So tired of the Gore won popular vote, Bush won electoral vote meme

[bigbrother05]

All the pundits act as though it is a black and white fact while every sentient being knows the Fla EVs were awarded by the SCOTUS without regard to the processes in place at the state level to make their own determination.

Later analysis point to the probability that Gore would have tallied enough votes had the counting process continued without outside interference. That also doesn't take into account the plausibility of voting fraud from suppression and ballot manipulation.

Anyway, I'm sick and tired of hearing "Bush won the EV in 2000", he was awarded the victory and we have suffered greatly ever since.

[MADem]

1. Bush "won" five to four in an election theft that will resonate down through history.

We were denied the best hope for an environmental president who would have put Earth First.

It sucks.

[coalition_unwilling]

2. There was a bloodless coup d-etat in 2000. But no one held a gun to Gore's head to

force him to concede. He could have refused to abide by the SCOTUS ruling and brought about a constitutional crisis. In retrospect, I think we would have been better off had Gore done so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Sorry, he went as far as he could

Short of taking up arms. Were you willing? Because I am also sick and tired of this meme.

[coalition_unwilling]

10. Nadin, I will always accuse myself of failing my civic duty in Nov and Dec of 2000 when,

instead of continuing my quixotic pursuit of a music career here in LA, I should have dropped everything and traveled to Florida to give battle to the brownshirts in the streets of Broward County. I am doubly to blame, as my background in modern European history gave me a perspective on fascist take-overs that many like-minded people lack. I failed as an American back then, a failure I shall rue for the remainder of my days. In my defense, I don't think I understood in Nov and Dec of 2000 just how badly Bush and his Junta would damage democracy and the republic.

That said, I cannot help but feel that the blood of 1,000,000+ Iraqis who would otherwise doubtless still be alive is on my hands a little bit. That's a consequence of failing in one's civic duty.

To this day, I do not know what I would have done had Gore refused to concede and instead called upon Americans to hit the streets. I would like to think I would have answered Gore's call.

[12AngryBorneoWildmen]

29. I love everything you said.

I just hope it doesn't 'bring you down' too often.

[coalition_unwilling]

32. It brought me down already to the point where I no longer participate much

in the values of modern American capitalism.

Once I realized what Bush was up to (Oct-Nov 2001), I stayed at a job I hated with access to the Los Angles Times cafeteria, just so I could wear my anti-Bush and peace signs in their faces every fucking day and slap anti-Bush posters up on the doors of their parking structure every fucking morning on my way in to work.

Rather than try to get ahead in American capitalism, I spent 8 years (give or take) protesting in the streets 2-3 times\week, in the process receiving death threats and being physically assaulted.

And I still can't get the blood of those Iraqis off my hands completely, nor the blood of those who perished in New Orleans after Katrina. So for Obama to let those war criminals waltz around as free people has been the final, crowning insult.

I don't know how my poor wife managed to put up with me.

[RobertEarl]

78. You and me both, brother

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Had we really been able to see the future...

Ah well it must of had to happen the way it did. Taught us a lesson, didn't it?

[BlueCaliDem]

36. Had Gore done that, Bush would have conceded immediately.

Republicans bluster and bloviate, but in the face of a populace uprise, they'll back down.

He had the vast majority of the populace behind him, and he could have pulled this feat had he wanted to.

[coalition_unwilling]

37. It would definitely have been a watershed moment in the American

experiment.

I can respect Gore's stated reasons for accepting the institutional perogatives of the SCOTUS, even as I wonder what might have been had he been a little more iconoclastic and less mindful of the corrupted institutions of the republic.

[sabrina 1]

41. Well said. Most of us could not have imagined the harm that would be done

to this country and many of us did not really know what to think as we were not accustomed to viewing this country as a place where an election could be stolen so brazenly.

What was missing was leadership. Ordinary people with no power who trust they live in a civil society, were not prepared for the treason that took place in 2000.

But many of us became much more active in politics as a result of the theft of the 2000 election and since then have paid a lot more attention to what goes on.

However, anyone who spoke out against that crime, was silenced, smeared, run out of office etc.

In fact, I remember Don Siegelman being one of the few elected officials to say that the election had been stolen in 2002 I believe.

You should not kick yourself for not doing something about it. More powerful people than you or me were silenced and the fall back position of those who support the cheaters is to 'blame Nader'. Which is why I abhor that tactic.

