Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 26, 2014, 02:17:44 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results
| | |-+  2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | | |-+  For Democrats: Does 2000...
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Poll
Question: Does the whole electoral process of 2000 bring up an unexplainable anger in you?
Yes   -76 (60.8%)
No   -19 (15.2%)
I'm not a Democrat   -30 (24%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 121

Author Topic: For Democrats: Does 2000...  (Read 21395 times)
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32026
United States


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2005, 03:06:14 am »
Ignore

One county, not the entire state, which in terms of raw votes (but not percentage) was closer than FL. Bush probably should have asked for a recount of the entire state.

Gore had recounts in several counties in FL, and those were hand recounts.

The yawning might indicative of a lack of blood flow to your brain, which could explain the delusional aspects of some of your posts.

Spin spin spin, you hypocrite.


Like I said, you've demonstrated once again you delusional state. 

Like I've said, I have no problem with a candidate asking for a recount (and didn't in the WA gubenatorial or OH presidential races this year).  I do have a problem with a candidate asking for recounts in some places, and when he doesn't win, trying to find enough votes to win, like Al Gore tried. 

Had Roosevelt Count provided Bush with a plurality in NM, I certainly would say that there should have been state wide recount there as well.  I didn't see Bush trying to keep couting votes there (or in Iowa or OR) until he had a win.

I also have a problem, as did Congress when they adopted the safe harbor legislation, trying to delay a result so that votes cannot be counted, like Al Gore did.

Tell me jFRAUD is it the Democratic Party's policy to try to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters, like Al Gore tried in 2000?

The greatest hypocracy was Gore's "Count every vote" when the didn't really try to.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31142


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2005, 03:14:04 am »
Ignore

One county, not the entire state, which in terms of raw votes (but not percentage) was closer than FL.   Bush probably should have asked for a recount of the entire state.

Gore had recounts in several counties in FL, and those were hand recounts.

The yawning might indicative of a lack of blood flow to your brain, which could explain the delusional aspects of some of your posts.

Spin spin spin, you hypocrite.


Like I said, you've demonstrated once again you delusional state. 

Like I've said, I have no problem with a candidate asking for a recount (and didn't in the WA gubenatorial or OH presidential races this year).  I do have a problem with a candidate asking for recounts in some places, and when he doesn't win, trying to find enough votes to win, like Al Gore tried. 

Had Roosevelt Count provided Bush with a plurality in NM, I certainly would say that there should have been state wide recount there as well.  I didn't see Bush trying to keep couting votes there (or in Iowa or OR) until he had a win.

I also have a problem, as did Congress when they adopted the safe harbor legislation, trying to delay a result so that votes cannot be counted, like Al Gore did.

Tell me jFRAUD is it the Democratic Party's policy to try to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters, like Al Gore tried in 2000?

The greatest hypocracy was Gore's "Count every vote" when the didn't really try to.

You're trying to justify a NM recount while attacking a FL recount? What a bunch of crap.

And how dare you call Al Gore a hypocrite? There were military absentee ballots with no postmark that were never counted before. There were Republican absentee ballots that were modified by a Republican after they were recieved. Normal practicse would be to not count the first, and probably the 2nd. Guess what? Al Gore did not oppose counting those, even though they helped Bush, and they got counted.

It's pretty sad that you have to resort to immature name calling.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32026
United States


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2005, 03:45:09 am »
Ignore



You're trying to justify a NM recount while attacking a FL recount? What a bunch of crap.

And how dare you call Al Gore a hypocrite? There were military absentee ballots with no postmark that were never counted before. There were Republican absentee ballots that were modified by a Republican after they were recieved. Normal practicse would be to not count the first, and probably the 2nd. Guess what? Al Gore did not oppose counting those, even though they helped Bush, and they got counted.

It's pretty sad that you have to resort to immature name calling.

I call Gore a hypocrite because he is one.  A call you jFRAUD because you post fradulant things.  But you are hypocrite as well.

