Another disingenuous characterization. In 2000, there was counting controversy in FL that led to a Supreme Court decision. There was no widespread accusations of rigging across multiple states nor was it the party line that there was widespread fraud after the loss.
Wow. Not sure what this is in response to, but it sure seems like an emotional response that's over the line. Im surprised it is even allowed by the mods. Just sayin'.
As per usual, every time Republicans do it, it's far worse and incomparable to when Democrats do it. This was certainly more extreme of an accusation than the 2000 election, I don't think anybody disagrees with that. But the accusation in effect is the same, "the election was wrongfully decided, my side should have been the winners." They have a far more ambiguous claim in 2016 in saying that basically the Russians stole the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.
A disagreement about a counting controversy ruling is not the same as an accusation of election rigging. Let's add "election rigging" to concepts for which you know little.
But assuming the truth of both, it suggests that the election in question was unfairly decided, correct? I don't see how the "why" it was unfairly decided is so important in making the comparison, apart from political convenience of course.
Oh, you took 8th grade civics. Well then, A. According to the standard as established by this forum, you need to shut up and listen to me. B. You said "it's not practical for every dispute between states to be settled with federal law. That's one of the reasons we have a Supreme Court in our Constitution." Are you saying that the Supreme Court is basically just a third legislator that fills in the gaps for "practicality" purposes? Because if that's what you're saying, you should probably consider revisiting 8th grade civics.
No. Bad logic. Rigging of an election is interference in an election and is a crime. It's unfair to victims and damaging to democracy. Losing an election process issue judgement on merits is fair, if undesired. It an expected potential outcome of a working democracy. Both situations have aggrieved parties but the similarity ends there.
I don't think the issues end there, that's just incorrect. The issue of whether a crime was committed at the end of the day is secondary to who gets to take the White House. Both cases involved allegations that would have wrongfully decided the election. That's what matters. Also, don't Democrats cry like every two seconds over "voter suppression." That's an allegation of election interference that would be criminal. Is that "unfair to the victims and damaging to democracy?"
Gore's actual quote: I'm Al Gore. I used to be the next president of the United States. [laughter]...I don't find that particularly funny. Absolutely nothing about the election being stolen from him. Nothing about fraud, and nothing about the outcome of the election outcome being a sham. What he does next is go over why he doesn't find him not being POTUS and the effect on the environment his election loss had. Gore believes that had he won the election, we would have been in a much better place to combat carbon emissions, global warming, and other environmental issues. Big difference between being upset you lost an election, and the future that was missed out upon because you lost. And Trump's claim that the only way he lost was through fraud, and his belief he should be reinstated as POTUS today.
If you find nothing wrong with Gore's lawsuits, and statements that you just mentioned, and simultaneously believe that anyone who thinks voter fraud decided the 2020 election is a "threat to democracy..." then you're a political hack.
You are impossible. Roe vs Wade was not a law. It was a decision that the Constitution conferred the right to an abortion on a privacy basis. As such, state laws at the time that denied this right were deemed unconstitutional. It is not a law and it is not legislation.
When tens of millions of people, incited by Republican Party leadership, believe that a fairly decided election was 'stolen', yeah, that's a threat to democracy.
I have no problem with Gore's lawsuits. I have no problem with Trump's. This is how our system is set up if you believe you have been wronged in some way. Gore had a legit gripe with the hanging chads and butterfly ballot. Trump? Again, I refer to Bill Barr's statement that all the fraud allegations in 2020 were BS. The difference, again, is Gore conceded. He laments the fact that he lost, and the current state of the environment because he lost. Never once did Gore state that he won, should have been inaugurated, that the courts got it wrong, etc. Now, compare that with Trump, who just last week said he won, and should be reinstated as POTUS. Gore lost, and once the SCOTUS decided and Gore conceded, those who supported him started the grieving process and moved on. Trump and his followers are still beating the fraud drum two years after the election.
Inflation, poverty, open borders, national decline, crime, covering family corruption in Ukraine with a half-baked war designed to degrade Russia but does not? Lies, deceit, betrayal? Right, good one. Liar. Pitiful. Blind. Get a life and a national perspective.
