Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Craig234One more note - even with all these problems, had the votes simply been counted under Florida law, as the Florida Supreme Court and 4 of 9 US Supreme Court justices were going to order, Al Gore would have won the recount. We know this from the comprehensive recount done by the Media Consotrium, paid for by the major media companies, the reuslts released sortly after 9/11.
The main problem was that Gore did not want ALL the votes recounted.
He wanted to cherry pick certain counties.
The Fla Supreme court allowed that without setting any stanrdards for the recount.
The US Supreme Court stated that a State recount must have consistent standards and cover everyone.
Had Gore not wanted to cherry pick, he would have had the time to have a recount under the US Supreme Court guidelines. He gambled, rolled the dice and lost the bet. It was his choice of which path to take.
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Craig234One more note - even with all these problems, had the votes simply been counted under Florida law, as the Florida Supreme Court and 4 of 9 US Supreme Court justices were going to order, Al Gore would have won the recount. We know this from the comprehensive recount done by the Media Consotrium, paid for by the major media companies, the reuslts released sortly after 9/11.
The main problem was that Gore did not want ALL the votes recounted.
He wanted to cherry pick certain counties.
The Fla Supreme court allowed that without setting any stanrdards for the recount.
The US Supreme Court stated that a State recount must have consistent standards and cover everyone.
Had Gore not wanted to cherry pick, he would have had the time to have a recount under the US Supreme Court guidelines. He gambled, rolled the dice and lost the bet. It was his choice of which path to take.
Actually, that is wrong.
The reason there was no recount was because Florida did not have a system to do a full recount. Each county had different methods... and it needed to be uniform for the entire state. It had nothing to do with Gore.
Florida has not changed the system to this day either.
Throughout the nation's history, non-uniform standards of vote counting have existed in all the states. Until Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court never uttered a peep that the lack of uniformity might violate equal protection.
In view of this history, dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg complained to Newsweek that the majority's decision applied the Equal Protection Clause "in a way that would de-legitimize virtually every election in American history."
Likewise, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, in his book Supreme Injustice, says the decision "would invalidate virtually every close election in our past and our future, since there is always considerable disparity among voting machines and standards employed to count and recount votes."
Vincent Bugliosi discusses the same matter: "Since different standards for counting votes exist throughout the fifty states (e.g., Texas counts dimpled chads, California does not), forty-four out of the fifty states do not have uniform voting methods, and voting equipment and mechanisms in all states necessarily vary in design, upkeep and performance, to apply the equal protection ruling of Bush v. Gore would necessarily invalidate virtually all elections throughout the country."
Because the equal protection claim made by Bush's lawyers was so at odds with prior cases and practices, many conservative Washington lawyers thought the argument was terrible. They were dismayed to learn that it was going to be made.
The Washington Post reports that even several of Bush's lawyers viewed the argument as "lame" and "extremely weak." Newsweek relates that Bush's first choice to be his lead lawyer in the case, retired GOP senator and Episcopal priest Jack Danforth, bowed out and believed that any lawyer who brought the federal case was risking his credibility.
Clearly, the majority's decision is inconsistent with the well-entrenched procedure used to count votes in the U.S. for over 200 years.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Gore added, ?So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster.?
This amounts to a rebuke to the more optimistic war planners in the White House and Pentagon, who have suggested that it would be possible to overthrow Saddam Hussein with only 50,000 US troops, or perhaps no ground troops at all, using proxy forces and American air power on the Afghanistan model. Gore declared in advance his support for a much larger commitment of American forces against Iraq than was required to overthrow the Taliban.
Bingo... Oh, that's right, he's just a politician so his views on the issue of how many troops might be needed are useless compared to the war planners in the Pentagon, like the war architect Wolfowitz at the time.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Craig234One more note - even with all these problems, had the votes simply been counted under Florida law, as the Florida Supreme Court and 4 of 9 US Supreme Court justices were going to order, Al Gore would have won the recount. We know this from the comprehensive recount done by the Media Consotrium, paid for by the major media companies, the reuslts released sortly after 9/11.
The main problem was that Gore did not want ALL the votes recounted.
He wanted to cherry pick certain counties.
The Fla Supreme court allowed that without setting any stanrdards for the recount.
The US Supreme Court stated that a State recount must have consistent standards and cover everyone.
Had Gore not wanted to cherry pick, he would have had the time to have a recount under the US Supreme Court guidelines. He gambled, rolled the dice and lost the bet. It was his choice of which path to take.
