Do you think 2000 debacle gives us a better shot in court this time?

[VTGold]

Do you think the fact that "we" walked away and tried to "move on" in 2000 gives us any leverage this time?

[RoeBear]

1. Short answer...

...No!

[gumby]

2. No

In fact, 2000 made everything from that point on more difficult.

There are no political solutions now.

[catnhatnh]

3. Nope...

...last time we had three aces and they beat us with four...this time we're holding four aces and they'll act just as innocent when they "beat us" with five...

[forgethell]

11. Wild cards!!

We playing deuces wild or with a joker??

[dkofos]

4. Hell no

Add to the fact nothing was done in 2002 either.
How do you figure walking away, moving on gives us any leverage??

I just don't understand what you are getting at.

:mad: :mad:

[genieroze]

5. Bawhahahaha, NO!!!! eom

[bemis12]

6. How do you figure we "walked away"?

Seems to me as if we stayed after it until forced away by the SC.

[gumby]

7. Not ONE Democratic Senator would join the House

Democrats to contest the electors. If they had done that, Bush would still have "won," but in a Constitutional process that would have made clear to the public that Bush had "won" through "partisan politics," not the will of the voters.

Because the Dem Senators refused to protest, their silence made the unSupreme Court's decision look "valid" and "legal."

[shraby]

8. Gore told them not to join the protest.

[greatscott15]

9. Gotta Move on Folks

I am sad to say, but time to focus on 2006 and 2008.

[gumby]

14. I am sad to say

that I don't think 2006 or 2008 will be any different. How are you going to overcome the fraudulent voting machines and the corpro-fascist media?

With their one-party-state, the Repubs will be working overtime to defund the Democrats. That's what "tort reform" is all about and they have many, many more of these schemes.

[forgethell]

10. Oh, c'mon!!

We didn't 'move on". We got our butts kicked in court. We've been bitchin' about it ever since. Concentrate on 2008, 'cause the election, fraud or not, will not be overturned in court.

[gumby]

12. 2000 was a coup d'etat, not a court case.

Elites who stage successful coups do not allow real elections (see election 2004). 2008 will be no different. The Coupsters will have 4 more years to further perfect their election stealing.

[forgethell]

15. Not going to play

silly semantics games with you. The original post was asking if we had any leverage in court because we 'moved on'. I say we got our butts kicked in court, which we did. And have whined about it ever since instead of using our energy to ensure a clean election. Coup or no coup, the action occurred in the courts. If it hadn't gone to court, Bush* would have won. It went to court, and he still won. Maybe we don't think it right, or fair, but once it went to court, at all, did anyone think the USSC would not be the final authority?? I didn't think so.

For many years, liberals have lived by the courts, this time we died by the courts. But the American system is still strong, and still pretty fair. Fraud, to a greater or lesser degree has always been a part of the election system here, and everywhere else. Democrats have been as guilty as Republicans over the years. Just because we lost is no evidence that the election was rigged. I would like to see some. I would love to get Kerry in. But it's just not going to happen.

[gumby]

18. I disagree with everything.

First of all, I don't consider the Un-Constitutional actions by the Un-Supreme Court "silly semantics games."

IF the votes in Florida had been counted, GORE would be president. What the USSC did was unconstitutional and their action was against the "conservative" values that they have touted as forming their core principles. The USSC was part and parcel of the coup. I don't think you can separate the two.

The USSC was NOT the final authority. Democratic House members were trying to challenge the electors. Democratic Senators refused to join them.

It seems that you consider what happened in 2000 as some kind of "other side" equation: well, everybody does it; and well, liberals use the court too. Using the 'other side' as an argument is questionable and has little vallidity.

Furthermore, for me, 2000 demonstrated that the American system is dramatically broken. 2004 demonstrated that it is broken beyond repair.

The many, many people who worked to ensure a "clean election" were mowed over by the Coupsters as surely as they will be in the future.

The evidence of disenfranchisement in minority communities is overwhelming. The circumstantial evidence of country-wide machine fraud is very strong. You will never see this evidence proven in court because any evidence will never get that far..... the partisan court will prevent it.

Finally, recognizing the death of democracy is not whining.

[IndyPriest]

13. One SMALL possibility...

I have hear that Sandra O'Connor has expressed some "buyer's remorse" over the Supremes installing Bush. When Arnebeck's suit get there - and it certainly will - there is a SMALL possibility that O'Connor may listen to the suit with different ears than she wore in 2000.

[Quakerfriend]

16. You are so right Indy!

And, I've heard that this may be one of the reasons that she has not yet retired....despite talking about it more that 4 years ago.

[lessthanjake]

17. No becuase we have no chance

its that simple.