I would have supported, after the official count, either candidate calling for a statewide recount FL.  I would have supported either candidate calling for a statewide recount in NM; I certainly would have supported a recount in NM, if Bush would won on the basis of the one county recount.
The problem was that neither candidate ask for one.

Gore was being hypocritical when he said, "Count every vote," and then only tried to count some of them.  He didn't try for a statewide recount until after it was clear he'd still lose after the Democratic areas were counted.

Gore was being hypocritical again, when he tried for the statewide recount, days after the partical recount.  He didn't the votes counted.  He didn't FL to cast its Electoral Votes.  Constitutionally, he need a majority of the Electoral Votes cast; if he could prevent FL from casting theirs, he had a majority. 

Face it, Al Gore's goal was to prevent a state from casting its Electoral Votes.  I ask again jFRAUDis it the Democratic Party's policy to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters?  That is almost what happened in 2000.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31142


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2005, 03:50:43 am »
Ignore



You're trying to justify a NM recount while attacking a FL recount? What a bunch of crap.

And how dare you call Al Gore a hypocrite? There were military absentee ballots with no postmark that were never counted before. There were Republican absentee ballots that were modified by a Republican after they were recieved. Normal practicse would be to not count the first, and probably the 2nd. Guess what? Al Gore did not oppose counting those, even though they helped Bush, and they got counted.

It's pretty sad that you have to resort to immature name calling.

I call Gore a hypocrite because he is one.  A call you jFRAUD because you post fradulant things.  But you are hypocrite as well.

I would have supported, after the official count, either candidate calling for a statewide recount FL.  I would have supported either candidate calling for a statewide recount in NM; I certainly would have supported a recount in NM, if Bush would won on the basis of the one county recount.
The problem was that neither candidate ask for one.

Gore was being hypocritical when he said, "Count every vote," and then only tried to count some of them.  He didn't try for a statewide recount until after it was clear he'd still lose after the Democratic areas were counted.

Gore was being hypocritical again, when he tried for the statewide recount, days after the partical recount.  He didn't the votes counted.  He didn't FL to cast its Electoral Votes.  Constitutionally, he need a majority of the Electoral Votes cast; if he could prevent FL from casting theirs, he had a majority. 

Face it, Al Gore's goal was to prevent a state from casting its Electoral Votes.  I ask again jFRAUDis it the Democratic Party's policy to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters?  That is almost what happened in 2000.

Gore should have called more for a statewide recount. He never opposed a statewide recount. Gore had limited resources for fighting the legal and PR challenges, he had only 25% as much money as Bush.

How can you claim that the Republicans are not hypocrites for opposing the FL recount while getting a statewide NM recount?

Can you give me any evidence that Gore was planning on not having 25 electors cast valid votes for the true winner of Florida? The Republican state legislature was planning on choosing a slate of 25 Bush electors, regardless of the outcome of the recount.

Provide some evidence, or quit defaming Gore.


It's really sad that you don't see how the Republicans are hypocrites here.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2005, 03:55:13 am by jfern »Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32026
United States


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2005, 04:15:54 am »
Ignore


Gore should have called more for a statewide recount. He never opposed a statewide recount.

Well, that one intelligent thing you've said on this thread.  Yes, he should have ask for one, when there was adequate time to do one.

Quote


How can you claim that the Republicans are not hypocrites for opposing the FL recount while getting a statewide NM recount?


Here, you've demonstrated that either you don't read your own posts or don't understand them.  According to the Village Voice that you cited, only one county in NM was recounted; the state of NM was not.  I frankly would have urged Bush to request one, but he chose not two.  (I'll add that this one county, Roosevelt, lowered the margin by more than 20% of the NM vote; there is no way of telling how many more votes would have gotten.)

Quote
Can you give me any evidence that Gore was planning on not having 25 electors cast valid votes for the true winner of Florida? The Republican state legislature was planning on choosing a slate of 25 Bush electors, regardless of the outcome of the recount.

