Carter speaks out. Good for him. Good for us.

[pattylou]

We all (all who have followed the story) know that Gore won in 2000. What is newsworthy is that former President Carter said this as well, with some other strong comments directed at the Supreme court and elections in general.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Carter_says_Gore_won_2000_el_0922.html

Incidentally, Carter and Baker have recently made their official recommendations for election reform across the country.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is what really gets to me about the last election: Many of those who supported Bush don't care how or if he won. This is why I see the election as a failure of the American people, and not just a failure of the system.

Note that Walter Cronkite also said that we need a new election.

 

[russ_watters]

We all (all who have followed the story) know that Gore won in 2000.

Won what...? Did he enter some kind of contest that didn't make the news?

I'm sorry elections don't work the way you want them to in the US, guys, but you'll need to get a Constitutional Amendment passed if you want that to change.

 

[pattylou]

Well, you know, they *like* him. That's good enough to vote for him and to ignore the occasional lack of integrity. </sarcasm>

 

[pattylou]

Won what...? Did he enter some kind of contest that didn't make the news?

? I don't follow your comments Russ. But I am glad you found something to laugh about.

Regards,
Patty

p.s. You can see what it is that he won if you click on the link. That's the underlined blue text in the initial post, in case you're wondering.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

and Russ, you're at the top of my list.

 

[russ_watters]

? I don't follow your comments Russ. But I am glad you found something to laugh about.

Regards,
Patty

p.s. You can see what it is that he won if you click on the link. That's the underlined blue text in the initial post, in case you're wondering.

Well, Carter said two things in the link: First that

He received the most votes nationwide...

Which we all know is utterly meaningless, unless you want to get that Constitutional Amendment that I mentioned.

Second:

...and in my opinion, he also received the most votes in Florida...

I'm glad he said it's his opinion, so we can be sure he knows it isn't a fact. Why is it not a fact? Because Bush did get more votes than Gore did in Florida. Now we know that his opinion comes from the speculation that had some different counting criteria been used, Gore could have come out on top, but speculation is not reality. The reality is that Gore did not come out on top. Gore did not win the election.

Heck, guys, I'll even accept saying 'the votes should have been tallied differently and if they had been, Gore would have' won the election. Saying...

There’s no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president."

...is straightforwardly factually wrong and just makes him look like a crackpot.

and Russ, you're at the top of my list.

And honored to be there. I take pride in being one of the few voices of reason in an otherwise Michael Moore-ish ultra-hippie mud party of a forum.

edit: actually, I guess what you meant was that I supported Bush. On a de facto basis, I guess I do support him since I voted for him twice. But in both cases, it really was a lesser of two evils thing: my personal opinion of him has always been negative.

And as for Mr. Carter himself: he's a disgrace. Not even Clinton is stooping to the lows Carter has in playing partisan politics since leaving office.

 

[russ_watters]

To pre-empt the enevitable path that this thread is going to take, the difference between saying "Gore should have won the election" and "Gore won the election" is significant. One is an opinion, the other is an inaccurate statement of fact.

The 2000 election was decided (probably - we don't know for sure what would have happened had Gore won his court cases) on a judgement call by the US Supreme Court. Examples of similar things abound in sports. A near perfect example is the 1972 Olympic basketball gold medal game. In this case, even, the judges were 3 eastern and 2 western! The losers refuse to accept the loss and to this day have not claimed their medals (actually, that's different from the 2000 election - Gore did accept that he lost, it is only some left-wing crackpots who don't). But the Soviets did get their medals and the history books record them as the winner. Whether the judges decided right or wrong only matters for who should have won, it doesn't change the fact that the Soviets did win.

The belief that Gore should have won the 2000 election is an opinion and everyone is welcome to their opinion.

The belief that Gore did win the 2000 election is a DELUSION.

delusion - 3. Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

 

[TRCSF]

To pre-empt the enevitable path that this thread is going to take, the difference between saying "Gore should have won the election" and "Gore won the election" is significant. One is an opinion, the other is an inaccurate statement of fact.

The 2000 election was decided (probably - we don't know for sure what would have happened had Gore won his court cases) on a judgement call by the US Supreme Court. Examples of similar things abound in sports. A near perfect example is the 1972 Olympic basketball gold medal game. In this case, even, the judges were 3 eastern and 2 western! The losers refuse to accept the loss and to this day have not claimed their medals (actually, that's different from the 2000 election - Gore did accept that he lost, it is only some left-wing crackpots who don't). But the Soviets did get their medals and the history books record them as the winner. Whether the judges decided right or wrong only matters for who should have won, it doesn't change the fact that the Soviets did win.

The belief that Gore should have won the 2000 election is an opinion and everyone is welcome to their opinion.

The belief that Gore did win the 2000 election is a DELUSION.

Well, I'm glad you can admit that Bush stole his way into the White House via biased judges the way the Soviets stole the olympic gold medal.

That's a start.

 

[Informal Logic]

This is what really gets to me about the last election: Many of those who supported Bush don't care how or if he won. This is why I see the election as a failure of the American people, and not just a failure of the system.

Note that Walter Cronkite also said that we need a new election.

Absolutely true, and I agree. For example, after the election I expressed disdain for the fundamentalists who endorsed candidates from the pulpit and encouraged block voting. Some relations who are devout Christians reassured me they did no such thing. So I asked, "Yes but are you condemning those who did?" No, because in their hearts they were praying he would win no matter how.

We have covered problems with the 2000 and 2004 elections in this forum, and it should be clear by now that we need reforms. If you catch someone cheating, it does not mean you are a sore loser. And like the "nuclear option" these devices will likely be used by your opponents in the future--not smart.

