In 2000 both Bush and Gore challenged the election results.

The press has instantly created what they call a "cherished principle" that candidates accept the election results no matter what!!!! What a brazen lie. Elections get challenged all the time.
 
Desh - 2000 was no more rigged than this year is. You sound just like Trump.

We're a nation of 300 million+. EVERYONE agrees that there is some fraud in every election. There has to be with those kinds of #'s.

It's an incredibly small % of the overall vote, though. There is no systemic rigging of anything. The results of every election are valid & should be accepted.
 
1) Gore and Bush did not challenge the results, they pushed for more accurate results.
2) They did it only after significant irregularities and a super close count.
3) They were not making false, unsubstantiated claims during the months leading up to the election.
4) They were not playing to an angry, paranoid fringe group who believe almost all conspiracy theories if it makes them feel better about their failed lives.

In the end, Gore conceded and accepted the results, even though I think he truly believes he won.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The press has instantly created what they call a "cherished principle" that candidates accept the election results no matter what!!!! What a brazen lie. Elections get challenged all the time.
Click to expand...

They needed an outrage moment in the debate and they did it before thinking. Even some conservative commentators got sucked in with it.

The really outrageous thing last night was Hillary telling the whole world how long POTUS has to change their mind on firing a nuke. But it was Hillary's gaffe and they're on Hillary's side, so yeah, they needed a Trump outrage they could feign hysteria over and give Her Heinous some cover.

It would be amusing but for the fact it's so damned predictable by now.
 
evince said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File



Problems in the cleansing process[edit]
At first, Florida specified only exact matches on names, birthdates and genders to identify voters as felons. However, state records reveal a memo dated March 1999 from Emmett "Bucky" Mitchell, a lawyer for the state elections office who was supervising the felon purge, asking DBT to loosen its criteria for acceptable matches. When DBT representatives warned Mitchell that this would yield a large proportion of false positives (mismatches), Mitchell's reply was that it would be up to each county elections supervisor to deal with the problem.[4]
In February 2001, in a phone conversation with the BBC's London studios, ChoicePoint vice-president James Lee said that the state "wanted there to be more names than were actually verified as being a convicted felon".[5][6]
James Lee's testimony[edit]
On 17 April 2001, James Lee testified, before the McKinney panel, that the state had given DBT the directive to add to the purge list people who matched at least 90% of a last name. DBT objected, knowing that this would produce a huge number of false positives (non-felons).[4]
Lee went on saying that the state then ordered DBT to shift to an even lower threshold of 80% match, allowing also names to be reversed (thus a person named Thomas Clarence could be taken to be the same as Clarence Thomas). Besides this, middle initials were skipped, Jr. and Sr. suffixes dropped, and some nicknames and aliases were added to puff up the list.
"DBT told state officials", testified Lee, "that the rules for creating the [purge] list would mean a significant number of people who were not deceased, not registered in more than one county, or not a felon, would be included on the list. DBT made suggestions to reduce the numbers of eligible voters included on the list". According to Lee, to this suggestion the state told the company, "Forget about it".
"The people who worked on this (for DBT) are very adamant... they told them what would happen", said Lee. "The state expected the county supervisors to be the failsafe." Lee said his company will never again get involved in cleansing voting rolls. "We are not confident any of the methods used today can guarantee legal voters will not be wrongfully denied the right to vote", Lee told a group of Atlanta-area black lawmakers in March 2001.[7]
Errors in the list[edit]
Florida has re-edited its felon list five times since 1998 to correct errors.
The first list DBT Online provided to the Division of Elections in April 2000 contained the names of 181,157 persons. Approximately 65,776 of those included on the first list were identified as felons.
In May 2000, DBT discovered that approximately 8,000 names were erroneously placed on the exclusion list, mostly those of former Texas prisoners who were included on a DBT list that turned out never to have been convicted of more than a misdemeanor. Later in the month, DBT provided a revised list to the Division of Elections (DOE) containing a total of 173,127 persons. Of those included on the "corrected list", 57,746 were identified as felons.
Examples:[citation needed]
Thomas Cooper, Date of Birth September 5, 1973; crime, unknown; conviction date, January 30, 2007
Johnny Jackson Jr., Date of Birth, 1970; crime, none, mistaken for John Fitzgerald Jackson who was still in his jail cell in Texas
Wallace McDonald, Date of Birth, 1928; crime, fell asleep on a bus-stop bench in 1959
Reverend Willie Dixon, convicted in the 1970s at the latest; note, received full executive clemency
Randall J. Higginbotham, Date of Birth, August 28, 1960; crimes, none, mistaken for Sean David Higginbotham, born June 16, 1971
Reverend Willy D. Whiting Jr., crime, a speeding ticket from 1990, confused with Willy J. Whiting who have birthdays 2 days
Click to expand...

THEY DISENFRACHISED THOUSANDS OF BLACK VOTERS
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
They needed an outrage moment in the debate and they did it before thinking. Even some conservative commentators got sucked in with it.

The really outrageous thing last night was Hillary telling the whole world how long POTUS has to change their mind on firing a nuke. But it was Hillary's gaffe and they're on Hillary's side, so yeah, they needed a Trump outrage they could feign hysteria over and give Her Heinous some cover.

It would be amusing but for the fact it's so damned predictable by now.
Click to expand...

Quite a few conservatives & GOP politicians, as well.

It's not a false outrage moment. You have a candidate for President being flippant about the idea of accepting election results. There are VERY strong reasons why the losing candidate in every election concedes and calls the winner.

I mean, to not understand that is to not understand anything in politics. Trump is playing w/ fire.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
They needed an outrage moment in the debate and they did it before thinking. Even some conservative commentators got sucked in with it.

The really outrageous thing last night was Hillary telling the whole world how long POTUS has to change their mind on firing a nuke. But it was Hillary's gaffe and they're on Hillary's side, so yeah, they needed a Trump outrage they could feign hysteria over and give Her Heinous some cover.

It would be amusing but for the fact it's so damned predictable by now.
Click to expand...

You don't think the world didn't already have a good guess at that? Do you think she told the exact amount of time or an aprox that most already knew?
 
Jarod said:
You don't think the world didn't already have a good guess at that? Do you think she told the exact amount of time or an aprox that most already knew?
Click to expand...

You and the media clearly don't realize the extent of your bias. She said there was an hour to call off a strike. It was a bigger WTF?! Moment than Trump musing that he would wait and see about conceding a loss. Bigger by miles, because it involves national security.

But it was Hillary, so it's no biggie.
 
Btw, add this to a long list of the media *purposefully* mischaracterizing Trump. Trump didn't say he wouldn't concede the election. He said he'd wait and see. It could be like 2000, who knows.

Assuming he loses.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Btw, add this to a long list of the media *purposefully* mischaracterizing Trump. Trump didn't say he wouldn't concede the election. He said he'd wait and see. It could be like 2000, who knows.

Assuming he loses.
Click to expand...

There was an audible gasp in the audience as soon as he said it, and immediate tweets from conservatives - including Laura Ingraham.

Enough of this "the media did it" narrative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top