Quite true. That does not mean Gore lost the recount as you asserted. Nor does it mean the election was run honestly, nor that it was not stolen. All it means is that all was done legally.
Your turn.
Nobody has strong feelings, any more, about the “corrupt bargains” of 1824 and 1876. Few but historians even remember them. It will be decades yet before we can say that of the 2000 election controversy. So it goes. I guess this hijack was inevitable in a thread about Lieberman. But don’t forget, it was you who brought that into this debate, and in a singularly stupid and nasty way, in post #41. If you don’t like the result, don’t say that kind of thing. I, for one, will never let any Doper get away with asserting that Bush’s victory in 2000 was a clean one.
There was a statewide machine recount, automatically triggered by the closeness of the vote, that was ‘completed’ only a few days after the election. But according to Wikipedia, it “was never carried out in several counties.”
Still, that’s clearly not the recount Weirddave was referring to (“Gore conceded honorably when he lost the recount”), given that Gore didn’t concede until over a month after the completion of the machine recount.
There was the four-county hand recount (Palm Beach, Dade, Broward, Volusia) that Gore requested on November 9, two days after the election. This recount was never completed.
There was the statewide hand recount that the FL SC ordered in between the two US SC rulings. That was never completed either.
So Weirddave was presumably talking about recount (2) or (3), and BrainGlutton is correct in either case.
Maybe you could point out where BrainGlutton implies this. I’ve reread his posts, and I just plain don’t see it anywhere.
If you’re going to give advice, maybe you ought to follow it first.
I’m not really pissed off at Lieberman (for running as an independent) as I am about the Democratic Party insiders who refuse to accept the will of the rank and file Dems who don’t want him in the party.
So, damn the facts, full speed ahead with the hyperboyle! You can do your absolute best to champion your rightious cause, standing ever vigilent to ensure that you “will never let any Doper get away with asserting that Bush’s victory in 2000 was a clean one” (and in point of fact, I never said it was. If you’ll read back I said that a statewide recount should have been done IMHO), but it was a legal victory, it’s ancient history now, and continuing to yammer on and on with words like “dishonest” and “stolen” gets you a seat with the black hellicopter boys, a nice pat on the head, and a “you’re so kyoote”. If you don’t want to be classified as a duck, stop quacking like a duck.
:rolleyes: What you did (mainly for the sake of mocking RTFirefly but also Dems in general) was draw a parallel between Lieberman’s (hypothetical) acceptance (or not) of defeat after the upcoming primary, and how Gore reacted after the 2000 election and how Dems in general still feel about it; and it doesn’t apply.
We have the guy who brought Florida 2000 into the thread in the first place, continuing to yammer on and on about how yammering on and on about Florida 2000 is a waste of time because it’s ancient history and it’s high time to move on and drop the subject.
Talk about losing an argument to oneself.
We have the guy who (a) got his facts wrong about Florida 2000 who then (b) got all condescending with a poster who corrected him, (c) refused to acknowledge that his facts were wrong, despite being told multiple times, and (d) is moving on and blowing a whole lot of new smoke in the apparent hope that people will rise to the new bait and will forget he’s still pretending facts are ‘kyooote’ things that can be dismissed with a pat on the head.
The same guy says that “words like “dishonest” and “stolen” [WRT the 2000 election] gets you a seat with the black hellicopter boys” but never explains why it’s tinfoilhat territory. Maybe he missed, say, the disenfranchising of thousands of black non-felons in Florida that year, people who had similar names and the same race as felons in Florida and elsewhere across the country, but had never been ID’d as the same person. Think even a thousand more black votes would have tipped the balance in Florida, given that blacks voted 90% Dem in 2000?
Go ahead, Weirddave, explain how that’s not dishonest, not a legal form of theft, and *is *black-helicopter territory. Because this should be good for more than a few laughs.
Not according to the major study conducted for the media that I cited.
Certainly you could slice and dice the results and bring about a Gore win, but if the recount had been completed as Gore requested, he still would have lost.
And at least one of the ways that Sore-Loserman supporters wanted to count the results was straightforwardly illegal -
So if you are saying “Gore would have won if we are allowed to cheat”, certainly true.
Mr post #41 that you cited was a direct reference to Elvis, who has been as vocal as any of the conspiracy theorists about Fla being “stolen”, stating that “In US electoral etiquette, losers accept the fact and drop out.” I guess that only applies when it’s not Elvis’ ox that’s being gored. I found that amusing as all hell. It had nothing to do with Lieberman.
