A gem of a line! I toady that one!
Stoid, I don’t know why you keep changing the point that I’m making and insulting me. I don’t think you’re the type to offer up straw men or attack posters personally. I think perhaps the emotion of this issue has gotten to you. You’re a strong Gore supporter. They are similar to the emotions that I have with respect to the oppressive ballot access laws instigated and propogated by Democrats and Republicans in their cozy, ballot-placement-assured, conspiratorial cabal.
Let me explain once again the line of reasoning. Please stop attributing a line of reasoning that doesn’t come from me.
Those who brought suit were not merely Democrats. They were not merely voters who were confounded by the butterfly ballots. They were not merely oppressed minorities in poor precincts with high rates of illiteracy. If they had been, no one, least of all I, would begrudge them their complaint that the ballots were genuinely confusing. In a case of the ballots being genuinely confusing, we might have expected a bipartisan group of plaintiffs. I think we can safely say that Republicans are no smarter, as a class, than Democrats.
But do not turn a blind eye to what we have here: these were not merely Democrats, disassociated from Al Gore. They were in fact hard core Democrat activists — one of them with twenty-two years of public activism. They were party cronies. Gore, as their candidate for president, whom they sought to elect after all, was their titular and de facto, party leader. They were campaigners. Movers. Shakers. People who held elective and appointed offices as Democrats.
There is already evidence of conspiracy, as one of the articles I linked you to shows. Two of them got together to compare notes before launching the court battle. That fact, plus their reputations, establishes a precedent that might suffice as evidence of a greater conspiracy. I cannot prove that they called the Gore office and said that they were filing suit, but since Gore was listed as a defendant, and since they were staunch, significant, and important party activists, it seems unlikely that, in the rest of the context shown, they would have blind-sided the Gore camp.
In my opinion, the basis of a conspiracy is established, and it is up to you and other Gore supporters to show otherwise. And that’s why it was Gore, whose complicity by doing nothing when he could have done something, was responsible for the weeks on end of court battles. Once again, the triple salvo consists of renegging on a concession, invoking a law intended to alter the election outcome, and then sanctioning a lawsuit that was filed on his behalf. It is hard to think of any other scenario where a defendant in a lawsuit might not defend himself, other than one where, as a defendant, he stands to gain.
You can write-off my argument if you want to, but it won’t go away just because you restate it differently. And it won’t go away just because you and Elvis charge at me with hysterical emotions or sarcasm.
Without a cite of the respective Texas and Florida laws available to scrutinize, how is anyone to know if the Texas standard is exactly the same as the Florida standard? They may well be, but right now, who can tell?
Also, did Bush indeed sign the “human recount” standard into Texas law, or was it a previously existing standard in Texas before Bush took office?
Lastly, if and when Bush signed that into law, he didn’t have the knowledge of a fiasco like what happened in Florida last year.
Unconstitutional = illegal at the federal level. Florida law is subordinate to constitutional law.
That’s your take … and a valid one. There are many other valid opposing takes.
Bush’s behavior was in line with federal law … and I’d say good sense, too.
Bush was ahead after the initial count.
That would have been the only way to avoid a court fight. I have no doubt that had the shoes been on the opposite feet, Gore’s team would have had no problem following the exact same course as Bush’s team.
The majority of the American voting public didn’t matter. It was a Florida election.
Also, as I posted earlier, I consider the “truth” to have been undeterminable shortly after the second machine recounts. To me, there was no further “truth” out there to be determined. But then, I never seriously considered things like overturning ostensibly mismarked butterfly ballots, or anything like that. YMMV.
I dunno. Take it up with the SCOTUS.
Seriously, I would like to know also why the SCOTUS didn’t want this case to be used as precedent. That doesn’t machine I think the decision was weaselly or wrongheadded, though. I think it was proper application of constitutional law, and assume on good faith that there is something reasonable about the case that makes it somehow bad for precedent – but I don’t know what.
So a statewide recount was the answer. Agreed. However, as as been pointed out to you and yours a tiresome number of times, that wasn’t an option available. Its like saying the hopping is immoral, and the guys just got the one leg.
That Al has written more books than Our Leader has read?
The Amish poster? Can we put this to a vote, I like the pirate better, which is to say, not at all. Still, one good line, step in the right direction. 'Course it belongs in the Pit, doesn’t it?
