Bush Won 2000 Fair and Square

[jbg]

Thanks for the correction....I was thinking of Slick Willy by mistake. But to the point, I have always wondered why conservatives accepted defeat without nearly as much angst. Had Bush lost in 2000, it was really no big deal. Must be the way that Bush won instead.

Goes back to the "natural party of government" idea. From 1932 on, the Democrats lived a charmed life. When they ran apparently centrist candidates such as Roosvelt (may he rot in h*ll), Truman (fantastic, in my view), Kennedy (an attractive mediocrity), Johnson (very mixed and complicated), Carter (a fraudulent "centrist", really a leftie, may he join Roosvelt in h*ll), and Bill Clinton (mixed but generally good), they won, because of their ability to united working class people with the abjectly poor in a coalition, with enough upper middle class and wealthy people to fund and win elections. Thus, this apparent winning coalition (often called the "New Deal coalition") morphed into a "right to govern".

The Democrats forgot that along the way the people were involved in the process. When the voters perceived that the candidates were leftists, who talked down to them (Kerry was Exhibit "A" and Gore not far behind) they lost. Thus the rage.

The sheeple will never be convinced King George isn't legit. It's a topic no longer worth the rise in blood pressure to discuss.

You're forgetting, as always, that the Democrats are not fielding people who, in their right minds, the American people would elect. To paraphrase Bill Clinton about the economy, "it's not the voting machines, stupid". (I'm not calling you stupid, I'm quoting Bill Clinton).

If gore had been a credible candidate, the margin in Florida would not have measured in the hundreds, out of perhaps 10 million voters.

Edited July 16, 2007 by jbg

[Mad_Michael]

Thus, Bush won the election, fair and square, and, I emphasize, over my vote for Gore.

Such a clear cut view of such clear cut laws required a very unusual and unique Supreme Court ruling that has been criticized relentlessly from day one as one of the ugliest precedent setting decisions in SCOTUS history.

Bush didn't actually win the election on the ground, though he was officially pronounced the winner.

I can't see any rational defence of the Supreme Court ruling - not in any context of law. Pure partisanship legislating from the Bench. Legal certainly, but that doesn't reverse Bush's loss at the polls, though it gives the victory to him via the arbitrary assignment of electoral votes.

My intense dislike of Gore, and my recognition that the election was his to lose and that he ran the worst Presidential campaign since Michael Dukakis did in 1988, does not detract from the fact that the decision on the 2000 election was made by the US Supreme Court through a ruling they had no business making.

Edited July 16, 2007 by Mad_Michael

[Sulaco]

Thus, Bush won the election, fair and square, and, I emphasize, over my vote for Gore.

Such a clear cut view of such clear cut laws required a very unusual and unique Supreme Court ruling that has been criticized relentlessly from day one as one of the ugliest precedent setting decisions in SCOTUS history.

Bush didn't actually win the election on the ground, though he was officially pronounced the winner.

I can't see any rational defence of the Supreme Court ruling - not in any context of law. Pure partisanship legislating from the Bench. Legal certainly, but that doesn't reverse Bush's loss at the polls, though it gives the victory to him via the arbitrary assignment of electoral votes.

My intense dislike of Gore, and my recognition that the election was his to lose and that he ran the worst Presidential campaign since Michael Dukakis did in 1988, does not detract from the fact that the decision on the 2000 election was made by the US Supreme Court through a ruling they had no business making.

Actually the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore was quite sound. An equal protection fo the law argument would be sufficient to support the decision. (Arguably it can support either a win for Gore or for Bush - but hey - that's constitutional law for you)

Serious criticism of the decision attacks the Court's choice to hear the case and rule on it in the first place. It does not attack the reasoning of the opinion itself.

[Mad_Michael]

Serious criticism of the decision attacks the Court's choice to hear the case and rule on it in the first place. It does not attack the reasoning of the opinion itself.

I never said otherwise.

