You really shouldn't discuss "rigged" without mentioning 2000.Originally Posted by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
You really shouldn't discuss "rigged" without mentioning 2000.
You mean where the dem voter was complaining, to the commission that was investigating this issue, that the practice ballot didn't look nuthin' like the real ballot and they couldn't vote "correctly" because of that?
I was thinking more in general terms of the election decided in the home state of the brother of one of the candidate's that ended up going to the Supremes and then a 5-4 vote that halted a recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court and already in process. The first election since Shep was a pup (112 years) where a president lost the popular vote but won with the electoral college. I was no huge fan of Gore but there was something fishy in Denmark there.
Yep, the same state where the Dem voter couldn't figure out how to vote correctly because the practice ballot was different than the real one.
I think maybe you should look a bit further down the process to find where the basic problem was perhaps?
Oh, and why did they cherry pick those counties only instead of a state wide recount?
Possibly, with a difference of 537 votes, it really doesn't matter.
Practice makes perfect.
That does seem to be the case in 08 and in 12...Possibly, with a difference of 537 votes, it really doesn't matter.
Practice makes perfect.
I followed every nuance of the legal proceedings down in Florida during that fiasco. There were plenty of fishy under-handed actions, but they were almost entirely on the left side of the equation. Shifting standards, arbitrary counting rules, starts and restarts, lost ballots, etc. etc. etc. were all highly questionable practices that were unethical at best and illegal at worst. The fact that the Gore campaign only requested recounts in counties he won is very telling -- any 1st year political science major can tell you that recounts almost always result in finding more votes for the candidate who won the initial count. Gore was looking to pick up votes he lost in other parts of the state by requesting a recount. Plus, there was the military ballot exclusion issue.
Let's also remember that the 5-4 decision was to stop the recount; however, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bush on the actual merits of the case and the unconstitutionality of the Florida Supreme Court's decision (a supreme court entirely made up of Democratic appointees).
Regardless, Florida was a cluster****.
Didn't every recount by the various news organizations still have bush winning?
The point is Bush and Gore were both lame. And Nader boned Gore by out greening him.
There was variance depending on which counting system the news organization was using. It seems like CNN, for example, had Gore winning assuming those three trouble counties were re-counted to the Gore campaign's satisfaction. However, I believe it was generally agreed that a statewide recount would result in Bush winning.
I don't want to disagree with you. You're pretty good with facts. What I read said that, if the recount that the supremes stopped were finished, that bush would have won. But, a full statewide recount would have seen gore win. Gore should really have kicked nader's arse.
Do you think America as founded is a bad country?
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
These guys aren't so certain of that.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the...count-of-2000/
I saw this little tidbit the other day. (141 counties with more voters on the rolls than people in the county)
http://publicinterestlegal.org/elect...d-voter-rolls/
This needs to get cleaned up ASAFP.
what are you rambling about now?
I would defer to that. I read it in some New Yorker op-ed that dealt more with the Court and their perceived over reach. I think it was a backhanded swipe to try to say that if they'd have let the recount that was happening proceed then Bush would have won anyway.
Crazy card tossed. Who you trying to fool?
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Quote Originally Posted by yermom
what are you rambling about now?Both you and serenity would impress everyone by giving an honest answer to the question of whether you are/were unhappy(please expound) with America as founded.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Explain the thought process of the post I responded to, and I'll answer your question.
As asked I can only imagine you'd like to go back to the days when only white land owning males could vote, and there were no labor laws, and humans could be owned as property.
I was not considering legal slavery. I would think in your wildest imagination you wouldn't expect neither I nor practically anyone else in America would believe that is good. I was referring to the government not abusing commerce clause as their doing so is always the case when democrats run the government. Serenity was rehashing the 2000 vote, saying he would prefer that algore would have won. Hence my asking him what he thought of America as founded. As for voting, I would expect that the founders would be aghast at open borders and no photo ID required for voting, as well as other voter fraud things going on, that attempt to get democrats into office. In other words, you can be flippant, but it's not fooling anyone, except your fellow travelers.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
The founders were obviously wrong about a few things.
I don't seem to remember the part in the Constitution about closed borders though. What would you base the founding fathers' thoughts on that from?
Posting Permissions
