Do you believe that G.W.Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney were "elected" & "reelected"?

[bobthedrummer]

I don't- they were installed and they never been held accountable for their crimes carried out in the name of we, the people--who never elected them to begin with. I call that a coup.

They should be indicted, tried, and if found guilty face the penalties they deserve (including the death penalty).

What do you think?

[yeoman6987]

1. No death penalty

The rest yes. Won't happen though.

[bobthedrummer]

4. "Won't happen though" sure seems that way yeoman6987 n/t

[G_j]

2. installed

indeed!

[silvershadow]

51. Yep. And they were on a mission. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. "Yes, but wrongfully" and "yes" respectively.

I think it's been fairly well-documented that if the votes had been accurately counted in 2000, Gore would have won.

I do not find the evidence that the 2004 victory was fraudulent compelling.

[former9thward]

18. Actually not the case.

A group of 8 newspapers recounted the ballots according to the way Gore wanted and Bush came out ahead. The results were released on 9/11/2001 when the nation's interest was elsewhere.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

[Prophet 451]

21. But that's only half the story

The Florida Ballots Project (which is what you're talking about) also proved that if there had been a state-wide recount (which teh Gore team said they'd welcome and state law required), Gore would have won by a few hundred votes.

[former9thward]

25. Gore never asked for that.

He asked for specific recounts. So if the court had given him what he asked for he would have lost. As far as a state-wide recount the article I posted said nothing can be proved conclusively.

[Prophet 451]

26. The article is wrong

Gore made a mistake in not asking for a full state-wide recount. Yes, he would have lost under the recounts he asked for. Bot the question of who won in a full state-wide recount has been settled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

[former9thward]

29. Settled for you.

Factcheck.org is a neutral organization. If it is not settled for them then by definition it is not settled.

[mattclearing]

40. Neutral doesn't mean correct. n/t

[former9thward]

43. Then you have to show how they are wrong.

Not just give assertions they are. In this case you also have to show how the analysis of the newspaper group was wrong. A fairly high hurdle to get over if you weren't there recounting the ballots as the newspaper group did.

[mattclearing]

50. I don't have to do anything. I pointed out the obvious flaw in your reasoning.

Such as it is.

[former9thward]

59. I never said neutral means correct.

I just go by the best available evidence. So far no one has offered anything else. Many posters use that site to back up their views on various subjects. I guess on this matter it doesn't count.

[RobertEarl]

64. So, all the cheating and bad ballots?

You just wave your hand and claim that bush was legit?

No wonder they got away with it, too much hand waving and too many excuses allowing the theft.

Either one thinks it was legit, or one knows it wasn't. It wasn't legit. It was stolen.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. Hence "correctly" rather than "the way Gore wanted".

My understanding is that you are correct that if only those ballots Gore had asked had been recounted, Bush would still have been ahead, but if every ballot had been counted correctly then Gore would have won.

[former9thward]

42. Candidates and campaign teams make decisions.

They have to live by them. U.S. Presidential elections have traditionally been fairly close events. Mistakes are part of the process. You can review almost every election and if you had 20/20 hindsight show how either candidate could have won if they did this or that.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Elected, no. 'Re'-elected - probably yes; but probably due to nasty shenanigans (from swiftboating

to voter suppression).

[Louisiana1976]

12. Well said.

[GeorgeGist]

6. Slow DP for both of them.

[Dawson Leery]

7. No.

Since Bush was installed in 2000 by the USSC, any advantage that may have helped in 2004 was unfairly gained, therefore both terms were illegitimate.

[old guy]

34. My position exactly.

[deutsey]

8. Bush/Cheney did not win the 2000 election

Of that, I am convinced. I believe it was a right-wing/corporatist coup. Here's a very high-level overview that I wrote drawing comparisons between 2000 and other coups (written in early 2001): http://www.bartcop.com/coupsp.htm

I have serious doubts about 2004, but, honestly, I haven't researched it in as much depth as I have 2000. With Rove at the peak of his power at the time, though, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Warpy]

9. They should be trussed up and delivered to the Hague

for war crimes. Should they live to the end of a long prison sentence, they should be handed off to the Iraqi people.

