Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

sck5 - Better re-read what happened in Florida, since judging by the above, you don't actually know what took place. And somehow, I just find it hard to believe that the Dems would be upset if the court had ruled in Gore's favor, instead of Bush's.

Unlike you, I read a variety of sources, whether I agree with them or not. A valid point is no less valid because of who delivers it.

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by sck5

The only votes in 2000 that mattered in the end were those of the 5 Supreme Court justices who stopped the Florida recount and crowned Bush the winner. THAT is what pisses off Democrats - that it was judges and not voters who decided the matter.

Democrats need to get over it. When the politicians are incapable of resolving election issues, the issues are settled by judges. That's the long respected way that our Constitution and laws provide for the resolution of such issues. In fact that's the way virtually every civilized nation in the world resolves such issues. And, by the way, it wasn't a close 5-4 Supreme Court decision. It was a 7-2 vote. All but 2 of your most liberal, most loyally Democrat justices, voted for the decision. Stop whining about how those evil Republican Supreme Court justices stole the presidency for President Bush. President Bush became President because he was found to have won the office in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the US, as applied by 7 of 9 justices, including some of your very own liberal Democrats. Honestly, you Dems sound like a 14 year old child whose daddy finally took away his binkie!

[sck5]

Oh God. Look what I did. I opened up this can of worms again. Please excuse me. I dont think we will ever agree, but no, Dems will never get over a subversion of our democracy - The way you are supposed to decide an election is by counting votes - even if it takes longer than you would like. And dont YOU guys imagine that Bush would have won if the Republicans DIDNT have a majority on the Supreme court. Contrary to what was said above, it was a 5-4 decision with the conservatives temporarily throwing away their previous states' rights beliefs in order to give the win to their guy.

PS - If you are in doubt that the critical part of the opinion was settled 5-4 please look here - while there was a part of the decision that was 7-2 that wasnt the part that settled it.

Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[sck5]

PB

You fling about all kinds of accusations. But do read this before you decide that you "know" what happened. On the other hand, it isnt in accord with what you already believe so why bother? You will find a reason to dismiss it!!

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

Look at Table 1. Note that this summary is by the american enterprise institute which is not a democratic leaning outfit. Note also that in every scenario where ALL the votes are counted, Gore wins. Bush wins only if the recount is limited to only part of the state. Interestingly, at the time, Gore only requested 4 counties to be recounted - had they actually done only that Bush would have still been ahead. But if they went ahead and counted EVERY VOTE (which is what we are supposed to do in democracies) then Gore wins no matter which hanging chads or dimples you do or dont count.

So dont tell me to get over it when in fact Gore won and Bush has turned out to be the worst president in history - a man who has brought shame on our country with his policies of torturing innocent people and invading countries that have done us no wrong.

It is easy enough for the few dead enders who will never admit what a disgrace Bush is to say "get over it". For the other 75% of the country, next January cant come too soon to get this lying idiot out of our White House.

SO, get ready for President Obama !!!!!!! It will be great to see an honest man in the White House!!!

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by sck5

SO, get ready for President Obama !!!!!!! It will be great to see an honest man in the White House!!!

At least you didn't technically put the name of a lawyer and "honest" in the same sentence.

[camaraderie]

The New York Times Reported this on the 2000 election after a comprehensive study of ballots. The big lie that Bush and the Supremes stole that election has long since been put to bed.

Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER

<****** language="javascript"> comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

[sck5]

Cam

Yes, only if they limited the recount to the 43000 cited in the article would
Bush have won. If they recounted ALL OF THEM then Gore won. Read the article I linked to. It is from the American Enterprise Institute, which as I said above is no left wing organization. The article really is an attempt to find out what the hell happened so as to see if there are any lessons.

Actually, the lesson I take from it is that we should quit relying on mechanical vote machines and use paper ballots. The Brits have done this for centuries and seem not to have any problems. There is no lack of grandmas willing to sit around and count the votes. We might not get our results quite as fast, but so what? If there is one thing that 2000 proved it is that we can wait a few days for results (or even a few weeks if necessary) and the republic will still survive.

[PBzeer]

sck5 - WILL YOU KINDLY PAY ATTENTION. If you want to respond to me, then respond to what I post, NOT what someone else posts.

All the blathering in the world means nothing, unless you are willing to state, with proof, that the Supreme Court was bought off to rule for Bush. Otherwise, the decision was reached properly, and the result is valid. It's no more complicated than that.

[sck5]

Cam

To be clear, what they are saying is that if Gore had his way and they rcounted the 4 counties he wanted, Bush still would have won. In fact, any of the partial recounts that were under way when the Supremes ruled would have resulted in a Bush win. In that sense you are correct that what the Supremes halted would not have changed the result.

But what the studies showed is that if they had done a FULL recount instead of a partial one, then Gore won no matter which criterion for legal votes you use. And there is the problem. We all SHOULD be able to agree that COUNTING EVERY VOTE is the only truly democratic thing to do. But back in 2000, as strange as it may sound, NOBODY ASKED FOR THAT. It might have happened eventually if the process had been allowed to continue (and the article I link to talks a bit about that) but as of the moment the Supremes ruled, there was no statewide full recount under way.

[sck5]

PB

You think somebody thinks they bought off the Supremes? This is the first I have ever heard of that. Where did you hear of it? Sounds whacko to me