Provide some evidence, or quit defaming Gore.


It's really sad that you don't see how the Republicans are hypocrites here.

Here is the statement from Gore's spokesman, Warren Christopher, in FL:

"Al Gore has more popular votes than anybody else in this election," he continued. "He has more electoral votes. There is no reason that we shouldn't be defending his rights as well as the rights of people of the state of Florida."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qkE7lTkX4vwJ:archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/13/president.election/+Gore+%22more+electoral+votes%22+quote&hl=en

The key here is that they are looking at the current situation.  If it doesn't change Gore had more electoral votes, and they knew it.  The Constitution provides for the candidate with a majority of the votes cast to win. Their goal was to keep it from changing.   Delay until after the count.

That was just a quick Googling; I would suspect that I could find a lot more.  Maybe I could start a "Great Gore Disinfranshisement Plan" thread.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31142


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2005, 04:19:59 am »
Ignore


Gore should have called more for a statewide recount. He never opposed a statewide recount.

Well, that one intelligent thing you've said on this thread.  Yes, he should have ask for one, when there was adequate time to do one.

Quote


How can you claim that the Republicans are not hypocrites for opposing the FL recount while getting a statewide NM recount?


Here, you've demonstrated that either you don't read your own posts or don't understand them.  According to the Village Voice that you cited, only one county in NM was recounted; the state of NM was not.  I frankly would have urged Bush to request one, but he chose not two.  (I'll add that this one county, Roosevelt, lowered the margin by more than 20% of the NM vote; there is no way of telling how many more votes would have gotten.)

Quote
Can you give me any evidence that Gore was planning on not having 25 electors cast valid votes for the true winner of Florida? The Republican state legislature was planning on choosing a slate of 25 Bush electors, regardless of the outcome of the recount.

Provide some evidence, or quit defaming Gore.


It's really sad that you don't see how the Republicans are hypocrites here.

Here is the statement from Gore's spokesman, Warren Christopher, in FL:

"Al Gore has more popular votes than anybody else in this election," he continued. "He has more electoral votes. There is no reason that we shouldn't be defending his rights as well as the rights of people of the state of Florida."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qkE7lTkX4vwJ:archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/13/president.election/+Gore+%22more+electoral+votes%22+quote&hl=en

The key here is that they are looking at the current situation.  If it doesn't change Gore had more electoral votes, and they knew it.  The Constitution provides for the candidate with a majority of the votes cast to win. Their goal was to keep it from changing.   Delay until after the count.

That was just a quick Googling; I would suspect that I could find a lot more.  Maybe I could start a "Great Gore Disinfranshisement Plan" thread.

I think you're misreading the situtation. He probably either means
1. That Al Gore with Florida has a majority of the electoral votes, and therefore should win
2. That Al Gore has a majority of the non Florida electors, which he's just mentioning for PR value

Anwyays, you failed to address the other points.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32026
United States


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2005, 04:49:51 am »
Ignore


Gore should have called more for a statewide recount. He never opposed a statewide recount.

Well, that one intelligent thing you've said on this thread. Yes, he should have ask for one, when there was adequate time to do one.

Quote


How can you claim that the Republicans are not hypocrites for opposing the FL recount while getting a statewide NM recount?


Here, you've demonstrated that either you don't read your own posts or don't understand them. According to the Village Voice that you cited, only one county in NM was recounted; the state of NM was not. I frankly would have urged Bush to request one, but he chose not two. (I'll add that this one county, Roosevelt, lowered the margin by more than 20% of the NM vote; there is no way of telling how many more votes would have gotten.)

Quote
Can you give me any evidence that Gore was planning on not having 25 electors cast valid votes for the true winner of Florida? The Republican state legislature was planning on choosing a slate of 25 Bush electors, regardless of the outcome of the recount.

Provide some evidence, or quit defaming Gore.


It's really sad that you don't see how the Republicans are hypocrites here.