2000 was a coup by a conservative USSC. 2004 is the result of forcing extremely flawed electronic voting on states. We know those machines were crooked here in NM, the discrepancy between local and national votes was 17,000, meaning to believe Stupid won this state, you'd have to believe 17,000 people went out to vote for local judges and neglected the national race.

We got 100% paper ballots the next year.

[former9thward]

23. The 2004 New Mexico results.

Presidential vote: 756,304
Highest non federal vote: 719906

No discrepancy.

http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Election%20Results/StatewideGen04.pdf

[yeoman6987]

30. We don't fall under the Hague

The Hague wouldn't know what to do with them. They have zero jurisdiction over Americans. The only thing that can be done is for the House and Senate to do something. President Obama said not too.

[Mnemosyne]

10. Locked up forever, not dp, otherwise... And * was never elected. nt

[Fumesucker]

11. It doesn't matter what I think

What matters is what the people in power think and they think everything was copacetic with Dick and Dubya's Excellent Administration.

[2naSalit]

13. Nope, Yup, Yup and perhaps.

[bobthedrummer]

14. What are your thoughts on this bit of history DU? Kick n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

15. They weren't elected in the first place, so, hard to be reelected...

I do think 2004, Bush won more votes than Kerry, though did some scuzzy things to get those votes.

[AnalystInParadise]

16. In 2000 I don't know, the votes were not counted

to completion. In 2004? Yes, John Kerry was a godawful candidate, the one and only time my parents voted Republican in their lives was in 2004. My mom is a Union lady and could not stand some of what the Kerry's had done concerning Union issues. As for my dad, he was a Vietnam vet and he never bought that Swiftboat Bullshit, but Kerry's Winter Soldier testimony deeply offended my father. If Deep Blue Democrats like my parents voted for Bush in 2004, I can believe we actually lost that election fair and square.

[Prophet 451]

22. They WERE counted later

By the Florida Ballots Project who found that if there had been a state-wide recount (which Gore said he'd welcome and state law required), Gore won by a few hundred votes.

[Greybnk48]

17. No and no.

Gore won Florida and it's been shown they cheated Ohio and who knows where else. That's why there's an asterisk in the official Congressional record regarding both elections.

[reddread]

19. the fix was in. racketeering at the highest level and throughout the mockracy.

The sheer number of conspirators in both parties just relating to 2000 makes recourse within the system virtually impossible.
these crimes are why we have laws, and why lawmaker lawbreakers should not be allowed to retroactively legalize their transgressions. They have broken our system and we have to take it back by forceful demonstrations of clarity, solidarity and implement justice for all.
We wont get there trying to play by broken rules in a fixed game.

[Prophet 451]

20. Not sure

They provably lost in 2000 but I don't know the situation in 2004 well enough to decide.

[Dirty Socialist]

24. Prosecute The Florida Election Officials

Who purged thousands from the voting rolls.

[MFM008]

27. no

I remember one of the first times I watched Keith Olbermann was while he was discussing the suspicious activity about vote counting in Ohio. So NO the were never elected. I would LOVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEE to know what happened to Roves plan to steal 2012. There was reason why Romney and Rove were so shocked they lost. I think the fix was in and somehow it got messed up.

[mattclearing]

41. Here you go:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12845-anonymous-karl-rove-and-2012-election-fix

[Glorfindel]

28. I agree with you 100%

[brooklynite]

31. Yes, and so do the politicians in Ohio...

...because I asked them.

We can debate the outcome of 2000 and the role of the Supreme Court, but should note that Florida would have been irrelevant if Gore hadn't run such a mediocre campaign that he lost his home state and a dozen or so others, any one of which would have made Florida irrelevant.

With respect to 2004, the Republicans used every trick in the book (legally) EXCEPT for rigging the voting machines. Everyone points to Ohio, but the head of the ODP, and all the candidates I've talked to (including those who strangely were able to win in 2006 and 2008) say it didn't happen.

[MohRokTah]

32. Elections happen.

Issues in elections happen.

End of the day, you accept the results and move on or else you'll spend the rest of your days being bitter.