RTF:
:rolleyes:
If you have any evidence at all that Scalia “short circuited” the legal process, present it. Otherwise, it’s all just more yammering. The only bolt in your crossbow is that I said “the recount” instead of “the recount procedure”, which is typical of the way you argue. When you don’t have any facts to present, you hijack the subject with a gramatical nitpick or a pedantic quibble.
Maybe I missed you presenting proof that thousands of people were delibertly disenfranchised. No? Proof that thousands of people arent turned away from voting booths each and every election for reasons that later turn out to be mistaken? I damn well know you don’t have that because it happens all the time. How about proof of any of the other dozen or so alligations that Florida conspiracy theorists like to banty about? Proof. It’s such a small little word, only 5 letters long, I’m not surprised that you think you can ignore it when it’s inconvient for your argument. But the fact of the matter is, you’ve got nothing but hearsay, innuendo and wild ass conclutions drawn from questionable data. You can laugh at those 5 little letters all you want, but it makes you look the idiot, not me.
And to drag this post at least tangentally back towards the subject of the OP, here are a couple of FACTS for you to consider:
1: Al Gore lost to G.W. BUsh in 2000, in spite of getting more overall votes, because of the laws of this land. Get over it.
2: John Kerry lost to an unpopular G.W. Bush in 2004, in spite of the likelyhood that a rabid gopher running on a platform of free beer and pretzels would likely have carried at least 40 states. That was pathetic.
Here is an OPINION:
3: Most liberals are pinning their hopes on making massive gains in Congress this year as a vindication for their politics. That may very well happen, but if the subject of this thread is any indication, those gains may not be as massive as everone is counting on. (To explain: As the Democrats swing further to the left, a moderate like Lieberman stands a good chance of losing the Democratic primary, yet current polls still show him winning the general election fairly easily. If I were a hard core partisan Democrat instead of a lukewarm moderate/conservative one, and that trend, if it plays out, would worry the hell out of me)
And finally a QUESTION:
If #3 comes to pass (which is by no means definite, I’m presenting it as a posibility), how long is it going to take before the Democratic leadership realizes that their blind loyalty to the loudmouth ultra liberal wing of their party is marginalizing them further and further from the majority of Americans, rendering them ineffective as a party? Do you want to live in a country where there is one very dominant ruling party doing what it wants and a second, much weaker party that serves mainly as background noise? I sure as hell don’t. If you don’t, what are you prepared to do about it? Spend all your time preaching to the choir about how eeeevil your opponents are, and whining how they’ve robbed you and cheated you and blah blah blah, or would you be willing to moderate your platform-just a little bit-more towards the center so as to make getting a presidential candidate elected is a real posibility, not a long shot? For fuck’s sake man, the Democrats have not had a presidential candidate elected with a majority of the votes cast since 1976! Doesn’t that strike you as a problem?
Though this inevitably recurring “debate” has come up to sidetrack yet another thread, I was curious if you caught the debate last night between Lamont and Lieberman. Like you, I’m a CT resident who is less than completely thrilled with old Joe; not having seen much of Lamont other than his ads and signs everywhere, I flipped back and forth between the debate and the Sox game, hoping to see another viable option.
After seeing the two next to each other, I’m more convinced than ever that Lieberman will win the general regardless of who wins the primary. Much of the debate was the two simply attacking each other; I see this as hurting Lamont, as Joe is absolutely correct when he says that all we know about Lamont is that he’s against Iraq and Bush, and that we have no clue what he’s actually FOR. Joe certainly looked more composed, and it seemed that the difference in experience between a several-term-senator and a silver-spoon wannabe-politician who hasn’t served for a decade plus was pretty obvious. Additionally, Lamont looked… well, let’s just say that his stock photos and TV ads are more generous to his appearance than live TV. Little less insane, or something. They favor his composed side. You get the idea.
re: the earlier topic in the thread, I have no problem at all with Lieberman running independently if he loses the primary. While I’m not nearly as committed to the multi-party ideal as BG, I find it pretty silly that a candidate who (for one reason or another) is the favored one for the population of CT as a whole could be kept off the ballot by the primary voters, who are comparably farther to the edges of the political spectrum, particularly given CT’s high number of registered independents.
Besides, everyone knows that Dodd is the good CT senator anyways.
