First of all, you’re a liar. None of your previous posts in this thread contained the word “sedition”; they all said “treason,” It isn’t as if we can’t go back and read them, dummy.
Second, talk about woefully ignorant. The Sedition Act of 1798 contained its own expiration date, dummy: “SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided, that the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the time it shall be in force.”
Furthermore, the provided punishment for acts of sedition was a fine of $5,000 and six months to five years in jail. The provided punishment for suborning sedition was a fine of $2,000 and up to two years in jail.
Before you chide others for being ignorant, you should make a cursory attempt to know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Which legal election was “overthrown,” exactly? There was no winner until the Florida electoral vote total was awarded, so please explain which legitimately seated President-elect was unseated through the election results. Also, please explain specifically which enemies were aided, and in what actions they were aided, by the results of this election.
OK, i’ll take on the last half. You really should read Bugliosi and Dershowitz’s books, they’re currently #25 and #26 on the NYTimes Bestseller lists, they’ve been there since they were released, and they go into the details of this. But in short:
The legally obtained electoral results of the OTHER STATES were overturned by the illegal actions in Florida. If an election hinges on one state, and that state’s elections are subverted, then the whole election is subverted.
Nope. Gore wins his home state, he’s in the White House right now. It’s that simple. Wouldn’t have mattered if the Republicans had every Democrat in Florida shot before they could vote.
That’s a red herring and you know it. The fact is, he didn’t win TN and the election came down to FL. So the GOP focused on subverting the entire election through subverting FL.
When SCOTUS used the bogus interpretation of equal protection to stop the recounts, every voter outside of florida lost their equal protection. How ironic.
Relevance? You’ve gotta be kidding. All Gore has to do is win his home state, and he’s got the election. (Granted, that’s easy to see in hindsight, but still …) It shouldn’t be that hard. He won it to become a Senator. Why can’t he win it to become President?
But see, that opens up questions about how he ran his campaign, which aren’t fun for those who claim he was robbed. It’s more fun to whine about the way the election went down than to say that the candidate they support didn’t run his campaign effectively.
If I were to run for city council, say, and I lost by a couple of votes, then discovered later that everybody on my street didn’t vote for me, I’d be mad at myself. They’re my neighbors; I should’ve made sure they were for me before I did anything else.
Gore ran a crummy campaign. What’s so hard to admit? And yes, while it’s unusual for a candidate—whether they win or lose—to lose his home state in a presidential election, it’s certainly not crucial.
Again: Gore ran a crummy campaign. Gore’s campaign didn’t dump millions into increasingly Republican Tennessee, which the Republicans did do. Bush took 51% of the popular vote in Tennessee, while Gore took 47%. No one thinks that it’s unfair that the Tennessee votes went to Bush.
Had Bush clearly won Florida, I’d accept it. But Florida is the issue here, not Tennessee. As Chas.E pointed out, that’s a red herring.
There were irregularities in the Florida election that, had they not existed, would in all likelihood, have resulted in Gore winning the state.
I’m probably not going to vote for Bush in 2004 and help see that he gets defeated.
Whining about 2 doesn’t help accomplish 3.
I understand the people who are frustrated about Bush in the White House, but continuing to bring it up isn’t going to work as a campaign strategy. It just makes the people complaining sound like sore losers.
Florida wouldn’t BE the issue if Gore had won Tennessee. It would be a minor footnote, a “Geez wasn’t that a major screwup” on page nine of the metro section of the paper. But because Gore’s campaign didn’t take care of his home state first, it has become this rallying cry for Democrats.
No, no, no, no, no! The question is not about whether Gore ran his campaign well, but about the problems inherent in our election system. It’s about how the Supreme Court appointed Bush president while the results of the Florida election were still sketchy. It’s about the conflict of interest concerning major decision makers—specifically Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush.
Had Gore run a better campaign, this never would have happened. Yes. But if it didn’t happen in 2000, what would stop it from happening in 2004? 2008? There’s a problem here, and it’s a lot bigger than a poorly-run campaign.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chance the Gardener *
**
In all honesty, my opinion of the election was that it was Gore’s race to lose. If he couldn’t manage to do better than a tie depending on the proclivities of some pregnant and barefoot chads, he didn’t deserve to win.
I mean, for Christ’s sake, his opponent was George W. Bush, not Lincoln.
And regarding Jeb and Kathy, what exactly do you expect of them? If it had been, say, Susan Kennedy-Rodham and Tony L. Gore, who would you expect them to help?
In to paraphrase the immortal Philip Francis Queeg, the whole fiasco was an unfortunate alignment of Chads, Harris and a Bush.
Both the Bushites and the Gorbies were out to steal the election once Florida began the recounts, but the Bushites just did a better job.