The SC committed a huge crime against this country and no one did anything about it.

[chknltl]

42. Of all the DU posts by all of the great minds i have EVER read....

...This post stands out as one of my favorites.

As Nazi Germany fell, German citizens who lived near the death camps were made to see some of the horror created by their government. Are there any Americans who think it was wrong of our military to force the local German citizenry into those death camps to witness-to clean up that nightmare?

Our government took our military to war against Iraq under false pretense. Our government authorized the use of a WMD in its fields of battle both in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

In America where we have a government of by and for the people, in America which is the very poster child of Democracy, WHO is responsible for the war crimes committed by our government? Who should be made to clean up the Depleted Uranium that now poisons the lands of the Middle East?

[coalition_unwilling]

64. Thank you for the compliment, although I accept it with a heavy heart. I should point

out that the Middle East is hardly the first arena where America has gotten its blood lust on in a major way. We still owe Southeast Asia a huge karmic debt for the deaths of an estimated 2-3 million Southeast Asians thanks to our imperial meddling there.

[chknltl]

86. Agreed when it comes to S.E.Asia as well.

I wish I still had access to a history of Vietnam book I once read. It claimed that Ho Chi Minh wanted a united Vietnam, that he even patterned his own proto Constitution on ours and that had President Truman (Eisenhower?) given him the aid he requested things could have turned out far better all around.

I suspect Wiki has the tale quite different than what I once read.
The bottom line is that where we should feel national shame we instead find ambivalence or worse.

There are some DUers who command a great deal of respect around here. Perhaps one or two of them could on a lark, post a single word and get over a hundred recs! Maybe I missed it but never until now, have I heard any of these DUers point out what I have known in my heart to be true: My country has caused unimaginable horror that I do not support-that my fellow Americans would not support if only they would open their eyes.

[coalition_unwilling]

87. Stanley Karnow's one-volume history ("Vietnam") is a good

place to resume your study.

When Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh re-occupied Hanoi in 1945 after the Japanese surrender to the Allies, Ho made a public address in the largest public square to many thousands of his countrymen. In that address, Ho explicitly alluded to the U.S. Declaration of Independence. The Viet Minh had cooperated extensively with the CIA's predecessor (the OSS) in efforts to resist the Japanese occupation of Vietnam. IIRC, the first U.S. casualty in southeast Asia was an OSS officer killed there by the Japanese during World War II.

Truman subsequently allowed the French to re-occupy Vietnam in the interests of securing ce Gaulle's support for NATO, the Truman Doctrine and the policy of 'containment.' De Gaulle and France extracted a bloody quid pro quo for not breaking with the U.S. over policy to the Eastern Bloc. (Bascially, France was allowed to re-assert itself in all of its pre-war colonial possessions.)

The French were decisively defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Had Eisenhower and his cohort insisted that the Geneva agreements of 1954 be followed (calling for national elections to reunite the country no later than 1956), much of the later suffering would probably have been avoided. Of course, those elections would have seen the installation of Ho as national leader of a united Vietnam and this was something the bi-partisan Cold Warriors (trapped in a myth of a monolithic world-wide Communist plot for global domination) simply could never accept or allow.

[EX500rider]

61. should have dropped everything and traveled to Florida to give battle to the brownshirts in streets?

? What "Brownshirts" would you have found in the streets in Florida?

Were they at street barricades of flaming tires and old cars taking pot shots at the locals while waving fascist flags?

'Cause I don't remember any of that... I think you would have found normal American's going about their business on the streets of Fla..

And the only way to get to over a million dead Iraqis is to also count everybody who died during the sanctions which happened mostly under Clinton's watch. The war itself is more in the 120,000 range. (still horrible but no need to inflate so you feel worse..)

[coalition_unwilling]

63. You've obviously forgotten the band of brownshirts flown into Florida expressly for the purpose of

interfering with (and stopping) the vote re-count authorized by the Florida Supreme Court. I don't have time right now to get you links or video clips, but they have been posted here ad nauseum.

The 1,000,000 figure for Iraqi casualties derives from demographic statistical studies conducted by Johns Hopkins U. and the British medical journal The Lancet. Again, don't have links or cites ready to hand but they are easily found and readily available.

[EX500rider]

67. I never saw any brownshirts anywhere but your mileage may vary..

...and I live in Fla.

The Lancet study has been dis-credited multiple times.