Actually, I haven’t brought that up yet in this thread, but, yes, that is exactly what happened in Florida. It’s as thoroughly well-documented, now, as the Watergate break-in. See Unprecendented. No one seriously doubts, any more, that thousands were disenfranchised in Florida in 2000 under the law that bars ex-felons from voting, even though many of those struck from the rolls for that reason were not ex-felons at all, but only happened to have names similar to those of ex-felons. And some were felons but had never even been convicted of a felony in Florida, and had had their rights restored, and were eligible to vote, in the states where they had been convicted. We’ve discussed all this many times in this forum before, and up to now no Doper has troubled to seriously deny those basic facts.
Whether any of this was illegal is more controversial, but certainly it should have been.
Shodan: Considering that you are using a CNN summary of the report that I referenced, it’s not surprising that we both reported that Bush would have won a complete statewide recount counting both undervotes and overvotes.
Now, a few incidental facts:
There were clear reports that, despite Florida’s law that permits up to three fresh ballots to be supplied to persons who have accidentally voided theirs, persons who accidentally punched for Buchanan on the Palm Beach County “butterfly ballot” stated that they were told by election officials to also punch for Gore and circle the latter, so that it would be clear to those doing the ballot count which vote was intended. These persons are, if their statements are to be believed, among the persons who cast void overvotes of two persons for President. But of course, according to you, point this out is “partisan lying.”
There were reports that in Duval County (Jacksonville), the police just happened to set up traffic inspection stops in predominantly-Democratic black neighborhoods, with concomitant delays for those people in getting where they were going, presumably including the polls. This could of course be pure coincidence.
There were reports of a group of Republicans brought in by a New York Republican Congressman who supposedly acted in a menacing manner to the people doing recounts in the four counties.
BrainGlutton has already mentioned the disenfranchising of numerous people whose sole crime was to have the same or a similar name to a multistate list of felons, or who were felons who had served out their sentences and whose franchise had been restored but were on the list. It was reported (with what truth I cannot say) that the object as told the group compiling the list was to strike as many voters as possible.
I believe in a free election in which each citizen’s vote is permitted to count – even if it goes against the candidate I support. I consider your allegation about wanting to be able to cheat insulting – though par for the embittered partisan hack you have lately become, for some reason. I did not preface my remarks with that comment to insult you, but as an honest request to cut it out and resume being the intelligent, informed Christian conservative with interesting, logical posts that you used to be – somebody I enjoyed reading the posts of and agreeing or disagreeing on a pleasant basis.
Given that you have evinced a desire to pick nits about the 2000 election, I need to ask you on what party ticket Mr. Sore and Mr. Loserman were running mates. They were not on the ballot in this state.
Final point: George W. Bush has been President by the action of law, since January 20, 2001. I respect that point, and, although I find most of his policies abysmal, I think he’s entitled to the respect due a President. I say this because I am a believer in the rule of law. But if the Republican Party resorts to the sort of partisan BS evident in the behavior of the Secretaries of State of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, the disenfranchising of people through failure to give them their due or through coincidence of names, etc., then I believe you should not be surprised if there is a backlash against it. There are already many people disgusted by the revelations coming out of Iraq and Guantanamo, the incompetence evinced in Katrina relief, and Mr. Bush’s blatantly partisan maneuverings to reassure his “base.” While I can understand a first-term President being concerned about his reelection as an element in his strategy, in general a President should not have a “base.” I’ve forgotten who it was who reprimanded someone that he was President of all the people. But, like Mr. Truman’s desk sign, it’s a precedent that Mr. Bush might do well to consider.
What bothers me is that Lieberman is gaming the system. If he wants to run as an independant, then fine, do so. He wants the best of both worlds–if he wins the primary, then he has all the support of the party behind him; if he loses, he’s going to take his ball and go home. If he wants to claim to be a Democrat, he should follow the rules of the game.
Were I a Connecticut resident, I would not vote for him under such circumstances.
And people thought I was crazy when I predicted that he’d some day come to terms with the fact that he’s not really a democrat… I was sure he’d cross all the way over to the other side, though, not pause in mid-stream. Oh well, there’s always 2012.
I wouldn’t say that was the only difference. In terms of foreign policy, Roosevelt was an ardent imperialist, while Wilson was anti-imperialist. Roosevelt was pro-tariff, while Wilson was anti-tariff. Roosevelt was also much stronger anti-trust than Wilson (although Wilson became more anti-trust as president).