Originally posted by: Fern
The article above clearly indicates Gore concern's was that we couldn't oust/overthrow Sadam without a huge number of troops.
We all know that's wrong. The paltry number we used overthrew Saddam rather quickly. The problem has been in "nation building". The remark you quoted doesn't appear to address that issue.
He seems to be merely suggesting the "Powell Doctrine", which if IRC was much discussed at the time. Also, IIRC, the conern with flooding Iraq with a huge amount of troops was a possible backlash from ubiquitous occupation troops. I still hear verstiges of that concern in many Dems (and others) comments regarding the current situation.
IMO, this is all much ado about nothing. Gore won't run, if he did the Dems won't nominate him.
[F]inishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition.
Now, here's another of the main points I want to make: If we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth-rate military of Iraq, and then quickly abandon that nation, as President Bush has quickly abandoned almost all of Afghanistan after defeating a fifth-rate military power there, then the resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.
Here's why I say that. We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country. As yet, we have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of these weapons with terrorist groups. If the administration has evidence that he has, please present it, because that would change the way we all look at this thing.
But if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan in its current depleted state, with no central authority ? well, they have a central authority, but their central authority, because of the administration's insistence that the international community not be allowed to assemble a peacekeeping force large enough to pacify the countryside, that new government in Afghanistan controls a few precincts in one city, and the warlords or drug lords control the whole rest of the countryside.
What if, in the aftermath of a war against Iraq, we faced a situation like that, because we've washed our hands of it? What would then happen to all of those stored reserves of biological weapons all around the country?
What if the Al Qaida members infiltrated across the borders of Iraq the way they are in Afghanistan? Then the question wouldn't be, "Is Saddam Hussein going to share these weapons with a terrorist group?" The terrorist groups would have an enhanced ability to just walk in there and get them.
Now, I just think that if we end the war in Iraq the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could very well be much worse off than we are today.
And when you ask the administration about this, what's their intention in the aftermath of a war--Secretary Rumsfeld was asked recently about what our responsibility would be for restabilizing Iraq in the aftermath of an invasion. And his answer was, and I quote, "That's for the Iraqis to come together and decide."
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Looney
Originally posted by: Fern
Iraq seem to be the No 1 issue in voters minds', and Gore's (almost) sole platform appears to be Global Warming. What could change GW to the top of the polls/issues for the election? Personally, I could forsee immigration top the list (have a few Islamic radicals cross the border illegally and successfully carry out an attack etc), but GW?
Who said that's his sole platform? He's not even running. One thing he has that Hillary doesn't, is that he hasn't gone on record saying that he supports the war. Hillary did vote for the war. So he certainly has much more credibility than her in that regard.
Wrong.
Al Gore backs Bush?s war plans
By Patrick Martin
20 February 2002
In a speech February 12, his first major political address since the US Supreme Court stopped a vote count in Florida and handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, the Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, declared his full support to the Bush administration?s plans for expanded warfare in the Middle East. Gore called for a ?final reckoning? with Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
Originally posted by: spittledip
If Gore runs he will win.
Originally posted by: Vic
I liked Gore in 2000 and voted for him then. I wouldn't vote for him now. The reason? Quite frankly, it's because I'm a health and fitness nut and I don't want Taft II in office. Maybe if he lost 100 pounds I'd reconsider. Otherwise, how can we trust someone who can't even take care of himself to take care of the country? Are we going to have an obese President guide us into universal health care? What a joke that would be!
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Edwards, no chance at all.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Corbett
Come on Craig. It cant be that hard to prove your points since you have done so much research! Please explain how you came to conclusion that GWB stole the 2000 election. Then prove how he lied to bring us into war.
Corbett, there's no point spending the time to lay out an issue for some people - call them trolls, ideologues, whatever, but they don't have any interest in the truth.
You have shown yourself to be such a person to me, sadly. I can point you to books; will you read them? I don't think so.
This issue is large enough that I can lay out some highlights, but to get into the details of the 'proof' is almost writing a book. It needs some effort on your part, that's lacking.
But I'll give you a few bullets on the issue, which you could look into easily - but you won't, you'll post a cheap, fallacious, response which I'll finally just ignore.
First, you have repeatedly claimed I said Bush lied to bring us into war; I'm not the one saying that. I have some views on the issue, but that's another topic.
