History of Election Deniers in the Democrat party: 2000 edition

[bmw]

All of you who claim that the phenomenon of "election denial" began with Republicans, you can eff off. This began in 2000. I've rounded up some quotes.

Terry McAuliffe:
1 - "We actually won the last presidential election folks; they stole the last presidential election."

2 - "If all the votes were actually counted in Florida, then Al Gore would be President today and George Bush would be back in Austin."

3 - "If Catherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Jim Baker, and the Supreme court hadn't tampered with the results, Al Gore would be President."

4 - "You know it; I know it; they know it; we won that election."

Joe Biden:
"Al gore won that election."

Al Gore:
"Actually, I think I carried Florida."

Hillary Clinton:
"Bush versus Gore: a court took away a presidency."

Corrine Brown:
1 - "I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat."

2 - "The supreme court selected George W. Bush as the president; he was not elected."

3 - "After the election, when you stole the election, you came back here and said get over it. No, we're not going to get over it."

Jimmy Carter:
1 - "There's no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president."

2 - "I don't think that George W. Bush won the election. in 2000...I think he probably lost Florida and also nationwide."

Maxine Waters:
"I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electoral votes."

Alcee Hastings:
"I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout."

Bill Clinton:
"By the time it was over, our candidate had won the popular vote, and the only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida."

Debbie Wasserman Schultz:
"Al Gore won the state of Florida in 2000, although not the presidency."

Eddie Bernice Johnson:
"There is overwhelming evidence that George W. Bush did not win this election."

Barrack Obama:
"What I observed as a voter, as a citizen of Illinois four years ago were troubling evidence of the fact that not every vote was being counted."

Jamie Raskin:
"The court has been thwarting formation of the popular will, the most spectacular example being Bush versus Gore, where the majority, by a 5-4 vote enjoined the counting of more than a hundred thousand ballots in Florida and essentially gave America its first court-appointed president."

[hanson]

I don't recall any of them staging a violent insurrection.

[Honeyman]

I don't recall any of them staging a violent insurrection.

Me neither.

Also, were these quotes from 2 years after the election in question?

[Rate This]

I don't recall any of them staging a violent insurrection.

Not only that but the Supreme Court DID hand the election to Bush by stopping the recount efforts. Once all of the votes had been recounted Gore likely would have won Florida and with it the presidency. Not only that but many of the Pat Buchanan votes were actually Gore votes… the butterfly ballot design was so bad people couldn’t tell where to punch the hole. So nice try beemer but 2000’s bitter election has no comparison to 2020.

You want a Democrat who has actually never conceded? Stacey Abrams in Georgia in 2018. That’s the ONE example I can think of.

Meanwhile we have Ron Johnson just today saying he will have to “wait and see” what the results are before he can commit to accepting them. In other words “I will accept them if I win”. As an aside Tim Michels who is running for Governor of Wisconsin says he wants to decertify the 2020 results in that state. He cannot do that but still… no Democrats have ever been within a country mile of that sort of thing. Especially not 2 YEARS LATER. Yet we see it over and over again from current Republicans. Get some better ideas and you won’t need to worry about winning by hook or by crook.

[bmw]

I don't see how the timing of the quotes is relevant.

My point here is simply that the left's claim that "election denial" began with Trump Republicans is utter BS.

[Rate This]

I don't see how the timing of the quotes is relevant.

My point here is simply that the left's claim that "election denial" began with Trump Republicans is utter BS.

That was NOT election denial. It didn’t become a cult tenet still carried on 20 years later. Everybody forgot about it by sometime in 2001. They moved on. The other problem is that what they were saying was true. What Trump and company are saying was thrown out of every courtroom they had it heard in and it is STILL A KEY TENET TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR THE PARTY. Apples and hang grenades is what this is.

The timing is absolutely relevant. You are trying to compare the two things and say that the first is the same as the second so Democrats did it first. But again the Democrats had legitimate criticisms based on actual events not made up things designed to keep Trump in office by any means necessary all while he and those around him KNEW he had lost. We still don’t know exactly what happened in Florida in 2000 because they stopped trying to figure it out and Gore conceded for THE GOOD OF THE NATION. There may have been some sour grapes but trying to compare the two events is asinine.

[bmw]

...the Supreme Court DID hand the election to Bush by stopping the recount efforts. Once all of the votes had been recounted Gore likely would have won Florida and with it the presidency.

The Supreme Court stopped the recount because different counties were using different standards, and that was a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Translation: The Supreme Court didn't "hand" anything to anyone; rather, it acted as a referee. When a referee in football makes what you think is a bad call, do you say that the ref "handed" the game to the beneficiary of the bad call?

Bottom line is that if the recounts had been allowed to finish as they were being conducted, THAT would have been unconstitutional, and as such, any recount done in that manner finding Gore the winner would have literally made Gore an illegitimate president.

[bmw]

Everybody forgot about it by sometime in 2001. They moved on.