No, your first guess is right – the Supreme Court doesn’t want the case to be used as precedent because they know it doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Every Constitutional lawyer and scholar I’ve read who commented on the ruling points out big gaping holes in it (which me, not being a lawyer, fail to grasp in detail but appreciate in general 
). Even conservative scholars say the ruling is weak, but wave it off by saying stuff like “it was necessary to avoid a national crisis.” :rolleyes:
Alan Dershowitz’s Supreme Injustice is a good place to start.
You are not unlike a horse in that I can lead you to reason, but I can’t make you think.
We had a statewide recount.
Then we had another.
If you don’t have a leg to stand on, you shouldn’t be hopping, anyway.
Hope springs eternal.
I don’t think I’ve changed your point. As for insulting you, please point out the insult so that I may apologize for it. I tried to be careful ** not ** to insult you. (i.e., in speaking of the lie, I left room for the possibility that it was a lie you were telling yourself as well, relieving you of any responsibility for being a dishonest person, because I have never known you to be such.)
Thank you.
I’m emotional about it, because I care about it. I think the whole thing was grossly unjust. And it was grossly unjust in the favor of a man I didn’t like then, and I positively abhor now. But it hasn’t “gotten” to me in the sense that it has made me lose mine.
I didn’t realize I was doing that.
Nope. Not true. It wasn’t a problem for Bush voters, their guy was first, their hole was first. No confusion for them. So that’s your first error in your reasoning, you are starting from an illogical assumption.
I’m sorry, I can’t take this seriously, and I can’t believe you * mean * it seriously. This is an outrageous distortion of the truth.
Here’s all the meaningful info your link gives us:
[ul]
[li]Florence Zoltowsky, 70, Holocaust survivor,[/li][li]Alex Zoltowsky, 75, Holocaust survivor[/li][li]Kenneth Horowitz, 49, Multi-millionaire * with no party affiliation *[/li][li]Catherine Bowser, 37 paralegal in Horowitz’ office[/li][li]Sylvia Szymoniak, 84, passionate Democrat who hasn’t missed an election since the 1930’s.[/li][li]Lillian Gaines, 67 teacher, Democrat. Lengthy resume of community activism, including the Urban League, Sickle Cell foundation, PB County Children’s Services Council, and the Coalition for Black Student Acheivement[/li][li]The Gibbs family, 7 people ranging in age from 28 to 60. Son Kevin is the author of their suit.[/li][li]Andre Fladell 57, chiropractor * (Finally we get to someone who even remotely could fit your characterization above, 16 people into a list of 18 total) * a political power broker who for 22 years has made the Democratic Party and its ** local ** characters his business. He is quoted as saying: "“I’m not having the opinion of my party, I’m having the opinion of me, as a voter. This is my home, and everything I’ve done in 22 years has been for myself, my neighbors, this county.”[/li][li]Alberta McCarthy, 47, Delray Beach commissioner, divorced mother of four, real estate broker, served on the city’s planning and zoning committee.[/li][li]Beverly Rogers, 58, a trust officer.[/li][li]Ray Kaplan, 75, a retired banking office and grandmother[/li][/ul]
This is your list of “cronies”, “movers”, “shakers”. Yeah, you don’t wanna mess with that real estate agent on the city’s zoning commission! She’ll have you for lunch!
Am I on Candid Camera? I am, aren’t I?
Okay, I’ll play along…here’s your “conspiracy”
Yeah, that’s a conspiracy alright. * They actually spoke to each other about the ballot! * Bring ‘em up on charges!
In the fevered mind of a paranoid schizophrenic, perhaps it might. And by the way, what “precedent” does it establish? And what were those “reputations” again? Oh yeah…staunch Democrats, being tough enough to survive Hitler, and volunteering to help find a cure for Sickle Cell anemia. Yep, pretty nefarious.
Then perhaps its time you dropped this whole thing.
Hmmm. I was sure that plaintiffs and defendents were opposing each other. How is it that in this case, the plaintiff’s are conspiring with the defendant?
yep, staunch Dems (except for the one who had no party affiliation of course) they were.
SNORT… although I’m sure at least mr. Fladell would be flattered. Since he was the * only * political activist in the entire group, and was party to only one of the lawsuits out of the five that the 18 people filed separately.
One minute they are conspiring, the next, if they haven’t at least informed them, they’ve “blind-sided” them. How would filing a lawsuit that might be beneficial to Gore be blind-siding Gore? Why does Gore need to be informed at all? But wait, Gore’s the the defendant, wouldn’t he be informed by the court? But wait, Gore’s conspiring with the plaintiffs…but wait… I think I need to go lie down…
Really? It is? I think I’m gonna have to disagree. You failed in the single most crucial important part of your theory: establishing any credible connection between Gore and the plaintiffs. You have taken a few simple facts about these people, distorted them, misstated a few other facts, exaggerated, tossed in some innuendo and suspicion, and pronounced your conspiracy theory proved.
