Get over our not getting over it, OK?

[DoctorJ]

2. The election was no more a “theft” than if CHANCE and I have a dispute over ownership of a piece of property and we take it to court and I am awarded it. That could as equally, and as erroneously, be considered a theft.

But what if the judge also happened to be a vocal supporter of CHANCE, who clearly stood to benefit from CHANCE’s victory in the case? And what if seven of the jurors also happened to be employees of CHANCE? Wouldn’t you feel a bit “robbed” when Chance won, especially if the case had included many irregularities that all seemed to go his way?

That’s my problem with it. There were many clear irregularities in this election that should have been closely examined, given the statistical tie. Most of the actions regarding these irregularities came down to judgement calls. The people who happened to be in power to make those judgement calls, in far too many instances, clearly stood to gain from Bush’s election. You can argue whether this makes Bush and his posse corrupt or lucky, but either way, it casts a pall over his legitimacy.

Dr. J

[IzzyR]

I’m kind of down the middle on this. I most definitely agree with the point - made first by Manhattan - that constantly making reference to the alleged theft of the election at any and every opportunity is silly and counterproductive. But OTOH, to tell people who believe they have been wronged in a matter of such great consequence to “just get over it” is also wrong.

In particular, because Bush is still president, and will be so for the next four years. Unlike people who can’t get over Clinton, who is no longer president, Bush will be guiding legislation, appointing cabinet ministers and judges etc. for four years. In the minds of many Democratic partisans, every one of these actions will be illegitimate and the result of a corrupt Supreme Court. An (extreme) analogy would be a person who gets cancer. If that person has been in remission for a while, one might tell them to get on with their life. But if they still have it it would not make much sense.

Having said all that, there is not much point in saying things to an unappreciative audience. [sub]Don’t tell anyone, but the real purpose of the preceding was to get these Democrats to keep on harping on the election to the point where everyone in the country will be sick of them and vote them out of office en masse.[/sub] So I would suggest to people who want to harp about the election that they confine this to their hardcore Democratic buddies, and leave the rest of the country out of it.

[Tedster]

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
**

Jodi and Tedster, you seriously need to review the facts of the case before jumping to the conclusion you want to reach. You’re embarrassing yourselves by this show of ignorance. It’s beyond sad how you’re inspired by that ringing statement of principle, “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances”.

[**

My concerns lay in the fact we have one day on which to vote, not weeks. It’s actually quite simple, really. I may be ‘ignorant’ but I’m not stupid. There will always be invalidated ballots in any election. The race was extraordinarily close, make no mistake about it. Your guy lost. G.W. Bush survived every recount, but of course he coudn’t survive a “re-vote” that way lies madness, my friend. We’re not a third world country. It doesn’t matter who votes, but it sure as hell matters who counts the votes.

I am embarrassed that the circus in Florida couldn’t have been handled gracefully (Your guy conceded, if you’ll recall, and then un-conceded. He blew it right there.) rather than dragging the country through a nightmare. Mr. Gore would have been in much better shape in '04 had he done so, I suspect.

Shamelessly trolling for ‘votes’ in majorly democratic counties, harping about “Counting all the votes” whilst throwing out overseas military ballots is indefensible. Go ahead and try, though.

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by waterj2 *
**Whether it’s referring to Bush as “President” (in quotes), or Gore as algore, or whatever, it reflectcs badly on you that you can’t put aside knee-jerk reactions. **

Please give your definition of “knee-jerk”. As used in this sentence, I do not understand it.

As for those of us who refer to George as “President” or soemthing similar, you may see it any way you wish. However, in my own case, it is a form of protest because I * ** sincerely ** * do not view him as the president. He may be acting in that capacity, but I do not accept that the manner in which he became president was valid, therefore I do not believe him to be the true president. History is filled with pretenders, he is one more.

The distressing part is that * United States’ * history is not filled with pretenders. This disturbs me deeply. Among people who do not see it that way, that may be difficult to fathom. But for those of us who do see it this way, this is more than an annoyance, more than an irritation, more than being embarassed by the sexual pecadillos of the president. This is, to us, an affront to everything we’ve ever believed about our country.

Whether you agree with this position or not is entirely up to you, and actually beside the point. I would hope that at the very least you might try understanding it, and do us the courtesy of accepting what we are telling you about our point of view, versus labeling it something it is not and dismissing it on that basis.

