7
   

Has Anyone Considered

 
 
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 10:55 am
How different things would be today if the SCOTUS hadn't thrown the election to bush in 2000?

Anyone want to speculate?
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 10:58 am
The chief difference would likely be economic. In the Clinton years, the Congress eventually stopped the deficit spending and began to run a surplus--and people were not unhappy with their taxes. The worst legacy of the Idiot in Chief has been his wild career of writing checks he couldn't cover.
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:05 am
@Setanta,
Certainly hard to argue with that... and the War in Iraq .... would you consider that a large part of writing checks he couldn't cover? Financially I mean? That gives me an idea for a separate question on another thread.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:16 am
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Sortakinda . . . but just the loony tax cuts for fat cats was a case of writing checks he couldn't cash. We'd still likely have had a war in Afghanistan, and properly, we ought to have committed there the resources which were sent to Iraq. The Taliban is resurgent in not just Waziristan (the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan and sitting astride both countries), but in Kandahar and Helman province, too. We might have spent a lot more money building a viable state in Afghanistan, which is slipping rapidly back into failed state status. When Baby Bush and Company rushed off to Iraq, they just put old, corrupt and criminal war lords back into power, and Karzai has no real power for change in Afghanistan. A genuine effort there with any chance of success would have required sweeping away not just the Taliban government (such as it was, it actually controlled considerably less than half the country), but the old ethnic and criminal war lords, and building a government from the ground up, locally as well as nationally.

That would have cost a lot of money, and might have run up quite a bill. But doing any of those things, or invading Iraq, while cutting taxes for the rich bitches--that is what has sent us to the poor house.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:17 am
@Bi-Polar Bear,


Are you asking how things would be now if Gore was allowed to steal the election?

Ask yourself how things will be if Skinny and ACORN are allowed to steal this election.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:21 am
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Quote:

How different things would be today if the SCOTUS
hadn't thrown the election to bush in 2000?

Anyone want to speculate?

It 'd have ended the same,
as the gazillions of recounts all came out for W to win,
including the recounts from the left leaning media.
Gore did not have the votes in Florida.
Woiyo9
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:50 am
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Your an asshole for still believing the SCOTUS "threw" the election to bush.

As a result, there is again no point to this stupid post.
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 12:05 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Actually, according to Wikipedia:

Quote:
Under the recount rules initially requested by Gore, Bush would have won, and under the rules requested by Bush, Gore would have won.[


Gore had over a half million more individual votes across the nation. What it came down to was how they were counted.
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 12:05 pm
@Woiyo9,
I thought I was on ignore...guess you just can't resist a delicious drip of sperm...
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 12:08 pm
@squinney,
That is a really sad commentary on the state of our nation. While realizing W wasn't the best choice for the R's in 2000, Gore is a blathering idiotboob.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 12:23 pm
@cjhsa,
When Reagan chose Bush, I thought he made a mistake.
I did not change my mind.

I never much liked the Bushes.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 12:32 pm
@squinney,
This was something to which I paid very, very close attention in 2000.
Gore never won any of the re-counts.
Gore never claimed that he won any of the recounts.

Tho it took him a while,
in the end, Gore admitted that he lost in Florida.

Anything in Wikipedia to the contrary is inconsistent with the facts.

Gore DID have more popular votes, nationwide.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 12:50 pm
@squinney,
squinney wrote :

Quote:
Gore had over a half million more individual votes across the nation. What it came down to was how they were counted.


aren't the votes counted a/t the the election rules ?
so it's not just "who got the most votes " , but how did the votes wind up being counted through the electoral college ?

[in canada , similarly it's not only how many votes were cast IN TOTAL , but the number of voters per voting district can (and do) vary considerably . generally less populous districts need fewer voters per representative .
the result being that larger cities have more voters per representative - but less representation .
it's done in the name of "fairness" , so that large cities don't get to rule completely over in parliament - but the more populous districts don't always agree on the skewed the election results ] .
hbg
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 01:08 pm
@hamburger,
Sorry, that was confusing. Nationally, Gore won if counting every individual vote across the nation... The popular vote.

What matters in determining the president is the electoral votes. The Florida electoral votes went to Bush, but the reason they did boiled down to how each candidate asked for the votes to be counted. It was all very confusing. Why they didn't just say count every vote across the state that is clearly marked for one candidate or the other rather than only re-count certain counties, I never understood. The rules in Florida were not clear enough to adress it.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 01:22 pm
@squinney,
Quote:

Nationally, Gore won if counting every individual vote
across the nation... The popular vote.

Yes.


Quote:

What matters in determining the president is the electoral votes.

Yes.



Quote:

The Florida electoral votes went to Bush, but the reason they did boiled down to how each candidate asked for the votes to be counted. It was all very confusing. Why they didn't just say count every vote across the state that is clearly marked for one candidate or the other rather than only re-count certain counties, I never understood. The rules in Florida were not clear enough to adress it.

The votes were re-counted in those counties whose results GORE CHALLENGED.
He wanted recounts in those counties where he was more popular,
hoping to find more votes for him there, but that did not work out as well as he had hoped.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 02:09 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
...The worst legacy of the Idiot in Chief has been his wild career of writing checks he couldn't cover.


the first of which being that he would restore honor and integrity to the oval office.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 02:19 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Quote:

the first of which being that he would restore
honor and integrity to the oval office.

U mean like up to the standards of Bill Clinton and his staff ?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 02:21 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:

the first of which being that he would restore
honor and integrity to the oval office.

U mean like up to the standards of Bill Clinton and his staff ?
that would certainly be a welcome change from George W Bush.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 02:34 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:

the first of which being that he would restore
honor and integrity to the oval office.

U mean like up to the standards of Bill Clinton and his staff ?
that would certainly be a welcome change from George W Bush.


No it wouldn't.
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 03:04 pm
@H2O MAN,
yes of course waterboy, there some anti-americans who would continue to support G W Bush. Real patriots however, welcome a change be it Clinton or Obama.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Has Anyone Considered
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 04:46:17