 

[Informal Logic]

To pre-empt the enevitable path that this thread is going to take, the difference between saying "Gore should have won the election" and "Gore won the election" is significant. One is an opinion, the other is an inaccurate statement of fact.

The 2000 election was decided (probably - we don't know for sure what would have happened had Gore won his court cases) on a judgement call by the US Supreme Court. Examples of similar things abound in sports. A near perfect example is the 1972 Olympic basketball gold medal game. In this case, even, the judges were 3 eastern and 2 western! The losers refuse to accept the loss and to this day have not claimed their medals (actually, that's different from the 2000 election - Gore did accept that he lost, it is only some left-wing crackpots who don't). But the Soviets did get their medals and the history books record them as the winner. Whether the judges decided right or wrong only matters for who should have won, it doesn't change the fact that the Soviets did win.

The belief that Gore should have won the 2000 election is an opinion and everyone is welcome to their opinion.

The belief that Gore did win the 2000 election is a DELUSION.

From that link, here are quotes from Carter, who is respected worldwide and often monitors elections in other countries:

There is "no doubt in my mind that Gore won the election," the erstwhile President declared, saying the 2000 election process "failed abysmally."

He also snubbed the Supreme Court for getting involved, saying it was "highly partisan."

Someone beat you to it, and posted this in the comments in that link:

Hahaha cry me a river. So what if Gore won? I still got my boy in the big White crib! (twice! hehe)
Karl Rove

 

[Pengwuino]

This is what really gets to me about the last election: Many of those who supported Bush don't care how or if he won. This is why I see the election as a failure of the American people, and not just a failure of the system.

Actually I think what you meant to say was that many of those who supported Kerry didn't care how or if he would have won. The same idiots claiming Gore should have won in 2000 because of the popular vote were saying Kerry should of won no matter what the popular vote turned out to be (and oddly enough, our system doesn't give a rats behind about popular vote for the presidential election). I find it odd that a rather scary that the democrats... with a relatively good # of candidates... ended up chosing this goofball Kerry to push during the primaries. Am I the only one who thinks the dems didn't want to even win 2004 (I believe they wanted to run Hilary in 08 without having to face a democrat incumbant). Their campaign was pretty much a hint to that idea as well. Almost entirely composed of Bush bashing/lieing about Bush. Most democrats I talked to barely knew how to spell Kerry's name but the hell if they weren't going to vote for him.

But that's just my theory.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Actually I think what you meant to say was that many of those who supported Kerry didn't care how or if he would have won. The same idiots claiming Gore should have won in 2000 because of the popular vote were saying Kerry should of won no matter what the popular vote turned out to be (and oddly enough, our system doesn't give a rats behind about popular vote for the presidential election). I find it odd that a rather scary that the democrats... with a relatively good # of candidates... ended up chosing this goofball Kerry to push during the primaries. Am I the only one who thinks the dems didn't want to even win 2004 (I believe they wanted to run Hilary in 08 without having to face a democrat incumbant). Most democrats I talked to barely knew how to spell Kerry's name but the hell if they weren't going to vote for him.

But that's just my theory.

Why do you presume to know what Ivan meant? Where have you read that Kerry supporters didn't care about the popular vote (source please)? "Their campaign was...Almost entirely composed of Bush bashing/lieing about Bush." Not only was it the other way around, but you misspelled a few words. How about you stop trolling out your misinformed theories?

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I'm glad you can admit that Bush stole his way into the White House via biased judges the way the Soviets stole the olympic gold medal.

That's a start.

I'm not a big fan of people misquoting me, TRSCF. Its pretty much a form of lying.

 

[SOS2008]

- Gore did accept that he lost, it is only some left-wing crackpots who don't).

Some candidates believe our democratic system and a united nation are more important than their own political gain. While others only care about power and think unity is Bush*t. Many well educated, informed and likewise prominent people believe the election was stolen from Gore, and I would hardly refer to these people or Carter as crackpots.

 

[pattylou]

I wouldn't call Bill Clinton a crackpot either.

Speaking on Tuesday in Chicago, Bill Clinton made a remarkable statement for an outgoing president. In an off-the-cuff comment during a speech to Democratic Party supporters he acknowledged that George W. Bush and the Republicans, with the assistance of the US Supreme Court, stole the presidential election.

“By the time it was over,” Clinton said, “our candidate had won the popular vote, and the only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida.” Speaking to reporters following the event he added that the Democrats “ran the first presidential campaign that was so clearly winning, a court had to stop the vote in order to change the outcome.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jan2001/clin-j13.shtml

No doubt the fact that these quotes are from the "World Socialist Web Site" will paint me as a crackpot, however. I'd like to point out that whether I am a crackpot or not (I'm not), has no bearing on whether Clinton, like Carter, and other people from *both* sides of the country, believe that Bush was not elected. Russ, your comment that only "crackpots" believe the election was stolen, is simply wrong.

It angers me because of the height of hypocrisy of Bush claiming to spread freedom and democracy. Still, I recognize that this discussion is not likely to be very productive.

 

[SOS2008]

I wouldn't call Bill Clinton a crackpot either.



http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jan2001/clin-j13.shtml

No doubt the fact that these quotes are from the "World Socialist Web Site" will paint me as a crackpot, however. I'd like to point out that whether I am a crackpot or not (I'm not), has no bearing on whether Clinton, like Carter, and other people from *both* sides of the country, believe that Bush was not elected. Russ, your comment that only "crackpots" believe the election was stolen, is simply wrong.

It angers me because of the height of hypocrisy of Bush claiming to spread freedom and democracy. Still, I recognize that this discussion is not likely to be very productive.

This term is frequently used to discredit opposing views when more substantive evidence is lacking:

Usage of the label is often subjective, with proponents of competing theories labeling their opponents cranks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackpot_(person)