Thanks,

stoid

[gobear]

Geez Louise, folks, the fat lady done sang, so will y’all hush up now? Like it or not, W is in the White House. The hard fact was that it was a narrow race and, due to our electoral system, Gore lost. It sucks, but to piss and moan and carry on won’t change anything, so why waste the fuckin’ energy? Besides, I really don’t want the Democrats to act as badly as the GOP did during Clinton’s administration.
What Stoid, Chas E. and the rest should be doing is make sure that your friends and relatives are registered, vote in the state and Congressional races this November and then toss out the GOP Congress in the midterm elections next year. That will be much more effective in getting your views heard than the spoiled baby temper tantrums I see here.

Oh, Nader voters, stay home and take another bong hit. We don’t need you handing the GOP any more victories.

[DPWhite]

*Originally posted by John Corrado *
**The problem is, it’s the same stuff over and over again, with all the new information coming out against it. Even had the SC allowed a full recount, Gore would have lost; that’s what the media recount showed. So you can whine and rage and cry regarding our ‘illegitimate’ president, but the fact remains that by any standard save the “had the weather been different” standard, Bush would still win.

[Edited to add forgotten footnote. -JMCJ] **

No, Mr. Corrado, a media recount, and you cite only the one you like, is meaningless. All the people who cast their votes in a timely manner were entitled to have their votes take effect not by reporters after the fact, but in each precinct and each county registrar’s office. This did not happen.

While George W. Bush has been elected President by the electors, the methods his supporters used to accumulate those electoral votes were nothing short of treasonous. Encouraging overseas voters to submit late ballots, insisting on their being counted, refusing to count timely ballots in other counties are all outrageous acts.

(I am a customer offended by seeing the subject brought up at all. There are places on the web where I regularly visit where it is appropriate.)

There have been a number of books written on the subject by respected authorities that can be found on Amazon. Unlike the “media” recount, these books examine all of the facts and offer cogent analysis of the Supreme Court opinion, which is legally indefensible.

The suggestion that this is a mere “close” election is equally offensive. If someone wins fair and square by one vote out of 100 million, even leveraging in the electoral college, that is fine with me. But the current administration actively participated in purging tens of thousands of their opponents from the voting rolls on false accusations of felony convictions that these people never had notice of.

DOWN WITH THE JUNTA!

[Chas.E]

*Originally posted by waterj2 *
**Treason? Gimme a fucking break.

Dear God the hyperbole is being thrown on rather thick here. **

Not hyperbole, I’m using the most literal meaning of the word:

treason n 1: a crime that undermines the offender’s government [syn: high treason, lese majesty] 2: disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior [syn:
subversiveness, traitorousness] 3: an act of deliberate betrayal [syn: treachery, betrayal, perfidy]

I can’t think of anything more treasonous than subverting an election. And that’s just what happened. Regardless of party affiliation, I think we can all agree that the sanctity of the electoral process is more important than partisan politics. Republicans should be outraged too.

[Chas.E]

*Originally posted by gobear *
Geez Louise, folks, the fat lady done sang, so will y’all hush up now? Like it or not, W is in the White House. The hard fact was that it was a narrow race and, due to our electoral system, Gore lost. It sucks, but to piss and moan and carry on won’t change anything, so why waste the fuckin’ energy? Besides, I really don’t want the Democrats to act as badly as the GOP did during Clinton’s administration.
What Stoid, Chas E. and the rest should be doing is make sure that your friends and relatives are registered, vote in the state and Congressional races this November and then toss out the GOP Congress in the midterm elections next year. That will be much more effective in getting your views heard than the spoiled baby temper tantrums I see here.

We’re not pissing and moaning because Gore lost, we’re pissing and moaning because the election was subverted by illegal means. What we WILL be doing is volunteering to be poll watchers and electoral aides, and taking an active part in making sure the election is conducted fairly. And there are millions of us who feel that way. We know what you did last election.

[GingerOfTheNorth]

I, for one, can not believe the whole thing. I couldn’t give a rat’s nut what the outcome was, but come on. We in Canada got stuck with the same crap you all did.

But, we had weird bacon and good beer to keep us happy.

