I'm surprised no one has come up with the smoking gun in the new emails...

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

And your point is???? If Gore was President (and should have been, since he won the 2000 election), the war would never have happened. Hillary did not prosecute the war and did not make the horrible executive decisions that Bush and Cheney made. Even your hero Trump is smart enough to know that Bush and Cheney deserve the vast majority of the blame for Iraq.

My point is the war is supposedly such a thing to you, yet you're voting for the only candidate in the election who authorized it. You're a liar, it's just a lame political attack to you.

And how did Gore win? He lost every recount, including the media recount. You're just assuming the four liberal counties would have successfully stolen it?

Yes, she voted for the war and she fucked up. I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter and Clinton definitely isn't my first choice. However, it's pathetic how you dishonest Repugs try to equate her mistake voting for the war with the horrible executive decisions made by Bush and Cheney. There is no comparison between Bush's mistakes and Clinton's mistakes when it comes to Iraq.

You Repugs own the horrible legacy of the Iraq War so quit being little pussies about it and just admit it, like Trump has.

A full recount of Florida was never completed in 2000 because the 5 Republican justices on the Supreme Court stopped the FL recount. This is a historical fact. To this day, a full recount of Florida has never taken place. Gore graciously conceeded because he put his country before himself. Unfortunately, we ended up saddled with Bush, the worst President in history, because of this.

I'm not a Republican, moron. I'm a libertarian.

Wrong as well that it was stopped by 5 Republicans, the vote to stop the recount was 7-2. The 5-4 vote was whether to allow the Florida court to ignore Florida law or not

And wrong again:

Media Recount: Bush Won the 2000 Election

And you keep saying Gore won, what is that based on? There is no objective standard he won.

The Florida Supreme Court did not ignore FL law by allowing the recount. So your spin is nonsense. What the U.S. Supreme Court did was unprecedented -- the U.S. Supreme Court rarely, if ever, involves itself in state election matters. The 5 Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court overstepped their judicial bounds because they wanted Bush in the White House. There was absolutely no legal precedent for the U.S. Supreme Court to involve itself in the Florida recount and their final decision on the matter also had no legal precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court absolutely disgraced themselves in Bush vs Gore.

And there are a bunch of other facts that you conveniently ignore. First of all, 18,000 people did not vote for Pat Buchanan in Palm Beach County. I don't think Buchanan got 18,000 votes in the whole state combined. The people who voted for him in Palm Beach County on that butterfly ballot obviously meant to vote for Gore.

In addition, over 80,000 people (mostly minorities) were illegally prevented from voting in FL because they were purposely and erroneously put on an ex-felon list and these people were not ex-felons. There is indisputable evidence regarding this. Gore easily would have won if these 80,000 people had not been prevented from voting. These are the type of voter suppression tactics that Repugs are quite fond of.

So Gore won because Democrats were too stupid to follow a line to punch the right hole, LOL. That's more funny than anything. And there were a lot of things that happened. The media calling the State when the Republican panhandle was still voting was huge. I a lot of discouraged Republicans left line and went home.

And Florida did have a full recount, it said that W won. It was the sham hand voting the Democrat Election Commissions in four Democrat counties were doing that was a farce.

You'd trust Republicans hand recounting, sure you would.

The machines counted and recounted the votes. Allowing Democrats to keep discovering Democrat votes was a complete farce. And the election laws were created by the legislature and followed by the executive branch. The courts stepped in and ordered without any basis in law to keep counting until enough Democrat votes were discovered to flip the election.

You know, Gore had another way to win. Win his ... wait for it ... home State!



That was classic

Wrong again, there was never a full recount in Florida. You claim to be a libertarian, but you're obviously a Repug in disguise or highly sympathetic to Repugs. And you ignored what I said about the 80,000 people illegally being prevented from voting, like intellectually dishonest Repugs typically do.

See the following link:

The Florida Recount of 2000

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

 

[kaz]

My point is the war is supposedly such a thing to you, yet you're voting for the only candidate in the election who authorized it. You're a liar, it's just a lame political attack to you.

And how did Gore win? He lost every recount, including the media recount. You're just assuming the four liberal counties would have successfully stolen it?

Yes, she voted for the war and she fucked up. I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter and Clinton definitely isn't my first choice. However, it's pathetic how you dishonest Repugs try to equate her mistake voting for the war with the horrible executive decisions made by Bush and Cheney. There is no comparison between Bush's mistakes and Clinton's mistakes when it comes to Iraq.

You Repugs own the horrible legacy of the Iraq War so quit being little pussies about it and just admit it, like Trump has.

A full recount of Florida was never completed in 2000 because the 5 Republican justices on the Supreme Court stopped the FL recount. This is a historical fact. To this day, a full recount of Florida has never taken place. Gore graciously conceeded because he put his country before himself. Unfortunately, we ended up saddled with Bush, the worst President in history, because of this.

I'm not a Republican, moron. I'm a libertarian.

Wrong as well that it was stopped by 5 Republicans, the vote to stop the recount was 7-2. The 5-4 vote was whether to allow the Florida court to ignore Florida law or not

And wrong again:

Media Recount: Bush Won the 2000 Election

And you keep saying Gore won, what is that based on? There is no objective standard he won.

The Florida Supreme Court did not ignore FL law by allowing the recount. So your spin is nonsense. What the U.S. Supreme Court did was unprecedented -- the U.S. Supreme Court rarely, if ever, involves itself in state election matters. The 5 Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court overstepped their judicial bounds because they wanted Bush in the White House. There was absolutely no legal precedent for the U.S. Supreme Court to involve itself in the Florida recount and their final decision on the matter also had no legal precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court absolutely disgraced themselves in Bush vs Gore.

And there are a bunch of other facts that you conveniently ignore. First of all, 18,000 people did not vote for Pat Buchanan in Palm Beach County. I don't think Buchanan got 18,000 votes in the whole state combined. The people who voted for him in Palm Beach County on that butterfly ballot obviously meant to vote for Gore.

In addition, over 80,000 people (mostly minorities) were illegally prevented from voting in FL because they were purposely and erroneously put on an ex-felon list and these people were not ex-felons. There is indisputable evidence regarding this. Gore easily would have won if these 80,000 people had not been prevented from voting. These are the type of voter suppression tactics that Repugs are quite fond of.

So Gore won because Democrats were too stupid to follow a line to punch the right hole, LOL. That's more funny than anything. And there were a lot of things that happened. The media calling the State when the Republican panhandle was still voting was huge. I a lot of discouraged Republicans left line and went home.

