| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/07/2004 11:43:31 PM · #1 |
Just thought I would pass this on to you as a reminder of some things that happened 4 years ago....
//www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html
|
|
|
|
09/11/2004 01:46:34 PM · #2 |
Thanks for passing this on - it is very well done, has real impact. Of course I'm an easy audience. I'll be passing the link along to friends.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2004 06:07:35 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
09/12/2004 10:14:27 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
09/12/2004 10:24:08 AM · #5 |
| And I thought this had to do with voting on challenge photos..... you got me there :) |
|
|
|
09/12/2004 11:02:03 AM · #6 |
| Always nice America in a voting year...beats those other real life soaps |
|
|
|
09/12/2004 12:46:02 PM · #7 |
Very neat. Can you do the same thing for the other canidate? You know, show what he has done in congress the last twenty years. You might also show him going to and from the special terror meetings of which he was a valuable participant.
Message edited by author 2004-09-12 16:35:09. |
|
|
|
09/12/2004 02:02:14 PM · #8 |
Let's not forget that along with all those people who were deemed ineligible to vote there were also those missing votes that turned up in the swamps of Florida.
Funny how Bush supports want to forget all the real facts of 4 years ago.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2004 02:17:29 PM · #9 |
Florida will again be a huge swing state. Reading the paper today, its the largest state (electoral vote wise) that the polesters really cant decide what direction it will go.
I think Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania will determain the election. BTW, I like the video...well done graphics and great music.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2004 07:04:33 PM · #10 |
| //media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv |
|
|
|
09/12/2004 09:58:43 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Just thought I would pass this on to you as a reminder of some things that happened 4 years ago....
//www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html |
if you continue through you will find this...
//www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=29&row=1 |
|
|
|
09/12/2004 10:45:51 PM · #12 |
4 years ago, our president won the election. Some people still can't face that fact, even though a new election is now upon us.
Just more leftist dribble here, with no regard to "the whole story."
|
|
|
|
09/12/2004 10:55:32 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by StevePax:
4 years ago, our president won the election. Some people still can't face that fact, even though a new election is now upon us.
Just more leftist dribble here, with no regard to "the whole story." |
he only won cause of a screwed up Florida...the president didn't win by popularity...don't forget that...Gore won everything except the electoral college numbers... |
|
|
|
09/12/2004 10:57:17 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Originally posted by StevePax:
4 years ago, our president won the election. Some people still can't face that fact, even though a new election is now upon us.
Just more leftist dribble here, with no regard to "the whole story." |
he only won cause of a screwed up Florida...the president didn't win by popularity...don't forget that...Gore won everything except the electoral college numbers... |
Oh did I fail to mention that was the first time ever that the president didn't win the popularity vote as well. |
|
|
|
09/12/2004 11:29:53 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Oh did I fail to mention that was the first time ever that the president didn't win the popularity vote as well. |
1888: Cleveland 48.6%, Harrison 47.8% (0.8% margin) (Cleveland lost Electoral vote).
Get your facts straight. Liberals. *shrug*
M
Message edited by author 2004-09-12 23:35:44.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2004 01:13:57 AM · #16 |
1888 is not the first instance, but that wasn't the claim, though some may interpret it so. The 1888 case is perhaps demonstrative of why the EC works (to avoid regional bias). Conversely, 2000 is a case where the EC fails (to reflect the will of the people).
Partisans!
They quibble and they squabble,
but they won't back down.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2004 05:40:49 PM · #17 |
|
|
|
09/13/2004 08:04:52 PM · #18 |
You guys kill me... Bush won, grow the fuck up and stop with the consiracy theories. Bush can't be the dumbest man alive AND be a world conspirator plotting to take over the world...
I distinctly remember Gore for months promoting how important the Electoral Colege was and why we needed it over the popular vote. OF course this was back when he was suppose to win the electorial but Bush was slated to win the popular.
Gore is a pathetic cry baby, I hope he comes out and supports Kerry some more, I'm looking forward for 4 more years!!! Thank god that miserable little thing isn't in office... |
|
|
|
09/13/2004 09:22:02 PM · #19 |
Russell2566,
Did you read the last post on the Fox thread you started? I was hoping you'd replied to it.