[Michael_Ellis]

*Originally posted by GingerOfTheNorth *
I, for one, can not believe the whole thing. I couldn’t give a rat’s nut what the outcome was, but come on.

Ginger, just admit that you greasy Canadians were behind the whole mess in the first place. It was all an evil, disgusting, maple syrup-induced plot to discredit the American way of life. Well we’re on to you bastards, and we won’t take it anymore.

Come on, we all know the actors and comedians you’ve been feeding us with were only subversive agents of your vile plans, just admit it to the UN and we may spare your lives.

Come on patriots, to war!

Bursts into a rousing rendition of 'Blame Canada’

[Lemur866]

Um, can we face some more facts here? Let’s say that SCOTUS hadn’t ruled to shut down the recount. What then? Either the recount would have shown Gore to be ahead or it would have shown Bush to be ahead. The likelyhood is that it would have shown Bush to be ahead. Bush wins.

But suppose that this particular recount showed Gore ahead? What then? The state legislature says that the recount wasn’t the real count, we need a new recount, etc, etc, bottom line we have no clear winner up until the deadline. So the Florida state legislature, majority republican, votes to send a slate of Republican electors. Bush wins.

But suppose Gore protests. A slate of Democratic electors shows up and the electoral vote, claiming to be the REAL electors not those Republican frauds. Who gets seated? The US House of Representatives votes on which set of electors should be seated. The US house is majority republican, they seat the republican electors, Bush wins.

There was no way that a democratic slate of electors could be sent and accepted, given that the vote was equivocal and that both the Florida state legislature and the US House were controlled by Republicans. If the vote was unequivocal then that wouldn’t help, they would be nothing either party could do. But in equivocal situations then the Florida constitution and the US consitution put the decisions in the hands of elected officials.

But why? Well, because the founders realized that electing a president is an inherently political process, obviously. There is NO SUCH THING as an unbiased observer, no such thing as an impartial decision maker. But although there is no such thing as an impartial decision maker, there is such a thing as a decision maker that can be held accountable for their decisions. Namely, elected officials. If the elected officials who decided the equivocal election are deemed to have chosen incorrectly then the remedy is simple, failure to be re-elected.

Once the next election cycle for the decision makers has passed, then review of the decision by the voters is essentially over. Either the decision makers have been punished or they have been rewarded. Either way, it is over.

The thing is, Bush was going to win whether the Supreme Court stopped the recount or not. There was no scenario whereby Gore could become president. What could have happened though, was an opportunity for our elected officials to go on record as making one decision or another, and then the voters could evaluate that decision. Although the Court felt that a partisan spectacle like that was something to be avoided, I feel they were wrong. A vote like that would have been salutary. Rather than bitch about the courts, the losers could plan the electoral defeat of the people that voted against their candidate.

But either way Bush was going to win.

And ChasE? Perhaps you should read the US Constitution and what it says about treason, and then decide whether Bush’s actions fall under that definition. If we use your definition then YOU are treasonous since you are disloyal to the president.

[The_Raven_1]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**Since there was never an actual fucking count of ballots that gave the victory to Gore, it’s kind of tough to offer another alternative.
**

Yeah, but that’s because they didn’t have enough recounts!! They were gonna recount every nostril-raping ballot until those little orifices the chads covered were gaping with Democrat welfare queen lust! Eventually, they invalidate enough Bush votes by hook or be crook, and there you have it!

“Our constitutional crisis is over… We managed to convince enough of you that you have so much invested in the public sugar tit and the milk of taxpayer’s kindness, you will believe ANYTHING! And now here’s Reverend Jesse Jackson… Thanks Reverend…you ARE still a reverend, right? The Baptists haven’t removed the gas masks that are hiding the odious stench of hypocracy you omit? Thanks for bringing all the people down to protest this grave injustice, it was nice of them to take time off from work to come down…;)”
Whew… We came so close… I swear, if Gore got elected, I woulda taken an insurance fall just so I could collect my income tax-free. That’s the only way I can see to keep at least that portion of income out of the hands of the greedy masters of the wealth others create.

BTW, I’ll take an “idiot” over a “thief” any day of the week.

-Rav

[Milossarian]

**As long as you keep smugly shutting out any inconvenient fact that might inhibit you from feeling good about the results, YOU will be the ones who are “not over it” - worse, you will be refusing the opportunity to learn from it.

