Progress

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Feb 22, 2004
82,283
10,138
2,070
Minnesota
I am starting to think that the President has been making more progress with Americans and combatting the left that i originally though. Today I actually saw a lib who admitted that Bush was elected. I was completely shocked. After four years some of them are starting to admit it! Its about time.

Of course he then went on to blame Americans for how stupid we were for electing him. So that hasnt changed much but progress is being made!
 
B]a bit behind the times avatar, I admitted this shortly after they ussc made their decision[/B]

DK, if you believe that a rational attitude on this point is shared by most liberals, then I suggest a visit to the MSN Slate site - election 2004.

A few minutes there will be a real eye opener. Almost without exception, the libs there are still ranting that the election was stolen. Of course they don't have time to get around to that all too often because they are busy calling the President a liar, crook, coward, moron, butcher, murderer, Hitler, ........ I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture.

Fact is that many Democrats still feel that the election was stolen. Never mind the three recounts. Never mind the shenanigans with the absentee ballots. And never mind the fact that Gore's last desperate gambit was an attempt to cherry-pick the counties to be re-counted (again).
 
Originally posted by MtnBiker
Many have not though. You still see posts with terms such as Selected President.

It's amazing how short-sidedly partisan the parties can be. It was not long ago that Rush and Republican pundits were disclaiming the legitimacy of the elections that Clinton won, because he didn't gather a MAJORITY of the votes. This was said and repeated numerous times because he had very slightly less than 50%.

In contrast, George Bush didn't even gather a plurality of the votes. In many senses he legitimately loss the 2000 elections, deemed "too close to call".


Look at the facts as a whole (Florida votes).
Incredibly close election in 2000 - indisputable.
Nader supporters taking away an sizeable group of voters that otherwise predominantly would've voted for Gore - but that's always a legitimate issue when any third party runs.
Voting ballad in error - was mentioned that the typical standard is that the party currently in the Presidency gets top spot on the ballad.
Voting ballad confusion - design of the ballad clearly resulted in a large constituent of voters, supporting 1 candidate and voting for a different candidate.
Voting corruption - Allegations that groups of voters were turned away at the election booths (i.e. some areas closed down early, or some groups of constituents turned away).
Discarding votes - Clearly numerous votes from certain voting areas were not counted (i.e. hanging chads)


The ultimate point of any free and honorable election system is for the election results to reflect the viewpoint of the voting public. This should be done as accurately as possible. No matter who wins. This was obviously flawed in the case of the Florida election. More improvements need to be done in the U.S. to ensure that future election results accurately reflect the viewpoint of the voters.
 
-So to fix it we replace the systems with computerized equipment without proper bug fixes, training, and without proper security.

At least, that is what California did.
 
Originally posted by LoneVoice
Look at the facts as a whole (Florida votes).

Yes, let's do that!

1- "The election in Florida was too close to call."

Truth - George Bush received more votes than Al Gore and never trailed by a single vote, even after a variety of recounts. Democrats want you to think that the outcome of the election was ambiguous - and it wasn't. Florida counted the votes as it normally would and Bush won. Counties then recounted the votes using their normal tabulation methods and Bush was verified as the winner.

Gore wanted to change tabulation methods in Democrat counties and have yet another recount in order to find more votes and overcome George Bush's victory.

2- "Florida had discarded votes"

Truth - Democrats intentionally combined these terms in order to confuse you. Discarded ballots occur in every election, in every city, in every state, due to voter error or confusion. Democrats began calling them "discarded votes" in order to suggest that citizens had their votes thrown out. Yet not only were votes counted twice in Florida, there were additional recounts in Democrat counties (all in an effort to find more votes for Gore.)

3- "George Bush was selected - not elected!"

Truth - After Al Gore lost the election, he tried to manipulate the tabulation process in Democrat counties in order to find more votes. His efforts lead to 35 days of legal wrangling that ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court of United States. The court admonished and overturned the Florida Supreme Court for taking a managerial role in the election and altering Florida's election laws in order to find more votes for Gore.

This phrase is designed to convince you that Bush's "buddies" saw to it that he was elected, even though Bush had more votes and it was Gore who was disrupting the election process. It also implies that if Gore would have been able to take over the election as he wanted, he surely would have found enough new votes to win, something that is not certain by any means.

4- "Most investigations show Al Gore won Florida!"

Truth - There is not a single investigation that concludes Al Gore received more votes than President Bush in Florida. In fact, the ultimate investigation, that being the tabulations by Florida's counties, proved otherwise. After counting the votes a variety of times using normal tabulation processes, George Bush had more.

Democrats anxiously awaited a study conducted by the University of Chicago that reviewed all ambiguous ballots in Florida, not just the one's in Democrat counties. The study categorizes the number of dimples, hanging chads, types of voting machines, etc. The study does not determine "winners" or "losers". But Democrats want you to believe that all overvotes and undervotes were supposed to be Gore votes (dimples, hanging chads, pregnant chads).

5- "More people intended to vote for Gore than did for Bush!"

Truth - Democrats began pounding this message as soon as they found out they lost, before ballots were even reviewed once by the human eye. Democrats somehow know in their hearts that more people voted for Gore than for Bush, even though Bush received more votes.