Message edited by author 2004-09-13 21:22:24.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2004 09:45:31 PM · #20 |
After reading Russell2566's post, I was quickly reminded of isolated news reports at the time that raised the opposite scenario, as Russell2566 alludes. That is, in some late polls in 2000 it appeared that Mr. Bush would win the popular vote and Mr. Gore would go on to carry the electoral college vote. Well, we all know what happened. What's not well remembered, is that Mr. Bush and his campaign had decided that if Mr. Gore won the electoral college vote, but not the popular vote, that Mr. Bush would contest the election on popular grounds:
The most intriguing scenario has Bush winning with voters while Gore squeaks to victory in the Electoral College.
Such an ambiguous finish to the closest, most hotly contested White House race in decades, would give Gore a legal claim to the presidency - and likely plunge the nation into a messy political crisis.
The Bush camp, sources said, would likely challenge the legitimacy of a Gore win, casting it as an affront to the people's will and branding the Electoral College as an antiquated relic.
McGovern, however, warned that any Bush legal challenge could tear apart the nation and undermine the presidency.
"If there's no legal basis for Bush's case, it would be destructive," said McGovern.
One informal Bush adviser, who declined to be named, predicted Republicans would likely benefit from a storm of public outrage if Bush won the popular vote but was denied the presidency.
"That's what America is all about, isn't it," said the Bush source. "I'm sure we would make a strong case."
Boston Herald, Nov 3. 2000 [ Link via EVote.com ]
Now, I'll grant you this, reports like the one I cited are scattered and hard to find; however, I think that Republicans would've been far more rabid if the above scenario had played out, as opposed to what occurred. Perhaps the Democrats and Mr. Gore would've mounted a far more strenuous challenge, if the Democratic party had controlled the Senate, House and, for all practical purposes, the Judiciary -- as the Republican party did then, and does now.
.......................................
Originally posted by Russell2566:
You guys kill me... Bush won, grow the fuck up and stop with the consiracy theories. Bush can't be the dumbest man alive AND be a world conspirator plotting to take over the world...
I distinctly remember Gore for months promoting how important the Electoral Colege was and why we needed it over the popular vote. OF course this was back when he was suppose to win the electorial but Bush was slated to win the popular.
Gore is a pathetic cry baby, I hope he comes out and supports Kerry some more, I'm looking forward for 4 more years!!! Thank god that miserable little thing isn't in office... |
Message edited by author 2004-09-13 22:26:22.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 08:53:08 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
After reading Russell2566's post, I was quickly reminded of isolated news reports at the time that raised the opposite scenario, as Russell2566 alludes...What's not well remembered, is that Mr. Bush and his campaign had decided that if Mr. Gore won the electoral college vote, but not the popular vote, that Mr. Bush would contest the election on popular grounds: |
1) The reports were isolated because only isolated rags would print such tabloid trash.
2) You state as though it were fact that
"Mr. Bush and his campaign had decided that if Mr. Gore won the electoral college vote, but not the popular vote, that Mr. Bush would contest the election on popular grounds",
yet you have no factual basis for making that statement.
Originally posted by bdobe:
The Bush camp, sources said, would likely challenge the legitimacy of a Gore win, casting it as an affront to the people's will and branding the Electoral College as an antiquated relic. |
What sources? Without attribution, one might conjecture that the DNC was the source.
Originally posted by bdobe:
One informal Bush adviser, who declined to be named, predicted Republicans would likely benefit from a storm of public outrage if Bush won the popular vote but was denied the presidency. |
Probably a true statement, but he could just as truthfully have predicted that "Democrats would likely benefit from a storm of public outrage if Gore won the popular vote but was denied the predidency". And he would have been right - the public outrage STILL exists. And the Democrats are STILL trying to milk it to their benefit.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 09:46:05 AM · #22 |
As per the title of the thread --
I think it was decided that there were two undecided voters on dpc, adn both of them had the rant forums turned off.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 12:22:03 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by RonB:
1) The reports were isolated because only isolated rags would print such tabloid trash.
