One of the many examples of R-W hypocrisy....

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I was talking about the lie that GW won by the Supreme Court nominating him. Care to debate that? My links are ready.

In Bush v. Gore (2000), a divided Supreme Court ruled that the state of Florida's court-ordered manual recount of vote ballots in the 2000 presidential election was unconstitutional. ... With the race so close, Florida law allowed Gore the option of "manual vote recounts" in the counties of his choosing.

Correct. So it was not the Supreme Court choosing Bush, it was the Supreme Court stopping the Florida courts from choosing Gore.

In Florida, all ballots had to be turned in and certified in five days. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you want any recount, fine. Have the recount and the ballots certified in five days. The Florida court permitted Gore to have recounts and take all the time he needed. That goes against Florida election law. It's also known as judicial legislation. More than that, they originally allowed him to recount ballots in his favored areas which was also against Florida election laws. If you recount ballots in three of Gore's areas, you must have three recounts in Bush's areas.

When the case made it to the SC, the justices asked that it go back to the Florida courts to explain just WTF they were doing? You cannot change state laws on the bench. That's a legislation process--not a judicial process.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There have only been 2 presidents who assumed the presidency with less than the popular vote since the 1800s Bush and Trump, and Bush didn't even win........he was appointed by the SC.

One of two things here about that lie: you either are informed and realize you are lying, or you are uninformed and don't realize you're lying.

Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org
Q: How many times was a president elected who did not win the popular vote?

A: It has happened five times.

FULL ANSWER

The 2016 election was the most recent when the candidate who received the greatest number of electoral votes, and thus won the presidency, didn’t win the popular vote. But this scenario has played out in our nation’s history before.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

Update, Dec. 23, 2016: We have updated this article to include the results of the 2016 election.
Sources
Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Web site, 2000 Presidential Election: Electoral Vote Totals, 12 March 2008

Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Web site, 2000 Presidential Election: Popular Vote Totals, 12 March 2008

Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Web site, Historical Election Results: 1789-2004 Presidential Elections, 12 March 2008

No, I was talking about the lie that GW won by the Supreme Court nominating him. Care to debate that? My links are ready.

No need to debate that. It's what happened.

Smart move on your part. Never bring a knife to a gun fight.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yeah...but dogs are lovable.....and know how to go poop outside instead of on the carpet.....you can't really say that about many left wingers...

A right winger's show of "intelligentsia" at work......Be proud, fellow right wingers......LOL

Hey loser.....

Getting cold up there in the bleachers ?

 

[Auld Phart]

No, I was talking about the lie that GW won by the Supreme Court nominating him. Care to debate that? My links are ready.

In Bush v. Gore (2000), a divided Supreme Court ruled that the state of Florida's court-ordered manual recount of vote ballots in the 2000 presidential election was unconstitutional. ... With the race so close, Florida law allowed Gore the option of "manual vote recounts" in the counties of his choosing.

Correct. So it was not the Supreme Court choosing Bush, it was the Supreme Court stopping the Florida courts from choosing Gore.

In Florida, all ballots had to be turned in and certified in five days. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you want any recount, fine. Have the recount and the ballots certified in five days. The Florida court permitted Gore to have recounts and take all the time he needed. That goes against Florida election law. It's also known as judicial legislation. More than that, they originally allowed him to recount ballots in his favored areas which was also against Florida election laws. If you recount ballots in three of Gore's areas, you must have three recounts in Bush's areas.

When the case made it to the SC, the justices asked that it go back to the Florida courts to explain just WTF they were doing? You cannot change state laws on the bench. That's a legislation process--not a judicial process.

When the case made it to the SC, the justices asked that it go back to the Florida courts to explain just WTF they were doing?

and 3 of the 7 justices changed their minds

 

[OKTexas]

That's no what happened, they checked immigration status after a normal traffic stop, which they were authorized by ICE to do at the time. Every idiot wetback claimed profiling when the were stopped for speeding or expired registration.