Lack of action does not constitute complicity. Especially in this situation. What you are accusing him of is not, in the middle of a questionable election, making absolutely certain that no American do a single thing that might ultimately be to his benefit. In other words, Gore was wrong for not * bending over backwards *to ensure that George Bush would become president. Is this supposed to be a reasonable expectation? As we’ve already covered, he was convinced, and understandably so, that * he was in fact the true winner of the election. * Only a saint would behave as you are expecting, yet the probable non-winner, Mr. George W. Bush, can do all kinds of hypocritical things and get a total pass from you. And you have no bias of any kind? You are Mr. Objectivity?
One more thing about this whole conspiracy silliness…if they were all in it together, don’t you think they would have filed one lawsuit? There were five separate lawsuits, naming everyone from Joe Lieberman to Jeb Bush. If that was a conspiracy, it was amazingly sloppy. Or perhaps it was amazingly cunning! :rolleyes:
Once again, you have managed to ignore my questions about this. I’ve carefully answered every single charge you’ve made, and you’ve scooted all over the place avoiding my responses, and just gone on to repeat yourself.
False…another incredibly creative interpretation of reality! “A law intended to alter the election outcome”?!?!? Do you think they actually write such laws? And if such a law exists, how come it didn’t alter the outcome?
The law is intended * to determine what the real outcome is. * but Mr. Bush liked the outcome as it stood, so he ran to court to stop the law from determining what the true outcome was.
You know, Lib, I don’t think I can do this with you anymore. You’re a nice guy, and I think you might even believe this stuff you’re coming up with. but all you’re doing is just making the charges over and over again without a single thing to back any of it up. That isn’t proving an argument.
Gore did not “sanction” diddly, and several of the multiple lawsuits filed * named him as a defendant * – in what parallel universe does that constitute lawsuits filed “on his behalf”?. Your distortions, exaggerations, assumptions, innuendo, misstatements, and suspicions bundled together into a big fat accusation do not constitute a proved case, or even a reasonable one.
Indeed. So why would he want to be named as the defendant to begin with? What would be the point?
I’m sure you will be making this argument for as long as you have breath to make it. I’m telling you, in tediously specific detail covering nearly every sentence you have written, that it’s a completely insupportable argument based on absolutely nothing concrete whatsoever.
Stoid
You’ve been around here since 1999, bordelond, you weren’t here last year? Well, do a search and you’ll be able to find it all…we cited this stuff til we were blue in the face, but I’ll give you: this.
The Florida standards weren’t clear, as we all know. But when you see this, you’ll be interested to learn that Texas has astonishingly loose standards for manually counting the votes. Much too loose for ol’ George to have to subject himself to.
Bush signed it into law. Again, do some checking. It’s all been cited previously.
And what are you saying? That it’s ok to decide you were wrong when it doesn’t go your way?
So? Your * point * was:
Is your point now that because one was ahead the day after the initial count, there was no possibility of determining a fair and legal winner? If so, could you explain it?
What would have been the only way to avoid a court fight? And your speculation about Gore is certainly understandable, you are entitled to your opinion, but let’s make sure we identify it as such: your opinion.
Then don’t you think it was wrong to go to the Feds for a state election? Can’t have it both ways…
Well, that’s fair enough. We disagree. Nothing wrong with that.
No - that I believe Bush would not have signed such a law had an Election 2000-type fiasco occured, say, in the Ford-Carter election. IOW, the Bush-Gore election was the nation’s first big heads-up concerning the problems with loose or unclear handcount laws.
So? Your * point * was:
Is your point now that because one was ahead the day after the initial count, there was no possibility of determining a fair and legal winner? If so, could you explain it?**
[/quote]
Not that – I believe that after the second machine recount, once hand counts had begun in certain counties, ballot deterioration began taking place (chads coming loose likely created false overvotes IMHO). As the hand counting kept up, the counts became more unreliable IMHO. By December 12th, there was no way to know – IMHO – what some ballots might have originally indicated.
That’s why my opinion is that a fair and legal winner could not have been determined after the second statewide machine count.
Keep in mind that I am pretty much discounting the whole butterfly-ballot issue. I don’t think an ethereal “intent of the voter” should have been considered, save in cases where a voter punched a candidate and then wrote in the same candidate.