2) You state as though it were fact that
"Mr. Bush and his campaign had decided that if Mr. Gore won the electoral college vote, but not the popular vote, that Mr. Bush would contest the election on popular grounds",
yet you have no factual basis for making that statement. |
From your tone, and many other statements elsewhere on this board, it's clear that you're not going to be persuaded otherwise. Now, news items reporting that Mr. Bush would've challenged the electoral college, if the 2000 results had been reversed, are "scattered and hard to find;" because, one, the news items are four years old, and, two, Mr. Bush's decision to challenge the electoral college did not receive much coverage to begin with. Again, let's remember that when such reports would've bubbled up in the media's news cycle, towards the closing days of the campaign, reporters had more pressing news items to cover. Again, let's remember, that at the time, there were far more topical news items receiving attention before the election, (i.e., the dash to the finish line by the candidates); and, after the election, well, there were far more visible news items that overshadowed everything else (i.e., the Florida debacle).
Nonetheless, those that follow politics and elections closely remember such reports -- I know I do. Here's an off the cuff remark made by one of the panelist in PBS's The News Hour:
The Bush folks were all prepared according to my conservative sources to challenge legally if George Bush did win the popular vote and Al Gore won the electoral vote. They had done the research; they had the attorneys; and I assume they'll now turn that over to the Gore people just to expedite the matter. [ Transcript ]
The 2000 Bush team of attorneys referred to above were led James Baker III, a member of the Carlyle Group, whose law firm (Baker Botts) is representing the Saudi Royal Family against the 9-11 families, and, is the same James Baker III, that is currently leading Mr. Bush's presidential debate team.
I know that the 2000 election is in the past and, as Russell2566 so eloquently put it, we should just move on and focus on the up-coming election -- which is what I'm focused on. However, I posted the original news item because of Russell2566's indignant tone regarding Mr. Gore's Florida election challenge.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 01:11:52 PM · #24 |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 01:28:12 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
From your tone, and many other statements elsewhere on this board, it's clear that you're not going to be persuaded otherwise. Now, news items reporting that Mr. Bush would've challenged the electoral college, if the 2000 results had been reversed, are "scattered and hard to find;" because, one, the news items are four years old, and, two, Mr. Bush's decision to challenge the electoral college did not receive much coverage to begin with. Again, let's remember that when such reports would've bubbled up in the media's news cycle, towards the closing days of the campaign, reporters had more pressing news items to cover. Again, let's remember, that at the time, there were far more topical news items receiving attention before the election, (i.e., the dash to the finish line by the candidates); and, after the election, well, there were far more visible news items that overshadowed everything else (i.e., the Florida debacle).
Nonetheless, those that follow politics and elections closely remember such reports -- I know I do. Here's an off the cuff remark made by one of the panelist in PBS's The News Hour:
The Bush folks were all prepared according to my conservative sources to challenge legally if George Bush did win the popular vote and Al Gore won the electoral vote. They had done the research; they had the attorneys; and I assume they'll now turn that over to the Gore people just to expedite the matter. [ Transcript ] |
The panelist just happened to be a long-time Democratic commentator. I wonder just what "conservative sources" would have provided this kind of information.
Meanwhile, on November 2, 2000, ABC's Michael S. James reported
"This year, representatives for the Bush and Gore campaigns say they are not thinking about the possibility of a split decision between the electoral and popular vote.
"Al Gore is fighting to win the Electoral College and the popular vote, and he is not planning for anything else," says Doug Hattaway, national spokesman for the Gore campaign.
"We do not expect that to happen and have not spent any time concerned about it," says Ray Sullivan, a spokesman for the Bush campaign. "We expect that the popular vote and the Electoral College will go the same way, and are optimistic they will go toward George W. Bush."
Can't resist the opportunity to somehow tie Bush to the Saudi Royal Family, can you? No matter the context. Just HOW does the Saudi Royal Family's business relate to the issue of the electoral college?
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 05:29:20 PM EDT.