[coalition_unwilling]

68. You know, you're right. They weren't wearing brownshirts. They

were wearing Brooks Brothers suits. Still a band of anti-democratic fascists:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6253665

The Lancet study has not been discredited multiple times.

[HangOnKids]

73. Upper Cut and Left Jab.... Keep Going The Knock Out Is Coming

You are one of the finest people on DU c_w. You understand your limitations and yet are willing to examine the truth. Please keep going with this thread, the poster you are speaking with isn't worthy of your time but I want to see this end with a KO. Thanks dude, your wife is very lucky to have you.

[HangOnKids]

74. Links for the discredited Lancet study?

No hyphen needed BTW for discredited, it is a word.

[EX500rider]

80. Links for the discredited Lancet study?

November 20, 2004.
"Criticism and suggestions by peer reviewer Sheila M Bird, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge CB2 2SR, UK, chair of the Royal Statistical Society's Working Party on Performance Monitoring in the Public Services. Calls scientific method "generally well described and readily repeatable", but says "particular attention is needed to the methodology for randomly selecting the location(s) of cluster(s) within governorates. Roberts and colleagues describe this rather too succinctly". Suggests additional information be included so that more precise multipliers (to obtain the final estimate) can be applied. Discusses an example hypothetical circumstance incorporating said information, regarding airstrike deaths and collateral damage, under which over-counting could occur due to population density variances among cluster representations."

March 26, 2005. "Criticism by Stephen Apfelroth, Department of Pathology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Criticizes "several questionable sampling techniques that should have been more thoroughly examined before publication" and lists several flaws, including a "fatal" one, that "In such a situation, multiple random sample points are required within each geographic region, not one per 739000 individuals."

"Debarati Guha-Sapir, director of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels, was quoted in an interview for Nature.com saying that Burnham's team have published "inflated" numbers that "discredit" the process of estimating death counts.
She has some methodological concerns about the paper, including the use of local people — who might have opposed the occupation — as interviewers. She also points out that the result does not fit with any she has recorded in 15 years of studying conflict zones. A subsequent article co-authored by Guha-Sapir and Olivier Degomme for CRED reviews the Lancet data in detail. It concludes that the Lancet overestimated deaths and that the war-related death toll was most likely to be around 125,000 for the period covered by the Lancet study, reaching its conclusions by correcting errors in the 2006 Lancet estimate and triangulating with data from IBC and ILCS."

"Beth Osborne Daponte, a demographer known for producing death estimates for the first Gulf War, evaluates the Lancet survey and other sources in a paper for the International Review of the Red Cross.[36] Among other criticisms, Daponte questions the reliability of pre-war estimates used in the Lancet study to derive its "excess deaths" estimate, and the ethical approval for the survey. She concludes that the most reliable information available to date is provided by the Iraq Family Health Survey, the Iraq Living Conditions Survey and Iraq Body Count."

"Mark van der Lann, professor of biostatistics and statistics at UC Berkeley, disputes the estimates of both Lancet studies on several grounds in a paper co-authored with writer Leon de Winter. The authors argue that the confidence intervals in the Lancet study are too narrow, saying, "our statistical analysis could at most conclude that the total number of violent deaths is more than 100.000 with a 0.95 confidence — but this takes not into account various other potential biases in the original data." Among the main conclusions of their evaluation are that "the estimates based upon these data are extremely unreliable and cannot stand a decent scientific evaluation. It may be that the number of violent deaths is much higher than previously reported, but this specific report, just like the October 2004 report, cannot support the estimates that have been flying around the world on October 29, 2006. It is not science. It is propaganda."

"Borzou Daragahi Iraq correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, in an interview with PBS, questioned the study based on their earlier research in Iraq, saying, "Well, we think—the Los Angeles Times thinks these numbers are too large, depending on the extensive research we've done. Earlier this year, around June, the report was published at least in June, but the reporting was done over weeks earlier. We went to morgues, cemeteries, hospitals, health officials, and we gathered as many statistics as we could on the actual dead bodies, and the number we came up with around June was about at least 50,000. And that kind of jibed with some of the news report that were out there, the accumulation of news reports, in terms of the numbers killed. The U.N. says that there's about 3,000 a month being killed; that also fits in with our numbers and with morgue numbers. This number of 600,000 or more killed since the beginning of the war, it's way off our charts."