Second, saying the election was stolen is not the same as saying, as you again put words in my mouth, that GWB stole it. I'm not saying that, either.
The most important issue is that the election put the man who lost the election in office; we need to ask how that happened and try to prevent it next time.
Here are a few of the problems, each of which was far more than enough to swing the election's 537 vote margin:
- Accidental: The butterfly ballot, which gave thousands of votes intended for Gore to Patrick Buchanan - as Buchanan acknowledges.
This was not intentional, but the accidental effect of a poor ballot.
- Accidental/suspicious: more democratic/poor/black districts had far higher (up to 10%) vote disqualication rates while the most white counties had the lowest (as low as 1%).
This also cost many thousands of Gore voters their votes. The cause was democratic counties spending less on the election by using the less ecpensive centralized vote counting, while the white counties used the more expensive local vote counting, where the machine identified any error immediately and let the voter fix it.
There is a report that Katherine Harris had this demonstrated to her, and she sat on the info to let the democrats make the mistake.
- Intentional: Katherine Harris' office implemented a very defective system for identifying 'suspected felon voters' and removing them from the voter lists. The way they did this was set up to identify far too many people, by using very loose matching that very disproportionately identified black voters and removed them (much more than their percent as felons in the population). This, too, cost Gore thousands of votes.
Katherine Harris' office was warned about the problems, and directed them to actually make the matching even less accurate.
- Intentional: Denial of voting rights to ex-felons who had the right to vote who had moved to Florida.
Courts had to order Katherine Harris' office to stop removing these people from the voting lists repeatedly; Katherine Harris' offive showed they knew they had done wrong by sending a letter to counties to remove the voters, and then denying to an investigative reporter they had done so, sending him a false letter saying the opposite. He obtained the original letter from her office. Here, too, thousands of voters were affected.
One more note - even with all these problems, had the votes simply been counted under Florida law, as the Florida Supreme Court and 4 of 9 US Supreme Court justices were going to order, Al Gore would have won the recount. We know this from the comprehensive recount done by the Media Consotrium, paid for by the major media companies, the reuslts released sortly after 9/11.
Unfortunately, the story was broadly mis-reported. The recount showed that Gore won, under every scenario in which the voters' intent was counted, which is the standard specified by Florida law. Apparently the media companies didn't want to report that Gore had won at the height of 9/11 fever, and so they created some pointless alternative counting methods, called 'undervote' counting, under which Bush won; this had no clear use but to let them say under some counting, Bush won.
There were some other controveries as well, but when you look at the issues, the balance shows Gore won.
This led to quotes such as the following report quoting Jimmy Carter saying Gore had clearly won 'without a doubt' (easy to find with Google):
There is "no doubt in my mind that Gore won the election," the erstwhile President [Carter] declared, saying the 2000 election process "failed abysmally."
So, there're your pointers, now you can go read and confirm and deal with the truth, or you can post a lame snipe post based on the ignorance of not doing the research.
Prove me wrong on which to expect. I predict it's likely, but not certain, you will put partisanship first and democracy second and refuse to deal with the facts.
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Corbett
Come on Craig. It cant be that hard to prove your points since you have done so much research! Please explain how you came to conclusion that GWB stole the 2000 election. Then prove how he lied to bring us into war.
Corbett, there's no point spending the time to lay out an issue for some people - call them trolls, ideologues, whatever, but they don't have any interest in the truth.
You have shown yourself to be such a person to me, sadly. I can point you to books; will you read them? I don't think so.
This issue is large enough that I can lay out some highlights, but to get into the details of the 'proof' is almost writing a book. It needs some effort on your part, that's lacking.
But I'll give you a few bullets on the issue, which you could look into easily - but you won't, you'll post a cheap, fallacious, response which I'll finally just ignore.
First, you have repeatedly claimed I said Bush lied to bring us into war; I'm not the one saying that. I have some views on the issue, but that's another topic.
Second, saying the election was stolen is not the same as saying, as you again put words in my mouth, that GWB stole it. I'm not saying that, either.
The most important issue is that the election put the man who lost the election in office; we need to ask how that happened and try to prevent it next time.
Here are a few of the problems, each of which was far more than enough to swing the election's 537 vote margin:
- Accidental: The butterfly ballot, which gave thousands of votes intended for Gore to Patrick Buchanan - as Buchanan acknowledges.
This was not intentional, but the accidental effect of a poor ballot.
