-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
"Bad presidents happen to good people"
- Thread starter Geekbabe
- Start date
straightalker
Senior member
Representative Katherine Harris (up for election this November for the Senate) says God chooses and installs our elected representatives.
Lemon law
Lifer
Well---we elected him the first time---and the second time---and its impeach him now---limit GWB by installing a democratic congress that has one more braches--or pray that we can can survive until 1/2009 when he is replaced.
And regardless if you voted for GWB or not---cheer up--we the American taxpayer collectively get to pay for every mistake GWB makes.---and so do the unborn.
And regardless if you voted for GWB or not---cheer up--we the American taxpayer collectively get to pay for every mistake GWB makes.---and so do the unborn.
straightalker
Senior member
The 2000 election - not to argue this but to simply state facts - was illegally decided by the USA Supreme Court. The people did not install Bush as pResident. The courts did. Let's leave the Florida vote counting and Katherine Harris's scam out of this for the sake of not turning every thread into a battle over that aspect.
Straightalker,
That statement about the court stealing the election is incorrect. I'm not arguing about the correctness of their decision, but its impact, as I understand it.
We know the results of the 2000 Florida election courtesy of a recount which was done by an institute and paid for by the media. Let me summarize the key findings:
- Al Gore had decided to sue only for a handful of counties to be recounted - I think the number was four. The recount showed that had they been recounted, the vote would *not* have changed the result of Bush being elected.
- However, had all the counties statewide been recounted where the intent of the voter was clear - the legal standard in Florida - the result would have changed to Gore being elected.
- Of course, with a 537 vote margin, countless things each changed the outcome of the election, from the democrats' screwup on the butterfly ballot in one county, to the republicans' disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters under the guise of preventing felons from voting, and many other factors.
In my view, it's the case that Al Gore did win the popular vote in Florida, and therefore the electoral vote in the United States, and George Bush's two terms are a violation of our democracy, both criminally and accidentally.
That statement about the court stealing the election is incorrect. I'm not arguing about the correctness of their decision, but its impact, as I understand it.
We know the results of the 2000 Florida election courtesy of a recount which was done by an institute and paid for by the media. Let me summarize the key findings:
- Al Gore had decided to sue only for a handful of counties to be recounted - I think the number was four. The recount showed that had they been recounted, the vote would *not* have changed the result of Bush being elected.
- However, had all the counties statewide been recounted where the intent of the voter was clear - the legal standard in Florida - the result would have changed to Gore being elected.
- Of course, with a 537 vote margin, countless things each changed the outcome of the election, from the democrats' screwup on the butterfly ballot in one county, to the republicans' disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters under the guise of preventing felons from voting, and many other factors.
In my view, it's the case that Al Gore did win the popular vote in Florida, and therefore the electoral vote in the United States, and George Bush's two terms are a violation of our democracy, both criminally and accidentally.
straightalker
Senior member
I can agree with that. Well said too.
Liberals just can't accept facts.
Gore lost, plain and square. What is hilarious is that he lost his own home state. Only George McGovern circa 1972 has had that dubious honor in recent times.
Here's a brief Wiki breakdown:
After the election, USA Today, The Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder commissioned accounting firm BDO Seidman to count undervotes, that is, ballots which did not register any vote when counted by machine. BDO Seidman's results, reported in USA Today [11], show that under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes. Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush's margin increasing as looser standards were used. The standards considered by BDO Seidman were:
* Lenient standard. Any alteration in a chad, ranging from a dimple to a full punch, counts as a vote. By this standard, Bush won by 1,665 votes.
* Palm Beach standard. A dimple is counted as a vote if other races on the same ballot show dimples as well. By this standard, Bush won by 884 votes.
* Two-corner standard. A chad with two or more corners removed is counted as a vote. This is the most common standard in use. By this standard, Bush won by 363 votes.
* Strict standard. Only a fully removed chad counts as a vote. By this standard, Gore won by 3 votes.
I appreciate the nice response Straightalker. I'd just like to see the widely repeated but incorrect 'court stole the election' replaced with 'Gore won' and 'the election was stolen'.
The members of the right wing who deny the facts have lost any respect as people who are honest OR democracy loving Americans.
Since you are the one poster here I've said gets things wrong in Every Single Post you make in politics, Pabster, you don't disappoint. Most liberals can accept facts, so of course, you got that wrong.
No, you are an ideologue, and therefore you you believe the answer that you want to, whatever the facts. You want Gore to have lost fair and square, so you simply say he did. You likely know next to nothing of the facts you just got done ironically pointing out are important. You certainly reflect no knowledge of them in your post.
I still chuckle every time I see that mentioned. Ha, ha, hilarious. You are a bonehead.
Define home state - birth state, or state of residence?
For example, both Bushes never won their home states (Sr. Massachussetts, Jr. Connecticut), but don't worry, Kerry did not win his either, Colorado. (Ha, ha, you are saying?)
Funny enough, Al Gore won his while Bush lost his.