For both parties to have agreed BEFORE any handcouts to what standards would be recognize, even though Florida law took a stab at it. IOW, both parties should have agreed to more or less waive the murky Florida laws as they stood, in the interests of getting a count both sides could accept without challenge.
The reason that you don’t stick to Florida laws is that it could have been foreseen (IMHO) that they wouldn’t stand up to a test of constitutionality.
Waiving the Florida law and negotiating mutually-acceptable ballot standards before a binding, statewide recount would almost certainly have prevented any legal action by either party.
Apples and oranges to me. The American voting public’s indeterminate (IMHO) wishes should not have been considered in any legal decisions that any court might make. IOW, they should not have got caught up in trying to make the election itself “right” by any abstract standard (like what the American people seem to “want”). However, I have no problem with the SCOTUS making a ruling on the raw, constitutionality of a given state’s concrete election laws.
I think the distinction is pretty salient. YMMV.
Okay, on a slightly different tangent…
Does anyone else find it strange that Gore picked up so many votes in the hand recount of Palm Beach County? During all the subsequent recounts, media recounts, etc., the totals between the two men barely changed. They’d move by a handful of votes in each county. But in PBC, Gore picked up hundreds of votes. What’s up with that? Is this a statistical anomoly, or were the people doing the counting a little biased, or what?
Stoid, parsing paragraphs into contextless clauses and then responding to those islands of syntax does not an argument make. I know you don’t mean to be insulting. I don’t think you deliberately devised a set of insults, a la Lolo, and then hurled them at me. The insults are coming subconsciously, I suspect, from the depth of your emotions. And emotions are notoriously irrational.
If I am all these things — a person who writes “outrageous distortion of the truth”, who possesses the “fevered mind of a paranoid schizophrenic”, who “misstated a few other facts, exaggerated, tossed in some innuendo and suspicion, and pronounced [my] conspiracy theory proved”, who lets Bush “do all kinds of hypocritical things and get a total pass from [me]”, and whose argument consists entirely of “distortions, exaggerations, assumptions, innuendo, misstatements, and suspicions bundled together into a big fat accusation” — then that would make me just about the lowest life-form ever to curse Great Debates with its presence.
Sometimes, empathy can be blocked by strong emotions of resolute hysteria. It might help you to understand if it is turned around the other way, like this:
Stoid, you’re a liar. You’re distorting the truth, misstating the facts, exaggerating for the sake of your argument. You’re a paranoid schizophrenic who slings innuendo and fancies your suspicions to be proof of your claims.
Does that help you to see how you’re being insulting?
With respect to exaggerations of their significance, I wasn’t speak of the whole flock of litigators as being activists, but only the Gang of Three. You can find ample information on them through Google.
As to my argument constituting proof, I explicitly stated that I have no proof of a conspiracy between Gore Central and the field cronies.
I ask again that you stop doing that, i.e., changing what I’m saying. I said that a groundwork context for a conspiracy exists. And a conspiracy is a reasonable avenue to investigate mainly because of the particular circumstance of Gore being a defendant in the suit. Quite simply, you don’t drag the person you’re vehemently supporting into court action as a defendant, submarined and unaware, unless you are politically suicidal. And there is no evidence that those who comprised the Gang of Three were political sophomores.
It is most difficult to present a line of reasoning wherein a political activist goes, “I support Al Gore. I think I’ll sue his ass!”
Now, with respect to Gore’s complicity, it is likewise difficult to present a line of reasoning wherein a defendant to a lawsuit either does nothing or else sends in his lawyers to help advise and ensure that the plaintiffs win.
As to the accusation that I let Bush get away with anything, I don’t think that’s right. I’ve let him get away with merely one single thing: defending himself against a salvo of politically motivated litigation and dishonorable acts. I would let anyone, including Al Gore, get away with that.
Sam:
A lot of people in Palm Beach were confused by thier ballots. Thinking to make themselves clear (after being refused replacement ballots) the wrote in the name “Al Gore”, thinking that this would make thier preference more clear. Strictly speaking, placing a name in the write-in slot as well as punching a hole, makes that an over-vote, and it gets chucked.
Unless, of course, Florida law as to the “intent of the voter” is invoked. Clearly, where the punched vote and the written-in vote is identical, the “intent of the voter” is evident.
Hence, the addition of several hundred Gore votes.
Now, of course, one mustn’t forget that the Forces of Darkness were forthright in thier gaseous bloviation on the subject: they had been declared “overvotes”, damned forever to the limbo of irrelevance, and that could never be taken back, according to what they purported to be a strict constructionist interpretation of the law.