The decision to 'intervene' itself is unconstitutional.

Thus, the Bush victory that it enables is 'fruit of the poisoned tree' to use the common legal expression.

[Sulaco]

Serious criticism of the decision attacks the Court's choice to hear the case and rule on it in the first place. It does not attack the reasoning of the opinion itself.

I never said otherwise.

The decision to 'intervene' itself is unconstitutional.

Thus, the Bush victory that it enables is 'fruit of the poisoned tree' to use the common legal expression.

That legal expression you refer to is not common. It is a term of art and applies specifically to 4th and 5th amendment issues. To take it outside of that context is ridiculous except - I guess - metaphorically. But what you said could have been said without invoking legal jargon.

As to your first claim - You make a bald assertion with little to support it. Whether the decision to interven was constitutional is an issue that is controversial.

For instance viewed through the lens of the 14 amendment the court could be said to have had to intervene. Note that federal intervention in state elections is constitutional under the 14th amendment and extensive precedent.

The best argument put forth by the analyst you refer to is that this case should have been rejected under the "political question doctrine". Note that that doctrine is not constitutional in any way. It is rather a policy doctrine of the court intended to maintain the apolitical anture of the court. The PQD is often at odds with constitutional provisions and arguably should lose out to these.

Edited July 16, 2007 by Sulaco

[psikeyhackr]

Bush Stole The Election - BBC Documentary PT.1

Bush Stole The Election - BBC Documentary PT.2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWKlVSENOKM

HO HUM

psik

Edited July 17, 2007 by psikeyhackr

[jbg]

The best argument put forth by the analyst you refer to is that this case should have been rejected under the "political question doctrine". Note that that doctrine is not constitutional in any way. It is rather a policy doctrine of the court intended to maintain the apolitical anture of the court. The PQD is often at odds with constitutional provisions and arguably should lose out to these.

My analysis is that the SCOTUS was navigating the country around a possible constitutional crisis; one woman, Katherine Graham, using unfettered discretion to select the POTUS.

[bush_cheney2004]

My analysis is that the SCOTUS was navigating the country around a possible constitutional crisis; one woman, Katherine Graham, using unfettered discretion to select the POTUS.

True, the court's per curiam decision blocked the arbitrary recounting process in Florida, but it was not the sole determinant. Electoral votes from many other states contributed to Bush's 271 vote count. It is common practice to think of the "winning score" in such a way, from baseball games to presidential elections.

[jbg]

True, the court's per curiam decision blocked the arbitrary recounting process in Florida, but it was not the sole determinant. Electoral votes from many other states contributed to Bush's 271 vote count. It is common practice to think of the "winning score" in such a way, from baseball games to presidential elections.

You're right, except that in this case, the reesults of 48 of the other 50 states were clear by the end of the night (New Mexico and Florida I believe were the exceptions) and New Mexico's results weren't going to swing the election. Normally, the Florida Secretary of State, as well as similar officials in other states, would certify the results days or weeks later. What we see on TV are the results of unofficial canvasses complied by officials at County or other local levels.

Those canvasses would have given Graham enough notice of the special nature of this election, and the fact that she was picking the President. The crisis would come in over her arbitration of the issue of which candidate had the "highest" vote total. The SCOTUS did not want to have a situaton where hand recounts, ordered by the Florida Supreme Court were ignored by Graham as being inconclusive.

SCOTUS has had a disastrous experience with ignored rulings. In the early 1830's the Court directed the US to honor a treaty with the Cherokee Indians (you'd call them First Nations).Andrew Jackson said, approximately, "the Supreme Court had made its ruling; let it enforce it". Trust me, nine or so old men weren't getting on their horseback to challenge eager settlers.