And Florida did have a full recount, it said that W won. It was the sham hand voting the Democrat Election Commissions in four Democrat counties were doing that was a farce.

You'd trust Republicans hand recounting, sure you would.

The machines counted and recounted the votes. Allowing Democrats to keep discovering Democrat votes was a complete farce. And the election laws were created by the legislature and followed by the executive branch. The courts stepped in and ordered without any basis in law to keep counting until enough Democrat votes were discovered to flip the election.

You know, Gore had another way to win. Win his ... wait for it ... home State!



That was classic

Wrong again, there was never a full recount in Florida. You claim to be a libertarian, but you're obviously a Repug in disguise or highly sympathetic to Repugs. And you ignored what I said about the 80,000 people illegally being prevented from voting, like intellectually dishonest Repugs typically do.

See the following link:

The Florida Recount of 2000

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

To not be a Republican or a Democrat doesn't mean I agree with Democrats, moron. You're just wrong on this. I think machines should do the counting. I don't trust either side to do hand counts. I'd have opposed hand counting if the situation were reversed too.

So if Gore were up and Republicans were hand counting ballots instead of Democrats, you'd have wanted to let them finish, right?

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

And your point is???? If Gore was President (and should have been, since he won the 2000 election), the war would never have happened. Hillary did not prosecute the war and did not make the horrible executive decisions that Bush and Cheney made. Even your hero Trump is smart enough to know that Bush and Cheney deserve the vast majority of the blame for Iraq.

My point is the war is supposedly such a thing to you, yet you're voting for the only candidate in the election who authorized it. You're a liar, it's just a lame political attack to you.

And how did Gore win? He lost every recount, including the media recount. You're just assuming the four liberal counties would have successfully stolen it?

Yes, she voted for the war and she fucked up. I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter and Clinton definitely isn't my first choice. However, it's pathetic how you dishonest Repugs try to equate her mistake voting for the war with the horrible executive decisions made by Bush and Cheney. There is no comparison between Bush's mistakes and Clinton's mistakes when it comes to Iraq.

You Repugs own the horrible legacy of the Iraq War so quit being little pussies about it and just admit it, like Trump has.

A full recount of Florida was never completed in 2000 because the 5 Republican justices on the Supreme Court stopped the FL recount. This is a historical fact. To this day, a full recount of Florida has never taken place. Gore graciously conceeded because he put his country before himself. Unfortunately, we ended up saddled with Bush, the worst President in history, because of this.

I'm not a Republican, moron. I'm a libertarian.

Wrong as well that it was stopped by 5 Republicans, the vote to stop the recount was 7-2. The 5-4 vote was whether to allow the Florida court to ignore Florida law or not

And wrong again:

Media Recount: Bush Won the 2000 Election

And you keep saying Gore won, what is that based on? There is no objective standard he won.

And your article proves nothing. Did you even read it?? The article admits that BDO Seidman did not conduct a full recount of the entire state. It only recounted 60,000 ballots.

There was a full recount. An unbiased one done by machines.

No one was ever hand counting all the ballots in the State. Why would they do something so ridiculous? Republicans recount Republican counties, Democrats recount Democrat counties. And the winner is the one who cheats the most.

You're a gag. Tell me again you'd be good if Republicans were the ones hand "counting" ballots.

Bob Dole: They aren't counting in there, they are voting

That's right, the voting machines didn't even tabulate 62,000 ballots. So if you put your faith in antiquated voting machines you are a total dumb ass.

 

[kaz]

My point is the war is supposedly such a thing to you, yet you're voting for the only candidate in the election who authorized it. You're a liar, it's just a lame political attack to you.

And how did Gore win? He lost every recount, including the media recount. You're just assuming the four liberal counties would have successfully stolen it?

Yes, she voted for the war and she fucked up. I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter and Clinton definitely isn't my first choice. However, it's pathetic how you dishonest Repugs try to equate her mistake voting for the war with the horrible executive decisions made by Bush and Cheney. There is no comparison between Bush's mistakes and Clinton's mistakes when it comes to Iraq.

You Repugs own the horrible legacy of the Iraq War so quit being little pussies about it and just admit it, like Trump has.

A full recount of Florida was never completed in 2000 because the 5 Republican justices on the Supreme Court stopped the FL recount. This is a historical fact. To this day, a full recount of Florida has never taken place. Gore graciously conceeded because he put his country before himself. Unfortunately, we ended up saddled with Bush, the worst President in history, because of this.

I'm not a Republican, moron. I'm a libertarian.

Wrong as well that it was stopped by 5 Republicans, the vote to stop the recount was 7-2. The 5-4 vote was whether to allow the Florida court to ignore Florida law or not

And wrong again:

Media Recount: Bush Won the 2000 Election

And you keep saying Gore won, what is that based on? There is no objective standard he won.

And your article proves nothing. Did you even read it?? The article admits that BDO Seidman did not conduct a full recount of the entire state. It only recounted 60,000 ballots.

There was a full recount. An unbiased one done by machines.

No one was ever hand counting all the ballots in the State. Why would they do something so ridiculous? Republicans recount Republican counties, Democrats recount Democrat counties. And the winner is the one who cheats the most.

You're a gag. Tell me again you'd be good if Republicans were the ones hand "counting" ballots.

Bob Dole: They aren't counting in there, they are voting

That's right, the voting machines didn't even tabulate 62,000 ballots. So if you put your faith in antiquated voting machines you are a total dumb ass.

So if Gore led and Republicans were hand counting, you'd trust that over impartial machines. Now claiming that's being a total dumb ass.

You are a liar, and a bad one. You supported it because you knew they were voting for Democrats, not because you wanted to know who won

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

Yes, she voted for the war and she fucked up. I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter and Clinton definitely isn't my first choice. However, it's pathetic how you dishonest Repugs try to equate her mistake voting for the war with the horrible executive decisions made by Bush and Cheney. There is no comparison between Bush's mistakes and Clinton's mistakes when it comes to Iraq.

You Repugs own the horrible legacy of the Iraq War so quit being little pussies about it and just admit it, like Trump has.

A full recount of Florida was never completed in 2000 because the 5 Republican justices on the Supreme Court stopped the FL recount. This is a historical fact. To this day, a full recount of Florida has never taken place. Gore graciously conceeded because he put his country before himself. Unfortunately, we ended up saddled with Bush, the worst President in history, because of this.

