RTFirefly let me get this straight, you wish to decide that election based on statistics? (re: bucannan votes)
If you think about it I’m sure you will change your mind.
Also
About you not signing off ont he ballot, again this is not a democracy, never was. You had a chance to see the ballot befor you voted no doubt when you went to the polling place and most likely in the newspaper a few days before.
And just to say again, I have a real big huge problem having individual votes changed.
After all of your huffing and puffing, you still have not shown where Bush won unfairly. The process was ungainly, sometimes it was downright ugly, but the more you write, the more it is evident that you simply did not like the results.
You still have not shown the unfairness or illegality of the decision. The Florida Legislature did this, the SC did that, but how whrer they acting outside of their authority?
Name one lie I spouted…
You want a dittohead response? How about this one…Liberals attack the messenger because they cannot refute the message. So far your contribution has been solely to impune my thread and motives, not to debate them.
FYI it was in response to reading 2 recent threads here where a lib complained about our “unelected” president…
When did liberals get offended by being called liberals? :dubious:
The thing of it is, we have gotten over the whole debaucle. Every once in a while we discuss, with a little grin on our face, how you have not.
I was really impressed with Gore’s tact, honor and integrity when he officially CONCEDED on national TV. When he concedes, doesnt the only other person left win?
Anyway, you obviously cannot provide any evidence whereby Bush’s victory was not legal, only that you dont like it. That’s cool, but it is also par for the course.
Imaginary?
:smack:
When conservatives started throwing the term around as an insult to whomever they felt were their enemies, regaurdless of what the subject self-identified as.
So you agree that “liberal” is an insult? You’re insulted by your own ideas? Great! Renounce them and we can all have a nice picnic. 
My apologies. I had you confused with kanicbird, who repeatedly misstated state and federal election law on page 1, and who has steadfastly refused to acknolwedge any of the errors that others have corrected for him.
Damn straight. Your thread is inane, pointless, and a transparent effort to provoke the very response you are complaining about. Hypocricy? Irony? Poking people with a stick and calling them whiners when they don’t like it? I leave it to the gentle reader to form their own conclusions.
Personally, I object to your use of the term as an epithet to describe everybody who opposes your position. In point of fact, I am a centrist Democrat, strongly opposed to the Nancy Pelosi wing of my party on many, many issues. “Liberal,” indeed.
Upon further reflection, since [n]newcrasher**'s sole purpose in this thread seems to be to provoke the very outrage he purports to be complaining about, I’ve decided to refrain from further demolitions of his strawmen.
I’m done. Feed at your own discretion, everyone.
Look, I know you conservatives dread being called to account for your crimes in the next election, but you’re just going to have to deal. Bush is a thief, he stole a U.S. Presidential election. I am sure that, like most theives, he dislikes being called a thief. But he stole, therefore he’s a thief.
People who are ready to tolerate electoral theft are ready for dictatorship.
OK…reread the OP. I KNOW you do not like the results of the election, but show me what makes the results invalid.
Calling names does not build your case, but adds to the shrillness of your argument.
Give me a little support for your stance, besides your own vitriol.
I’ll bet you look at a bit of snow crumbing off the top of a two-foot tall snowdrift by the roadside and yell, “Landslide!!!”
A two or three-seat shift was all it took to take control – even in an off-year election, that’s not anything LIKE a mandate.
Jeebus, fella, read your own forking thread! The media consortium recount PROVED Gore would have won. The nakedness of the Supreme Court decision speaks for itself – I mean, they even added a bit saying that their decision couldn’t be used as precedent for future decisions, which if you weren’t a dittohead would tell you REAMS about their understanding of what they were doing. And no Pubbie has been able to seriously dispute the charges concerning the flawed election lists.
Give it up, buddy, Dubya is the Thief in Chief.