Then Joe was also denied due process, he asked for a jury trial, he didn't get one. It was all political BS brought on by your dear leader and regressive judges.

Arpaio OPENLY admits that he is either a racist OR an idiot.....You choose:

"In December 2011, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow issued a preliminary injunction ordering Arpaio and his deputies to stop targeting Latino drivers. Prosecutors allege that Arpaio's deputies defied the injunction for at least 18 months. In May 2013, Snow ruled that Arpaio's office had engaged in racial profiling.

"Arpaio and his deputies have admitted to violating the judge's order, but they claim their defiance wasn't intentional."

For these violations, Arpaio was found to have committed civil contempt. But Arpaio has long maintained he did not do so intentionally — and so is innocent of criminal contempt — because the judge's order was unclear. ....... "his attorneys argued that the violations were a result of poor communication and a lack of understanding by Arpaio and his command staff."

Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio Convicted Of Criminal Contempt

Joe and his staff consulted with legal counsel the whole time and were told they were doing nothing wrong. You didn't address why he was denied a jury trial.


.

 

[nat4900]

Joe and his staff consulted with legal counsel the whole time and were told they were doing nothing wrong. You didn't address why he was denied a jury trial.

....ahhhh, now you morons will blame Arpaio's lawyers........LOL

BTW, the non-adherence to a previous court order does NOT need a jury trial.....

 

[OKTexas]

Joe and his staff consulted with legal counsel the whole time and were told they were doing nothing wrong. You didn't address why he was denied a jury trial.

....ahhhh, now you morons will blame Arpaio's lawyers........LOL

BTW, the non-adherence to a previous court order does NOT need a jury trial.....

Yeah, those constitutional guarantees of a jury trial, who needs them right? Piss off a judge and he can screw you all by himself even if they're wrong and your only recourse is an appeal.


.


.

 

[12icer]

As for your popular vote EC you left out 1960 when kennedy LOST the popular vote. There is a NEW history that he didn't but in 1960 the FACTS were he lost the popular vote. The new "history" takes on of the parties out of the election and awards those votes to kennedy, They weren't his. He in fact lost the popular vote to Nixon by a slim margin of about 60,000 votes. leftist history is about as worthless as a dried dog turd.

 

[12icer]

Joe and his staff consulted with legal counsel the whole time and were told they were doing nothing wrong. You didn't address why he was denied a jury trial.

....ahhhh, now you morons will blame Arpaio's lawyers........LOL

BTW, the non-adherence to a previous court order does NOT need a jury trial.....

The fact is the leftist federal court interjected itself "as usual" into a States right to protect the welfare of it's citizens. To charge a person with a separate felony you need to impanel a grand jury AND they have the right to ask for a jury trial.

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt
(a) Disposition After Notice. Any person who commits criminal contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution on notice.

(1) Notice. The court must give the person notice in open court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order. The notice must:

(A) state the time and place of the trial;

(B) allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense; and

(C) state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt and describe it as such.

(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

(3) Trial and Disposition. A person being prosecuted for criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in which federal law so provides and must be released or detained as Rule 46 provides. If the criminal contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless the defendant consents. Upon a finding or verdict of guilty, the court must impose the punishment.

(b) Summary Disposition. Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the court (other than a magistrate judge) may summarily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies; a magistrate judge may summarily punish a person as provided in 28 U.S.C. §636(e). The contempt order must recite the facts, be signed by the judge, and be filed with the clerk.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mention to right wingers that Trump won election because of the outdated electoral college system.....and they quickly respond with....."LOOK at the Constitution..."

Or dare mention that stricter gun laws should be enacted to curb the butchery....and they quickly respond with........"LOOK at the Constitution."

But when one of their ilk is convicted of breaking tenets within the Constitution, like the old goat Joe Arpaio did and this bigot gets pardoned....some of them quickly respond with......"us racists stick together."

This sucks. Not because I think pardoning is a bad idea. But because it was literally a "contempt" misdeameanor and IT WAS UNDER APPEAL. Instead of waiting on the appeal, which prob would overturn the conviction because of the way the judge handled proceedings, Trump WANTED the controversy. He couldn't help himself from creating MORE friction than is needed.

Maybe he didn't want to miss the opportunity to have HIS name on it. And was AFRAID it would overturned on appeal. Even ICE can't agree internally on what's profiling and what's not.

What did you expect? Trump is an arrogant pig.

All Dem/Rep leadership is related to pigs. That's because America votes for "winners" rather than people with principles and leadership skill..

 

[Dragonlady]

Mention to right wingers that Trump won election because of the outdated electoral college system.....and they quickly respond with....."LOOK at the Constitution..."

Or dare mention that stricter gun laws should be enacted to curb the butchery....and they quickly respond with........"LOOK at the Constitution."

But when one of their ilk is convicted of breaking tenets within the Constitution, like the old goat Joe Arpaio did and this bigot gets pardoned....some of them quickly respond with......"us racists stick together."

This sucks. Not because I think pardoning is a bad idea. But because it was literally a "contempt" misdeameanor and IT WAS UNDER APPEAL. Instead of waiting on the appeal, which prob would overturn the conviction because of the way the judge handled proceedings, Trump WANTED the controversy. He couldn't help himself from creating MORE friction than is needed.

Maybe he didn't want to miss the opportunity to have HIS name on it. And was AFRAID it would overturned on appeal. Even ICE can't agree internally on what's profiling and what's not.

What did you expect? Trump is an arrogant pig.

All Dem/Rep leadership is related to pigs. That's because America votes for "winners" rather than people with principles and leadership skill..

I've read that the US had better Presidents when the parties picked the candidates in smoke filled rooms, rather than through primaries.

The Republican primaries in particular, are brutal. Romney wasn't so much beaten by Obama as he was destroyed by fellow Republicans in the primaries. That Gingerich PAC which produced "When Mitt Romney Came To Town" can take a lot of credit for destroying Romney's credibility.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mention to right wingers that Trump won election because of the outdated electoral college system.....and they quickly respond with....."LOOK at the Constitution..."

Or dare mention that stricter gun laws should be enacted to curb the butchery....and they quickly respond with........"LOOK at the Constitution."

But when one of their ilk is convicted of breaking tenets within the Constitution, like the old goat Joe Arpaio did and this bigot gets pardoned....some of them quickly respond with......"us racists stick together."

This sucks. Not because I think pardoning is a bad idea. But because it was literally a "contempt" misdeameanor and IT WAS UNDER APPEAL. Instead of waiting on the appeal, which prob would overturn the conviction because of the way the judge handled proceedings, Trump WANTED the controversy. He couldn't help himself from creating MORE friction than is needed.

Maybe he didn't want to miss the opportunity to have HIS name on it. And was AFRAID it would overturned on appeal. Even ICE can't agree internally on what's profiling and what's not.

What did you expect? Trump is an arrogant pig.

All Dem/Rep leadership is related to pigs. That's because America votes for "winners" rather than people with principles and leadership skill..

I've read that the US had better Presidents when the parties picked the candidates in smoke filled rooms, rather than through primaries.

The Republican primaries in particular, are brutal. Romney wasn't so much beaten by Obama as he was destroyed by fellow Republicans in the primaries. That Gingerich PAC which produced "When Mitt Romney Came To Town" can take a lot of credit for destroying Romney's credibility.

Power of the PARTIES is now the greatest threat to the Republic. My party, (LParty) holds their OWN primaries. Which is the way it SHOULD be. Dems/Reps should never have been given the appearance of "govt sanction".

If the Indies want to run Independent -- I'd have no problem with ballot rules that let them ALL on or a culling primary conducted the same way it is today for Dem/Reps. But "a party" should do it's own selection and vetting. No more "open primaries" or "top 2" antics.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've read that the US had better Presidents when the parties picked the candidates in smoke filled rooms, rather than through primaries.

Yeah, but thanks to liberals, you're not allowed to smoke in public anymore.