I'm not a Republican, moron. I'm a libertarian.

Wrong as well that it was stopped by 5 Republicans, the vote to stop the recount was 7-2. The 5-4 vote was whether to allow the Florida court to ignore Florida law or not

And wrong again:

Media Recount: Bush Won the 2000 Election

And you keep saying Gore won, what is that based on? There is no objective standard he won.

The Florida Supreme Court did not ignore FL law by allowing the recount. So your spin is nonsense. What the U.S. Supreme Court did was unprecedented -- the U.S. Supreme Court rarely, if ever, involves itself in state election matters. The 5 Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court overstepped their judicial bounds because they wanted Bush in the White House. There was absolutely no legal precedent for the U.S. Supreme Court to involve itself in the Florida recount and their final decision on the matter also had no legal precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court absolutely disgraced themselves in Bush vs Gore.

And there are a bunch of other facts that you conveniently ignore. First of all, 18,000 people did not vote for Pat Buchanan in Palm Beach County. I don't think Buchanan got 18,000 votes in the whole state combined. The people who voted for him in Palm Beach County on that butterfly ballot obviously meant to vote for Gore.

In addition, over 80,000 people (mostly minorities) were illegally prevented from voting in FL because they were purposely and erroneously put on an ex-felon list and these people were not ex-felons. There is indisputable evidence regarding this. Gore easily would have won if these 80,000 people had not been prevented from voting. These are the type of voter suppression tactics that Repugs are quite fond of.

So Gore won because Democrats were too stupid to follow a line to punch the right hole, LOL. That's more funny than anything. And there were a lot of things that happened. The media calling the State when the Republican panhandle was still voting was huge. I a lot of discouraged Republicans left line and went home.

And Florida did have a full recount, it said that W won. It was the sham hand voting the Democrat Election Commissions in four Democrat counties were doing that was a farce.

You'd trust Republicans hand recounting, sure you would.

The machines counted and recounted the votes. Allowing Democrats to keep discovering Democrat votes was a complete farce. And the election laws were created by the legislature and followed by the executive branch. The courts stepped in and ordered without any basis in law to keep counting until enough Democrat votes were discovered to flip the election.

You know, Gore had another way to win. Win his ... wait for it ... home State!



That was classic

Wrong again, there was never a full recount in Florida. You claim to be a libertarian, but you're obviously a Repug in disguise or highly sympathetic to Repugs. And you ignored what I said about the 80,000 people illegally being prevented from voting, like intellectually dishonest Repugs typically do.

See the following link:

The Florida Recount of 2000

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

To not be a Republican or a Democrat doesn't mean I agree with Democrats, moron. You're just wrong on this. I think machines should do the counting. I don't trust either side to do hand counts. I'd have opposed hand counting if the situation were reversed too.

So if Gore were up and Republicans were hand counting ballots instead of Democrats, you'd have wanted to let them finish, right?

Yes, I would. I'm an American first, Democrat second. If a Republican legitimately won the election, I would not want that person to be cheated out of victory. Unfortunately, this is what happened to Gore in 2000.

And the exit polls also indicated that Gore won, which is more reliable than the jacked-up final vote tally. The exit poll results are why the networks originally called Florida for Gore in the first place.

See the following link:

Unadjusted State Exit Polls Indicate that Al Gore won a mini-landslide in 2000


First there was the 2000 Judicial Coup and then the long-running media con that Bush really did win. Let’s take another look. Al Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 MILLION VOTE MARGIN compared to the 540,000 recorded. There were nearly 6 MILLION UNCOUNTED votes – the great majority were Gore votes.

Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000

 

[kaz]

I'm not a Republican, moron. I'm a libertarian.

Wrong as well that it was stopped by 5 Republicans, the vote to stop the recount was 7-2. The 5-4 vote was whether to allow the Florida court to ignore Florida law or not

And wrong again:

Media Recount: Bush Won the 2000 Election

And you keep saying Gore won, what is that based on? There is no objective standard he won.

The Florida Supreme Court did not ignore FL law by allowing the recount. So your spin is nonsense. What the U.S. Supreme Court did was unprecedented -- the U.S. Supreme Court rarely, if ever, involves itself in state election matters. The 5 Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court overstepped their judicial bounds because they wanted Bush in the White House. There was absolutely no legal precedent for the U.S. Supreme Court to involve itself in the Florida recount and their final decision on the matter also had no legal precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court absolutely disgraced themselves in Bush vs Gore.

And there are a bunch of other facts that you conveniently ignore. First of all, 18,000 people did not vote for Pat Buchanan in Palm Beach County. I don't think Buchanan got 18,000 votes in the whole state combined. The people who voted for him in Palm Beach County on that butterfly ballot obviously meant to vote for Gore.

In addition, over 80,000 people (mostly minorities) were illegally prevented from voting in FL because they were purposely and erroneously put on an ex-felon list and these people were not ex-felons. There is indisputable evidence regarding this. Gore easily would have won if these 80,000 people had not been prevented from voting. These are the type of voter suppression tactics that Repugs are quite fond of.

So Gore won because Democrats were too stupid to follow a line to punch the right hole, LOL. That's more funny than anything. And there were a lot of things that happened. The media calling the State when the Republican panhandle was still voting was huge. I a lot of discouraged Republicans left line and went home.

And Florida did have a full recount, it said that W won. It was the sham hand voting the Democrat Election Commissions in four Democrat counties were doing that was a farce.

You'd trust Republicans hand recounting, sure you would.

The machines counted and recounted the votes. Allowing Democrats to keep discovering Democrat votes was a complete farce. And the election laws were created by the legislature and followed by the executive branch. The courts stepped in and ordered without any basis in law to keep counting until enough Democrat votes were discovered to flip the election.

You know, Gore had another way to win. Win his ... wait for it ... home State!



That was classic

Wrong again, there was never a full recount in Florida. You claim to be a libertarian, but you're obviously a Repug in disguise or highly sympathetic to Repugs. And you ignored what I said about the 80,000 people illegally being prevented from voting, like intellectually dishonest Repugs typically do.

See the following link:

The Florida Recount of 2000

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

To not be a Republican or a Democrat doesn't mean I agree with Democrats, moron. You're just wrong on this. I think machines should do the counting. I don't trust either side to do hand counts. I'd have opposed hand counting if the situation were reversed too.

So if Gore were up and Republicans were hand counting ballots instead of Democrats, you'd have wanted to let them finish, right?