Oddly, they simultaneously claimed the election was "too close to call". That is, on one moment they said the election was so close a winner has not yet been determined. Yet in the next breath they claim they know more people intended to vote for Gore.

Again, Democrats want you to believe that if the disqualified ballots were somehow counted it would reveal a Gore victory. That is, all dimples, pregnant chads, etc., were supposed to be votes for Gore but it was just too difficult for voters to indicate so.

6- "All we seek is a fair count of the votes!"

Truth - Al Gore wanted to find more votes. As such, he selected the top Democrat counties to conduct manual recounts. He ignored the rest of the state, which included many counties that had much higher percentage of disqualified ballots than any of the counties he selected.

(This brings up yet another point of confusion. Gore wants you to think he requested a State wide recount, but he didn't. If he really wanted a statewide recount he could have made requests to all counties, just has did for the Democrat counties.)

Further, Democrats never proved there was anything wrong with the original tabulations other than that Gore lost. They were never concerned about a "fair" count. Rather, they wanted manual recounts in Democrat counties in order to employ subjective interpretation on ambiguous ballots. Eventually, Gore and the liberal Florida Supreme Court focused only on undervotes, leaving overvotes out all together (100,000 ballots!)

7- "Florida voters were disenfranchised!"

Truth - In order to convince you that voters were disenfranchised, Democrats began saying that they were concerned about election "anomalies". Yet, not a single anomaly has risen from the chaos to disqualify the election. Even more ridiculous, Gore suggested that he wanted to fix so called anomalies by having manual recounts in Democrat counties. Democrats sent an army of lawyers and operatives who could exploit normal election happenstances through litigation and hysteria.

8- "Some ballots were never counted in Florida, not even once!"

Truth - This was said by famous liberal lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, just days after the election. Dershowitz appeared on national television in order to begin priming America for manual recounts in Democrat counties. He deceived citizens by saying some votes "haven't been counted even once".

This is an example of Democrats deliberately combining the terms "ballots" and "votes". Dershowitz wanted you to think they are same and that somehow citizens had their votes thrown out, a frightening scenario that suggested fraud. But Dershowitz failed to mention that disqualified ballots do not properly indicate a choice for a candidate. Likewise, they occurred in every county throughout Florida, not just the counties where Gore thought he could pickup additional votes.

9- "Bush refused a statewide recount"

Truth - After losing the election, Gore appeared on national television and said that he would welcome a full statewide recount as long as "Bush would go along with it." This disguised his quest for manual recounts in Democrat counties. He also made it appear as if any candidate was entitled to a recount anywhere and anytime they wanted. (This is also an example of how Gore barnstormed into Florida and took over the post-election, where locals were fully capable of managing on their own.)

Further, given the chaos that Democrats had created in Florida, Gore's suggestion seemed to be "fair" and "logical" to many Americans at the time. Meanwhile, he was positioning to overturn the election that George Bush had won.

http://www.florida2000election.com/deception.htm
 
Jimnyc,

You clearly missed the point.

1. The point was that Rush and Republicans tried to disclaim the legitimacy of the elections that Clinton won because he didn't get a MAJORITY of the votes. Those results were a clearcut victory for Clinton. So, it's inconsistent for Republican pundits to rebel against comments regarding Bush's legitimacy.

2. The Bush v Gore election was technically too close to call. There are sites on the web that will support Bush having won, and there are many sites on the web that support Gore having won. It would be very easy to rehash that debate over who really won.

3. The ultimate point of any free and honorable election system is for the election results to reflect the viewpoint of the voting public. This should be done as accurately as possible. No matter who wins. This was obviously flawed in the case of the Florida election. More improvements need to be done in the U.S. to ensure that future election results accurately reflect the viewpoint of the voters.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #10
And the results of this action by Gore slowed up the administration change, Bush wasnt able to get alot of his administration in place till atleast august. Especially after the shift in the Senate with Jumpping Jimmy slowed up the process even more.

And despite all this Clarke is trying to blame the Bush administration for not taking action to prevent 911. Kinda hard to do when your administration isnt all in place isnt it?
 
Originally posted by LoneVoice
You clearly missed the point.

No I didn't. Did you not make an argument that he "legitimately lost the 2000 election"?

1. The point was that Rush and Republicans tried to disclaim the legitimacy of the elections that Clinton won because he didn't get a MAJORITY of the votes. Those results were a clearcut victory for Clinton. So, it's inconsistent for Republican pundits to rebel against comments regarding Bush's legitimacy.

Apples and oranges. Saying someone didn't get a majority of the votes and saying someone won based on errors is 2 different things.

2. The Bush v Gore election was technically too close to call. There are sites on the web that will support Bush having won, and there are many sites on the web that support Gore having won. It would be very easy to rehash that debate over who really won.

Who cares about a website? The official results that were calculated numerous times clearly showed Bush as the winner. There is no debate, except amongst sore losers.

3. The ultimate point of any free and honorable election system is for the election results to reflect the viewpoint of the voting public. This should be done as accurately as possible. No matter who wins. This was obviously flawed in the case of the Florida election. More improvements need to be done in the U.S. to ensure that future election results accurately reflect the viewpoint of the voters.