Out of the other side of thier repective festering gobs, wrapped in patriotic bunting and crocodile tears arolling down cheeks, they decried the denial of the vote to “our boys” overseas. Of course, the law stated that even the gentle shepherding of those votes, the light dusting of dates and signatures, would technically render those votes invalid. Oh, the perfidy of the Dems, seeking to wrench enfranchisement from the brave grasp of “our boys”, due to a mere technicality as regards acceptable dates and signatures.
Of course, they agonized over this profoundly, the idea that the law be made flexible is anathema. Yet, awash in patriotic virtue, they nobly insisted that this must be the case, even though the votes in question favored thier candidate. I can’t type any more for a moment, I must dab away tears provoked by the selflessness of thier sacrifice.
No, the votes that Gore gained were in the undervotes only. He picked up several hundred votes from the analysis of chads on punch cards. It was PBC that gave Gore the impression that he could win if he pursued continued counts in the courts, because the gains there were so dramatic. This was the county where some Republicans claimed that the people checking the ballots were biased towards Gore. I think this is the county where one woman found that every single disputed ballot was a Gore ballot.
I could be misremembering, or it could have been an honest-to-god statistical fluke or some other problem (for instance, maybe one of the punch machines wasn’t doing a good job of punching the hole for ‘gore’, giving him far more dimpled or hanging chads). So I’m not claiming fraud or anything - I’m just curious as to what really happened there, because in hindsight now after seeing the results from all the recounts the gains Gore made there were really out of the norm.
And pretending that I argued against your words out of context does not a rebuttal make.
Hmmm… I see now. If I identify the (often gross) flaws in your reasoning, I’m insulting you. If I don’t accept your incredibly weak arguments, based on distortion of fact and unproven assumptions, I’m insulting you. Because I’m hysterical and irrational. Ooooooookay… :rolleyes:
Well, then, I guess I should say it to you the same way you do to me, and then you won’t be insulted: Lib, your arguments are meaningless, because you are much too hysterical and emotional to be rational about this. Is that better?
Let me explain something basic to you about the insult line and where it gets crossed, so you won’t make this mistake again, and I’m assuming it is a mistake: when I identify your statements as distortions or exaggerations or a half-truth, or based purely on suspicion, I’m taking apart your argument, not* you* . I’m not venturing any guesses about how you came to make this argument, I’m not accusing you of knowing better and deliberately lying. I’m actually assuming that you believe it, and taking it apart for you to reconsider it or perhaps just come up with a better way to make it make the same sense to others as it seems to you. Nowhere in there am I making a direct statement about who you are, the value of your qualities as a person or even as a debater. I am not assigning motive or intent, and I am not commenting on your integrity or honesty. It’s about the argument you are making. Which still isn’t always a barrel of fun, but it’s not a direct insult to you as a person. (And if you insist on taking it that way, then may I suggest that GD is not your forum).
You, on the other hand, have several times in this thread made horribly condescending remarks to me about how my emotions make ** me ** * irrational *. Not only is it extremely insulting for you to say that to me, it’s very arrogant. You don’t know me, you don’t know my heart or my mind. You’re just stating it as though it were a fact, as though you have any right to make such a statement. So I think you win the “who is more insulting” game in this thread. And if this is in fact news to you, I suggest you study it for future reference. “That is a stupid thing to say” is an attack on a post. “You are stupid” is an attack on a poster. One is acceptable, the other is not. Buy it, own it, use it, make it a part of your life.
Incidentally, you cannot in one breath claim that you have not made the charge of a conspiracy, and then claim that I have accused you of possessing the brain of a paranoid schizophrenic. Howzat, you say? You said “That fact, plus their reputations, establishes a precedent that ** * might * ** suffice as evidence of a greater conspiracy.” Suggesting by your use of the word “might” that this wasn’t necessarily the way you felt, but you could understand how someone would see it that way. Then I responded: "In the fevered mind of a paranoid schizophrenic,** * perhaps it might * ** I was just picking up on your use of the word “might” and your implied disavowal of that position. So I felt it was clear for me to identify the sort of person I felt would make that connection, and having done so, frankly, make it harder for you to own it. Sort of like a do-it-yourself insult, if you will. Take it on if you like, or leave it behind, it exists independent of you.