[Lodestar]

33. No. All elections are now suspect due to electronic voting.

And I find it verrrrrry interesting that the Dems are in no hurry to 'fix' the electronic voting problems.

[Rex]

35. No and doubtful.

The first time the SCOTUS gave the office to Dubya. The second time, Karl Rove cheated in Ohio.

[warrior1]

36. No

[Major Hogwash]

37. No.

It will take the US another 10 years to recover from the damaged caused by those azzholes.

[WhiteTara]

39. I agree. nt

[madokie]

44. The whole cabal to hard time

making little rocks out of great Big Rocks

[WillyT]

45. No And No...

& Rec !!!

[raccoon]

46. 2000, definitely not. that was a coup. 2004, I think probably not. nt

[davidn3600]

47. At this point...I dont care

It's history and you can't change it now.

The Democratic party made it quite clear they don't care anymore either.

[Calista241]

48. We conceded.

Both Gore and Kerry conceded their elections. Bush officially won when that happened. Any local voting shenanigans will never be directly attributed to Rove, Bush, or the campaign.

The Democratic Party has put this issue behind them. The future is way more important than litigating the past.

[Lunacee_2013]

49. NO. Eom

[SamKnause]

52. No and no.

[Ghost in the Machine]

53. HELL NO!!!!!

bobthedrummer

0. Do you believe that G.W.Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney were "elected" & "reelected"?

I don't- they were installed and they never been held accountable for their crimes carried out in the name of we, the people--who never elected them to begin with. I call that a coup.

They should be indicted, tried, and if found guilty face the penalties they deserve (including the death penalty).

What do you think?

Exactly what you said.....

Peace,

Ghost

[Mr_Harshaw]

54. Yes because Gore and Kerry conceded...

[KansDem]

55. No and no...

Send them to GitMo to be waterboarded until they confess, then on to Begg Rock (off the coast of California) to serve out their remaining years.

[Jamastiene]

56. I was with you up until you said "including the death penalty."

The rest I agree with. The death penalty part, I do not agree with. I used to, but I have been enlightened since back then. Now, I am against it. I do think they should be punished for their war crimes and the coup. It was all a sham and put this country in such dire straits that we may never truly recover.

[Laelth]

57. No and yes.

In 2000, Bush was selected by the SCOTUS. Personally, I can't blame Bush for that. The SCOTUS did it, and they had both the power and the right to do it (even though I agree with Justice Ginsberg's dissent to Bush v. Gore).

In 2004, even though the SoS of Ohio suppressed a lot of Democratic votes, Kerry didn't contest the Ohio result because R's controlled the state government. As soon as Kerry conceded, the election results became "ratified," and at that point the election was legally legitimate.



-Laelth

[CBGLuthier]

58. I joined DU in 2001 under the name notmypresident

I changed it in 2009.

[Generic Other]

60. HELL NO

[davekriss]

61. 2000 and 2004 absolutely stolen

In 2000, the recount was a symptom, not the cause. More important to the loss of Florida were the criminally false voter purge lists, where 88% of the purged voters were black and the error rate was intentionally and incredibly high. That amounted to the loss of 50,000+ votes for Gore.

In 2004, Republicon election fraud moved to Ohio, where one had to wait as much as 7 hours in the rain to vote in the Democrat-concentrated urban areas, but only 15 minutes in the Republican-heavy suburbs. In addition, there was the widespread use of easily tampered with electronic voting machines, so the "counted" votes greatly mismatched exit polling and the polls leading up to the election. And that was just Ohio, there were similar problems in several other states.

It was a coup, plain and simple. December 12, 2000 marks the day democracy died.

[Octafish]

62. No. No. Not to be torturing them or capital punishing them, either...

...Though I'm all in favor of life imprisonment at hard labor. They can pass the time busting big rocks into little ones. Then, when their bodies no longer can lift the pick, they can make license plates or help out in the laundrey. And for the rest of their naturday days: No tee vee. No Internet. No paint brush. No porn. Just let them think about what they've done for the rest of their life spans.

[bobthedrummer]

63. Thanks to all that have posted so far-kick n/t