[Topaz]

I've read different views on this topic and I'll say how he didn't win fair and square but you will need an open mind to the possibility this can happen. One, most of the voters in the US do it by computer. The computer software is made by 2 bros. that support Bush. The software can he "hacked" to give and take away votes without any proof that this has happened. You place people within the voter polls to monitor such activities. The reason that they did this was Bush-Cheney gang had already planned to go into Iraq and take out Hussein when he decided to run for president. If you have the right people in place, anyone can committed fraud in voting, let 9/11 happen and use the military to take out leader of a country, so you can gain power over the region to protect Israel, take oil from the region and setup miltary centre to rule over the Middle-East. The main reason this can happen because NO ONE would want to believe that someone in the US could and even would do this and therefore its so easy to fool the population but not the whole world. Now, my question is will Bush-Cheney gang, be punished for the activities of Iraq and the thousand of people, including little children have died because of this invasion? They have destroyed a nation and a people and have made the world dangerous for US citizens to venture out and now Canadians will also be targeted because of Afghanistan.

[bush_cheney2004]

... They have destroyed a nation and a people and have made the world dangerous for US citizens to venture out and now Canadians will also be targeted because of Afghanistan.

This is the most pathetic and consistent remark of all...some Canadians only see salvation from their own decisions and choices in the government of another nation. Pathetic.....

[GostHacked]

... They have destroyed a nation and a people and have made the world dangerous for US citizens to venture out and now Canadians will also be targeted because of Afghanistan.

This is the most pathetic and consistent remark of all...some Canadians only see salvation from their own decisions and choices in the government of another nation. Pathetic.....

Wah wah wah, you seem quite content in spitting out against anything Canadian when some of us start bashing the US. Typical right wing mantra, of mindless ever changing drivel.

From Topaz

I've read different views on this topic and I'll say how he didn't win fair and square but you will need an open mind to the possibility this can happen. One, most of the voters in the US do it by computer. The computer software is made by 2 bros. that support Bush. The software can he "hacked" to give and take away votes without any proof that this has happened.

After so many years of dealing with computers, being a help desk jockey, and now a systems admin, I can tell you that it is very easy to manipulate anything computer electronic related. It is a 1 and a 0. That's it. So even if you want to fantasize about this, is that after I hit 'Add Reply' my whole post is edited on the fly and everything could have changed. HELLO EDIT BUTTON !!!!! Ok, but that is after. Electronicly untraceable computer tampering is easier than you think. With more modern automated computers/system for voting and tallying up the votes, the more of a chance the data can be changed and the results forged. Take a look at how most software, even heavily encrypted needing CD check ect ect..... I know many of you, including me know how to do this. Emulators, cd-cracks key-gens.

But yeah, blame the computer.

You place people within the voter polls to monitor such activities. The reason that they did this was Bush-Cheney gang had already planned to go into Iraq and take out Hussein when he decided to run for president. If you have the right people in place, anyone can committed fraud in voting, let 9/11 happen and use the military to take out leader of a country, so you can gain power over the region to protect Israel, take oil from the region and setup miltary centre to rule over the Middle-East. The main reason this can happen because NO ONE would want to believe that someone in the US could and even would do this and therefore its so easy to fool the population but not the whole world. Now, my question is will Bush-Cheney gang, be punished for the activities of Iraq and the thousand of people, including little children have died because of this invasion? They have destroyed a nation and a people and have made the world dangerous for US citizens to venture out and now Canadians will also be targeted because of Afghanistan.

Now really look at it. OK look at me too because I am a Loon. There is something more to 9/11 and many really missed what it really meant. I never really realized this untill a conversation with a friend based on my prediction of a next terror attack. He said the next one will be something historical in context. He says, what if Buckingham Palace was totaled in an attack. You are loosing history. In a way it really struck me. What a way to change the way people think and see, but by altering what they see and think. Buckingham Palace has been around for at least 900 years. If it goes, what do you really loose. You no longer see it on your drive into London's downtown. No longer on the skyline, out of sight out of mind.

