|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States44361 Posts
On July 19 2025 07:48 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2025 07:19 KwarK wrote:On July 19 2025 07:16 Introvert wrote:
There is dispute, and iirc Gore lost every recount that he got until he was told to stop asking. The ballot problem was from the ballots those blue counties decided to use. Saying it was stolen is way too categorical when it’s not even clear he won, the margin was too tight to make that statement also. A margin of over 50,000 votes was too tight? Over 50,000 more Floridians marked their ballot for Gore than for Bush. That's not in dispute, that's known. They had to throw out 100,000 votes to get a Bush victory. Again the phrasing is extreme. Yes some votes were not counted, such as if someone tried to vote for more than 1 candidate. Seems like common sense that if someone make more than 1 selection then neither selection should count. We shouldn't give people 2 votes just because they were crafty enough to check more than 1 box on a ballot that instructs them to check only 1 box. The overvotes for Bush were thrown out just as readily as the overvotes for Gore. If Gore voters on average are less capable of filling out a ballot properly than Bush voters and as a result Gore lost more votes on that front, it doesn't make it a conspiracy that they threw out votes "to get a Bush victory" as you put it. The sources in this thread also state the Gore was not even trying to pursue these throw out votes legally so now you're arguing for votes that Gore himself didn't even feel entitled to. I don't think anyone is disputing that the 5-4 ruling was partisan and they wanted to win the election for Bush. The dispute is the phrasing that Gore clearly won and SCOTUS stole it when the first official counts had Bush ahead, the first major review by the media had Bush ahead, all of the counts during the legal proceedings had Bush ahead, but your source from a study a year later has Gore ahead.
“Gore voters are less capable of filling out a ballot properly” so you agree we know who they wanted for President, you describe them as Gore voters.
People marking ballots for Gore outnumbered people marking ballots for Bush. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be rules or that multiple votes should be on a preferential elimination system, what I’m saying is that it wasn’t close based on voter preference alone. There was a 50,000 Gore margin based on the voters. You only get to a Bush victory by eliminating 100,000 overvotes and also a bunch of legal Gore votes.
My assertion that Gore won was on the basis of the subsequent investigation of the dimpled ballots though, not the double votes.
|
It would be crazy if the lawyers involved in getting bush elected in Florida ended up going on to be rewarded for what they accomplished with public office as an apointee to some government job. Like if they became federal-level judges and presided over important cases that would eventually have some impact on a trump third term.
It wouldn't at all justify people having worries about what happened if there was an example of what would happen to the supporters of trump if they did something crazy to effect the transfer of power.
|
On July 19 2025 02:19 Jankisa wrote:
To be honest, and this might be due to being exposed to looking at Biden for 4 years and having a grandma who is almost 90 that I help take care of, but to me, Trump looks great for his age.
It shouldn't really be possible, given his diet and beliefs regarding fitness, but he seems relatively healthy and spry for his age, I guess being evil is a source of youth.
The health issues I don't really buy, they've been diagnosing him with shit for 10 years and this thing on his hand doesn't really seem like much.
Trump acts very similar to my late grandma when she was in her 80s and had to have her car taken away and put into full time care as the dementia set in.
My late grandmas brother at a similar age was still very sharp, witty, and kind.
Trump is not doing great for his age.
|
On July 19 2025 07:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2025 07:16 Introvert wrote:
There is dispute, and iirc Gore lost every recount that he got until he was told to stop asking. The ballot problem was from the ballots those blue counties decided to use. Saying it was stolen is way too categorical when it’s not even clear he won, the margin was too tight to make that statement also. A margin of over 50,000 votes was too tight? Over 50,000 more Floridians marked their ballot for Gore than for Bush. That's not in dispute, that's known. They had to throw out 100,000 votes to get a Bush victory. But in any case, states run their own elections and the Florida Supreme Court thought there should be a proper count. It was SCOTUS, on a strict party line vote, with the Republican majority who decided that Florida wasn't allowed to decide. Which gets us back to the initial point, anyone who thinks a Republican majority SCOTUS wouldn’t intervene in an election to favour their party hasn’t been paying attention. If the Florida result was settled how come Florida didn’t think it was. How come 4/9ths of SCOTUS didn’t think it was.
Counting overvotes for Gore (or Bush) is rediculous. The voters know they can only pick one. It was not a ranked choice vote, you can't determine thr voters intent that way. And even if you could you tell them that if they preferred Gore to Bush maybe they should have just voted for Gore?? You know, the exact same argument you make to GreenHorizons?