Here is the statement from Gore's spokesman, Warren Christopher, in FL:

"Al Gore has more popular votes than anybody else in this election," he continued. "He has more electoral votes. There is no reason that we shouldn't be defending his rights as well as the rights of people of the state of Florida."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qkE7lTkX4vwJ:archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/13/president.election/+Gore+%22more+electoral+votes%22+quote&hl=en

The key here is that they are looking at the current situation.  If it doesn't change Gore had more electoral votes, and they knew it.  The Constitution provides for the candidate with a majority of the votes cast to win. Their goal was to keep it from changing.   Delay until after the count.

That was just a quick Googling; I would suspect that I could find a lot more.  Maybe I could start a "Great Gore Disinfranshisement Plan" thread.

I think you're misreading the situtation. He probably either means
1. That Al Gore with Florida has a majority of the electoral votes, and therefore should win
2. That Al Gore has a majority of the non Florida electors, which he's just mentioning for PR value

Anwyays, you failed to address the other points.

1.  I love how you say, he didn't mean exactly what he says.  Chropher (I beleieve he was near the Florida Supreme Court when he said it) said, "He has more electoral votes."  If the process stopped right there, Gore has more votes and wins. 

2.  As you said, without Florida, Gore has a majority.  Further, he didn't, at first, ask a statewide recount, which we both thought he should have (and yes, I would have supported it).  It takes time to count and it would have delayed the certification until after the "Safe Harbor" period, so that the could be challenged yet again.   He asks for just a few counties, and doesn't win.  He then asks for a time consuming recount statewind.  If that fails, he can challenge the electors.  It's win or disinfranchise; it almost worked, too.

As for the issues, Gore didn't challenge them, or there wasn't any proof (which is the same thing I said about WA, if you recall; in that one a Democrat won).  I'm being very consistent in my position on recounts; I wish you were.

You still have not answered by question:  Is it the policy of the Democratic Party to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters?
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31142


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2005, 05:03:33 am »
Ignore


Gore should have called more for a statewide recount. He never opposed a statewide recount.

Well, that one intelligent thing you've said on this thread.  Yes, he should have ask for one, when there was adequate time to do one.

Quote


How can you claim that the Republicans are not hypocrites for opposing the FL recount while getting a statewide NM recount?


Here, you've demonstrated that either you don't read your own posts or don't understand them.  According to the Village Voice that you cited, only one county in NM was recounted; the state of NM was not.  I frankly would have urged Bush to request one, but he chose not two.  (I'll add that this one county, Roosevelt, lowered the margin by more than 20% of the NM vote; there is no way of telling how many more votes would have gotten.)

Quote
Can you give me any evidence that Gore was planning on not having 25 electors cast valid votes for the true winner of Florida? The Republican state legislature was planning on choosing a slate of 25 Bush electors, regardless of the outcome of the recount.

Provide some evidence, or quit defaming Gore.


It's really sad that you don't see how the Republicans are hypocrites here.

Here is the statement from Gore's spokesman, Warren Christopher, in FL:

"Al Gore has more popular votes than anybody else in this election," he continued. "He has more electoral votes. There is no reason that we shouldn't be defending his rights as well as the rights of people of the state of Florida."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qkE7lTkX4vwJ:archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/13/president.election/+Gore+%22more+electoral+votes%22+quote&hl=en

The key here is that they are looking at the current situation.  If it doesn't change Gore had more electoral votes, and they knew it.  The Constitution provides for the candidate with a majority of the votes cast to win. Their goal was to keep it from changing.   Delay until after the count.

That was just a quick Googling; I would suspect that I could find a lot more.  Maybe I could start a "Great Gore Disinfranshisement Plan" thread.

I think you're misreading the situtation. He probably either means
1. That Al Gore with Florida has a majority of the electoral votes, and therefore should win
2. That Al Gore has a majority of the non Florida electors, which he's just mentioning for PR value

Anwyays, you failed to address the other points.