The WTC may end up that way, forgotten history. A generation grew up before it, one during it, and now one without it. But something may be yet learned by this soon to be forgotten history. Who can really remember 9/11 with all this Iraq thing going on and stuff.

Edited July 21, 2007 by GostHacked

[bush_cheney2004]

Wah wah wah, you seem quite content in spitting out against anything Canadian when some of us start bashing the US. Typical right wing mantra, of mindless ever changing drivel.

What did you expect...hugs and kisses? If you can't take it, don't dish it out. "Wah" indeed.

[GostHacked]

Wah wah wah, you seem quite content in spitting out against anything Canadian when some of us start bashing the US. Typical right wing mantra, of mindless ever changing drivel.

What did you expect...hugs and kisses? If you can't take it, don't dish it out. "Wah" indeed.

Since that is the only thing you have rebuttled to, then ..... ummm.... then it really is you who cannot take it. You said nothing about my bit on electronic voting, nor the other thing. If you could take it, your rebuttles would be much different. But it gets to you, I know.

Maybe it is because you know that I am telling the truth about it, and well, it really plays into how Bush and his cohorts managed to hijack the United States and take it for ransom.

[jefferiah]

I've read different views on this topic and I'll say how he didn't win fair and square but you will need an open mind to the possibility this can happen. One, most of the voters in the US do it by computer. The computer software is made by 2 bros. that support Bush. The software can he "hacked" to give and take away votes without any proof that this has happened. You place people within the voter polls to monitor such activities. The reason that they did this was Bush-Cheney gang had already planned to go into Iraq and take out Hussein when he decided to run for president. If you have the right people in place, anyone can committed fraud in voting, let 9/11 happen and use the military to take out leader of a country, so you can gain power over the region to protect Israel, take oil from the region and setup miltary centre to rule over the Middle-East. The main reason this can happen because NO ONE would want to believe that someone in the US could and even would do this and therefore its so easy to fool the population but not the whole world. Now, my question is will Bush-Cheney gang, be punished for the activities of Iraq and the thousand of people, including little children have died because of this invasion? They have destroyed a nation and a people and have made the world dangerous for US citizens to venture out and now Canadians will also be targeted because of Afghanistan.

So the voting system was designed by Bush supporters and they hacked in and changed votes. This is convenient for your argument, or would be if you actually had evidence. I could make claims like this as well. Its easy.

[jbg]

Maybe it is because you know that I am telling the truth about it, and well, it really plays into how Bush and his cohorts managed to hijack the United States and take it for ransom.

Maybe you're not familiar with how conservative a country we really are. I just came back from visiting my son at camp in New Hampshire, and drove through large stretches of the countryside. New Hampshire, as a state, is balanced between the parties. There were American flags on an awful lot of houses and businesses.

While our press may seem like the Toronto Star, Rush Limbaugh talks more to the people. This is, I know, hard to appreciate for Canadians. Trust me, as a 15 year old I was heartbroken that the candidate that my father and I worked avidly for, McGovern, went down to a then-record defeat, matched since only by Walter Mondale. If you think the election was about rigged machines and counts, you do not understand the United States.

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe you're not familiar with how conservative a country we really are. I just came back from visiting my son at camp in New Hampshire, and drove through large stretches of the countryside. New Hampshire, as a state, is balanced between the parties. There were American flags on an awful lot of houses and businesses.

This is very true and unfathomable for many Canadians. The USA is a far more conservative nation...any attempt to draw parallels to the NDP, Grits, or Tories will be met with frustration. President Bush actually won New Hampshire in 2000.

Vote rigging and ballot tampering is the only way many on both sides of the border can rationalize a free electorate choosing President Bush over other candidates. But it works both ways....draft dodging President Clinton defeated a WW2 veteran...twice.

[jbg]

But it works both ways....draft dodging President Clinton defeated a WW2 veteran...twice.

