You’re mistaken about bush v gore. The Supreme Court gave us bush because gore didn’t want to do a whole state recount (which is what would have been necessary to show that Florida went for him, which it did. the handful of counties they settled on wasn’t enough to change the results by themselves).
Why are you talking about sanders? He’s not running and if he were I wouldn’t vote for him.
Bush defeated Gore in Florida in the final count by 537 votes.
Nader received over 97,000 votes. Had he not been in the race, his supporters would have overwhelmingly preferred Gore to Bush. Yeah, some of them would have chosen not to vote. But even if 99%of them had stayed home, that remaining 1% would have been enough to win Gore the state in a manner that would have kept it from ever going to the Supreme Court.
The Bush administration was a horror show for the US and the world. The economic, diplomatic, environmental, and human cost of it is unimaginable, and people like you are why it happened.
You are, as I have stated several times, mistaken about bush v gore.
Every post-hock review of statewide ballots that I’ve ever heard of has had gore winning by a narrow margin.
Just the butterfly ballots alone would have tilted the pre-recount tally in gores favor.
Nader didn’t give us bush, the Supreme Court and the weak recount of only a few counties did.
Would gore have been significantly different after 9/11? I thought so back then, but now I’m not convinced. The preparations to invade Iraq again were being made during the end of the Clinton administration and there was enough personnel carryover from Clinton to bush that I believe it would have been the same but with different graft.
I asked earlier if people like me were more to blame than non voters, than the parties who failed to convince us or even recognize that they needed us and the administrations who actually perpetuated the myriad war crimes of the bush and Obama administrations. Are we?
Break it down here, what precise volume of Iraqi blood is on my hands?
It never would have reached the point where it went to the Courts if Nader hadn’t run and the recounts not occurred. And the recounts that did occur likely would have turned out differently because Bush would have been further behind in the rest of the state’s numbers.
Nader gave the Court the opportunity to put their thumb on the scale.
Wait, so you think it’s more naders fault than the unjust, undemocratic system that installed bush or the gore campaign for pushing a partial recount open to an equal protection ruling (that’s the bush v gore basis) that it couldn’t even win or for not realizing that it needed left voters and adjusting its platform appropriately?
When is it the fault of the democrats for running a bad campaign? For running on a bad platform?
I’m saying that Nader, knowing full-well he has zero chance of winning, intentionally ran a campaign that could do nothing but harm Al Gore’s campaign and help the GOP.
The Green party did now fandango to the environment in that campaign than can ever be offset by them. They’re an environmentalist party that doomed the planet of of arrogance, stupidity, or duplicity, and I don’t care which. I blame them and anyone who voted for them for the current state of the world that they enabled with their irresponsibility.
Evil people are gonna try to be evil. When there’s an enemy at the gates we need to put aside our minor differences and work together to defeat them, not stab the other guards and let the city get overrun.
I’m no defender of the greens and I don’t think people should vote for them, so please bear that in mind before you read this:
You blame the self proclaimed environmentalist party and their voters, a tiny proportion of the electorate by comparison, for 24 years of the two non environmentalist parties devastating the climate while in power which they reached by receiving in every case several orders of magnitude more votes than the ostensibly environmentalist party did.
You blame them more than the foolishness of the gore campaign for not choosing the full recount it would have won, and the undemocratic system it was operating under for stopping the recount and installing bush.
Do you think that responsibility for the actions of people in power ultimately rests on their shoulders? Do you think that there was some deficit in the gore campaigns environmental policy and that the Green Party shaped itself to fit that niche?
I literally think people shouldn’t vote for the greens though, so why not talk about what I do support, voting psl?
Gore couldn’t do a full recount because there’s a federal deadline (first Tuesday after second weekend of December) by which the delegates must be selected so they can vote for President. That’s what Bush v Gore was about - whether or not the recount could go on past the date the electors were required to select the President. The Court ruled that the election date couldn’t be moved, so the recount couldn’t continue.
The ruling was that to allow only a partial recount (which gore would have lost!) would constitute a violation of the equal protection clause and that because the state couldn’t do a full recount in the three days remaining between when the Supreme Court heard the case and the safe harbor date that the stay would be granted and as a consequence, bush installed.
Once again: do you assign more blame for the events of the last 24 years to the people who voted for the self proclaimed environmentalist party than the major party that didn’t appeal to those voters, the undemocratic systemic failure at the municipal, county, state and federal level, the decisions made by the people in power during those times to perpetrate the actions of this nation and the administrative state actors who went along with them?
If you would prefer not to answer that question:
Why not abandon talking about the greens, a party I do not support or want people to vote for and instead engage with what I do want, for people to vote psl?