Yes, I would. I'm an American first, Democrat second. If a Republican legitimately won the election, I would not want that person to be cheated out of victory. Unfortunately, this is what happened to Gore in 2000.

And the exit polls also indicated that Gore won, which is more reliable than the jacked-up final vote tally. The exit poll results are why the networks originally called Florida for Gore in the first place.

See the following link:

Unadjusted State Exit Polls Indicate that Al Gore won a mini-landslide in 2000


First there was the 2000 Judicial Coup and then the long-running media con that Bush really did win. Let’s take another look. Al Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 MILLION VOTE MARGIN compared to the 540,000 recorded. There were nearly 6 MILLION UNCOUNTED votes – the great majority were Gore votes.

Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000

Exit polls, LOL. What happened four years later:

The Raw Story | Early exit polls predict Kerry will be victor

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

The Florida Supreme Court did not ignore FL law by allowing the recount. So your spin is nonsense. What the U.S. Supreme Court did was unprecedented -- the U.S. Supreme Court rarely, if ever, involves itself in state election matters. The 5 Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court overstepped their judicial bounds because they wanted Bush in the White House. There was absolutely no legal precedent for the U.S. Supreme Court to involve itself in the Florida recount and their final decision on the matter also had no legal precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court absolutely disgraced themselves in Bush vs Gore.

And there are a bunch of other facts that you conveniently ignore. First of all, 18,000 people did not vote for Pat Buchanan in Palm Beach County. I don't think Buchanan got 18,000 votes in the whole state combined. The people who voted for him in Palm Beach County on that butterfly ballot obviously meant to vote for Gore.

In addition, over 80,000 people (mostly minorities) were illegally prevented from voting in FL because they were purposely and erroneously put on an ex-felon list and these people were not ex-felons. There is indisputable evidence regarding this. Gore easily would have won if these 80,000 people had not been prevented from voting. These are the type of voter suppression tactics that Repugs are quite fond of.

So Gore won because Democrats were too stupid to follow a line to punch the right hole, LOL. That's more funny than anything. And there were a lot of things that happened. The media calling the State when the Republican panhandle was still voting was huge. I a lot of discouraged Republicans left line and went home.

And Florida did have a full recount, it said that W won. It was the sham hand voting the Democrat Election Commissions in four Democrat counties were doing that was a farce.

You'd trust Republicans hand recounting, sure you would.

The machines counted and recounted the votes. Allowing Democrats to keep discovering Democrat votes was a complete farce. And the election laws were created by the legislature and followed by the executive branch. The courts stepped in and ordered without any basis in law to keep counting until enough Democrat votes were discovered to flip the election.

You know, Gore had another way to win. Win his ... wait for it ... home State!



That was classic

Wrong again, there was never a full recount in Florida. You claim to be a libertarian, but you're obviously a Repug in disguise or highly sympathetic to Repugs. And you ignored what I said about the 80,000 people illegally being prevented from voting, like intellectually dishonest Repugs typically do.

See the following link:

The Florida Recount of 2000

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

To not be a Republican or a Democrat doesn't mean I agree with Democrats, moron. You're just wrong on this. I think machines should do the counting. I don't trust either side to do hand counts. I'd have opposed hand counting if the situation were reversed too.

So if Gore were up and Republicans were hand counting ballots instead of Democrats, you'd have wanted to let them finish, right?

Yes, I would. I'm an American first, Democrat second. If a Republican legitimately won the election, I would not want that person to be cheated out of victory. Unfortunately, this is what happened to Gore in 2000.

And the exit polls also indicated that Gore won, which is more reliable than the jacked-up final vote tally. The exit poll results are why the networks originally called Florida for Gore in the first place.

See the following link:

Unadjusted State Exit Polls Indicate that Al Gore won a mini-landslide in 2000


First there was the 2000 Judicial Coup and then the long-running media con that Bush really did win. Let’s take another look. Al Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 MILLION VOTE MARGIN compared to the 540,000 recorded. There were nearly 6 MILLION UNCOUNTED votes – the great majority were Gore votes.

Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000

Exit polls, LOL. What happened four years later:

The Raw Story | Early exit polls predict Kerry will be victor

You obviously don't want to hear this, but Kerry DID win in 2004. And he probably won by a larger margin than Gore did in 2000.

According to the Ohio exit polls, Kerry won Ohio 54% - 45% over Bush in 2004, which would have given the election to Kerry.

Statistical analysis conducted by MIT Professor Steve Freeman shows that I'm correct. He wrote a book called Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? The answer is the 2004 election most certainly was stolen from Kerry. The fact is that Repubs have not legitimately won a presidential election since 1988. And that trend will continue this year.

The United Nations and the media use exit polls to monitor elections in Third World countries because they are 99.9% reliable, much more so than telephone polls and the final vote count. This is how it was determined that the Ukraine election held in Nov 2004 was stolen by Russian sympathizers. The Ukraine election was held a couple of days before the U.S. election in 2004.

 

[kaz]

So Gore won because Democrats were too stupid to follow a line to punch the right hole, LOL. That's more funny than anything. And there were a lot of things that happened. The media calling the State when the Republican panhandle was still voting was huge. I a lot of discouraged Republicans left line and went home.

And Florida did have a full recount, it said that W won. It was the sham hand voting the Democrat Election Commissions in four Democrat counties were doing that was a farce.

You'd trust Republicans hand recounting, sure you would.

The machines counted and recounted the votes. Allowing Democrats to keep discovering Democrat votes was a complete farce. And the election laws were created by the legislature and followed by the executive branch. The courts stepped in and ordered without any basis in law to keep counting until enough Democrat votes were discovered to flip the election.

You know, Gore had another way to win. Win his ... wait for it ... home State!



That was classic

Wrong again, there was never a full recount in Florida. You claim to be a libertarian, but you're obviously a Repug in disguise or highly sympathetic to Repugs. And you ignored what I said about the 80,000 people illegally being prevented from voting, like intellectually dishonest Repugs typically do.

See the following link:

The Florida Recount of 2000

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

To not be a Republican or a Democrat doesn't mean I agree with Democrats, moron. You're just wrong on this. I think machines should do the counting. I don't trust either side to do hand counts. I'd have opposed hand counting if the situation were reversed too.

So if Gore were up and Republicans were hand counting ballots instead of Democrats, you'd have wanted to let them finish, right?

Yes, I would. I'm an American first, Democrat second. If a Republican legitimately won the election, I would not want that person to be cheated out of victory. Unfortunately, this is what happened to Gore in 2000.

