So what do Europeans make of Dubya?
Dec 26th, 2000, 07:25 PM
#141
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Florida Supreme court had no right to change the rules in mid-game, deciding that pregnant and hanging chads would be counted when it had been the rule for the past 10 years that pregnant chads are not counted as votes. This was only done when it was realized that Gore was not picking up enough votes. <BR> <BR>Independent counts conducted by the media? LOL. Sorry, but I wasn't born yesterday. I wouldn't trust anything put out by the liberal news media. <BR> <BR>The whole idea that a national presidential election hinged upon three Democrat counties is completely unfair. I believe any level headed, fair minded person can see that. <BR> <BR>Food for thought. If Gore had WON HIS OWN STATE, the country wouldn't have gone through this whole election mess. His own people of Tennessee rejected him. That speaks volumes. He couldn't even win his own state.
Dec 26th, 2000, 08:36 PM
#142
Guest
Posts: n/a
Love2: <BR>Pregnant chads and hanging chads were only an issue in predominantly democratic counties, whereas republican counties for the most part had superior scanners. Even then in a repub county Gore has 130 votes where voters wrote in + colored in the spot. These are public records for anyone to see. If it weren't for a free press, tyranny can run amuck. And it might, if people stop questioning some of our most fundamental values. Can you honestly tell me you believe that Bush would have won in a hand-count with the same standards that say, New Mexico or Texas applies? <BR> <BR>Florida Law says "intent of the voter" and leaves it to the local precincts to decide. I disagree with your assesment on chads. Show me where it's written IN FLORIDA LAW. <BR> <BR>What about Bush having LOST HIS OWN COUNTRY? The latest confirmed tally of the popular vote has Gore over Bush by more than 500,000 votes. Hey, I have plenty of friends that voted for Gore, because we know the Bush record first-hand. If the Supreme Court had allowed the Texas standard as stated in the Texas law, all those chads, which only got there by a poke, would have counted. <BR> <BR>A fooish onsistency is the refuge of small minds. Al Gore is off to mend some fences. Bush is gloating in having worked the system to his advantage. Sorry, NO RESPECT IS FORTHCOMING.
Dec 26th, 2000, 08:50 PM
#143
Guest
Posts: n/a
I forgot to address your point that the Fla Supreme Court allowed for hand counts in ALL OF FLORIDA, in in fact agreeing with the common-sense assessment that an election of this magnitude should not be determined by a few counties. But that's precisely the decision that Bush appealed to the US Supreme Court. The Gore camp could have been more vocal about state-wide recounts earlier, I suppose. After all, it was only Al Gore who suggested doing that the day after the election. If the liberal media had picked up on that, maybe there would have been a different outcome. But since no gentlemen's agreement was forthcoming, and since the Florida contest statute sets up a procedure, that's what was in play after it became obvious that Bush, Jeb and the Bush appointee Secretary of State had ABSOLUTELY no intention of conducting a fair state-wide manual count. Like Bush asked for in New Mexico. <BR> <BR>Really, I do worry where some of you get YOUR information.
Dec 27th, 2000, 05:29 AM
#144
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Disagree, <BR> <BR>We won, so get over it already, and enough with the spin. We'll govern while you complain. <BR> <BR>See you in four years, just teach your under or un educated constituancy how to vote. It is obvious that they need more help than just a simple palm card and the instructions to pull the straight Democrat lever! <BR> <BR>As for those in Europe that do not understand why Al Gore lost even though he had more votes, and for those Americans that cannot explain it to them....it's the Electoral College. <BR> <BR>If you do not understand it, find out about it. Sort of like my reading the history of the middle ages before I travel to EWurope so I can enjoy it more! <BR> <BR>Education is a good thing, particularly if you use it!
Dec 27th, 2000, 06:00 AM
#145
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tom, <BR> <BR>"Disagree" has some very good points to be debated and all you can say is "We won, so get over it already, and enough with the spin". You further spread that our party is a "all think alike" heard that only wants to win so we can feel good about ourselves. Nobody wins in that case. Please offer more than a quick response of spin and rhetoric.
Dec 27th, 2000, 09:54 AM
#146
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well I just don't know any other way to say this so I will be blunt. Bush is dumb as a rock and he will be a one term do nothing president. The man is not qualified to be president, he is there only because he and his brother and his brother's mistress stole the election in Florida, and the US Supreme Court is made up of a majority of Republican boot lickers and lackeys. So there I said it and I repeat BUSH SUCKS.
Dec 27th, 2000, 10:31 AM
#147
Guest
Posts: n/a
Would one of you Gore lover's please present to us the evidence that Gore is any more intelligent than Bush. I am not asking for a litany of Gore's ability to memorize disjointed facts, but evidence that the man can actually think. If Gore is so brilliant and Bush so stupid, the presidential debates should have been a blow out for Gore. Obviously, this didn't happen. Maybe your man isn't so bright after all.
Dec 27th, 2000, 01:43 PM
#149
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, Tracy, to actually answer your question: my European friends think that Bush is so incompetent in foreign affairs that the Euro may strengthen, to Europe's advantage. They know that Gore won the most votes, don't understand the use of the electoral college in modern times ('don't they trust the people?'), think Gore was much better qualified to hold the office, and that a Gore presidency would have been better for world affairs in general.
Dec 27th, 2000, 02:17 PM
#151
Guest
Posts: n/a
Someone asked why Gore is considered smarter than Bush. That's easy. When a difficult question is asked, Gore gives an answer that makes sense and that shows a depth of understanding of the issue. As for Bush, he usually makes a joke or says a few vague sentences, suggesting only a superficial understanding of the issue. I'm not talking IQ here. I'm talking about the ability to engage an issue and wrap one's mind around it. Frankly, I don't think Bush is dumb. I <BR>think he's just too lazy to spend the time to get knowledgeable. <BR> <BR>As for why some think Bush "won" the debate, that is because he and his people worked to lower expectations. He said on Letterman that people viewed him favorably because he was able to walk on stage and say his name. Plus, Gore has his famous annoying mannerisms. That's all there was to it.
Dec 27th, 2000, 06:05 PM
#153
Guest
Posts: n/a
I forgot which moron (there are so many to choose from on this thread) made the laughable comment that Gore was busy "mending fences" or some such BS. No, it's more like he's off licking his wounds after making a complete ass out of himself for the past two months, desperately hoping against hope that he hasn't ruined his chances in 2004.
<BR> <BR>