Yes BG, we’ve been over and over this again and again. You didn’t even try to address what I actually said, and neither do your links, (both of which I would classify as fairly worthless, by the way. They are biased, partisan prophaganda. Would you buy Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter as a cite? You might as well link to blogs.) What I actually said, and I’ll helpfully underline and bold it for you, was this:
I don’t deny that it happened, in fact, if you had done more than selectively quote me, you might have been honest enough to include what I said I was looking for immediately after the quote you plucked from my post:
Elections are run by human beings. They are not, and never will be, perfect. Thousands of people in every state are unjustly disenfranchised in every election. Normally, it makes no difference. In most elections, in most states, disenfranchising 50 or even 100 thousand voters or more wouldn’t make a jot of difference. Florida 2000 was decided by a miniscule fraction of the vote, in this one case unjustly disenfranchised voters might have changed the outcome. They might not have changed the outcome. You don’t know one way or the other and neither do I. Instead of accepting that this one time the margin of error in the election just happened to be smaller than actual human error, you and people of your ilk have to feed your persecution complexes and create in your minds a Byzantine labryinth of plots, conspiracies and skullduggery. Unfortunately, your theories fail the simple test of Occam’s razor. There is a perfectly simple and logical explanation for what happened, and I’ve given it: Elections are not perfect. Nothing run by falable human beings is. Instead, you would have us believe that, amongst other things, the Republican party knew before the election that:
Al Gore would not carry his home state, making Fl crutial.
Florida would be so closely contested that a few thousand votes would make a difference one way or the other, (Just FYI, since WWII, the closest Florida presidential election was in 1964 and there was still a difference of 43,000 votes between the two candidates, at the time over 2% of the vote. The difference in 2000 was .01% of the vote)
That they could selectively manipulate these few thousand critical votes in just selected counties by usig the police to intimidate voters into not voting, running out of ballots for Democratic voters (but presumably not Republicans), disenfranchise specific people who were going to vote for Gore, (again presumably somehow they knew how these people were going to vote beforehand), trick Gore voters into voting for Buchannan and God knows what else, all of this without one single shred of evidence coming to light that they had done so, even six years down the line.
Frankly, as a theory it stinks. Most conspiracy theories do. The only way it is in any way more likely than the simple explanation of human error is if one is looking for a reason to feel persecuted. I may not be a good Democrat by the standards of a lot of posters on these boards, but I am a Democrat, and it pains me to see the Democrats becoming the party of crybabies.
Sure. All purely accidental. The New Hampshire phone jamming was also probably purely an accident. Face it - the current Republican party has practiced all manner of deceitful and illegal bullshit in manipulating elections.
You’re just not any sort of Democrat at all. I used to wonder about your motivation for calling yourself one, but it no longer matters. Nobody here regards your contributions as having any particular merit because they reflect criticism of the Democrats from a Democrat. Rather, it’s obvious that they are reflexive condemnations having no constructive component.
If you really wanted to keep up the ruse, you might want to occasionally throw in some sort of positive comments about Democrats. You know - like something that would suggest why a rational person would not just switch party affiliations.
But most of those human beings strive to behave fairly. And it is appropriate to hold up to public disrepute those who act in a partisan manner when their obligation is to conduct a fair election.
It does to the people who are disenfranchised.
Whether or not this was the case is immaterial. Every state became crucial in the 2000 election; it was Florida’s close vote and the alleged improprieties that became the issue.
Nobody (at least nobody here) is alleging a massive conspiracy. I suspect strongly that there was a small conspiracy, involving the Secretary of State, whose partisanship was very well documented. I enumerated the allegations above.
Now, suppose you walk in to vote, are handed a ballot, and for whatever reason manage to do something that voids it. State law requires that you be given a replacement ballot. You ask for one, and instead are told to cast it with your actual vote circled, so that the election inspectors can realize that you were among those confused by the butterfly ballot and punching Buchanan intending to vote for Gore. You do that. Have you, or have you not, cast a valid ballot, in accord with the instructions from the precinct election workers? Should that ballot be counted as a vote for whom you intended and, following instructions, specified it as a vote for? If not, why not? Let’s not worry about pregnant and hanging chads, address that one question.
I love the cavalier attitude of “it doesn’t matter if a few thousand people are disenfranchised.” That really says a lot about your respect for your fellow man.
[shrug] I might, if they made clear, factual assertions supported by documentation, and if the documentation held up on closer scrutiny. Which I don’t expect ever to happen. Coulter, for the most part, can’t even be called a liar; lies require more semantic content than she is regularly capable of expressing. But there’s no comparison at all between that and sources I cited. “Bias” does not automatically invalidate them. [url=]Mother Jones, for instance, has a good track record for serious journalism and has never, to my knowledge, been embarrassed by publishing anything important that later proved flatly counterfactual.