And the exit polls also indicated that Gore won, which is more reliable than the jacked-up final vote tally. The exit poll results are why the networks originally called Florida for Gore in the first place.

See the following link:

Unadjusted State Exit Polls Indicate that Al Gore won a mini-landslide in 2000


First there was the 2000 Judicial Coup and then the long-running media con that Bush really did win. Let’s take another look. Al Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 MILLION VOTE MARGIN compared to the 540,000 recorded. There were nearly 6 MILLION UNCOUNTED votes – the great majority were Gore votes.

Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000

Exit polls, LOL. What happened four years later:

The Raw Story | Early exit polls predict Kerry will be victor

You obviously don't want to hear this, but Kerry DID win in 2004. And he probably won by a larger margin than Gore did in 2000.

According to the Ohio exit polls, Kerry won Ohio 54% - 45% over Bush in 2004, which would have given the election to Kerry.

Statistical analysis conducted by MIT Professor Steve Freeman shows that I'm correct. He wrote a book called Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? The answer is the 2004 election most certainly was stolen from Kerry. The fact is that Repubs have not legitimately won a presidential election since 1988. And that trend will continue this year.

The United Nations and the media use exit polls to monitor elections in Third World countries because they are 99.9% reliable, much more so than telephone polls and the final vote count. This is how it was determined that the Ukraine election held in Nov 2004 was stolen by Russian sympathizers. The Ukraine election was held a couple of days before the U.S. election in 2004.

What was funny was your saying you're an American first and a Democrat second ...

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

Wrong again, there was never a full recount in Florida. You claim to be a libertarian, but you're obviously a Repug in disguise or highly sympathetic to Repugs. And you ignored what I said about the 80,000 people illegally being prevented from voting, like intellectually dishonest Repugs typically do.

See the following link:

The Florida Recount of 2000

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

To not be a Republican or a Democrat doesn't mean I agree with Democrats, moron. You're just wrong on this. I think machines should do the counting. I don't trust either side to do hand counts. I'd have opposed hand counting if the situation were reversed too.

So if Gore were up and Republicans were hand counting ballots instead of Democrats, you'd have wanted to let them finish, right?

Yes, I would. I'm an American first, Democrat second. If a Republican legitimately won the election, I would not want that person to be cheated out of victory. Unfortunately, this is what happened to Gore in 2000.

And the exit polls also indicated that Gore won, which is more reliable than the jacked-up final vote tally. The exit poll results are why the networks originally called Florida for Gore in the first place.

See the following link:

Unadjusted State Exit Polls Indicate that Al Gore won a mini-landslide in 2000


First there was the 2000 Judicial Coup and then the long-running media con that Bush really did win. Let’s take another look. Al Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 MILLION VOTE MARGIN compared to the 540,000 recorded. There were nearly 6 MILLION UNCOUNTED votes – the great majority were Gore votes.

Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000

Exit polls, LOL. What happened four years later:

The Raw Story | Early exit polls predict Kerry will be victor

You obviously don't want to hear this, but Kerry DID win in 2004. And he probably won by a larger margin than Gore did in 2000.

According to the Ohio exit polls, Kerry won Ohio 54% - 45% over Bush in 2004, which would have given the election to Kerry.

Statistical analysis conducted by MIT Professor Steve Freeman shows that I'm correct. He wrote a book called Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? The answer is the 2004 election most certainly was stolen from Kerry. The fact is that Repubs have not legitimately won a presidential election since 1988. And that trend will continue this year.

The United Nations and the media use exit polls to monitor elections in Third World countries because they are 99.9% reliable, much more so than telephone polls and the final vote count. This is how it was determined that the Ukraine election held in Nov 2004 was stolen by Russian sympathizers. The Ukraine election was held a couple of days before the U.S. election in 2004.

What was funny was your saying you're an American first and a Democrat second ...

And these type of frivolous, lame replies is how I know you are not a legit libertarian.

I know more than you and I'm smarter than you...and I think that is slowly dawning on you.

 

[leftwinger]

What was missing from Comey's 11 minute rant spelling out exactly all the felonies that the Beasty had done, and the phony reason he could not send up an indictment?

At the time we had mentioned it in several threads in here, but it went nowhere. Since we know that Huma sent many emails between her and Hellery back to her apartment and the shared computer with Carlos Danger, to work on from home. it's only obvious, that some. if not many of those emails spelled out in no uncertain terms that the "INTENT" of having a private server was discussed and the problem, such as ditching the 33,000 emails was the answer.

Check out this Comey video where he says he could not establish intent!!!...I believe he now has that evidence!

Comey: No evidence that Clinton acted with 'necessary criminal intent' - Politico
Politico › blogs › 2016/07 › james-come...
Jul 7, 2016 - FBI Director James Comey declined to comment on Hillary Clinton's assertion that she did not ..

Blah, blah, blah...no one gives a shit except for mentally disturbed Repug dipshits such as yourself. It's sad how much time you've wasted on this email fiasco because of your hatred and obsession with Hillary and liberals in general.

After Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are finally prosecuted for getting over 4,000 brave American soldiers killed in Iraq based on lies about WMDs, then we can discuss Hillary's stupid ass emails. Until then, shove this meaningless crap up your ass.

Nahhh ... you're right.

Who could possibly care that the new president is an enfeebled criminal who intentionally put US secrets at risk, sold access to her office, and continuously lied to the American people?

I would say no one but you mentally disturbed Repugs care. Just like you all didn't care about Bush's far worse crimes...

And there's one inconvenient fact that you deranged fuck holes will obviously continue to ignore -- Hillary has not been charged with a crime, despite countless Congressional Benghazi investigations and an FBI investigation of her emails.

But by all means -- continue to stand in the middle of the road, waving your fists at all the passing cars. It's sad to watch, but entertaining nonetheless.

I cared. I hated it. GWB did not go to destroy and win and get out. He allowed dems to put soldiers at risk! Go hard or not.

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

What was missing from Comey's 11 minute rant spelling out exactly all the felonies that the Beasty had done, and the phony reason he could not send up an indictment?

At the time we had mentioned it in several threads in here, but it went nowhere. Since we know that Huma sent many emails between her and Hellery back to her apartment and the shared computer with Carlos Danger, to work on from home. it's only obvious, that some. if not many of those emails spelled out in no uncertain terms that the "INTENT" of having a private server was discussed and the problem, such as ditching the 33,000 emails was the answer.

Check out this Comey video where he says he could not establish intent!!!...I believe he now has that evidence!

