Has Anyone Considered

Forums: Politics, Elections, Supreme Court, Scotus, U S Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

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

Anyone want to speculate?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 2,774 • Replies: 37

[+3] - Setanta - 11/03/2008The 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 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.

2 Replies

@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.

1 Reply

@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

@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

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

3 Replies

@Woiyo9,

I thought I was on ignore...guess you just can't resist a delicious drip of sperm...

0 Replies

@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.

1 Reply

@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

@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

@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

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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

@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.

1 Reply

@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 ?

2 Replies

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

2 Replies

Has Anyone Considered

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know