The Supreme Court 7-2 said that the Florida Supreme Court was wrong on its method. They would have just extended the time to do it *again* (or had other remedies, dont recall exactly)
Gore lost every recount that he was granted. Later studies using the criteria of the time show it could have gone either way. Calling it stolen is exactly the type of thing you wouldn't tolerate from Trump.
Finally, I will point out the same thing I did some months ago. If the Supreme Court was going to let Donald Trump be president despite losing an election they would have done it last time! Same with the state legislatures. All this high temperature rhetoric and yet we already have an election where the thing you are certain would happen, didn't.
As to your final question, if GOP appointees are to be doubted out of the gate then I see no reason why the dem ones shouldn't be. 7/9ths said that Florida was still doing it wrong. And "Florida" didn't say they werent done, the other two branches of the Florida government thought it was and took steps to effectuate that opinion.
|
On July 19 2025 07:48 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2025 07:19 KwarK wrote:On July 19 2025 07:16 Introvert wrote:
There is dispute, and iirc Gore lost every recount that he got until he was told to stop asking. The ballot problem was from the ballots those blue counties decided to use. Saying it was stolen is way too categorical when it’s not even clear he won, the margin was too tight to make that statement also. A margin of over 50,000 votes was too tight? Over 50,000 more Floridians marked their ballot for Gore than for Bush. That's not in dispute, that's known. They had to throw out 100,000 votes to get a Bush victory. Again the phrasing is extreme. Yes some votes were not counted, such as if someone tried to vote for more than 1 candidate. Seems like common sense that if someone make more than 1 selection then neither selection should count. We shouldn't give people 2 votes just because they were crafty enough to check more than 1 box on a ballot that instructs them to check only 1 box. The overvotes for Bush were thrown out just as readily as the overvotes for Gore. If Gore voters on average are less capable of filling out a ballot properly than Bush voters and as a result Gore lost more votes on that front, it doesn't make it a conspiracy that they threw out votes "to get a Bush victory" as you put it. The sources in this thread also state the Gore was not even trying to pursue these throw out votes legally so now you're arguing for votes that Gore himself didn't even feel entitled to. I don't think anyone is disputing that the 5-4 ruling was partisan and they wanted to win the election for Bush. The dispute is the phrasing that Gore clearly won and SCOTUS stole it when the first official counts had Bush ahead, the first major review by the media had Bush ahead, all of the counts during the legal proceedings had Bush ahead, but your source from a study a year later has Gore ahead.
Not sure why we're talking about this 25 years after the fact, but this is an extremely dishonest way of phrasing it. Bith butterfly ballots and punch card ballots have been shown to have significant design flaws. Although I guess attributing it to the stupidity of the voters rather than terrible design is on brand for you.
Obviously the question about what should be done has no simple answer. This should all have been detected and solved before the election and not after. After all you're left with is an unpunched ballot with a dimple in it, or one where two holes are punched and the person wrote with pen a bunch of arrows. Should you count the person's obvious intention? Or throw out the ballot because it isn't filled out per the instructions? Different people are going to have different opinions about that, so they really should've avoided getting into that spot in the first place.
And no, nobody expects a ballot with two holes in it to get counted twice.
|
United States44361 Posts
“Lost every recount he was granted” is certainly one way to describe the Republicans on SCOTUS refusing to let Florida do the recount.
|
There was one machine recount, then a partial recount in one county that still left bush in the lead. The other counties themselves, for reasons I don't recall or have never read, refused to continue even when the Florida Surpeme Court complently ignored Florida law by giving them an extra 12 days or so. Gore sued those counties to make them keep counting, but the Florida suprmec Court, majority dem appointee iirc, refused to step in. They did ultimately almost finish, and those results (obviously contestsble themselves) still showed Bush winning.
The Supreme Court finally stepped in almost a month after election day, and well past the times already required by state law. 7-2 the supreme court agreed that the recount was dubious without set standards.