**
Would those be “inconvenient facts” like the vote totals, each of the four or five times they were counted?

Or like the laws against counting overvotes?

[DPWhite]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chas.E *
**

We’re not pissing and moaning because Gore lost, we’re pissing and moaning because the election was subverted by illegal means. B]

Exactly! Stop screwing with who is allowed to vote and not counting all the ballots.

[2sense]

I promise to get over it when the errors that lead to the Bush victory are fixed and our government deigns to provide fair and reasonably accurate elections.
IOW - Not in this lifetime.

Lemur866 makes some good points. But while it may not be possible to find an completely unbiased election official we certainly can do a lot better than openly partisan officials. Richard Soudriette, President of the International Foundation for Election Systems, had this to say in a hearing held by the The National Commission on Federal Election Reform ( This was in preparation for that report touted by Ford and Carter ):

In fact, this was one of the points that we noticed watching the television news, seeing election officials with bumper stickers on their car and seeing other officials, such as secretaries of state, that have perhaps played a higher profile role in the political realm. This is an area that, I think, we need to focus a lot of attention on. The key to integrity and credibility is transparency and impartiality. Here again in the case of Ghana, by establishing an independent commission, which was not allied with one party or another, this has played, I think, a very important role in helping advance democracy in that country.

I’m sorry, but Ghana can create oversight that is accepted as impartial but the US can’t?
Bullshit. We won’t because we won’t.

( “Faith-based missile defense” - SNORT )

Just my 2sense

[Chas.E]

*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
**And ChasE? Perhaps you should read the US Constitution and what it says about treason, and then decide whether Bush’s actions fall under that definition. If we use your definition then YOU are treasonous since you are disloyal to the president. **

Go read a history book, you are woefully ignorant of political history. What I said was sedition. The Sedition Act of 1798 makes it legal.
Treason in the Constitution is defined (in part) as “adhering to [the US’s] enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” While the US is founded on the principle of the legal right to overthrow an oppressive government, anyone who overthrows a legal election is not only giving aid to the enemies of the USA, he IS an enemy of the USA.

[Typo_Negative]

I’m a Democrat.

Yes, I believe the Republicans pulled some slimey moves in that election. But for every slimey move they pulled, the Democrats pulled a slimey move of their own. I’d just like to say for the record “Dimpled Chad, My Ass”!

IMHO, the moves were slimey, not illegal. Certainly not treasonous. Let’s get over ourselves, here. Calling the Republicans, SCOTUS and anybody that disagrees with you names does not help your cause(what exactly is the cause again? Seriously, what do you hope to achieve?) Sure, mistakes were made, but it was uncharted territory. We never saw the likes of it before and were not likely to see the likes again.

Bush is a moron and a tool. But he is the President, and no amount of bitching will change that.
Personally, I blame Nader.

[SPOOFE]

Just for the record, I have a list of Posters Who Are Completely Irrational. If anyone wants, I can provide them a copy of that list.

Ten bucks says you can pick at least four of them out of this thread alone.

we’re pissing and moaning because the election was subverted by illegal means.

I’ll tell you what (as long as we’re making deals): You find a single court who will rule that the SCOTUS decision was “illegal”, and I’ll crown you Grand Czar Of Justice for the United States.

Just one court. A single one. Can’t be that hard, can it?

(Betcha buy into the whole “illegal laws” thing, too, don’tcha?)

[Chas.E]

You’re treading on very thin ice spoofe, Uncle Beer will be displeased.

[Klaatu]

Well, I never got involved with any of the election threads. I did read them all.

I must point out though, if Gore was so fucking badass, why did it come down to one fucking state? Why did he win the popular vote by only a few fucking hundred thousand?

If he had such a fucking MANDATE, why the fuck is Bush in office? Look, I don’t particularly like Bush, but you Gore people need to get a fucking grip.

Even if he would have won Florida, and got in the White House, still, half the people in the country (voters, anyway) did not think he was the best candidate. As with Bush.

Some of you people seem to think that, Florida aside, 95% of the country voted for Gore. BULLSHIT! It’s not like he had a vast majority of votes, and then the SCOTUS just fucked him in the ass.

Let’s keep it in perspective here. Not fucking everybody thought Gore was the Savior.

And I apologize for the gratuitous use of “fuck” and deriviatives thereof in the above fucking post.