You’re mistaken about bush v gore. The Supreme Court gave us bush because gore didn’t want to do a whole state recount (which is what would have been necessary to show that Florida went for him, which it did. the handful of counties they settled on wasn’t enough to change the results by themselves).
Why are you talking about sanders? He’s not running and if he were I wouldn’t vote for him.
Bush defeated Gore in Florida in the final count by 537 votes.
Nader received over 97,000 votes. Had he not been in the race, his supporters would have overwhelmingly preferred Gore to Bush. Yeah, some of them would have chosen not to vote. But even if 99%of them had stayed home, that remaining 1% would have been enough to win Gore the state in a manner that would have kept it from ever going to the Supreme Court.
The Bush administration was a horror show for the US and the world. The economic, diplomatic, environmental, and human cost of it is unimaginable, and people like you are why it happened.
You are, as I have stated several times, mistaken about bush v gore.
Every post-hock review of statewide ballots that I’ve ever heard of has had gore winning by a narrow margin.
Just the butterfly ballots alone would have tilted the pre-recount tally in gores favor.
Nader didn’t give us bush, the Supreme Court and the weak recount of only a few counties did.
Would gore have been significantly different after 9/11? I thought so back then, but now I’m not convinced. The preparations to invade Iraq again were being made during the end of the Clinton administration and there was enough personnel carryover from Clinton to bush that I believe it would have been the same but with different graft.
I asked earlier if people like me were more to blame than non voters, than the parties who failed to convince us or even recognize that they needed us and the administrations who actually perpetuated the myriad war crimes of the bush and Obama administrations. Are we?
Break it down here, what precise volume of Iraqi blood is on my hands?
It never would have reached the point where it went to the Courts if Nader hadn’t run and the recounts not occurred. And the recounts that did occur likely would have turned out differently because Bush would have been further behind in the rest of the state’s numbers.
Nader gave the Court the opportunity to put their thumb on the scale.
Wait, so you think it’s more naders fault than the unjust, undemocratic system that installed bush or the gore campaign for pushing a partial recount open to an equal protection ruling (that’s the bush v gore basis) that it couldn’t even win or for not realizing that it needed left voters and adjusting its platform appropriately?
When is it the fault of the democrats for running a bad campaign? For running on a bad platform?
I’m saying that Nader, knowing full-well he has zero chance of winning, intentionally ran a campaign that could do nothing but harm Al Gore’s campaign and help the GOP.
The Green party did now fandango to the environment in that campaign than can ever be offset by them. They’re an environmentalist party that doomed the planet of of arrogance, stupidity, or duplicity, and I don’t care which. I blame them and anyone who voted for them for the current state of the world that they enabled with their irresponsibility.
Evil people are gonna try to be evil. When there’s an enemy at the gates we need to put aside our minor differences and work together to defeat them, not stab the other guards and let the city get overrun.
I’m no defender of the greens and I don’t think people should vote for them, so please bear that in mind before you read this:
You blame the self proclaimed environmentalist party and their voters, a tiny proportion of the electorate by comparison, for 24 years of the two non environmentalist parties devastating the climate while in power which they reached by receiving in every case several orders of magnitude more votes than the ostensibly environmentalist party did.
You blame them more than the foolishness of the gore campaign for not choosing the full recount it would have won, and the undemocratic system it was operating under for stopping the recount and installing bush.
Do you think that responsibility for the actions of people in power ultimately rests on their shoulders? Do you think that there was some deficit in the gore campaigns environmental policy and that the Green Party shaped itself to fit that niche?
I literally think people shouldn’t vote for the greens though, so why not talk about what I do support, voting psl?
Gore couldn’t do a full recount because there’s a federal deadline (first Tuesday after second weekend of December) by which the delegates must be selected so they can vote for President. That’s what Bush v Gore was about - whether or not the recount could go on past the date the electors were required to select the President. The Court ruled that the election date couldn’t be moved, so the recount couldn’t continue.
The ruling was that to allow only a partial recount (which gore would have lost!) would constitute a violation of the equal protection clause and that because the state couldn’t do a full recount in the three days remaining between when the Supreme Court heard the case and the safe harbor date that the stay would be granted and as a consequence, bush installed.
Once again: do you assign more blame for the events of the last 24 years to the people who voted for the self proclaimed environmentalist party than the major party that didn’t appeal to those voters, the undemocratic systemic failure at the municipal, county, state and federal level, the decisions made by the people in power during those times to perpetrate the actions of this nation and the administrative state actors who went along with them?
If you would prefer not to answer that question:
Why not abandon talking about the greens, a party I do not support or want people to vote for and instead engage with what I do want, for people to vote psl?