But you meant state of residence, which you claim is some sort of outrageous, amazing thing.
What you fail to mention, whe you cite McGovern in 72 as the last previous example, is that in every election from 1900 to 1972 but five - that's 14 elections - at least one of the two nominees lost their state of residence.
Can you be any more misleading?
You are, of course similarly misleading in your selective quotation of the recount, mentioning only the "undercount" scenario.
A ballot in which the voter, for example, both checked Al Gore and wrote in his name, mistaking the instruction for write-in candidates, would not count as an undervote, but rather as what's called an "overvote". Overvotes are included in the count I described, all ballots where the intent was clear - and Florida law would count all such ballots.
Pabster, I find dishonesty offensive, and you are not looking good with the repeated false and misleading posts.
In fact, from the very source you cite but so selectively, click on the following link to see the pretty chart showing Gore winning three out of three recount scenarios:
Gore wins chart from Wikipedia
Basically, under all the important scenarios - the ones which count the votes you can tell the intent on - Gore wins. Every one of the scenarios.
But to look 'balanced', the writers made some new categories for counting votes, where you exclude some votes where you can tell intent, and under some, Bush won.
I'm not so interested in those latter types, where you ignore the votes where you can tell who the voter wanted.
What should matter to Americans is who the voters intended to win, and that was overwhelmingly clearly Al Gore.
Especially when you count the other issues I mentioned like the butterly ballot that caused thousand of voters who wanted Gore to get counted for Buchanan, and other issues.
The members of the right wing who deny the facts have lost any respect as people who are honest OR democracy loving Americans.
Since you are the one poster here I've said gets things wrong in Every Single Post you make in politics, Pabster, you don't disappoint. Most liberals can accept facts, so of course, you got that wrong.
No, you are an ideologue, and therefore you you believe the answer that you want to, whatever the facts. You want Gore to have lost fair and square, so you simply say he did. You likely know next to nothing of the facts you just got done ironically pointing out are important. You certainly reflect no knowledge of them in your post.
I still chuckle every time I see that mentioned. Ha, ha, hilarious. You are a bonehead.
Define home state - birth state, or state of residence?
For example, both Bushes never won their home states (Sr. Massachussetts, Jr. Connecticut), but don't worry, Kerry did not win his either, Colorado. (Ha, ha, you are saying?)
Funny enough, Al Gore won his while Bush lost his.
But you meant state of residence, which you claim is some sort of outrageous, amazing thing.
What you fail to mention, whe you cite McGovern in 72 as the last previous example, is that in every election from 1900 to 1972 but five - that's 14 elections - at least one of the two nominees lost their state of residence.
Can you be any more misleading?
You are, of course similarly misleading in your selective quotation of the recount, mentioning only the "undercount" scenario.
A ballot in which the voter, for example, both checked Al Gore and wrote in his name, mistaking the instruction for write-in candidates, would not count as an undervote, but rather as what's called an "overvote". Overvotes are included in the count I described, all ballots where the intent was clear - and Florida law would count all such ballots.
Pabster, I find dishonesty offensive, and you are not looking good with the repeated false and misleading posts.
In fact, from the very source you cite but so selectively, click on the following link to see the pretty chart showing Gore winning three out of three recount scenarios:
Gore wins chart from Wikipedia
Basically, under all the important scenarios - the ones which count the votes you can tell the intent on - Gore wins. Every one of the scenarios.
But to look 'balanced', the writers made some new categories for counting votes, where you exclude some votes where you can tell intent, and under some, Bush won.
I'm not so interested in those latter types, where you ignore the votes where you can tell who the voter wanted.
What should matter to Americans is who the voters intended to win, and that was overwhelmingly clearly Al Gore.
Especially when you count the other issues I mentioned like the butterly ballot that caused thousand of voters who wanted Gore to get counted for Buchanan, and other issues.
ProfJohn
Lifer
From reading Wikipedia on the results it seems that different surveys show different results.
One thing for sure though, had Florida had electronic voting Gore most likely would have won 😛
It is still not known, and never will be known, how many votes Bush lost in the panhandle when the media "called" the state for Gore before the polls there closed. The media blew that big time, the polls on the eastern part of the state close at 7pm(EST) while the ones on the panhandle, which is very Republican, closed at 8pm(EST)
BTW: I hope that the state has fixed this problem and closes ALL polls statewide at the same time to make it easy on people.
One thing for sure though, had Florida had electronic voting Gore most likely would have won 😛
It is still not known, and never will be known, how many votes Bush lost in the panhandle when the media "called" the state for Gore before the polls there closed. The media blew that big time, the polls on the eastern part of the state close at 7pm(EST) while the ones on the panhandle, which is very Republican, closed at 8pm(EST)
Report on "Calling" the state for Gore early
BTW: I hope that the state has fixed this problem and closes ALL polls statewide at the same time to make it easy on people.