No flaws. Bush got more votes. End of story.
 
Originally posted by Avatar4321
And the results of this action by Gore slowed up the administration change, Bush wasnt able to get alot of his administration in place till atleast august. Especially after the shift in the Senate with Jumpping Jimmy slowed up the process even more.

And despite all this Clarke is trying to blame the Bush administration for not taking action to prevent 911. Kinda hard to do when your administration isnt all in place isnt it?

Look... Clarke is allowed to have and express his viewpoints regarding what he saw with the Bush regime. Having some people have a dissenting view to the establishment is an overall positive. It provides a level of checks and balance. When everyone blindly goes along, then that allows room for corrupt activities by the group in power (whatever administration it happens to be).

The Bush regime (and some others in the past from both sides of the party spectrum) have decided not to look at this dissention as favorable, and as a result have waged a full out attack and smear campaign against dissenting viewpoints, like Clarke's.

So, the real question is how do we proceed. That is the supposed purpose of the 9/11 commission. To analyze the facts around the 9/11 attacks and determine methods to make reforms to strengthen the processes.

The way to do that is to look at both scenarios.
1. Assuming that the administration missed opportunities to avoid the 9/11 attacks. Then determine what modifications could be made to improve the processes.
2. Assuming that the administration did everything in its power to avoid the 9/11 attacks. Determine what if any amendments could be made to improve the processes for the future.

After considering both scenarios, then develop an overall plan for reforming the system for the betterment of future administrations.

When pundits on both sides get lost in the partisan assaults, they lose focus from what's really important.
 
Originally posted by LoneVoice
It's amazing how short-sidedly partisan the parties can be. It was not long ago that Rush and Republican pundits were disclaiming the legitimacy of the elections that Clinton won, because he didn't gather a MAJORITY of the votes.
Well I don't speak for Rush and I never questioned the legitimacy of Clinton's election. He won the electoral college fair and square. Same as Bush in 2000.
 
Originally posted by LoneVoice
Look... Clarke is allowed to have and express his viewpoints regarding what he saw with the Bush regime. Having some people have a dissenting view to the establishment is an overall positive. It provides a level of checks and balance. When everyone blindly goes along, then that allows room for corrupt activities by the group in power (whatever administration it happens to be).

The Bush regime (and some others in the past from both sides of the party spectrum) have decided not to look at this dissention as favorable, and as a result have waged a full out attack and smear campaign against dissenting viewpoints, like Clarke's.

So, the real question is how do we proceed. That is the supposed purpose of the 9/11 commission. To analyze the facts around the 9/11 attacks and determine methods to make reforms to strengthen the processes.

The way to do that is to look at both scenarios.
1. Assuming that the administration missed opportunities to avoid the 9/11 attacks. Then determine what modifications could be made to improve the processes.
2. Assuming that the administration did everything in its power to avoid the 9/11 attacks. Determine what if any amendments could be made to improve the processes for the future.

After considering both scenarios, then develop an overall plan for reforming the system for the betterment of future administrations.

When pundits on both sides get lost in the partisan assaults, they lose focus from what's really important.

What is really important is keeping every public official's feet to the fire and as soon as they do wrong, take full restitutional action against them.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
No I didn't. Did you not make an argument that he "legitimately lost the 2000 election"?



Apples and oranges. Saying someone didn't get a majority of the votes and saying someone won based on errors is 2 different things.



Who cares about a website? The official results that were calculated numerous times clearly showed Bush as the winner. There is no debate, except amongst sore losers.



No flaws. Bush got more votes. End of story.

Your shortsided answers clearly demonstrate that you've missed the point...
 
Originally posted by LoneVoice
Look... Clarke is allowed to have and express his viewpoints regarding what he saw with the Bush regime.

Yes, but TWO viewpoints makes him the hypocritical liar he is. It's 100% impossible for him to get out of this now. He made contradictory statements and even one of the leaders of the 9/11 commission stated that he is lying. It's so obvious, only Bush haters that refuse to open their eyes don't see it. There is no proof needed, his own words make him a liar.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
Yes, but TWO viewpoints makes him the hypocritical liar he is. It's 100% impossible for him to get out of this now. He made contradictory statements and even one of the leaders of the 9/11 commission stated that he is lying. It's so obvious, only Bush haters that refuse to open their eyes don't see it. There is no proof needed, his own words make him a liar.

They try to claim he is being smeared, and that he is right NOW because of it.

Circular illogic.
 
Originally posted by LoneVoice
Your shortsided answers clearly demonstrate that you've missed the point...

Whatever, deal with reality, Gore lost. Don't make statements if you don't like people blowing them clear out of the water.
 
Originally posted by Avatar4321
I am starting to think that the President has been making more progress with Americans and combatting the left that i originally though. Today I actually saw a lib who admitted that Bush was elected. I was completely shocked. After four years some of them are starting to admit it! Its about time.

Of course he then went on to blame Americans for how stupid we were for electing him. So that hasnt changed much but progress is being made!

Of course Bush was elected. The vote was 5-4.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top