- Accidental/suspicious: more democratic/poor/black districts had far higher (up to 10%) vote disqualication rates while the most white counties had the lowest (as low as 1%).
This also cost many thousands of Gore voters their votes. The cause was democratic counties spending less on the election by using the less ecpensive centralized vote counting, while the white counties used the more expensive local vote counting, where the machine identified any error immediately and let the voter fix it.
There is a report that Katherine Harris had this demonstrated to her, and she sat on the info to let the democrats make the mistake.
- Intentional: Katherine Harris' office implemented a very defective system for identifying 'suspected felon voters' and removing them from the voter lists. The way they did this was set up to identify far too many people, by using very loose matching that very disproportionately identified black voters and removed them (much more than their percent as felons in the population). This, too, cost Gore thousands of votes.
Katherine Harris' office was warned about the problems, and directed them to actually make the matching even less accurate.
- Intentional: Denial of voting rights to ex-felons who had the right to vote who had moved to Florida.
Courts had to order Katherine Harris' office to stop removing these people from the voting lists repeatedly; Katherine Harris' offive showed they knew they had done wrong by sending a letter to counties to remove the voters, and then denying to an investigative reporter they had done so, sending him a false letter saying the opposite. He obtained the original letter from her office. Here, too, thousands of voters were affected.
One more note - even with all these problems, had the votes simply been counted under Florida law, as the Florida Supreme Court and 4 of 9 US Supreme Court justices were going to order, Al Gore would have won the recount. We know this from the comprehensive recount done by the Media Consotrium, paid for by the major media companies, the reuslts released sortly after 9/11.
Unfortunately, the story was broadly mis-reported. The recount showed that Gore won, under every scenario in which the voters' intent was counted, which is the standard specified by Florida law. Apparently the media companies didn't want to report that Gore had won at the height of 9/11 fever, and so they created some pointless alternative counting methods, called 'undervote' counting, under which Bush won; this had no clear use but to let them say under some counting, Bush won.
There were some other controveries as well, but when you look at the issues, the balance shows Gore won.
This led to quotes such as the following report quoting Jimmy Carter saying Gore had clearly won 'without a doubt' (easy to find with Google):
There is "no doubt in my mind that Gore won the election," the erstwhile President [Carter] declared, saying the 2000 election process "failed abysmally."
So, there're your pointers, now you can go read and confirm and deal with the truth, or you can post a lame snipe post based on the ignorance of not doing the research.
Prove me wrong on which to expect. I predict it's likely, but not certain, you will put partisanship first and democracy second and refuse to deal with the facts.
Meh. The same old lefty talking points from SEVEN years ago. Nothing new here.
Corbett, there's no point spending the time to lay out an issue for some people - call them trolls, ideologues, whatever, but they don't have any interest in the truth.
You have shown yourself to be such a person to me, sadly. I can point you to books; will you read them? I don't think so.
This issue is large enough that I can lay out some highlights, but to get into the details of the 'proof' is almost writing a book. It needs some effort on your part, that's lacking.
But I'll give you a few bullets on the issue, which you could look into easily - but you won't, you'll post a cheap, fallacious, response which I'll finally just ignore.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Corbett
Come on Craig. It cant be that hard to prove your points since you have done so much research! Please explain how you came to conclusion that GWB stole the 2000 election. Then prove how he lied to bring us into war.
Corbett, there's no point spending the time to lay out an issue for some people - call them trolls, ideologues, whatever, but they don't have any interest in the truth.
You have shown yourself to be such a person to me, sadly. I can point you to books; will you read them? I don't think so.
This issue is large enough that I can lay out some highlights, but to get into the details of the 'proof' is almost writing a book. It needs some effort on your part, that's lacking.
But I'll give you a few bullets on the issue, which you could look into easily - but you won't, you'll post a cheap, fallacious, response which I'll finally just ignore.
First, you have repeatedly claimed I said Bush lied to bring us into war; I'm not the one saying that. I have some views on the issue, but that's another topic.
Second, saying the election was stolen is not the same as saying, as you again put words in my mouth, that GWB stole it. I'm not saying that, either.
The most important issue is that the election put the man who lost the election in office; we need to ask how that happened and try to prevent it next time.
Here are a few of the problems, each of which was far more than enough to swing the election's 537 vote margin:
- Accidental: The butterfly ballot, which gave thousands of votes intended for Gore to Patrick Buchanan - as Buchanan acknowledges.
This was not intentional, but the accidental effect of a poor ballot.