"A 2010 paper by Professor Michael Spagat entitled "Ethical and Data-Integrity Problems in the Second Lancet Survey of Mortality in Iraq" was published in the peer reviewed journal Defense & Peace Economics. This paper argues that there were several "ethical violations to the survey's respondents", faults the study authors for "non-disclosure of the survey's questionnaire, data-entry form, data matching anonymised interviewer identifications with households and sample design", and presents "evidence relating to data fabrication and falsification, which falls into nine broad categories." The paper concludes that the Lancet survey, "cannot be considered a reliable or valid contribution towards knowledge about the extent of mortality in Iraq since 2003."

[HangOnKids]

82. Ah Yes I Have Seen That Drivel Thanks For Playing

Bye now.

[BlueMTexpat]

19. Too true - I'm with you.

And I remember that there were Dems at the time who publicly criticized Gore for waiting as long as he did to concede.

Of course, Republicans charged that Gore was trying to "steal" the election. It's that transference thingie again.

[PCIntern]

24. Ed Rendell, head of the DNC I believe, told him to concede at the outset. Nt

[pasto76]

28. we're all genisues in hindsight. BACK THEN, nobody, NOBODY really believed things would get this bad

even me. Fool me once, dubya!

[caveat_imperator]

31. I feared it would, since I was one who had to suffer under gw's governorship.

Things were so much better along the border when Ann Richards was governor.

[Indpndnt]

38. Yes, but without widespread internet usage like today, we couldn't get the word out.

Even before that, with Ann Richards having an approval rate over 90%, I seriously doubt she was defeated legitimately by Dumbya. No way.

[caveat_imperator]

75. I agree.

I never believed he honestly beat Governor Richards.

[coalition_unwilling]

35. Yeah. But I still cannot get the blood of those 1,000,000+ Iraqis

off my hands.

[fujiyama]

65. The Onion did, in what is perhaps one of the most prescient and prophetic articles ever written

and by a "fake" newspaper, no less.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros,464/

[Gidney N Cloyd]

66. Damn, that's a great "article."

[pocoloco]

33. The coup was in 1963...

and it wasn't bloodless!

[coalition_unwilling]

34. Maybe you could say the coup was in 1865 (and it also was not bloodless) - n/t

[fujiyama]

58. There would have been no "constitutional crisis"

The case went to the USSC, the highest court in this country. They ruled and there is no refusing to abide by SC orders and rulings.

Short of taking up arms and fighting a guerrilla war or trying to set up a shadow government (which would basically be considered treason), there was no other legal recourse. Bush was appointed to the office by the SC and of course it was one of the worst rulings in the history of the court. But it was the last LEGAL step for Gore. It was the end of the line.

Even if he had called for supporters to take to the streets and cause civic disobedience, his movement would have been swiftly brought down. He would have lost support from the entire political establishment, including his own president.

[coalition_unwilling]

62. Excuse me, but there most definitely would have been a 'constitutional crisis' had Gore

refused to concede.

The SCOTUS refused to allow all the ballots to be counted, reversing the Florida Supreme Court's ruling. Given such a circumstance, refusing to concede could hardly be considered 'treason'. Gore decided to defer to the legitimacy of the institution of the Supreme Court, even though the issue it was deciding cast its very legitimacy into question.

[Major Nikon]

76. Not by any reasonable definition of the term

A constitutional crisis happens when one or two of the three branches of government, or a state or local government refuses to abide by a decision or ruling made by another branch. When a private citizen tries to do the same, it is not called a constitutional crisis.

Gore wasn't even an elected official at the time, much less the head of any branch of federal or state government, and had zero standing to bring about a constitutional crisis. I suppose Gore could have led a rebellion, which seems to be a more accurate description of what you are referring. I couldn't see that as a move which would have gotten much traction. Had he just not conceded, the result would have been the same.

[coalition_unwilling]

79. I see your point, I suppose. I would point out merely that the SCOTUS did not

literally declare Bush the winner. It simply reversed the Florida Supreme Court's ruling that the recount requested by Gore should occur and stopped the recount of ballots At that point, had Gore refused to accede to the SCOTUS ruling, what might have ensued? Well, depending upon the language Gore employed in his refusal to concede, one might have seen a fatal schism in the Florida electoral slate (perhaps with competing slates being sent to the College?) and with the House compelled to certify the legitimate slate.

I don't know whether you want to call that a 'rebellion' or a 'constituional crisis.' I don't think it makes much difference, since Gore conceded and the rest, as they say, is history.