Comey: No evidence that Clinton acted with 'necessary criminal intent' - Politico
Politico › blogs › 2016/07 › james-come...
Jul 7, 2016 - FBI Director James Comey declined to comment on Hillary Clinton's assertion that she did not ..

Blah, blah, blah...no one gives a shit except for mentally disturbed Repug dipshits such as yourself. It's sad how much time you've wasted on this email fiasco because of your hatred and obsession with Hillary and liberals in general.

After Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are finally prosecuted for getting over 4,000 brave American soldiers killed in Iraq based on lies about WMDs, then we can discuss Hillary's stupid ass emails. Until then, shove this meaningless crap up your ass.

Nahhh ... you're right.

Who could possibly care that the new president is an enfeebled criminal who intentionally put US secrets at risk, sold access to her office, and continuously lied to the American people?

I would say no one but you mentally disturbed Repugs care. Just like you all didn't care about Bush's far worse crimes...

And there's one inconvenient fact that you deranged fuck holes will obviously continue to ignore -- Hillary has not been charged with a crime, despite countless Congressional Benghazi investigations and an FBI investigation of her emails.

But by all means -- continue to stand in the middle of the road, waving your fists at all the passing cars. It's sad to watch, but entertaining nonetheless.

I cared. I hated it. GWB did not go to destroy and win and get out. He allowed dems to put soldiers at risk! Go hard or not.

"He allowed dems to put soldiers at risk"...fuck it, I can't respond to these type of moronic infantile comments.

Bush was Commander In Chief, nuff said. The buck stopped with him, so you Repugs need to stop being a bunch of pussies about it.

 

[kaz]

To not be a Republican or a Democrat doesn't mean I agree with Democrats, moron. You're just wrong on this. I think machines should do the counting. I don't trust either side to do hand counts. I'd have opposed hand counting if the situation were reversed too.

So if Gore were up and Republicans were hand counting ballots instead of Democrats, you'd have wanted to let them finish, right?

Yes, I would. I'm an American first, Democrat second. If a Republican legitimately won the election, I would not want that person to be cheated out of victory. Unfortunately, this is what happened to Gore in 2000.

And the exit polls also indicated that Gore won, which is more reliable than the jacked-up final vote tally. The exit poll results are why the networks originally called Florida for Gore in the first place.

See the following link:

Unadjusted State Exit Polls Indicate that Al Gore won a mini-landslide in 2000


First there was the 2000 Judicial Coup and then the long-running media con that Bush really did win. Let’s take another look. Al Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 MILLION VOTE MARGIN compared to the 540,000 recorded. There were nearly 6 MILLION UNCOUNTED votes – the great majority were Gore votes.

Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000

Exit polls, LOL. What happened four years later:

The Raw Story | Early exit polls predict Kerry will be victor

You obviously don't want to hear this, but Kerry DID win in 2004. And he probably won by a larger margin than Gore did in 2000.

According to the Ohio exit polls, Kerry won Ohio 54% - 45% over Bush in 2004, which would have given the election to Kerry.

Statistical analysis conducted by MIT Professor Steve Freeman shows that I'm correct. He wrote a book called Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? The answer is the 2004 election most certainly was stolen from Kerry. The fact is that Repubs have not legitimately won a presidential election since 1988. And that trend will continue this year.

The United Nations and the media use exit polls to monitor elections in Third World countries because they are 99.9% reliable, much more so than telephone polls and the final vote count. This is how it was determined that the Ukraine election held in Nov 2004 was stolen by Russian sympathizers. The Ukraine election was held a couple of days before the U.S. election in 2004.

What was funny was your saying you're an American first and a Democrat second ...

And these type of frivolous, lame replies is how I know you are not a legit libertarian.

I know more than you and I'm smarter than you...and I think that is slowly dawning on you.

You always know when someone knows they aren't that smart when you need to inform people how smart you think you are.

So a libertarian thinks that Democrats won in 2000 and in 2004. So basically libertarians in your world are just another name for Democrat.

I'm not a Democrat. If I thought like you, I'd be a Democrat, moron. And you think you're smart for saying OMG, you disagree with Democrats, that means you're a Republican!

That while you say you're an American first, but I have to pick, so am a Republican or a Democrat? I'm neither. And your view you're smart is just laughable

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

Yes, I would. I'm an American first, Democrat second. If a Republican legitimately won the election, I would not want that person to be cheated out of victory. Unfortunately, this is what happened to Gore in 2000.

And the exit polls also indicated that Gore won, which is more reliable than the jacked-up final vote tally. The exit poll results are why the networks originally called Florida for Gore in the first place.

See the following link:

Unadjusted State Exit Polls Indicate that Al Gore won a mini-landslide in 2000


First there was the 2000 Judicial Coup and then the long-running media con that Bush really did win. Let’s take another look. Al Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 MILLION VOTE MARGIN compared to the 540,000 recorded. There were nearly 6 MILLION UNCOUNTED votes – the great majority were Gore votes.

Twelve states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC NV TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states. Democracy died in 2000

Exit polls, LOL. What happened four years later:

The Raw Story | Early exit polls predict Kerry will be victor

You obviously don't want to hear this, but Kerry DID win in 2004. And he probably won by a larger margin than Gore did in 2000.

According to the Ohio exit polls, Kerry won Ohio 54% - 45% over Bush in 2004, which would have given the election to Kerry.

Statistical analysis conducted by MIT Professor Steve Freeman shows that I'm correct. He wrote a book called Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? The answer is the 2004 election most certainly was stolen from Kerry. The fact is that Repubs have not legitimately won a presidential election since 1988. And that trend will continue this year.

The United Nations and the media use exit polls to monitor elections in Third World countries because they are 99.9% reliable, much more so than telephone polls and the final vote count. This is how it was determined that the Ukraine election held in Nov 2004 was stolen by Russian sympathizers. The Ukraine election was held a couple of days before the U.S. election in 2004.

What was funny was your saying you're an American first and a Democrat second ...

And these type of frivolous, lame replies is how I know you are not a legit libertarian.

I know more than you and I'm smarter than you...and I think that is slowly dawning on you.

You always know when someone knows they aren't that smart when you need to inform people how smart you think you are.

So a libertarian thinks that Democrats won in 2000 and in 2004. So basically libertarians in your world are just another name for Democrat.

I'm not a Democrat. If I thought like you, I'd be a Democrat, moron. And you think you're smart for saying OMG, you disagree with Democrats, that means you're a Republican!