You don't get to imply that the election was stolen and the will of the voters overturned when at every step Gore was the one asking for exceptions to the rule and you are out here citing overvotes as support for your position. This is all reasoning backwards to get to what you want.
edit: here's an old NYT from November 28 about palm beach and I'll pull the key paragraph(s)
And even if the county's elections canvassing board had gotten it all finished on time, there were too few votes for Mr. Gore to change the outcome, mainly, Democrats say, because the three-member board was too conservative in counting the so-called dimpled ballots. Around and around it went, a circle of finger-pointing and acrimony, on a day when a front-page headline in The Palm Beach Post stated: ''Deadline missed, recount counts for nothing.'' The county's completed tally found a net gain of 215 votes for Mr. Gore, and not one counted. In the statewide certified figures, George W. Bush came out 537 votes ahead. On Sunday, when it was clear that the deadline could not be met, the board sent by fax a request for an extension, which was denied by Ms. Harris. Just before the deadline, the board, 800 to 1,000 ballots short of a complete hand recount, sent up an incomplete tally. Later that evening, Ms. Harris rejected the recount figures and stayed with Palm Beach County's total from the machine recount. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/28/us/contesting-vote-palm-beach-county-frustration-aftermath-failed-recount.html
So in the end we have a highly contested election due to bad ballot design in blue counties. We have a Florida Supreme Court that let the recounts go far longer than state law allowed. if you want to argue that a majority of Florida voters *really* wanted Gore to win, that's probably unknowable but at least arguable. Saying it was stolen is, however, wrong. And it's not a criteria we use for any other election.
edit2: moreover, if the Florida GOP plan was to use chaos to steal elections then it doesn't make sense that they tightened up the process so much and now two and half decades later the elections there have very clear rules and fast counting with few disputes. They took what happened very seriously as something to be avoided.
|
United States44361 Posts
50,000 more Floridians marked ballots for Gore than for Bush. That’s not in dispute. It’s not unknowable, it’s verifiable.
|
There were countless video interviews of Florida voters (mostly older folks) who were pissed and complained they thought they voted for Gore but marked their ballots for Pat Buchanan, which kept airing on the news back then. Even Buchanan came out and said he got way too many votes in Florida compared to other states, that those votes were most likely intended for Gore, and attributed that to the butterfly ballot design as he was second on the list (Gore was third).
Although I'll agree whoever designed the ballot was probably a Republican who knew what they were doing (running interference with a dash of plausible deniability). If only Democrats were as good as the Republicans at fuck fuck games instead of being fisted by them and losing constantly, no wonder they're starting to look like controlled opposition with each passing day.
Edit: Just found out the ballot designer was a Democrat. Damn, they're worse at this than I thought lol
|
The ballot was designed by a local democrat. Citing overvotes for the proposition that Gore actually won is one of those straightforwardly absurd claims that should be addressed, dismissed, and never brought up again. If you voted for two people when you can only vote for one it's obviously dishonest to claim it really counts as a vote for the one guy. They could have voted for only the one guy.
|
On July 19 2025 09:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2025 07:48 BlackJack wrote:On July 19 2025 07:19 KwarK wrote:On July 19 2025 07:16 Introvert wrote:
There is dispute, and iirc Gore lost every recount that he got until he was told to stop asking. The ballot problem was from the ballots those blue counties decided to use. Saying it was stolen is way too categorical when it’s not even clear he won, the margin was too tight to make that statement also. A margin of over 50,000 votes was too tight? Over 50,000 more Floridians marked their ballot for Gore than for Bush. That's not in dispute, that's known. They had to throw out 100,000 votes to get a Bush victory. Again the phrasing is extreme. Yes some votes were not counted, such as if someone tried to vote for more than 1 candidate. Seems like common sense that if someone make more than 1 selection then neither selection should count. We shouldn't give people 2 votes just because they were crafty enough to check more than 1 box on a ballot that instructs them to check only 1 box. The overvotes for Bush were thrown out just as readily as the overvotes for Gore. If Gore voters on average are less capable of filling out a ballot properly than Bush voters and as a result Gore lost more votes on that front, it doesn't make it a conspiracy that they threw out votes "to get a Bush victory" as you put it. The sources in this thread also state the Gore was not even trying to pursue these throw out votes legally so now you're arguing for votes that Gore himself didn't even feel entitled to. I don't think anyone is disputing that the 5-4 ruling was partisan and they wanted to win the election for Bush. The dispute is the phrasing that Gore clearly won and SCOTUS stole it when the first official counts had Bush ahead, the first major review by the media had Bush ahead, all of the counts during the legal proceedings had Bush ahead, but your source from a study a year later has Gore ahead. Not sure why we're talking about this 25 years after the fact, but this is an extremely dishonest way of phrasing it. Bith butterfly ballots and punch card ballots have been shown to have significant design flaws. Although I guess attributing it to the stupidity of the voters rather than terrible design is on brand for you. Obviously the question about what should be done has no simple answer. This should all have been detected and solved before the election and not after. After all you're left with is an unpunched ballot with a dimple in it, or one where two holes are punched and the person wrote with pen a bunch of arrows. Should you count the person's obvious intention? Or throw out the ballot because it isn't filled out per the instructions? Different people are going to have different opinions about that, so they really should've avoided getting into that spot in the first place. And no, nobody expects a ballot with two holes in it to get counted twice.