[Major Nikon]

81. Here's the way I see it

We get exactly the government we deserve. If people are stupid enough to elect Republican presidents who appoint SCOTUS judges who do shit like this, then it's simply our roosters coming home to roost. Elections have consequences. This is just one example. Iraq is another. Furthermore the people just sat back and watched it happen. Had the people been outraged enough, congress could have impeached enough SCOTUS judges to prevent the ruling or at least dealt with the 5 who voted the way they did afterward. Unfortunately we never learn from our mistakes. The fact that Rmoney hasn't been laughed out of the race for president proves this.

[coalition_unwilling]

84. I think we pretty much see eye-to-eye, except that I don't think anyone in the working class

'deserved' the Bush Junta. Before I blame the working class for the crimes of that junta, I must first point the finger of blame at myself.

Let me put it this way: all of us have done bad things at one point or another. Doesn't mean we all deserve to go to prison.

[NYC Liberal]

69. So Gore should have staged a coup d'etat of his own? No. What should have happened

was ONE, just one, Democratic senator should have stood up with the House CBC and filed an official challenge to the Florida EV in Congress when the vote was being certified, like what happened in 2004 with OH.

[coalition_unwilling]

72. Should have, could have, would have -- the 3 most popular phrases heard

in Vegas.

I respect Gore's decision to defer to the corrupted SCOTUS as an institution worth preserving, even if hindsight reveals what damage that decision and corrupt institution did to our nation's standing in the world and to the lives of countless Iraqis.

Consider what might have transpired had Gore refused to concede. It's an interesting what-might-have-been.

On a personal note, I hope you and your family make it through Sandy without any serious harm. You and all East Coast DUers will be in my thoughts tonight.

[greytdemocrat]

3. Last I looked...

It was 2012. You might want to concentrate on that instead of the past.

[bigbrother05]

6. The OP is a response to the current theme that the reverse is happening now

Hearing how the Romney camp could be building a case to challenge the results if they win the PV. Guess my point is that while I agree that it is 2012, don't want to hear how Bush " won" in 2000.

[madokie]

12. I don't see any way that rMoney will win the popular vote

stealing the Electoral Votes is a whole 'nuther issue though

[bigbrother05]

13. Agree, but with so much air time, it seems something is afoot

Might only be a way to keep pumping Super PAC money into ads in the red states. Bain owns Clear Channel and will gets lots of money from those ads. By using a whisper campaign to let their base think they'll fight based on a PV footing will let them continue to spend Adelson's money before the election cycle is over. Most likely all the available spots in swing states have been bought, so they have to find other places to park the cash.

This also has the benefit of ensuring that their base will continue to spout the RW lies that have poisoned the political process for the last four years.

[madokie]

23. I agree with this

[wakemewhenitsover]

47. "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness."

Santayana said it better than I could.

[peace13]

4. The rest of us understand that the election was stolen.

Sooth yourself but not at the expense of our freedoms. I suggest a long nap. That wii help you feel rested. As for the sick part, I got nothing because I too feel sick. Keep your eyes open because they will a steal it again if we let them. Rove is working on, do not kid yourself!

[northoftheborder]

5. Never forget the fact that the WHOLE STATE RECOUNT done by a consortium of media over a year's time

showed that GORE won the election. If Gore had insisted there be a whole state recount instead of conceding, the electoral votes would have all gone to him, history would have been totally different. People at large do not know this, because the results of the state-wide recount was published on September 10, 2001. And you know what happened the next day.

It would have been a mess for Gore to have done this, and the Repubs would have fought violently against it. It might have taken months. Clinton would have remained President through the process. But it would have been the right thing to do, in my mind. A real Democratic result, rather than the corrupted Supreme Court imposition.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. So when the SCOTUS ruled you wanted him

To take up arms? That was the next step

It was a bloodless coup, LEGALLY he went as far as he could.

That said, the SCOTUS interfered in a state matter after the STATE Supreme court ruled for the count to continue.

[fasttense]

18. There are a lot of things Gore could have done besides take up arms.

The choice was NOT put up with the bushes coupe or take up arms. The choice was put up with the bushes coupe or call on the American people to protest. And protests can be nonviolent.

I was in the military at the time and I was afraid that if Gore had called on the American people to protest the stolen election, I would be called to fight against the protesters. I would NOT have done it no matter who gave the order.