That while you say you're an American first, but I have to pick, so am a Republican or a Democrat? I'm neither. And your view you're smart is just laughable

You're a Repug because you don't care about facts. That's why you are a Repug. Your lame replies are all you got after you've realized you lost the debate.

I don't have to say shit about how I'm smarter than you. You already know it because I just blew you out of the water countless times regarding your factual inaccuracies.

 

[leftwinger]

Bob Dole: They aren't counting in there, they are voting

That is the most interesting quote I have ever seen.

 

[kaz]

Exit polls, LOL. What happened four years later:

The Raw Story | Early exit polls predict Kerry will be victor

You obviously don't want to hear this, but Kerry DID win in 2004. And he probably won by a larger margin than Gore did in 2000.

According to the Ohio exit polls, Kerry won Ohio 54% - 45% over Bush in 2004, which would have given the election to Kerry.

Statistical analysis conducted by MIT Professor Steve Freeman shows that I'm correct. He wrote a book called Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? The answer is the 2004 election most certainly was stolen from Kerry. The fact is that Repubs have not legitimately won a presidential election since 1988. And that trend will continue this year.

The United Nations and the media use exit polls to monitor elections in Third World countries because they are 99.9% reliable, much more so than telephone polls and the final vote count. This is how it was determined that the Ukraine election held in Nov 2004 was stolen by Russian sympathizers. The Ukraine election was held a couple of days before the U.S. election in 2004.

What was funny was your saying you're an American first and a Democrat second ...

And these type of frivolous, lame replies is how I know you are not a legit libertarian.

I know more than you and I'm smarter than you...and I think that is slowly dawning on you.

You always know when someone knows they aren't that smart when you need to inform people how smart you think you are.

So a libertarian thinks that Democrats won in 2000 and in 2004. So basically libertarians in your world are just another name for Democrat.

I'm not a Democrat. If I thought like you, I'd be a Democrat, moron. And you think you're smart for saying OMG, you disagree with Democrats, that means you're a Republican!

That while you say you're an American first, but I have to pick, so am a Republican or a Democrat? I'm neither. And your view you're smart is just laughable

You're a Repug because you don't care about facts. That's why you are a Repug. Your lame replies are all you got after you've realized you lost the debate.

I don't have to say shit about how I'm smarter than you. You already know it because I just blew you out of the water countless times regarding your factual inaccuracies.

You're prancing and declaring your victory because you know it does have to be said ...

And you consider Kerry winning in 04 a "fact?" And you think a libertarian would recognize that? I've never known a libertarian who thought Kerry won in 04. Even Democrats don't claim that. You're so lost in partisan hackery you can't see the light of day

 

[leftwinger]

Bush was Commander In Chief, nuff said. The buck stopped with him, so you Repugs need to stop being a bunch of pussies about it.

I was one "anti-Dem" who was screaming NO! NO! don't go into ME. Not worth it. You won't be able to do it right! stop! don't tie the hands of military. I am on record. and as always, I was proven correct. I am seldom wrong. Of course I have little skin in the game. It is easy to sit out here and play QB.

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

You obviously don't want to hear this, but Kerry DID win in 2004. And he probably won by a larger margin than Gore did in 2000.

According to the Ohio exit polls, Kerry won Ohio 54% - 45% over Bush in 2004, which would have given the election to Kerry.

Statistical analysis conducted by MIT Professor Steve Freeman shows that I'm correct. He wrote a book called Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? The answer is the 2004 election most certainly was stolen from Kerry. The fact is that Repubs have not legitimately won a presidential election since 1988. And that trend will continue this year.

The United Nations and the media use exit polls to monitor elections in Third World countries because they are 99.9% reliable, much more so than telephone polls and the final vote count. This is how it was determined that the Ukraine election held in Nov 2004 was stolen by Russian sympathizers. The Ukraine election was held a couple of days before the U.S. election in 2004.

What was funny was your saying you're an American first and a Democrat second ...

And these type of frivolous, lame replies is how I know you are not a legit libertarian.

I know more than you and I'm smarter than you...and I think that is slowly dawning on you.

You always know when someone knows they aren't that smart when you need to inform people how smart you think you are.

So a libertarian thinks that Democrats won in 2000 and in 2004. So basically libertarians in your world are just another name for Democrat.

I'm not a Democrat. If I thought like you, I'd be a Democrat, moron. And you think you're smart for saying OMG, you disagree with Democrats, that means you're a Republican!

That while you say you're an American first, but I have to pick, so am a Republican or a Democrat? I'm neither. And your view you're smart is just laughable

You're a Repug because you don't care about facts. That's why you are a Repug. Your lame replies are all you got after you've realized you lost the debate.

I don't have to say shit about how I'm smarter than you. You already know it because I just blew you out of the water countless times regarding your factual inaccuracies.

You're prancing and declaring your victory because you know it does have to be said ...

And you consider Kerry winning in 04 a "fact?" And you think a libertarian would recognize that? I've never known a libertarian who thought Kerry won in 04. Even Democrats don't claim that. You're so lost in partisan hackery you can't see the light of day

Yep, it's a fact that Kerry won the 2004 election. The exit polls do not lie. Even Fox News stated at 8 pm on election night 2004 that Kerry was going to win, based on the exit poll results. Most Democrats in Congress know Kerry really won, but they will never publically admit this. Elected Democratic officials are not going to publically admit this because they don't want to undermine our election process, unlike irresponsible and dangerous hacks like Donald Trump. I'm not an elected official, so I don't have to worry about this. Academics like Steve Freeman don't have to worry about this, either.

As for the corporate "liberal" media, they will never publically state this, either. The corporate media will occasionally rock the boat, but they will never declare that the ship is sinking. If the media proclaims that Kerry really did win the 2004 election, then that means the ship is sinking. Rolling Stone is the only major national publication that had the balls to publish the truth about Kerry winning the 2004 election.

 

[kaz]

What was funny was your saying you're an American first and a Democrat second ...

And these type of frivolous, lame replies is how I know you are not a legit libertarian.

I know more than you and I'm smarter than you...and I think that is slowly dawning on you.

You always know when someone knows they aren't that smart when you need to inform people how smart you think you are.

So a libertarian thinks that Democrats won in 2000 and in 2004. So basically libertarians in your world are just another name for Democrat.

I'm not a Democrat. If I thought like you, I'd be a Democrat, moron. And you think you're smart for saying OMG, you disagree with Democrats, that means you're a Republican!

