superfluous. That completely defies the spirit of the law.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

In essence, you are arguing that impositions of the law in this context are superfluous. That completely defies the spirit of the law.

From a non-lawyer perspective, the law puts into place an arbitrary date for finalizing recounts as more important than getting it right.  So to me, the "spirit of the law" here is quite dumb.  I think you're arguing law and missing the forest for the trees here.  Getting the vote count correct should be the first, second, and third concerns.  The fact that a county certified election day numbers knowing they were inaccurate is beyond ridiculous.  Here's a perfect example.  Broward missed the Thursday deadline by two minutes.  Two. Freaking. Minutes.  And the updated recount totals were rejected because of that.  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-to-know-about-the-florida-recounts-senate-hand-recount-underway/

So basically, the state said accuracy was less important than 120 seconds.  That's beyond dumb.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

30 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

From a non-lawyer perspective, the law puts into place an arbitrary date for finalizing recounts as more important than getting it right.  So to me, the "spirit of the law" here is quite dumb.  I think you're arguing law and missing the forest for the trees here.  Getting the vote count correct should be the first, second, and third concerns.  The fact that a county certified election day numbers knowing they were inaccurate is beyond ridiculous.  Here's a perfect example.  Broward missed the Thursday deadline by two minutes.  Two. Freaking. Minutes.  And the updated recount totals were rejected because of that.  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-to-know-about-the-florida-recounts-senate-hand-recount-underway/

So basically, the state said accuracy was less important than 120 seconds.  That's beyond dumb.

I reiterate my prior response. Unwritten exceptions are dangerous. I understand we view this from two different perspectives. I am thankful we can exchange them, despite a lack of agreement.

And remember, I’m no lawyer! Lol

[TitanTiger 20,472]

52 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

From a non-lawyer perspective, the law puts into place an arbitrary date for finalizing recounts as more important than getting it right.  So to me, the "spirit of the law" here is quite dumb.  I think you're arguing law and missing the forest for the trees here.  Getting the vote count correct should be the first, second, and third concerns.  The fact that a county certified election day numbers knowing they were inaccurate is beyond ridiculous.  Here's a perfect example.  Broward missed the Thursday deadline by two minutes.  Two. Freaking. Minutes.  And the updated recount totals were rejected because of that.  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-to-know-about-the-florida-recounts-senate-hand-recount-underway/

So basically, the state said accuracy was less important than 120 seconds.  That's beyond dumb.

I agree with you to a degree.  However...the proper way to fix this is not by simply ignoring the law because it sets bad precedents.  The solution is legislative - change the law to better reflect the time it takes to do recounts, or add a provision where an extension can be applied for under certain reasonable criteria.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I agree with you to a degree.  However...the proper way to fix this is not by simply ignoring the law because it sets bad precedents.  The solution is legislative - change the law to better reflect the time it takes to do recounts, or add a provision where an extension can be applied for under certain reasonable criteria.

Yes, which is the way exceptions are suppose to apply. I agree with this 100%

[homersapien 11,366]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I reiterate my prior response. Unwritten exceptions are dangerous. I understand we view this from two different perspectives. I am thankful we can exchange them, despite a lack of agreement.

And remember, I’m no lawyer! Lol

That's a generalized statement being applied to a very specific situation.  Brad is correct about this particular case.  Common sense should apply here. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

On 11/14/2018 at 11:14 PM, homersapien said:

How so?

Sorry I didn't respond earlier but here:

 

Quote

TALLAHASSEE — Florida's system of reviewing voters' signatures on mail ballots is on trial in a federal courtroom as Democrats and Sen. Bill Nelson try to expand the pool of potential votes in his razor-close Senate race.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker heard testimony and arguments for five hours Wednesday in Nelson's lawsuit that seeks to count thousands of mail and provisional ballots that were disallowed, because the voters' signatures on ballot envelopes didn't match the signatures on file.

Walker did not rule in the case, but a decision is imminent as 67 counties must complete machine recounts by 3 p.m. Thursday.

As the hearing ended, Walker urged state elections officials to give him a precise accounting of how many ballots have been rejected because of signature problems.