But as it turned out no body protested.

[coalition_unwilling]

25. "No body (sic) protested"???? Um, you haven't seen footage of the inaugural parade in D.C. in

January 2001 or the attempts by the Congressional Black Caucus to secure only one Senatorial sponsor to their challenge of the results.

I protested loudly at my work. To my everlasting regret, I did not drop everything, quit my job and head to Florida to give battle to the fascists in the streets. Wouldn't have mattered, you say? Tell that to the 1,000,000+ Iraqis who are now dead as a result of our lies and crimes against humanity. Or all the dead of New Orleans.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. People protested

You missed it, sorry.

This site is a result of those protests by the way.

Peope protested up to and during inauguration, to the point that Bush the Lesser did not walk all the way and the SS was worried for his safety.

[sabrina 1]

43. He didn't need to take up arms. All he had to do was to demand that all votes

be counted. No democracy needs to take up arms to ensure that everyone's vote be counted, unless there has already been a coup. At which point yes, then taking up arms is definitely a consideration.

However the coup had not yet taken place and there was no need for any taking up of arms. Just an insistence that everyone's vote be counted. If people have come to the conclusion that making such a simple and I would think, rational demand is the equivalent of 'taking up arms' then the coup had happened BEFORE the 2000 election.

By giving in to the outrageous notion that all votes do not need to be counted, the criminals won simply by bullying and being more persistent in getting what they wanted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. He took it legally all the way

Sorry if this is hard to understand.

After the SCOTUS ruled, legally it was over.

[sabrina 1]

48. See posts below. He should have insisted on a state wide recount

before the case was taken, (and no it should never have been before the SC ever), over by the SC. He should have protested the SC getting involved at all.

Had the shoe been on the other foot, you can bet that Republicans would never have allowed the SC to interfere and they would have been all over the media demanding a state wide recount.

The SC has no role in elections. Any ruling by them therefore was not legal. That too should have been challenged. Even they admitted themselves in their opinion, that this 'must not set a precedent'. Utterly outrageous and a clear opening to challenge that unconstitutional interference by the SC.

Either the SC rulings are legitimate and as such DO set precedent, or they are not and they are not when the SC itself says they 'are not setting precedent'.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Remember the SCOTUS overruled the State Court.

[Indydem]

9. Gore never requested a statewide recount.

Gore is, 100%, to blame for the way that the Florida mess went down.

The way that he requested the recount, the way he handled himself thereafter, and finally, the way his case was argued before the SCOTUS.

The court may have awarded the presidency to * but Gore made it possible by not winning outright.

[bigbrother05]

20. Think he was trying to look at the places with the most questions

Think it was an attempt at reasonable accommodation for the practical issues in a recount.

The Supremes used it against him as an equal protection argument. A state wide request would have avoided the charge of cherry picking.

[Indydem]

21. He asked for a recount in the most heavily Democrat counties.

His thoughts were he could use that to gain the most votes in the tight race.

His decision to pick and choose only those counties is, what ultimately, led to his losing he state.

If he had requested a statewide recount, the equal protection question would have never been raised.

If Gore had gotten his way and only those counties would have been counted, he still would have lost.

Whether he then would have requested a state-wide recount, tipping it in his favor, is a question lost to history.

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

11. Exactly--Bush didn't win FL's EV... the GOP machine stole the presidency

...and that's why some of us get tired hearing that Bush "won" the EV in 2000.
"Stole" does not equal "won".

[win_in_06]

14. Which is why I'm not against voter ID laws. Had we had them in 2000 Gore would have POTUS #43

[bigbrother05]

15. Voter ID = voter suppression

Don't really think a voter ID law coming from Jeb and Catherine Harris would have favored Gore voters.

[win_in_06]

40. Only if you believe blacks have a tougher time acquiring IDs than whites.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. From what we know, yes, yes they do

As well as elderly, students and other minorities.

Now a system like the IFE would be equitable and chiefly free, this is not what we are talking about in the US.

[win_in_06]

50. Are you saying minorities are less capable of standing in line at the DMV than whites?

I don't agree with that. With the elderly you may have a point, but that is not race-dependent.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Nope, not saying that kid

Have you ever heard of the term poll tax?

If, again will give Mexico as an example, we made it easy, as in stations everywhere, like mals, community centers, public places, not just the DMV...you'd have a point.

These IDs are meant to make life hard on the poor, the elderly and minorities.

