Recount - 2000 presidential election

[ScottotD]

Don't Freemasons and the Skulls pick your president now anyway?

[Judge Ito]

You forgot to mention the Freemasons and the Illuminati and whoever the Cigarette Smoking Man worked for.

Which part baffled you.  I will explain it.

[daltysmilth]

No, I understood everything you said, it's just that it's the same tired conspiracy theories I've heard before.

[bettertomorrowamy]

No, I understood everything you said, it's just that it's the same tired conspiracy theories I've heard before.

Except it's the reality of how the two-party system works.

[dalem]

I just saw Recount on HBO, a docudrama about the recounts in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.  The cast they were able to get was surprising; Kevin Spacey, Dennis Leary,Tom Wilkinson, and it wasn't put together too poorly either, though the content and placing all of the different talking points into context is what made it interesting. 

But after noticing the liberal slant the film takes, I wanted to give the other side a chance.  Is there anyone in here that feels there was nothing wrong with how Bush won?  I personally don't see any reason to disagree with the film, and I know this isn't exactly the place to search for Bush support, but I trust most people here, and if some one happens to believe Gore's camp made a big deal out of nothing, then I'd like to hear about it.

If there is no debate about the movie then this thread will die and that'll be fine.  But it's definitely worth a watch if you don't know much about the controversy and don't mind a slightly liberal perspective.

Every count after the fact showed a tiny but clear Bush victory, no matter what HBO decided to say.  And remember that Gore brought the initial suit to have the recount done his way, the Florida Supreme Court okayed it, and the Supreme Court only stepped in because Bush's lawyers felt, that it was inappropriate for the Presidency to be decided by a State court.  As it happened SCOTUS agreed.  End of story.

-dale

[bettertomorrowamy]

Kinda strange for states' rights people to believe that a state's own election can't be handled by the state itself. 

[daltysmilth]

No, I understood everything you said, it's just that it's the same tired conspiracy theories I've heard before.

Except it's the reality of how the two-party system works.

I assume you have evidence to back that claim up.  

[bettertomorrowamy]

No, I understood everything you said, it's just that it's the same tired conspiracy theories I've heard before.

Except it's the reality of how the two-party system works.

I assume you have evidence to back that claim up.  

What do you need evidence for?  You don't believe that Super-delegates have ultimate authority in picking our candidate in the party?  That money is funneled to those candidates that the party higher-ups believe have a better chance of winning the nomination?  If you follow where the party establishment spends the money, you will see who they want you to be able to vote for.  The only reason Hillary is still in the race, to the degree she is, is because she has connections.  People in the hierarchy are still willing to throw money at her. 

I don't know how much more info you need from me.  Do your own research.  Follow the money.  It's even worse in the Republican party.

[Raven]

  I hate to bring the Hitler fallacy into play, but the fact is that Hitler was very popular when he was elected. 

Hitler always had the highest vote total, but he never won with a majority.  It was always 45% or below every time they had a vote giving him more power. 

Just sayin'.

[Ortega]

while i have no actual evidence, it very apparent that with the huge media presence today, with networks, cable stations and the like, only the parties and the canidates with the most money can even afford to have a chance in the presidential election.  That just so happens to at the present time the Democratic and Republican parties.  i can view with a rational mind little social clubs like The Freemasons and the Skulls for what they are, a glorified fraternity for Ivy League bluebloods and the spawn of old money.  While there isn't the cloak and dagger, secret meeting , "we're-going-to-chose-who-gets-to-be-president-and-the-unwashed-filth-can-go-eat-cake" type deals, a grouping of of that many people, who, being Ivy Leauge educated, would naturally have the finacial and personal connections to be able to either run or influence who runs for president.

[daltysmilth]

Okay, thank you Ortega.  That actually makes sense.

[Tripe]

Not The Skulls, unless Pacey is really the evil mastermind behind all politics (and since he doesn't have much acting work these days I suppose he has the free time), Skull and Bones.

Ones a real fraternal organisation the others a fictionalised version of it.

Oh and Bohemian Grove and the Bilderbergs all do exist but they're less mysterious if one understands how networking works. Much like Ortega described. Networking ultimately is a way to reap the benefits of Nepotism without the need for a blood link.

[anais.jude]

Not The Skulls, unless Pacey is really the evil mastermind behind all politics (and since he doesn't have much acting work these days I suppose he has the free time),

I'm okay with Pacey choosing my president!

Hooray for Dawson's Creek jokes!

Moving on...
The electoral system seems like total bullshit. The bigger the state, the more electoral votes, how is that different than the big states winning with the popular vote.
Maybe they should have the presidental canidadtes play aa game of risk. whoever winse, gets to be president. i think that would be a better system.
And bush would have lost that way 

[Raven]

The argument that a popular election would only have the candidates campaigning in bigger states while true, isn't any different than the way the elections work now.  Candidates only campaign in states where the vote is close enough to go either way.  There's a reason all the campaigning is done in 17 states and not the other 33. 

[dalem]

Kinda strange for states' rights people to believe that a state's own election can't be handled by the state itself. 

But it's a federal election the state was participating in.

-dale