Bill Clinton ran, and governed, as a center/right Democrat. I submit that any Democrat that unabashedly takes a Leftist posture is doomed to Mondale/McGovern type defeat. Even Carter, who ran, though didn't govern, as a center/right Democrat, and Clinton in his first election won by the skin of their teeth.

[sharkman]

Clinton only won because that rascal Perot split the vote. And now the right has what's his name to split the left vote. Kingmakers come in all varieties I guess.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bill Clinton ran, and governed, as a center/right Democrat. I submit that any Democrat that unabashedly takes a Leftist posture is doomed to Mondale/McGovern type defeat. Even Carter, who ran, though didn't govern, as a center/right Democrat, and Clinton in his first election won by the skin of their teeth.

Agreed...we will see the usual three ring circus of special interests making an unfocused mess of the Democratic ticket selection process. Fram Al Sharpton to Cindy Sheehan, it will be like herding cats (again), as they jockey for platform positions and "progressive" pipe dreams.

[GostHacked]

Well here is the thing.

Maybe you're not familiar with how conservative a country we really are. I just came back from visiting my son at camp in New Hampshire, and drove through large stretches of the countryside. New Hampshire, as a state, is balanced between the parties. There were American flags on an awful lot of houses and businesses

I realize and understand that all ya'll are very conservative, but if you have no idea how electronic voting can easily be tampered with, then all your conservatism will equall shit when all is said and done.

So the voting system was designed by Bush supporters and they hacked in and changed votes. This is convenient for your argument, or would be if you actually had evidence. I could make claims like this as well. Its easy.

If you think the election was about rigged machines and counts, you do not understand the United States.

Once you understand that all information is just a 1 and a 0, then you can begin to understand how easily it is to manipulate any computer data and make it seem like everything is ok.

Ever had a virus on your PC or spyware?? Did you even know it was there? Did you even know that it is doing things to your PC that is bad for it, and therfore bad for you. With wireless access now widley rampant, it will make it easier to tamper with.

[jbg]

Once you understand that all information is just a 1 and a 0, then you can begin to understand how easily it is to manipulate any computer data and make it seem like everything is ok.

Ever had a virus on your PC or spyware?? Did you even know it was there? Did you even know that it is doing things to your PC that is bad for it, and therfore bad for you. With wireless access now widley rampant, it will make it easier to tamper with.

It's the Demoratic Party that pushed for e-voting.

[GostHacked]

Once you understand that all information is just a 1 and a 0, then you can begin to understand how easily it is to manipulate any computer data and make it seem like everything is ok.

Ever had a virus on your PC or spyware?? Did you even know it was there? Did you even know that it is doing things to your PC that is bad for it, and therfore bad for you. With wireless access now widley rampant, it will make it easier to tamper with.

It's the Demoratic Party that pushed for e-voting.

Either way, electronic voting is not as secure as good ol paper ballots. Just because the Dems brought it in, blame both the dems and the repubs for actually using and implementing them.

[bush_cheney2004]

Either way, electronic voting is not as secure as good ol paper ballots. Just because the Dems brought it in, blame both the dems and the repubs for actually using and implementing them.

But that is a good thing. Americans want instant gratification, not long lines and waiting for polling results. Plenty of nations still use paper ballots and the elections are hardly "secure".

[GostHacked]

Either way, electronic voting is not as secure as good ol paper ballots. Just because the Dems brought it in, blame both the dems and the repubs for actually using and implementing them.

But that is a good thing. Americans want instant gratification, not long lines and waiting for polling results. Plenty of nations still use paper ballots and the elections are hardly "secure".

Well, good things come to those who wait. Right? Any you know that paper ballots are a lot more tamper proof than any electronic voting system. Electronic voting makes it easier for results to be manipulated.

Other things Americans want instant gratification that comes back to haunt them, McDonalds, Walmart. They want instant gratification, but are told to have patience when they are frustrated with the current progress in Iraq. Seems like a 'Do as I do, and not as I say', type of thing.

The instant gratification of the last election has brought impatience among the American population.