But hey, whatever son...enjoy your stay.

[win_in_06]

52. Interesting how you result to condescension when your ideas are challenged.

Save it for your own children.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. No, no condescension

Reality.

Experts agree that these IDs are meant to suppress the vote...and even a state supreme court agreed on principle that the law was poorly designed and implemented.take it with the PA Supreme court.

I am sure they will get just as condescending.

[bigbrother05]

53. You're assuming comparable resources to provide the supporting docs

Certified birth certificates, etc can take time and money that can be hard to come by for the poor. Also, if your employment is shaky at best, standing in line at the DMV for an ID to vote every couple of years for a system that has made it clear where you stand in the pecking order probably wouldn't be very high on your priority list.

Voting is a right, impediments infringe on that right. Voting should not depend on economic or social status. Surely our country has come farther than that in the last 230+ years.

[win_in_06]

55. You're assuming whites are more willing to deal with the red tape and hassle than minorities.

After all, there are more poor whites than blacks. Well-intentioned or not, this is prejudiced thinking.

[bigbrother05]

57. Actually, never referenced race, just poverty

Guess that is an easy inference because I replied to your post that included the racial component.

My major point is that someone without a need or resources to own or drive a car is going to have fewer reasons to seek the ID accepted for voting.

The folks at the margins are always at highest risk from those that would seek advantage. As the Republican party has traditionally been the party of the rich, they are more than willing to lose a few that might support them if they can eliminate many willing to vote for the Dems.

[win_in_06]

59. I stand corrected then, apologies. n/t

[Gidney N Cloyd]

16. How would voter IDs have fixed the election fraud?

[Orangepeel]

17. How so?

There were lots of problems with the vote in 2000, particularly in Florida, but I don't see how voter ID laws would have prevented any of them.

[win_in_06]

26. Surely it would have resulted in a more accurate and indisputable vote count.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

27. IDs just get you into the booth. The counting problems I'm aware of happened after that point.

[Orangepeel]

39. I don't see how.

Let's take Florida as an example. Voter ID would not have prevented eligible voters from being purged from the voter roles because they had the same name as a convicted felon. It would not have prevented the "butterfly ballot" in Palm Beach county that resulted in voters mistakenly voting for Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore. It wouldn't have prevented the optical scanner machines in from not accepting "overvotes" from people who voted for President and also wrote in the name of the person they voted for. It would not have prevented the older punch card machines in Miami Dade from having hanging chads.

All voter ID would have done is prevent people from pretending to be someone else when they vote. Since there is no evidence that happens to any great degree, given how little benefit there would be for someone to do that, there is no reason to believe it would make a difference.

[ecstatic]

83. Don't be naive, the ID is just one tool of many

that repubs use to disenfranchise people. If everyone were to magically get an ID tomorrow, there'd be millions of democratic voters purged from the rolls for other reasons (look up what "True the Vote" is doing ).

[win_in_06]

85. Not naive to respect accountability. The President himself showed ID in order to vote. n/t

[cthulu2016]

22. Who did Florida's electoral college representatives vote for?

The question answers itself. Of course Bush won the electoral college.

[smorkingapple]

30. 2000 never should have been that close except for the political malpractice Gore carried out

by not using Clinton during the campaign. He fell for the spin that the Lewinsky scandal might drag him down too when it was bullshit.

This is why I still can't take Donna Brazile seriously to this day.

[One of the 99]

71. Blame the victim?

Gore was 19 points down at the start of 2000, yet he won the popular vote despite being outspent by Bush, in some states by 3 to 1, having the media actively lie about him and Nader accepting GOP money to run attack ads against him. But is was all Gore's fault.

[argiel1234]

56. Gore DID win the popular vote and Bush was SELECTED by the Supreme Court

But lets all continue to pretend it was all teh Nader's Fault!!!11!

[bigbrother05]

60. Interesting, dropping the Ralph reference

Hadn't really gone there and have never faulted anyone for voting their conscience. Nader's insistence that there was no difference between the parties was clearly wrong headed and self serving, but those that followed him down that road know their own mind better than I do.

[One of the 99]

70. Anyone who voted for Nader had a right to do so

But they should take responsibility for the consquenses of their vote.

[upi402]

77. Greg Palast - The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

Tells about Choicepoint -DBT

Gore was robbed. Kerry too.
Obama will be as well but they may have to cheat too damn much and will probably get busted.