That while you say you're an American first, but I have to pick, so am a Republican or a Democrat? I'm neither. And your view you're smart is just laughable

You're a Repug because you don't care about facts. That's why you are a Repug. Your lame replies are all you got after you've realized you lost the debate.

I don't have to say shit about how I'm smarter than you. You already know it because I just blew you out of the water countless times regarding your factual inaccuracies.

You're prancing and declaring your victory because you know it does have to be said ...

And you consider Kerry winning in 04 a "fact?" And you think a libertarian would recognize that? I've never known a libertarian who thought Kerry won in 04. Even Democrats don't claim that. You're so lost in partisan hackery you can't see the light of day

Yep, it's a fact that Kerry won the 2004 election. The exit polls do not lie. Even Fox News stated at 8 pm on election night 2004 that Kerry was going to win, based on the exit poll results. Most Democrats in Congress know Kerry really won, but they will never publically admit this. Elected Democratic officials are not going to publically admit this because they don't want to undermine our election process, unlike irresponsible and dangerous hacks like Donald Trump. I'm not an elected official, so I don't have to worry about this. Academics like Steve Freeman don't have to worry about this, either.

As for the corporate "liberal" media, they will never publically state this, either. The corporate media will occasionally rock the boat, but they will never declare that the ship is sinking. If the media proclaims that Kerry really did win the 2004 election, then that means the ship is sinking. Rolling Stone is the only major national publication that had the balls to publish the truth about Kerry winning the 2004 election.

So basically counting votes is the worst way to decide an election. Democrat Supreme Courts are better, Democrat Election Commissions are better, and statistical models are better. Counting them, what a stupid way to decide!

You're an American before you're a Democrat. LOL. And I don't agree with you, so I can't be a libertarian. Tell me how smart you again, that was funny ...

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

And these type of frivolous, lame replies is how I know you are not a legit libertarian.

I know more than you and I'm smarter than you...and I think that is slowly dawning on you.

You always know when someone knows they aren't that smart when you need to inform people how smart you think you are.

So a libertarian thinks that Democrats won in 2000 and in 2004. So basically libertarians in your world are just another name for Democrat.

I'm not a Democrat. If I thought like you, I'd be a Democrat, moron. And you think you're smart for saying OMG, you disagree with Democrats, that means you're a Republican!

That while you say you're an American first, but I have to pick, so am a Republican or a Democrat? I'm neither. And your view you're smart is just laughable

You're a Repug because you don't care about facts. That's why you are a Repug. Your lame replies are all you got after you've realized you lost the debate.

I don't have to say shit about how I'm smarter than you. You already know it because I just blew you out of the water countless times regarding your factual inaccuracies.

You're prancing and declaring your victory because you know it does have to be said ...

And you consider Kerry winning in 04 a "fact?" And you think a libertarian would recognize that? I've never known a libertarian who thought Kerry won in 04. Even Democrats don't claim that. You're so lost in partisan hackery you can't see the light of day

Yep, it's a fact that Kerry won the 2004 election. The exit polls do not lie. Even Fox News stated at 8 pm on election night 2004 that Kerry was going to win, based on the exit poll results. Most Democrats in Congress know Kerry really won, but they will never publically admit this. Elected Democratic officials are not going to publically admit this because they don't want to undermine our election process, unlike irresponsible and dangerous hacks like Donald Trump. I'm not an elected official, so I don't have to worry about this. Academics like Steve Freeman don't have to worry about this, either.

As for the corporate "liberal" media, they will never publically state this, either. The corporate media will occasionally rock the boat, but they will never declare that the ship is sinking. If the media proclaims that Kerry really did win the 2004 election, then that means the ship is sinking. Rolling Stone is the only major national publication that had the balls to publish the truth about Kerry winning the 2004 election.

So basically counting votes is the worst way to decide an election. Democrat Supreme Courts are better, Democrat Election Commissions are better, and statistical models are better. Counting them, what a stupid way to decide!

You're an American before you're a Democrat. LOL. And I don't agree with you, so I can't be a libertarian. Tell me how smart you again, that was funny ...

Yep, that's exactly what I said, dipshit. You got no game, no facts, no intellect, just lame sarcasm. I'm done.

 

[kaz]

You always know when someone knows they aren't that smart when you need to inform people how smart you think you are.

So a libertarian thinks that Democrats won in 2000 and in 2004. So basically libertarians in your world are just another name for Democrat.

I'm not a Democrat. If I thought like you, I'd be a Democrat, moron. And you think you're smart for saying OMG, you disagree with Democrats, that means you're a Republican!

That while you say you're an American first, but I have to pick, so am a Republican or a Democrat? I'm neither. And your view you're smart is just laughable

You're a Repug because you don't care about facts. That's why you are a Repug. Your lame replies are all you got after you've realized you lost the debate.

I don't have to say shit about how I'm smarter than you. You already know it because I just blew you out of the water countless times regarding your factual inaccuracies.

You're prancing and declaring your victory because you know it does have to be said ...

And you consider Kerry winning in 04 a "fact?" And you think a libertarian would recognize that? I've never known a libertarian who thought Kerry won in 04. Even Democrats don't claim that. You're so lost in partisan hackery you can't see the light of day

Yep, it's a fact that Kerry won the 2004 election. The exit polls do not lie. Even Fox News stated at 8 pm on election night 2004 that Kerry was going to win, based on the exit poll results. Most Democrats in Congress know Kerry really won, but they will never publically admit this. Elected Democratic officials are not going to publically admit this because they don't want to undermine our election process, unlike irresponsible and dangerous hacks like Donald Trump. I'm not an elected official, so I don't have to worry about this. Academics like Steve Freeman don't have to worry about this, either.

As for the corporate "liberal" media, they will never publically state this, either. The corporate media will occasionally rock the boat, but they will never declare that the ship is sinking. If the media proclaims that Kerry really did win the 2004 election, then that means the ship is sinking. Rolling Stone is the only major national publication that had the balls to publish the truth about Kerry winning the 2004 election.

So basically counting votes is the worst way to decide an election. Democrat Supreme Courts are better, Democrat Election Commissions are better, and statistical models are better. Counting them, what a stupid way to decide!

You're an American before you're a Democrat. LOL. And I don't agree with you, so I can't be a libertarian. Tell me how smart you again, that was funny ...

Yep, that's exactly what I said, dipshit. You got no game, no facts, no intellect, just lame sarcasm. I'm done.

No facts? From the guy who says Kerry won the 2004 election because exit polls were right and counting the votes was wrong? Classic