Uhhh...you might want to reserve judgement on that until after you've read my 2004 thread when I get around to it. There was much of the same in 2004, except focused on Ohio instead of Florida.

That was NOT election denial.

By the left's definition of the phrase (one which as you know I disagree with, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander), that absolutely was election denial. Bush won the election, and Democrats claimed it was stolen from them. Sounds just like Trump's rhetoric to me.

[Rate This]

...the Supreme Court DID hand the election to Bush by stopping the recount efforts. Once all of the votes had been recounted Gore likely would have won Florida and with it the presidency.

The Supreme Court stopped the recount because different counties were using different standards, and that was a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Translation: The Supreme Court didn't "hand" anything to anyone; rather, it acted as a referee. When a referee in football makes what you think is a bad call, do you say that the ref "handed" the game to the beneficiary of the bad call?

Bottom line is that if the recounts had been allowed to finish as they were being conducted, THAT would have been unconstitutional, and as such, any recount done in that manner finding Gore the winner would have literally made Gore an illegitimate president.

So why not have our illustrious referees establish uniform standards? That's what a referee does. They don't go "game over its not fair. Adios!"... They try to figure out what happened so it's correct. There must have been proper standards each county could have used. I also seem to recall it was 5-4... I seem to further recall it was along party lines. None of that is a "gee we know the law better and here's the right answer!" coincidence.

[Rate This]

Everybody forgot about it by sometime in 2001. They moved on.

Uhhh...you might want to reserve judgement on that until after you've read my 2004 thread when I get around to it. There was much of the same in 2004, except focused on Ohio instead of Florida.

That was NOT election denial.

By the left's definition of the phrase (one which as you know I disagree with, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander), that absolutely was election denial. Bush won the election, and Democrats claimed it was stolen from them. Sounds just like Trump's rhetoric to me.

It's not the same thing. Not just in rhetoric which is mild in comparison. No Democrats attempted to weaponize it or galvanize their supporters or encourage them to commit violence or any of the like. So the things Trump is saying are light years away from what the Democrats were saying. You are so desperate to prove your point that you are willing to overlook the differences.

[Honeyman]

Christ, beemer......you'd look like less of a fool if you stayed with the "vaccines don't work" obsesssion.

[bmw]

So why not have our illustrious referees establish uniform standards? That's what a referee does. They don't go "game over its not fair. Adios!"... They try to figure out what happened so it's correct. There must have been proper standards each county could have used. I also seem to recall it was 5-4... I seem to further recall it was along party lines. None of that is a "gee we know the law better and here's the right answer!" coincidence.

LOL, the referee doesn't establish the rules; he/she interprets and applies the rules. Which was exactly what the Supreme Court did. The fact that it was a 5-4 ruling is irrelevant just like again in football, a 21-20 loss is a loss as much as 49-0 loss is a loss.

As to whether there was a "proper" standard each county could have used, that was the fault of the state for not creating one. It also didn't help matters that at least one county (Palm Beach) actually changed their standard several times during the recount.

[bmw]

It's not the same thing. Not just in rhetoric which is mild in comparison. No Democrats attempted to weaponize it or galvanize their supporters or encourage them to commit violence or any of the like. So the things Trump is saying are light years away from what the Democrats were saying. You are so desperate to prove your point that you are willing to overlook the differences.

If you repeat a lie a certain number of times, does it eventually become true? Trump has never once encouraged any of his supporters to engage in violence.

[bmw]

Christ, beemer......you'd look like less of a fool if you stayed with the "vaccines don't work" obsesssion.

I'm foolish for pointing out that Democrats have been at this for 22 years? Again, I have plenty more, these quotes from 2000 are just the beginning.

The problem with your premise is that the claim that Trump staged an insurrection is utter BS. You and I have watched the same video, I believe, so how we each reach such different conclusions as to what Trump said and what he encouraged people to do is beyond me.

[Rate This]

It's not the same thing. Not just in rhetoric which is mild in comparison. No Democrats attempted to weaponize it or galvanize their supporters or encourage them to commit violence or any of the like. So the things Trump is saying are light years away from what the Democrats were saying. You are so desperate to prove your point that you are willing to overlook the differences.

If you repeat a lie a certain number of times, does it eventually become true? Trump has never once encouraged any of his supporters to engage in violence.

The people who went into the capital by force have said under oath that they took his words as marching orders. Don't take it from me or some other liberal. Take it from the people who did it. They are telling you that's what he said. Trump is a man who speaks in dog whistles and subtleties so he can say "I didn't say that!" when the reality is that he blurred the lines in an implication so he can claim innocence. Under oath witnesses who were in the Oval Office while this was going on say he watched with glee at what was happening in his name for god sakes. These are not liberals saying this... these are his staffers. He could shoot your mother in the head in front of you and you would literally find an excuse.... It simply literally does not matter what the man does. You will support him till he dies and laud him for decades after.