A report from 45 counties produced in court Wednesday showed 3,688 rejected mail ballots and 93 rejected provisional ballots. Walker made it clear that's not good enough.

"Let's be as transparent as we can and provide as much information as we can," Walker told attorneys for Scott's chief elections officer, Secretary of State Ken Detzner.

The names of the candidates, Nelson and Republican Gov. Rick Scott, who holds a 12,562-vote lead, were barely mentioned, but the political stakes were obvious to everyone in the courtroom — especially the judge.

"Apparently I'm supposed to re-evaluate the entire election code of the state of Florida, one piece at a time. I've got it," Walker said. "This just seems like a really bad way to do this."

Nelson, playing catch-up against Scott in his final campaign of a five-decade career in politics, has filed a flurry of lawsuits.

They seek to include disputed mail and provisional ballots in vote tallies, extend vote-counting deadlines and invalidate the state's definition of voter intent in deciding whether under- and overvotes are legitimate.

read all of the article at: http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/11/14/judge-weighs-nelson-lawsuit-to-count-votes-with-signature-problems/

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I agree with you to a degree.  However...the proper way to fix this is not by simply ignoring the law because it sets bad precedents.  The solution is legislative - change the law to better reflect the time it takes to do recounts, or add a provision where an extension can be applied for under certain reasonable criteria.

Agree with this process over the long term.  Unfortunately in this situation, there isn't time to pass a law in Florida for the immediate needs.  It's why I think some of the current rules are arbitrary and flat out dumb.  It's also really stupid to me that the entire state doesn't have the same voting machines, ballots, etc for any statewide offices/referendums.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

That's a generalized statement being applied to a very specific situation.  Brad is correct about this particular case.  Common sense should apply here. 

No, it’s not a generalized statement at all. It’s fundamental to the application and consistency of law, especially in this particular case - which is tailored to by specific, not generalized, laws. Otherwise, the laws are superfluous, their scope is undermined, and uniformity of application is tarnished.

Not sure what you mean by “common sense should apply here.” You’ll need to expound. Perhaps you mean it’s obvious that the written rules should be ignored? If that’s the case, why even have written exceptions in the first place when we could easily just insert, “unless common sense dictates otherwise.”?????

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

It's why I think some of the current rules are arbitrary and flat out dumb.

Curious: what is it about the rules that makes them arbitrary - their promulgation or something else? Do you consider ignoring the rules to be arbitrary also? 

Maybe you answered my first question in the prior post, given the way the quoted portion reads. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

34 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Curious: what is it about the rules that makes them arbitrary - their promulgation or something else? Do you consider ignoring the rules to be arbitrary also? 

Maybe you answered my first question in the prior post, given the way the quoted portion reads. 

Maybe arbitrary is the wrong word in this context and that's on me.  Think I've stated my case as to my view, but definitely think the implementation of said rules could be better (the two minutes example really is sad excuse for discounting the corrected vote total IMO).

[homersapien 11,366]

17 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No, it’s not a generalized statement at all. It’s fundamental to the application and consistency of law, especially in this particular case - which is tailored to by specific, not generalized, laws. Otherwise, the laws are superfluous, their scope is undermined, and uniformity of application is tarnished.

Not sure what you mean by “common sense should apply here.” You’ll need to expound. Perhaps you mean it’s obvious that the written rules should be ignored? If that’s the case, why even have written exceptions in the first place when we could easily just insert, “unless common sense dictates otherwise.”?????

It was a generalized statement.  There were zero qualifications attached to it. 

How many cops do you see pulling people over for going 1 mph over the speed limit?  That's common sense. 

Allowing for two extra minutes to such an important deadline is common sense.

[DKW 86 7,419]

If there was a need for a deadline, say to interfere with interference, otherwise why was there a need for one? Maybe trickery in the past?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

It was a generalized statement.  There were zero qualifications attached to it. 

How many cops do you see pulling people over for going 1 mph over the speed limit?  That's common sense. 

Allowing for two extra minutes to such an important deadline is common sense.

No, it’s not. You’re completely incorrect. That’s why you can’t refute what I said. Sorry bud, but “because I said so” won’t work here. Do better.