I feel like I’m offering the agnostic opinion. Bush had more votes on the official vote count. There are some studies showing Bush would have won and some showing Gore would have won and there are multiple different ways to even count the votes. It’s not at all black and white. So Kwarks phrasing that Gore obviously won until SCOTUS took it off him is just not accurate.
|
United States44361 Posts
On July 19 2025 12:54 Introvert wrote:
The ballot was designed by a local democrat. Citing overvotes for the proposition that Gore actually won is one of those straightforwardly absurd claims that should be addressed, dismissed, and never brought up again. If you voted for two people when you can only vote for one it's obviously dishonest to claim it really counts as a vote for the one guy. They could have voted for only the one guy.
I’m not saying that they were correct and conforming votes. I’m saying exactly what I’m saying. 50,000 more Floridians marked their ballots Gore than Bush. It’s not in dispute.
|
Too much misinformation here. Let the facts speak for themselves.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/
tl;dr Gore may or may not have won a full recount. Nobody really knows. Also, he never asked for a full recount, which means he would've lost no matter what. It's also true though that there was major interference from above. Without that interference, there would've been a fair chance that Gore would've won Florida.
|
Soooo. 10 billion in damages claims trump against wsj over the fact that they told people those two were friends. Wild.
|
On July 19 2025 16:45 Magic Powers wrote:Too much misinformation here. Let the facts speak for themselves. https://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/tl;dr Gore may or may not have won a full recount. Nobody really knows. Also, he never asked for a full recount, which means he would've lost no matter what. It's also true though that there was major interference from above. Without that interference, there would've been a fair chance that Gore would've won Florida.
Well there you go. Even if SCOTUS gave Gore everything he asked for he still would have lost the recount. Their ruling didn't even make a difference.
|
On July 19 2025 17:58 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2025 16:45 Magic Powers wrote:Too much misinformation here. Let the facts speak for themselves. https://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/tl;dr Gore may or may not have won a full recount. Nobody really knows. Also, he never asked for a full recount, which means he would've lost no matter what. It's also true though that there was major interference from above. Without that interference, there would've been a fair chance that Gore would've won Florida. Well there you go. Even if SCOTUS gave Gore everything he asked for he still would have lost the recount. Their ruling didn't even make a difference.
That's why I never argue with KwarK. He doesn't know anywhere near as much as he thinks he does. Never backs up his claims with anything factual. Just doesn't care. Just assumes he's right by default.
At least you do factual research, I can admit that despite all our disagreements on the conclusions.
|
On July 19 2025 17:37 Broetchenholer wrote:
Soooo. 10 billion in damages claims trump against wsj over the fact that they told people those two were friends. Wild.
Murdoch can buy his VIP-Seats on the facism train for offering 1-5 billion pre-trial settlement
Genius.
Don't forget, Trump mostly picks his fights. If he can't pick, he usually deflects, projects and tries to just move on. But sometimes he also fakes to "move on" on the fights that he is picking.
He could order the CIA to assassinate Selenskiy to make people forget about Epstein - if he wants to. He has zero moral or ethical boundry (helps being a child rapist).
Everything known about Trump and Epstein is very..very public. But there is no evidence rock solid enough to criminally charge Trump - and now even President Trump.
Tax cuts are in. EPA will lose all science staff, and will be replaced with YES MEN that drink oil right from the well, while smoking, to proof it's "not unhealthy".
|
On July 19 2025 18:09 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2025 17:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 19 2025 16:45 Magic Powers wrote:Too much misinformation here. Let the facts speak for themselves. https://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/tl;dr Gore may or may not have won a full recount. Nobody really knows. Also, he never asked for a full recount, which means he would've lost no matter what. It's also true though that there was major interference from above. Without that interference, there would've been a fair chance that Gore would've won Florida. Well there you go. Even if SCOTUS gave Gore everything he asked for he still would have lost the recount. Their ruling didn't even make a difference. That's why I never argue with KwarK. He doesn't know anywhere near as much as he thinks he does. Never backs up his claims with anything factual. Just doesn't care. Just assumes he's right by default. At least you do factual research, I can admit that despite all our disagreements on the conclusions.