This is a pretty common allegation, but is it true? [ul][]Bush appointed as appellate court judges two Clinton appointees who had been held up by the Republican Senate. This was unheard of. []Bush’s tax cut was a conservative idea, but it had a great deal of Democratic support as well. (IIRC a majority of Democrats may have voted for it.) []Bush appointed Norm Mineta, a Democrat, to his Cabinet. []Bush enacted an education bill jointly with Ted Kennedy. Ultimately, ISTM the bill included more of Kennedy’s wishes than conservative wishes. E.g., there was big increase in federal spending, but vouchers were dropped. Bush signed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, which Conservatives hated.[/ul]
I’ve never put a title to my own ideas. You don’t even know what my ideas are, but I know from your posts that your Farnsworthian ideology is entirely dismissable.
Leaving aside the mechanics of the election fiasco - and as I predicted, both partisan sides have totally different opinions of what constitutes reality - I don’t see your point here.
It’s Bush’s job to be President. What would you have him do - perform the job like a shrinking violet? Arrogance and stupidity would be sins whether he was elected by 10 electoral votes or 500, but you can hardly blame him for governing as if he has a mandate. Legally - the only way that matters - he does, just as Clinton did in 1992, irrespective of how many votes Ross Perot siphoned away.
That’s not consistent with the complaints in this thread, though. The complaint seems to be that Bush shouldn’t have won the LEGAL battle that ensued, because of (insert recount story here.) Had the Supreme Court had more Democrat justices, it’s fair to say Gore would have won through the same sort of legal shenanigans. Like it or not, the election’s determined by EC votes. While that may or may not be a bad thing, it’s a separate issue; either complain about the Constitution, or complain about the legal debacle that took place in 2000. They’re separate issues.
I’m personally of the opinion that while you can attack Bush for winning due to a legal shenanigan, you can hardly blame him for the way the Constitution is written, can you? The structure of the EC isn’t HIS fault. It wasn’t his idea.
I really don’t think the scenario one be one bit different if the roles were reversed; had Gore won the legal squabble, Republican fans would be shrieking that the election was stolen, and Democrat supporters would be telling them to shut up and get over it because the rule of law works that way.
Doesn’t a thread with the word “bitch’n” in the title…nevermind…I lost my train of thought.
[hijack(s)]
Question: If Bush wins “conclusively” in 2004, will the "Appointed Presidency"stuff go away?
Question: How well will “he stole the election last time” play to the average voter in 2004?[/hijack]
He’s acting “as if he’s won in a landslide”? How exactly should he be acting?
How should he be acting? As the President of the United States, not only of the neocon wing of the Republican Party. Representative democracy isn’t a winner-take-all, others-go-screw game, or it doesn’t work. Perhaps you missed that part in civics class? If Bush had shown an appreciation that he was not the choice of even a plurality of the people who had hired him, however that had happened, and tried to actually be a uniter, the ill feelings would probably be gone - but he hasn’t shown that, and neither have the bulk of his supporters, instead preferring to marginalize and even dismiss the concerns and interests of the broader public in favor of his narrower ideologues. Even that would be more acceptable, oddly, if he hadn’t misrepresented himself during the election as “I’m a uniter, not a divider”. That’s called “lying”.
As to the OP question itself, most generally stated as “Why do ‘you people’ still care?”: It isn’t really about who won - you’re misunderstanding. It’s about the meaning of democracy itself - the most basic principle being the right of the people to select their own leaders. That isn’t referring specifically to the Electoral College; it’s overdue overhaul/scrapping is a secondary issue, although still a part of it. It’s about the process involved in the Florida count, where Bush’s election was made possible only by stopping all attempts to complete the counting of the votes, flouting the most basic principle of democracy.
We still complain about it because we still care about democracy. Because we know and appreciate all that our ancestors have fought for so we could have the privilege of selecting our own leaders. Because we still have principles, larger than our own special interests, worth upholding. Because we know how destructive a narrow, divisive, dismissive-of-disagreement ideological orientation can be in our leadership. Because, if we accept it, it can more easily happen again. Because we accept the responsibility Franklin was dead right about: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
That help you any, Bunky?
Considering the margin of fraud within the FL vote, e.g. the blacks turned away from the polls at gunpoint, the disenfranchised by Database Inc., (and thank you, Tejota for the cite on Theresa LaPore) the entire state should have been disallowed. At the very least, Katherine Harris, who also served as the Bush campaign’s FL manager, should have recused herself for conflict of interest. No, my first thought was better: disallow FL electoral votes.