1.  I love how you say, he didn't mean exactly what he says.  Chropher (I beleieve he was near the Florida Supreme Court when he said it) said, "He has more electoral votes."  If the process stopped right there, Gore has more votes and wins. 

2.  As you said, without Florida, Gore has a majority.  Further, he didn't, at first, ask a statewide recount, which we both thought he should have (and yes, I would have supported it).  It takes time to count and it would have delayed the certification until after the "Safe Harbor" period, so that the could be challenged yet again.   He asks for just a few counties, and doesn't win.  He then asks for a time consuming recount statewind.  If that fails, he can challenge the electors.  It's win or disinfranchise; it almost worked, too.

As for the issues, Gore didn't challenge them, or there wasn't any proof (which is the same thing I said about WA, if you recall; in that one a Democrat won).  I'm being very consistent in my position on recounts; I wish you were.

You still have not answered by question:  Is it the policy of the Democratic Party to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters?

1. He was not suggesting that the process stop there

2. Yes, a statewide recount like they had in NM would have been the way to go. Gore did eventually start calling for a statewide recount. The problem really is that his legal and PR team were getting their asses kicked by the much more expensive Bush version.

Anyways, the Republican Florida legilsature was planning on voting in some Bush electors, even if Bush clearly lost the recount. I don't see how you can argue that they weren't trying to disenfranchise the voters

There were plenty of people disenfranchied with the scrub list, and plenty more votes that went wrong, particularly in minority areas with the machines set to high reject standards. Then there's the Butterfly ballot, designed by a complete DINO. All of these people didn't have their votes counted (despite the fact that illegal absentee votes were counted).

By denying a fair statewide recount, lots of people were disenfranchied. By your reasoning, 6 million people were disenfranchised.

Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32026
United States


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2005, 05:33:09 am »
Ignore


Gore should have called more for a statewide recount. He never opposed a statewide recount.

Well, that one intelligent thing you've said on this thread. Yes, he should have ask for one, when there was adequate time to do one.

Quote


How can you claim that the Republicans are not hypocrites for opposing the FL recount while getting a statewide NM recount?


Here, you've demonstrated that either you don't read your own posts or don't understand them. According to the Village Voice that you cited, only one county in NM was recounted; the state of NM was not. I frankly would have urged Bush to request one, but he chose not two. (I'll add that this one county, Roosevelt, lowered the margin by more than 20% of the NM vote; there is no way of telling how many more votes would have gotten.)

Quote
Can you give me any evidence that Gore was planning on not having 25 electors cast valid votes for the true winner of Florida? The Republican state legislature was planning on choosing a slate of 25 Bush electors, regardless of the outcome of the recount.

Provide some evidence, or quit defaming Gore.


It's really sad that you don't see how the Republicans are hypocrites here.

Here is the statement from Gore's spokesman, Warren Christopher, in FL:

"Al Gore has more popular votes than anybody else in this election," he continued. "He has more electoral votes. There is no reason that we shouldn't be defending his rights as well as the rights of people of the state of Florida."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qkE7lTkX4vwJ:archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/13/president.election/+Gore+%22more+electoral+votes%22+quote&hl=en

The key here is that they are looking at the current situation.  If it doesn't change Gore had more electoral votes, and they knew it.  The Constitution provides for the candidate with a majority of the votes cast to win. Their goal was to keep it from changing.   Delay until after the count.

That was just a quick Googling; I would suspect that I could find a lot more.  Maybe I could start a "Great Gore Disinfranshisement Plan" thread.

I think you're misreading the situtation. He probably either means
1. That Al Gore with Florida has a majority of the electoral votes, and therefore should win
2. That Al Gore has a majority of the non Florida electors, which he's just mentioning for PR value

Anwyays, you failed to address the other points.

1. I love how you say, he didn't mean exactly what he says. Chropher (I beleieve he was near the Florida Supreme Court when he said it) said, "He has more electoral votes." If the process stopped right there, Gore has more votes and wins.