[DKW 86 7,419]

The deadlines in the FL Laws were put there for some reason. Snipes seemed at times to be completely dismissive of ANY laws regarding the deadlines or methodologies of COUNTING or RECOUNTING.

Snipes should be gone no matter what. Her actions did nothing but cloud the outcomes and the forever cloud the results. 

Have a manual recount underway: OOPS! We lost 2040 Ballots. <smh>

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Absent-Ballots-Broward-County-Misplaced-Over-2000-Votes-500756262.html

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

The deadlines in the FL Laws were put there for some reason. Snipes seemed at times to be completely dismissive of ANY laws regarding the deadlines or methodologies of COUNTING or RECOUNTING.

Snipes should be gone no matter what. Her actions did nothing but cloud the outcomes and the forever cloud the results. 

Have a manual recount underway: OOPS! We lost 2040 Ballots. <smh>

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Absent-Ballots-Broward-County-Misplaced-Over-2000-Votes-500756262.html

 

Yep and anyone who thinks the current process in Broward is normal is truly an idiot and BOTH parties are challenging it.

[homersapien 11,366]

19 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No, it’s not. You’re completely incorrect. That’s why you can’t refute what I said. Sorry bud, but “because I said so” won’t work here. Do better.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

[augolf1716 21,109]

On 11/18/2018 at 7:13 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

Get a room guys

[DKW 86 7,419]

Quote

 

TALLAHASSEE — Florida's system of reviewing voters' signatures on mail ballots is on trial in a federal courtroom as Democrats and Sen. Bill Nelson try to expand the pool of potential votes in his razor-close Senate race.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker heard testimony and arguments for five hours Wednesday in Nelson's lawsuit that seeks to count thousands of mail and provisional ballots that were disallowed, because the voters' signatures on ballot envelopes didn't match the signatures on file.

Walker did not rule in the case, but a decision is imminent as 67 counties must complete machine recounts by 3 p.m. Thursday.

As the hearing ended, Walker urged state elections officials to give him a precise accounting of how many ballots have been rejected because of signature problems.

A report from 45 counties produced in court Wednesday showed 3,688 rejected mail ballots and 93 rejected provisional ballots. Walker made it clear that's not good enough.

"Let's be as transparent as we can and provide as much information as we can," Walker told attorneys for Scott's chief elections officer, Secretary of State Ken Detzner.

 

So, just so everyone is clear, there is a law in Florida where the signatures are kept in public records. They do this so as to stop voter fraud by actively checking that the signatures of record agree with the signatures found on these ballots. We have an entity that wants this part of the law struck down so as to be able to count those ballots, whatever they have as results, in a desperate attempt to find 12K+ votes to make the vote shortfall. The total number of these ballots is about 4K. 

Nah...there aint nothing fishy going on in that...said no one...EVER. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 11/17/2018 at 3:57 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

No, it’s not. You’re completely incorrect. That’s why you can’t refute what I said. Sorry bud, but “because I said so” won’t work here. Do better.

Did you really think that he was going to answer anything? I know you didnt because we have pmed about this,  while 😂

[homersapien 11,366]

8 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Did you really think that he was going to answer anything? I know you didnt because we have pmed about this,  while 😂

Don't be such a lapdog David.  

And wrong forum.

 

[homersapien 11,366]

On 11/17/2018 at 4:57 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

No, it’s not. You’re completely incorrect. That’s why you can’t refute what I said. Sorry bud, but “because I said so” won’t work here. Do better.

Yes it was.  I was absolutely correct.  You just can't accept it because you have a problem with being wrong.  Sorry kid, but simply saying "I was incorrect" doesn't work here.  You'll need more than your opinion to prove that.  Try again.

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Yes it was.  I was absolutely correct.  You just can't accept it because you have a problem with being wrong.  Sorry kid, but simply saying "I was incorrect" doesn't work here.  You'll need more than your opinion to prove that.  Try again.

 

where is the eyeroll emoji .....

[homersapien 11,366]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

where is the eyeroll emoji .....

Wrong forum David.  Again.

Go to the smack talk forum and start a topic on me if you must.