If Scotus had allowed a full recount - Gore would have likely won Florida and presidency.
A partial recount Bush still won - but the full recount, already green lit by florida supreme court, was stopped dead by Scotus "overruling state law, if they don't like it".
The decision was assisted by K. Harris - co chair of Bush campaign in Florida.. and secretary of state in florida. She made arbitrary rules for the post-deadline acceptance of recount results, leading to SCOTUS arguing that state supreme court effectively is writing new legislation by allowing Florida to handle it's own election...through the wrong process.
Democracy these days didn't care for the votes, it cared for the result, which was Bush.
|
On July 19 2025 19:10 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2025 18:09 Magic Powers wrote:On July 19 2025 17:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 19 2025 16:45 Magic Powers wrote:Too much misinformation here. Let the facts speak for themselves. https://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/tl;dr Gore may or may not have won a full recount. Nobody really knows. Also, he never asked for a full recount, which means he would've lost no matter what. It's also true though that there was major interference from above. Without that interference, there would've been a fair chance that Gore would've won Florida. Well there you go. Even if SCOTUS gave Gore everything he asked for he still would have lost the recount. Their ruling didn't even make a difference. That's why I never argue with KwarK. He doesn't know anywhere near as much as he thinks he does. Never backs up his claims with anything factual. Just doesn't care. Just assumes he's right by default. At least you do factual research, I can admit that despite all our disagreements on the conclusions. If Scotus had allowed a full recount - Gore would have likely won Florida and presidency. A partial recount Bush still won - but the full recount, already green lit by florida supreme court, was stopped dead by Scotus "overruling state law, if they don't like it". The decision was assisted by K. Harris - co chair of Bush campaign in Florida.. and secretary of state in florida. She made arbitrary rules for the post-deadline acceptance of recount results, leading to SCOTUS arguing that state supreme court effectively is writing new legislation by allowing Florida to handle it's own election...through the wrong process. Democracy these days didn't care for the votes, it cared for the result, which was Bush.
I posted the factcheck article, which shows that a full recount didn't guarantee a Gore victory in Florida. Different counting methods would lead to different outcomes. You can say that Gore would've had a realistic chance with a full recount, but that's about all.
|
On July 19 2025 19:12 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2025 19:10 KT_Elwood wrote:On July 19 2025 18:09 Magic Powers wrote:On July 19 2025 17:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 19 2025 16:45 Magic Powers wrote:Too much misinformation here. Let the facts speak for themselves. https://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/tl;dr Gore may or may not have won a full recount. Nobody really knows. Also, he never asked for a full recount, which means he would've lost no matter what. It's also true though that there was major interference from above. Without that interference, there would've been a fair chance that Gore would've won Florida. Well there you go. Even if SCOTUS gave Gore everything he asked for he still would have lost the recount. Their ruling didn't even make a difference. That's why I never argue with KwarK. He doesn't know anywhere near as much as he thinks he does. Never backs up his claims with anything factual. Just doesn't care. Just assumes he's right by default. At least you do factual research, I can admit that despite all our disagreements on the conclusions. If Scotus had allowed a full recount - Gore would have likely won Florida and presidency. A partial recount Bush still won - but the full recount, already green lit by florida supreme court, was stopped dead by Scotus "overruling state law, if they don't like it". The decision was assisted by K. Harris - co chair of Bush campaign in Florida.. and secretary of state in florida. She made arbitrary rules for the post-deadline acceptance of recount results, leading to SCOTUS arguing that state supreme court effectively is writing new legislation by allowing Florida to handle it's own election...through the wrong process. Democracy these days didn't care for the votes, it cared for the result, which was Bush. I posted the factcheck article, which shows that a full recount didn't guarantee a Gore victory in Florida. Different counting methods would lead to different outcomes. You can say that Gore would've had a realistic chance with a full recount, but that's about all.
This post supports Kwark's initial interjection that the supreme court ruled according to party lines to secure the outcome they wanted.
That is, there is already precedent that the supreme court will intervene in an election to secure a partisan objective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