2. As you said, without Florida, Gore has a majority. Further, he didn't, at first, ask a statewide recount, which we both thought he should have (and yes, I would have supported it). It takes time to count and it would have delayed the certification until after the "Safe Harbor" period, so that the could be challenged yet again. He asks for just a few counties, and doesn't win. He then asks for a time consuming recount statewind. If that fails, he can challenge the electors. It's win or disinfranchise; it almost worked, too.

As for the issues, Gore didn't challenge them, or there wasn't any proof (which is the same thing I said about WA, if you recall; in that one a Democrat won). I'm being very consistent in my position on recounts; I wish you were.

You still have not answered by question: Is it the policy of the Democratic Party to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters?

1. He was not suggesting that the process stop there

2. Yes, a statewide recount like they had in NM would have been the way to go. Gore did eventually start calling for a statewide recount. The problem really is that his legal and PR team were getting their asses kicked by the much more expensive Bush version.

Anyways, the Republican Florida legilsature was planning on voting in some Bush electors, even if Bush clearly lost the recount. I don't see how you can argue that they weren't trying to disenfranchise the voters

There were plenty of people disenfranchied with the scrub list, and plenty more votes that went wrong, particularly in minority areas with the machines set to high reject standards. Then there's the Butterfly ballot, designed by a complete DINO. All of these people didn't have their votes counted (despite the fact that illegal absentee votes were counted).

By denying a fair statewide recount, lots of people were disenfranchied. By your reasoning, 6 million people were disenfranchised.



First, the FL Legislature was preparing to meet the "safe harbor" provision of statute.  They were going to send their own electors, if the case was tied up and no electors were chosen.  Now, I would prefer to elect my own electors, but if given a choice between my elected representatives chosing them and not having any, I'd let my representatives elect them.  It would be an unfortunate choice between indirect repesentation and no representation; I'd chose the indirect over none.

You have not read you own article; they had a recount in one county in NM; they did not have a statewide recount.  They had a three county recount in FL.

Now, you are complaining about the Democrat who set up some ballots; it was found to be legal after a court challenge.  And the people who voted by these ballots, had their votes counted, unless they did something like vote for two people.  Illegal votes like that are not counted; people make mistakes in every election.  Why should we credit those to Gore (or better yet, why shouldn't we credit the mistakes in other states to Bush)?

The absentee ballot issue either wasn't challenged or was adjudicated and found to be valid.

And after all of this, the press reviewed the ballots and came to the startling conclusion that Bush won Florida, using the standards that the Florida Supreme Court set.  Only by attempting to delay the vote count, and disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes could Gore win.  He tried and failed.

You still have not answered my question:  Is it the policy of the Democratic Party to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters?
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32026
United States


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2005, 05:46:06 am »
Ignore

BTW:  If you want to see my "hypocritical" feelings about invalid votes and recounts, got to this thread: 

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=14570.0

I'll point out that Rossi is a Republican.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30150
United States


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 23, 2005, 05:59:37 pm »
Ignore

I only just noticed this thread.

For the record, I am indifferent to both Al Gore and George W. Bush, but I can still see how Democrats might *still* be angry at the 2000 election.  Even though Bush won a majority in both senses last fall, I would still be bitter that it wasn't Al Gore running for re-election instead.

For me personally, it highlighted a simple fact that if one guy gets more votes than the other and yet still loses because of a clause in the federal constitution, then there is something seriously wrong here.  It has become the ultimate irony now that the US currently seems to be under the impression that all oppressive dictatorships should have democracies just like ours.  I would fully agree with that sentence if only for the last three words.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2005, 07:22:35 am »
Ignore

So should we elect every federal official at large, then, with no local involvement?
Logged
HockeyDude
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6301
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -8.26

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2005, 08:24:49 pm »
Ignore

Nah, the EC is necessary.  Its gets it right most of the time.  If I had truely felt Gore ost Florida, than I would've said "well, too bad, didn't reach out to anyone outside the citites".  What I'm more PO'ed about is the mass disenfrachisement and stoppage of necessary recounts in the larger (and more democratic) districts.  Gore DID win Florida.  But through the scheming and foul tactics of the Florida Republican Party, the entire election was stolen from Gore. 
Logged



