-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
President Donald Trump's Legacy
- Thread starter gmase
- Start date
tvstrip
I changed my middle-name to Freeones
Gore comes off pretty badly there. Before tump he was probably the worst "sore loser". At least he no longer has that distinction.
gmase
Nattering Nabob of Negativism
How was Gore a sore loser? He fought his battle in the courts and conceded when he lost his case. If he lost his case, I would hope he disagreed with the decision. (For the record, I voted for W and concurred with the court’s decision.)
“I accept the finality of the outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.” December 13, 2000.
tvstrip
I changed my middle-name to Freeones
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but justified or not, he was the only one in that video that contested the results from election night. At least, he's the only one until tump that did so in an election that I've been around to see. Unfortunately, if you challenge the results, and it doesn't work out (even if its by court order), the optics are that you didn't accept the results until you were told they were final. I'm sure we disagree, but that's how the optics look to me.
He was lampooned for that reluctance, and to his credit, he did take the opportunity to make fun of himself (something you'll never see with tump), even appearing on Futurama. And it worked well for him, as he made a career out of climate change.
That whole fiasco also would have been a chance to push through electoral reform though - either go with the popular vote if you're directly electing a president, or use the British MP system. None of this electoral college BS.
Luxman
#TRE45ON
I asked an AI:
Why did Gore contest the 2000 elections?
The 2000 election was wild. Basically, it came down to a very close race in Florida, which was too close to call on election night. The vote count was so close that Florida law required a recount. Gore filed legal challenges, arguing that the recount process was flawed, and that certain groups of voters had been disenfranchised. Gore was specifically challenging the way votes were counted in certain counties in Florida, particularly regarding "hanging chads" (where a small piece of paper remained attached to the ballot after being punched).
There were also some issues with absentee ballots that weren't counted, particularly from military personnel who were stationed overseas. Some of these ballots were either not received by election officials before the deadline or were rejected due to technical issues, like a missing postmark. In addition, there were concerns that some ballots were discarded or not counted due to issues with the infamous "hanging chads," which are those little bits of paper that are punched out of the ballot and can sometimes remain partially attached. All of these issues contributed to the controversy surrounding the Florida recount and ultimately led to the election being decided by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court case, Bush v. Gore, was wild. It was decided by a 5-4 vote and is often seen as a controversial ruling. Basically, the court ruled that the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court argued that the recount process in different counties was inconsistent and that different standards were used to determine what counted as a valid vote. By a narrow margin, the court ruled that a statewide recount could not be conducted within the limited time frame before the deadline for selecting electors.
Sounds like a rigged election in republicans favor.
Why did Gore contest the 2000 elections?
The 2000 election was wild. Basically, it came down to a very close race in Florida, which was too close to call on election night. The vote count was so close that Florida law required a recount. Gore filed legal challenges, arguing that the recount process was flawed, and that certain groups of voters had been disenfranchised. Gore was specifically challenging the way votes were counted in certain counties in Florida, particularly regarding "hanging chads" (where a small piece of paper remained attached to the ballot after being punched).
There were also some issues with absentee ballots that weren't counted, particularly from military personnel who were stationed overseas. Some of these ballots were either not received by election officials before the deadline or were rejected due to technical issues, like a missing postmark. In addition, there were concerns that some ballots were discarded or not counted due to issues with the infamous "hanging chads," which are those little bits of paper that are punched out of the ballot and can sometimes remain partially attached. All of these issues contributed to the controversy surrounding the Florida recount and ultimately led to the election being decided by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court case, Bush v. Gore, was wild. It was decided by a 5-4 vote and is often seen as a controversial ruling. Basically, the court ruled that the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court argued that the recount process in different counties was inconsistent and that different standards were used to determine what counted as a valid vote. By a narrow margin, the court ruled that a statewide recount could not be conducted within the limited time frame before the deadline for selecting electors.
