He won.
>>18417074uh no he didn't sweatie or else he'd have been president
>>18417074Massive cope and I think Bush deserves to be quatered alive in public.
>>18417074Democrats in 2000:> that chad looks a little pregnant. That means that even though we know how the voter actually voted; I'm still going to say they meant to vote for someone else
>>18417074Why do so many Americans look fucking weird and uncanny. Absolutely repulsive features.
>>18417074The networks called Florida for Gore before polls closed in the Republican-leaning panhandle, suppressing tens of thousands of Bush votes. If anything, Bush's margin in Florida ended up being smaller than it should have been.
>>18417139The exact opposite happened retard. And remind me again which party was terrified of a recount and eventually managed to stop it?
>>18417145bullshit. I remember the 2000 election (and the lawsuits afterwards) very clearly.As for the so-called 'recount'; here's how the dems defined 'recount' in 2000:> we want to recount only those districts where we usually win big> we want to bar the right to recount in districts where we usually lose big> we only want to keep counting until we're in the lead; and then we want to order that all counting stopThe reason SCOTUS stepped in to deal with it is simple: because no state has the right to hold the rest of the Union hostage. If Florida keeps fucking up their elections (which they did, over and over again), that's on them; but they don't get to change the rules after they've lost.That last part is also important. The dems kept arguing (after election day was over), that the rules should be retroactively changed to their advantage; even though they had a chance to complain and resolve the same issues earlier, but chose not to exercise that right.
>>18417151Nice cope.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jucDFrO89Ko>The reason SCOTUS stepped in to deal with it is simpleMan you're so fucking disingenuous. Even assuming Bush did get more votes they only stepped in to hand him the presidency, plain and simple.
>>18417162You call me disingenuous; and yet your reply is from an account whose other works include:> oil is bad> dairy farming is bad> american production badMeanwhile, the whole page is hosted by a person who is far too young to have any living memories of the 2000 election.The reason SCOTUS stepped in is an important principal that has always stood in the US; and that the democrats in Florida (and a few other states) were trying to overturn. It is this....> prior to any election, all sides agree to the ballot and the procedures> once the election starts, those procedures cannot be changed by either side, or by anyone, until the votes are counted, certified, and the election is over.It is set up this way so that no single party in power over multiple levels of election operation can change the rules at the last minute based on trickery.It's also why (in modern days), ballot counting devices are tested and sealed in the presences of witnesses from both sides.What the democrats in Florida in 2000 tried is the same thing that the Democrats of Michigan tired in 1841; when the state election came down to a single district with questionable votes (in that case it was lost and destroyed ballot boxes).
>>18417142anglo dna
muh chadsthey were right to stop the count
>>18417074Was he really that fat as he seems to be on the photo
He should have won but did not. If he had got away with the cheat in FL, his handlers would have owned him. Like Bush's handlers owned him.That said, I should have voted for Gore because we might have got a Trumpier candidate in '96. I withheld my vote in '12 and we now have MAGA
>>18417631>That said, I should have voted for Gore because we might have got a Trumpier candidate in '96. I withheld my vote in '12 and we now have MAGAThere is zero possible timeline where Hillary wins an election to be fair
>>18417074In hindsight, the Bush v. Gore decision seems clearly wrong. First, although it was not discussed in the majority or dissenting opinions, the equal protection challenge was not ripe for review when decided by the Supreme Court. The majority said that counting uncounted votes without preset standards violated equal protection. But that was so only if similar ballots were treated differently. The Florida Supreme Court had created a procedure where one judge was to rule on all of the ballot disputes. If that judge was consistent, then there would be no denial of equal protection. The court, though, stopped the counting before this process could occur. The equal protection challenge would be appropriate to consider only after the ballots had been counted and it could be demonstrated that similar ballots were treated differently.Second, even if there was an equal protection violation, the Supreme Court erred in ending the counting of votes rather than remanding the case to the Florida Supreme Court to decide, as a matter of Florida law, whether to count the uncounted votes or stop the recount. The court said that the Florida Supreme Court had indicated that it wanted to follow the Dec. 12 deadline set by the federal “safe harbor” statute. Since it was Dec. 12, the Supreme Court ordered an end to the counting. But because this was an issue of Florida state law, the court should have remanded the case for the Florida Supreme Court to decide the content of this law under the unprecedented circumstances. The court offered no explanation for why it was not remanding the case to the Florida Supreme Court and effectively bringing the election to a close.
>>18417074You must believe in an parallel universe