OH I JUST CAN'T WAIT TILL HE'S MOD!!!
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10796
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2005, 04:52:58 pm »
Ignore

Nah, the EC is necessary. Its gets it right most of the time. If I had truely felt Gore ost Florida, than I would've said "well, too bad, didn't reach out to anyone outside the citites". What I'm more PO'ed about is the mass disenfrachisement and stoppage of necessary recounts in the larger (and more democratic) districts. Gore DID win Florida. But through the scheming and foul tactics of the Florida Republican Party, the entire election was stolen from Gore.

Both parties used a fair amount of scheming and foul tactics in 2000.
Logged
MissCatholic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2429


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2005, 11:56:17 am »
Ignore

I used to be a libertarian before Bush ran for office.

After 2000, not only do i not like Bush i dislike the way that republicans defend him so stubbornly.
Logged



You cannot learn without pain - Aristotle
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10796
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2005, 07:55:41 pm »
Ignore

I used to be a libertarian before Bush ran for office.

After 2000, not only do i not like Bush i dislike the way that republicans defend him so stubbornly.

A libertarian with an economic score in the negatives?
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2005, 07:57:26 pm »
Ignore

Nomorelies was, I imagine, a lot of things.
Logged
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29655
United States
View Profile
« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2005, 08:38:15 pm »
Ignore

I used to be a libertarian before Bush ran for office.

After 2000, not only do i not like Bush i dislike the way that republicans defend him so stubbornly.

A libertarian with an economic score in the negatives?

She says she was, not is.
Logged

n/c
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10796
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: April 28, 2005, 04:04:25 pm »
Ignore

I used to be a libertarian before Bush ran for office.

After 2000, not only do i not like Bush i dislike the way that republicans defend him so stubbornly.

A libertarian with an economic score in the negatives?

She says she was, not is.

Still...
Logged
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13410
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 15, 2005, 09:50:38 pm »
Ignore

No, because I wasn't a Democrat back then, and therefore I did not vote the Gore/Lieberman ticket. 
Logged

Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18713
United States


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: May 11, 2006, 10:16:44 pm »
Ignore

it was absolutely disgusting
Logged
kashifsakhan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 515
View Profile
« Reply #46 on: June 26, 2006, 06:10:42 pm »
Ignore

it was absolutely disgusting

i wouldnt go as far as to say that it was disgusting, but it did anger me that the person who was clearly going to win was defeated, not by his opponent, but by the conservative dominated supreme court.
Logged

Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3618
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

View Profile
« Reply #47 on: July 20, 2006, 04:48:07 pm »
Ignore

The whole election was absolutely unbearable, and it was extremely disheartening when the Supreme Court ruled against continuing the Florida recount.  However, terrible experience that it was, I believe that it is time to move on.  Therefore I agree with Dave's statement here:

I wouldn't dwell on the past. The important thing now is to nominate a Democrat who can win in 2008!

Furthermore, its important to concentrate our efforts regaining control of Congress, governor's mansions and state legislatures
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7050
View Profile
« Reply #48 on: December 18, 2006, 04:48:15 pm »
Ignore

Perhaps, because it's clear that the will of the majority of Americans was that Al Gore should have become president, even in the electoral college if it was just a two-way choice, Bush or Gore.
Logged
Rob
Bob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6321
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

View Profile
« Reply #49 on: December 18, 2006, 05:08:41 pm »
Ignore

Yes, but it's kinda funny that Democrats don't win even when they get more votes. I doubt the GOP is going to let a Democrat win in 2008, either.
Logged

Heres what Sarah Palin represents: being a fat fucking pig who pins Country First buttons on his man titties and chants U-S-A! U-S-A! at the top of his lungs while his kids live off credit cards and Saudis buy up all the mortgages in Kansas.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines