Florida Recount in Senate Race?

[Mountain Man]

Pop quiz:

Someone tells you that what you're doing is questionably legal. How do you respond?

A: "This is probably legal, so I should keep doing it."
B: "This is probably illegal, so I should stop doing it."

[carpedm9587]

Pop quiz:

Someone tells you that what you're doing is questionably legal. How do you respond?

A: "This is probably legal, so I should keep doing it."
B: "This is probably illegal, so I should stop doing it."

A false dichotomy. The real question is:

Someone tells you that what you're doing is questionably legal. How do you respond?

A: "Arbitrarily decide whether it is legal or illegal and act accordingly"
B: "Investigate the legality to determine if you are on safe ground or not"

You see, both of your statements are "probably" statements. Until I resolve the "probably," I don't know which applies. Indeed, you don't even know "probably." You know "possibly," hence the term "questionable." Given the possibility of illegality, the prudent course is to stop what you are doing until that can be determined. What you and OBP are doing, however, is arbitrarily deciding it is illegal. I am not saying it is "legal." I am saying it should be investigated - as has been called for.

Furthermore, in the context, the groups in question clearly said these would be used "if a judge approves."

As far as I can tell, this entire thing is a tempest in a right-wing teapot, and you folks are working really hard to convict without due process: an odd position given the love so many on the right have for the constitution.

[rogue06]

A false dichotomy. The real question is:

Someone tells you that what you're doing is questionably legal. How do you respond?

A: "Arbitrarily decide whether it is legal or illegal and act accordingly"
B: "Investigate the legality to determine if you are on safe ground or not"

So, do you continue doing what you've been warned is questionably legal until a determination can be made or do you cease until a determination can be made?

[Mountain Man]

So, do you continue doing what you've been warned is questionably legal until a determination can be made or do you cease until a determination can be made?

So you also noticed that he went miles out of his way to avoid answering the question.

[Mountain Man]

carpe also seems to continually miss the giant elephant in room that Democrat officials were altering forms to give the false appearance that they had been submitted by the deadline when they really hadn't, and when informed of the questionable legality, said, in effect, "We're doing whatever it takes to win."

[Cow Poke]

Pop quiz:

Someone tells you that what you're doing is questionably legal. How do you respond?

A: "This is probably legal, so I should keep doing it."
B: "This is probably illegal, so I should stop doing it."

My momma, when doing laundry and finding a shirt in my room, would ask "is this clean or dirty". If I didn't know for sure it was clean, her infamous retort was "if it's doubtful, it's dirty" - and it would go to the wash.

[carpedm9587]

So, do you continue doing what you've been warned is questionably legal until a determination can be made or do you cease until a determination can be made?

I answered that in my previous post. The fact of being "questionable" opens the possibility of illegal activity - and prudence suggests (to me) holding off until that can be determined. On the other hand, if there is a narrow window of opportunity that will be lost if I wait for the judgment, that may mitigate my decision.

That appears to be what happened here - or at least it fits the evidence. If it had been me - my decision matrix would have looked like this:

1) Wait for resolution to the issue of illegality - and miss the opportunity for the ballot adjustment
2) Move ahead assuming there is nothing illegal about it - and risk it being found illegal

If I had no intention of actually using the forms until the issue of their usability was settled, I might accept the risk of it being determined to be illegal to put the adjusted date on the forms, and accept any penalty that may come. As I understand it, the judge did extend the deadline and it matched what was on the forms. I don't believe the issue of the legality of putting those forms out before that judgement was made has been examined or settled.

As a consequence, the claim the the ballots are "fraudulent" is not known to be true. It is simply being widely ballied about by many on the right, as far as I can tell.

[carpedm9587]

carpe also seems to continually miss the giant elephant in room that Democrat officials were altering forms to give the false appearance that they had been submitted by the deadline when they really hadn't, and when informed of the questionable legality, said, in effect, "We're doing whatever it takes to win."

Umm...that is not what I understand. My understanding is that the dates on these forms were being adjusted to 11/8 pending the decision of the judge abut the extension of the deadline. If the deadline was to be extended, the forms would be used. If the deadline was NOT to be extended, the forms would not be used. That's what the article says. The forms could not be made to appear to be "submitted before the deadline" if the judge did not actually extend the deadline. A claim that it would make it "appear" they were holds no water when the published deadline was 11/5 until and if the judge extended it.

[carpedm9587]

My momma, when doing laundry and finding a shirt in my room, would ask "is this clean or dirty". If I didn't know for sure it was clean, her infamous retort was "if it's doubtful, it's dirty" - and it would go to the wash.

A prudent choice - and one that aligns with what I said earlier: if there is a concern of illegality, most of the time we suspend what we are doing until we know - just in case. That doesn't make what we are doing "illegal" because someone raised a claim of "questionably legal." And there will be circumstances when that "prudent course" is not taken in the face of mitigating circumstances. More than once, I am sure, that shirt would get a quick sniff test and get used without a washing if it was required for the choral recital in 45 minutes, or was a critical part of the school play costume and junior just called form the school with a "can you bring that shirt - the curtain goes up in 30 minutes" message.

[Cow Poke]

A prudent choice - and one that aligns with what I said earlier: if there is a concern of illegality, most of the time we suspend what we are doing until we know - just in case. That doesn't make what we are doing "illegal" because someone raised a claim of "questionably legal." And there will be circumstances when that "prudent course" is not taken in the face of mitigating circumstances.

That assumes we're dealing with honest reasonable persons, Carpe. Are you NEW here? These are political operatives who seem to believe "anything goes" if it gets their candidate across the finish line.

Somehow, the libs claim the Republicans are full of all kind of nasty dirty tricks, but their guys are all choir boys. You know better, I'm sure.

More than once, I am sure, that shirt would get a quick sniff test and get used without a washing if it was required for the choral recital in 45 minutes, or was a critical part of the school play costume and junior just called form the school with a "can you bring that shirt - the curtain goes up in 30 minutes" message.

You don't know my Momma! She was a clean-freak, before clean-freak was cool. She had NINE children, along with her and Dad and Gramma living with us. She was doing laundry pretty much all the time. We grew up poor, but we never knew it, cause one of Momma's foundational beliefs was "just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to be dirty".

[carpedm9587]

That assumes we're dealing with honest reasonable persons, Carpe. Are you NEW here? These are political operatives who seem to believe "anything goes" if it gets their candidate across the finish line.

Always possible - but I prefer to accuse people and hold them accountable when they are shown, by due process, to have acted illegally. You see, otherwise I am taking stories from various media and judging people by the press. That's not how it is supposed to work - though it seems to be how many people (including the head of the legal/executive branch of our government) are more and more willing to operate. Don't like their politics? Lock them up!

Somehow, the libs claim the Republicans are full of all kind of nasty dirty tricks, but their guys are all choir boys. You know better, I'm sure.

I find each side seems to think their own are "pure and pristine" and the other side is regularly (always?) "pure evil." Both sides are guilty of the position - which is why I do not accept these sweeping arguments from either side.

You don't know my Momma! She was a clean-freak, before clean-freak was cool. She had NINE children, along with her and Dad and Gramma living with us. She was doing laundry pretty much all the time. We grew up poor, but we never knew it, cause one of Momma's foundational beliefs was "just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to be dirty".

Well, I can tell you of at least a half dozen last-minute calls from my eldest about some piece of clothing that was "required" for this play or that recital or even one prom. Often it was located on the floor of his room. If it passed the "sniff test" - off it went to the event of choice. When you have 30 minutes and the school is 20 minutes away, running it through the wash and a drier is not an option. You do the best you can with what you have. Insistence on making sure it is "clean" means the play doesn't happen. On a couple of occasions, the uglier pieces got a quick hand-wash in the kitchen sink and were dried by hanging them out the car window on the way to the school. On one such incident in January - the shirt in question froze solid outside the car window. When we got to the school, a few quick smacks broke off most of the ice, leaving the shirt damp but serviceable. Clean? I think not.

So here's how I would have run the math on this ballot issue. If we don't adjust the dates on the forms and get them out - we run the significant risk that by the time the judgment comes down, we won't have enough time to get them out. So I'd get a leap on things by making the changes I am hoping the judge is going to approve, and then committing to using them only if the judgment is what I am hoping for. If someone later says "jumping the gun" like that is illegal - I'll deal with the consequences. My guess is anyone judge would accept such an approach as both ethical and legal.

[Cow Poke]

Always possible - but I prefer to accuse people and hold them accountable when they are shown, by due process, to have acted illegally...

Carpe, get real, brother - you REALLY think Florida is the mess it is because everybody is focused on doing things "legally"?

You really think that's why both sides have armies of lawyers there?

[carpedm9587]

Carpe, get real, brother - you REALLY think Florida is the mess it is because everybody is focused on doing things "legally"?

You really think that's why both sides have armies of lawyers there?

I think that both sides have loads of lawyers there because the stakes are high. And I think both sides are tossing accusations around right and left (pun intended) because it makes political hay. Do I think there is any funny business? Possibly. I'm sure someone somewhere snuck in a fudged ballot. People are people and sometimes they do stupid, wrong things. But I am not going to accuse anyone of systemic malfeasance until I have evidence that it actually happened. There's enough of that going on every day of the week from both sides. I won't be party to it.

Show me your evidence - I'll look at it and come to the best conclusion I can. When the best I can do is "I don't know," I'll say "I don't know." I'm not going to try someone in the halls of my mind on the basis of the say so of third and fourth party reports. I certainly won't do that when I spot logical flaws wide enough to drive a semi through.

[Cow Poke]

I think that both sides have loads of lawyers there because the stakes are high. And I think both sides are tossing accusations around right and left (pun intended) because it makes political hay. Do I think there is any funny business? Possibly. I'm sure someone somewhere snuck in a fudged ballot. People are people and sometimes they do stupid, wrong things. But I am not going to accuse anyone of systemic malfeasance until I have evidence that it actually happened. There's enough of that going on every day of the week from both sides. I won't be party to it.

Show me your evidence - I'll look at it and come to the best conclusion I can. When the best I can do is "I don't know," I'll say "I don't know." I'm not going to try someone in the halls of my mind on the basis of the say so of third and fourth party reports. I certainly won't do that when I spot logical flaws wide enough to drive a semi through.

ok

[Mountain Man]

Umm...that is not what I understand.

Of course it's not, but "you are (pretty selectively) electing to interpret [it] to fit your story."



Another issue that raises suspicion is that the "altered" forms were only being sent to Democrat voters.