So in your most recent post it looks like you are in fact denying that you are making the charge of a conspiracy. And if that is the case, then I have not accused you of possessing the fevered brain of a paranoid schizophrenic, have I? Either you are making the charge or you aren’t. If you aren’t, then my paranoid remark could not be construed to be about you. If you are, then maybe it could. But you gotta pick one or the other, you can’t keep switching back and forth depending on what part of my argument you want to complain about.
On the other hand…
Then without that proof, and if you are denying that you have made that charge, (even though you make it right within the same sentence by calling them his cronies again!) then on what are you basing these rather firm, unequivocal statements, which, in order to remain logical or true, rely on a conspiracy between Gore and the people in Florida who filed the first lawsuits?
All the emphasis is mine, I emphasize “the eighteen” because you claim you didn’t make an association with all 18 when in fact you did. Sure looks like you are stating, without apology, that Gore participated in a conspiracy …and was therefore responsible for the first lawsuit … and can therefore be said to have gone to court first . Isn’t that what the whole argument was? And if it isn’t, can you state what it ** is ** in the same succinct way?
So on the one hand, you say you have no proof. Out of the other, you talk about it as though it is a fact. You need to take responsibility for your words, you can’t pick and choose, acting like you didn’t say things that you did and then claim I’m twisting what you’re saying. Unlike you, I have been thoroughly quoting and responding to each of your charges. When you respond to me, you ignore most of what I say, act offended, and then repeat the same thing you’ve now said about four times.
Unless and until you are willing to respond to my questions and my specific rebuttals to your charges, I will have to leave you to your soapbox.
Stoid
I don’t think I’m ignoring you at all, Stoid. I don’t see the need to quote you line by line and pick apart what you’re saying, because it is a one note melody. There’s not enough complexity to what you’re saying to require such a detailed inspection. You’re basically just doing the rhetorical equivalent of beating your chest and screaming at me. Same as Elvis was doing.
You don’t like what I say, so you call it names. Names like distortion, exaggeration, and so forth. I’m not a materialist, and so I don’t believe in predication without agency. If my statement is a lie, then I am a liar. I know and understand the general interpretation of such things in Great Debates, but it is a mere rationalization. A tree is known by its fruit. If something stupid is written, then its writer was stupid when he wrote it. I appreciate your wanting to take me under your wing and train me to debate, but I assure you it isn’t necessary.
I did say that Gore could have stopped the Eighteen, but that did not imply that the Gore camp conspired with them. Some of those other Democrat suits were just as likely copycats as anything. But the evidence is there, as I see it, that there might have been a conspiracy with the Gang of Three.
Proof is not required to hold a position in a debate. If it were, a whopping portion of Great Debates topics would disappear. Evidence alone is sufficient for purposes of debate, and when that evidence is offered, it then falls to the other side to offer counter-evidence. Please understand that calling the evidence names is not in itself counter-evidence.
And so it stands. The facts are that Gore himself either conceded defeat without having bothered to secure a sufficient basis to concede, or else he committed a dishonorable act by withdrawing a good-faith concession. Either way, it was nothing to be proud of. Then, a lawsuit was filed (detailed in the first two links I provided on page four) the day after the election by the Gang of Three. The next day, Gore invoked a legal statute (Florida 102.166), despite that 102.141(4) had already automatically kicked in. His invocation forced the Bush camp to defend itself in the only way it could. Thus began a flurry of litigation that continued until December 14.
Those are the facts. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’m willing to look at it. As I say, I have no particular leanings either way.
::Sifting through elucidator’s rhetoric, looking for some scrap of debatable substance.::
Thin harvest today boys. Don’t look like there’s even a single bean there.
This would be true, except for one major error on your part which renders your whole argument moot: you have not actual offered any evidence of anything at all. You’ve said “This * (the lawsuit) * happened . Then that * (Request for recount) * happened. .” That’s not evidence of anything.
Logic 101: correlation is not causation.
Should you ever have any actual evidence of causation, as opposed to simply your suspicions, you be sure to us know.
stoid
Logic 102: Proving correlation may be one step toward proving causation.
Aw, Stoid. Gee, can’t you post without condescension (the very thing you accused me of)? Logic 101? 
It is to laugh. Ha!
I guess the short of it is that you have no evidence to contradict the facts as I’ve laid them out. Were I to have concluded that these facts prove a conspiracy, I would be guilty of the pro causa fallacy that you reached for. Inasmuch as I made plain that these facts — Gore and his cronies dragging the election through weeks and weeks of sour and divisive litigation — do not prove a conspiracy, but merely lay the foundation for its consideration, you reached a bit too far.