Sounds like a rigged election in republicans favor.
gmase
Nattering Nabob of Negativism
Considering the Florida vote differential was 537 out of nearly 6 million votes and the Electoral College was 271-266, the challenge was reasonable. I see the optics like challenging plays in sports. We've both seen the offside challenges on goals where Toronto performs freeze-frame analysis of some player dragging his skate at the blue line as the puck enters the offensive zone moments before a goal. Sometimes the coach just needs a second set of eyes on the play.
Luxman
#TRE45ON
Ahole Trump could have pardoned everyone who was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, but he didn't because he wanted to cover his fat ass. He doesn't give a fuck about them except for their votes and money, he only pardoned his corrupt ahole cronies in crime.
He now says he will pardon everyone who was involved in the J6 attack, but that's just another empty promise to get support and money from the repubulicans he continues to lie to and con.
FBI searches for growing number of Jan. 6 fugitives - Sep 4, 2023
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-fugitives-fbi-search/
He now says he will pardon everyone who was involved in the J6 attack, but that's just another empty promise to get support and money from the repubulicans he continues to lie to and con.
FBI searches for growing number of Jan. 6 fugitives - Sep 4, 2023
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-fugitives-fbi-search/
gmase
Nattering Nabob of Negativism
https://www.9news.com/amp/article/n...ident/73-42e9183f-4a12-405a-a8eb-efab7f450872
A suit to bar Trump from Colorado’s primary ballot was filed today. They are using the 14th Amendment to support their case. This may not be the case which reaches SCOTUS, but it appears an effort is being made to get the issue there quickly.
[Late addition: a discussion about the wider discussions being held by state officials: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/06/colorado-14amendment-trump-00114339]
Last edited:
gmase
Nattering Nabob of Negativism
Prosecutors got the Mar-A-Lago IT guy to cooperate. He reversed his original ‘false testimony’ after getting a real attorney instead of a Trump sycophant. What happens when the rest start telling the truth?
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...tion-agreement-with-mar-a-lago-it-worker/amp/
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...tion-agreement-with-mar-a-lago-it-worker/amp/
tvstrip
I changed my middle-name to Freeones
Look at you - points for the Hockey analogy!
Don't get me wrong, knowing that he was not likely to get a second chance, and the close vote, I'm not blaming him for doing what he did. But there are e-brakes for situations like that, such as the automatic recount, etc which did kick in. Or to use a hockey analogy - like how a goal judge automatically reviews every close/questionable call, along with having 2 linesmen keep the ref in check.
More to the point, I was stating that in that video, Al doesn't come across well, because he's the only one, aside from tump, that contested the results. If it wasn't for him, we could have said that tump is the only failed US candidate in history that didn't concede the election by the following day. The closest was Thomas Dewey in 1948, and while that was razor thin, he had also conceded the next day. I'm willing to bet that tump and co looked at Gore and thought "wait, we can contest the election results?"
But hey, on the bright side, no one cares about Gore's contesting the results because we have something much, much worse...
Luxman
#TRE45ON
The 2000 election and the 2016 election are the only elections since 1888 that the winners didn't have the popular vote.
Al Gore should have won the 2000 election and Hillary Clinton should have won the 2016 election.
Loopholes in the voting laws allowed Bush and ahole Trump to win.
Al Gore should have won the 2000 election and Hillary Clinton should have won the 2016 election.
Loopholes in the voting laws allowed Bush and ahole Trump to win.
gmase
Nattering Nabob of Negativism
Gore’s loss may have been based on a loophole.
How was Clinton’s loss due to a loophole? She lost based on the established rules.
gmase
Nattering Nabob of Negativism
What does gerrymandering have to do with the Electoral College? Gerrymandering relates to drawing up congressional districts. The EC votes are strictly allocated based on state populations - plus 2 for the senators.
Wouldn’t be easier - and more appropriate - to place the blame on the EC scheme? It was enacted in 1787 - long before the current Republican Party existed.
Last edited:
gmase
Nattering Nabob of Negativism
No - it is based on winning the popular vote in the state. https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/
I thought you were in the US.