Yup, Wikipedia reports correctly that of all legal ballots cast state wide Gore won. That is what you count to determine who wins, the actual legal votes state wide. The Supreme Coup stole the election for Bush with all states rights conservative justices on the court experiencing a sudden and violent conversion in judicial philosophy by voting against the right of the Florida's State Supreme Court determining the legality of the election. They put in office the greatest disaster in American history.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
Oh God... chads... Diebold...
I'm fresh out of tin foil. I can't wait for the next election/next excuse. Sometimes it still blows my mind that people still want to argue about the 2000 election. LOL
I'm fresh out of tin foil. I can't wait for the next election/next excuse. Sometimes it still blows my mind that people still want to argue about the 2000 election. LOL
LumbergTech
Diamond Member
might have something to do with the fact that its impossible to actually tally the numbers from back then because of the lack of paper trail...i find anyone who thinks this is a good idea to be a fool
It would seem that keeping polls open an extra hour in a 'very republican' area is unfair itself.
You could estimate a cap on the number of votes Bush lost by measuringhow many votes are normally cast in that last hour compared to earlier, adjusting to the turnout in this election, and the percentage who voted for Bush earlier in the day, and finally, studying the historic effect of calling for one candidate on the other's turnout.
In fact, the info I've seen tends to be that the candidate they say is winning has his supporters stay home thinking their vote isn't needed, so perhaps it hurt *Gore*.
At least the media making an early estimate is not the government disenfranchising voters, and the voters still were able to vote if they wanted, unlike the many voters who thought they were voting for Gore and either were improperly denied access to the poll, or had their vote thrown out, or lost to a misleading ballot design.
And it's terrible for Americans who should support the principle of democracy to cheer when the election is rigged for their candidate, andto attack those who criticize things which, some intentional and some not, prevent a fair election. Which brings us to:
What 'blows your mind' about the fact that the most important election in our land, one that impacted trillions of dollars and sent the US's relations around the world, earned ovre decades, into the toilet, was stolen actually concerns Americans who believe in democracy, or that they say something when some ignoramuses are still denying the facts?
Do you go around pontificating on every topic you are uninformed on, or merely the ones which your ideology tells you to deny in ignorance?
Have you ever read, for example, Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse" about the voting problems, and can you answer the issues in it? You haven't? So, do you think you should be posting the conclusion about what happened when you know virtually nothing but your assumptions?
How much an enemy of democracy must you be to not only be too partisan and/or lazy to do something about election corruption, but to actively attack those who speak out? How corrupt must you be to support corruption that favors your candidate, willfully making sure you don't actually look at the facts so you can remain ignorant?
There were plenty of paper ballots to count in 2000, and they were counted following the election by the private sector, as the link noted.
Put aside the issues of the problems with the 2004 election - Bush would not have been in a position to run as an incumbent in 2004 without the stolen election of 2000. Clearly, had the election of 2000 not been stolen, we would not have seen the same results in 2004 - the legal system calls this sort of thing 'fruit from a poisonous tree' to note how the later results can happen only from an earlier wrong and they are poisonous, too.
You *cannot* erase the harm to our democracy done in 2000 at all, much less with the 2004 election. We can't know what all Gore would have done, and it's not the point, the point is the election not being stolen, depriving the American people - the majority who voted for Gore and the many whose votes were lost or stolen and even the Bush voters who deserve an honest election - democracy.
The Iraq war, the trillions of redirected dollars to the top 1%, the change in the US's relations in the world, the attempted coup against Chavez, the precedents against the president being limited by the constitution and the law, and the US allowing torture ,and such are all things that happened from the stolen election, and 2004 could only have given them a chance to stop the wrong person being in power - *if* it were an honest election.
You go look at the issues of, say, Ohio in 2004 (like you care enough about our democracy to do that), such as the intentional placement of few voting machines in black/democratic areas causing lines for hours, which makes many voters not vote, while white voter had little wait, or the placement of the unreliable voting machines in black/democratic districts so their voted were hundreds of percent more likely to get thrown out than white voters, among other issues, and you tell me how it was fair.
In the 2000 election, the Gore camp got gready and it back fired on them.
The SCOUSA rules that cherry picking the recount was unfair. They did not state the Gore Won/lost. Any leagl ruling always has an impact. If it is unfair, depends on which side of the fence you are standing on.
As others have stated, had Gore requested the complete state, he may have won. He chose not to contest the state, but rather certain counties and therefore lost becuase waht he requested was considered to be illegal.
The election was not stolen; it was counted according to the rules in place at the time by the State of Florida and the indivigual counties.
The SCOUSA rules that cherry picking the recount was unfair. They did not state the Gore Won/lost. Any leagl ruling always has an impact. If it is unfair, depends on which side of the fence you are standing on.
As others have stated, had Gore requested the complete state, he may have won. He chose not to contest the state, but rather certain counties and therefore lost becuase waht he requested was considered to be illegal.
The election was not stolen; it was counted according to the rules in place at the time by the State of Florida and the indivigual counties.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