- Accidental/suspicious: more democratic/poor/black districts had far higher (up to 10%) vote disqualication rates while the most white counties had the lowest (as low as 1%).
This also cost many thousands of Gore voters their votes. The cause was democratic counties spending less on the election by using the less ecpensive centralized vote counting, while the white counties used the more expensive local vote counting, where the machine identified any error immediately and let the voter fix it.
There is a report that Katherine Harris had this demonstrated to her, and she sat on the info to let the democrats make the mistake.
- Intentional: Katherine Harris' office implemented a very defective system for identifying 'suspected felon voters' and removing them from the voter lists. The way they did this was set up to identify far too many people, by using very loose matching that very disproportionately identified black voters and removed them (much more than their percent as felons in the population). This, too, cost Gore thousands of votes.
Katherine Harris' office was warned about the problems, and directed them to actually make the matching even less accurate.
- Intentional: Denial of voting rights to ex-felons who had the right to vote who had moved to Florida.
Courts had to order Katherine Harris' office to stop removing these people from the voting lists repeatedly; Katherine Harris' offive showed they knew they had done wrong by sending a letter to counties to remove the voters, and then denying to an investigative reporter they had done so, sending him a false letter saying the opposite. He obtained the original letter from her office. Here, too, thousands of voters were affected.
One more note - even with all these problems, had the votes simply been counted under Florida law, as the Florida Supreme Court and 4 of 9 US Supreme Court justices were going to order, Al Gore would have won the recount. We know this from the comprehensive recount done by the Media Consotrium, paid for by the major media companies, the reuslts released sortly after 9/11.
Unfortunately, the story was broadly mis-reported. The recount showed that Gore won, under every scenario in which the voters' intent was counted, which is the standard specified by Florida law. Apparently the media companies didn't want to report that Gore had won at the height of 9/11 fever, and so they created some pointless alternative counting methods, called 'undervote' counting, under which Bush won; this had no clear use but to let them say under some counting, Bush won.
There were some other controveries as well, but when you look at the issues, the balance shows Gore won.
This led to quotes such as the following report quoting Jimmy Carter saying Gore had clearly won 'without a doubt' (easy to find with Google):
There is "no doubt in my mind that Gore won the election," the erstwhile President [Carter] declared, saying the 2000 election process "failed abysmally."
So, there're your pointers, now you can go read and confirm and deal with the truth, or you can post a lame snipe post based on the ignorance of not doing the research.
Prove me wrong on which to expect. I predict it's likely, but not certain, you will put partisanship first and democracy second and refuse to deal with the facts.
Meh. The same old lefty talking points from SEVEN years ago. Nothing new here.
LOL. You are shown to be exactly what I said, Corbett.
For emphasis, I'll repeat:
Corbett, there's no point spending the time to lay out an issue for some people - call them trolls, ideologues, whatever, but they don't have any interest in the truth.
You have shown yourself to be such a person to me, sadly. I can point you to books; will you read them? I don't think so.
This issue is large enough that I can lay out some highlights, but to get into the details of the 'proof' is almost writing a book. It needs some effort on your part, that's lacking.
But I'll give you a few bullets on the issue, which you could look into easily - but you won't, you'll post a cheap, fallacious, response which I'll finally just ignore.
Originally posted by: Corbett
Because its not even worth talking about it is such a weak argument. Its been rehashed 203942-8597 times by you lefties who only regurgitate the same old talking points! Youve proven nothing other than you spend way too much time online typing this garbage out!
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Corbett
Because its not even worth talking about it is such a weak argument. Its been rehashed 203942-8597 times by you lefties who only regurgitate the same old talking points! Youve proven nothing other than you spend way too much time online typing this garbage out!
Actually, you are too irresponsible, too lazy, too intellectually disonest to learn the facts, and instead you post lies on a message board based on the ignorance you have chosen.
I regret the personal statements, but you leave no real alternative with the irresponsible behavior.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that debating with some on the right like you is speaking with people more ideologically blind than about any other cult I can think of.
You pestered for the fact, you were given the facts, and you ran away.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the whole draft Gore movement shows that some parts of the Democratic Party are as unhappy with their choices as the Republicans are.
Look at their choices so far:
1. Edwards, no chance at all.
2. Obama not enough experience.
3. Hillary, too much baggage and too many negatives.
That makes Gore a good choice in the eyes of many. He has the experience, the name, the background etc.