When you give electoral votes to the person who didn't genuinely win them as George W. Bush did not, and you declare the winner to be the guy who had less American votes, and whose brother happens to be the governor of a state in which the police harassed voters who would be more likely to vote for the other guy and in which the Registrar of Voters was a campaign contributor who was backed by the Republican Party to run for election later....it's fairly obvious Bush lost.
The Supreme Court should have had ALL the votes recounted in ALL the districts. Then we'd have no dispute. Gore would be president and America would be better off. Gore wouldn't have started an unconstitutional war, spent nearly a trillion dollars on it, and he would have even spent less money on social welfare programs than Bush. America and the world would be safer and more than 2,321 Americans would be alive and more than 16,653 wouldn't be injured or crippled. The world would have a better opinion of America. --- In [email protected], "Geof Gibson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If the supreme court ruled in favor of Gore, we'd have a > > democratically elected president, and the electoral college would > > still have counted because Gore won the electoral votes too. > > > > Ah, I see. The Supremes vote for Gore, and give him the electoral > votes, and that's a democratically elected President. But when they > vote for Bush, and award HIM the electoral votes, that is somehow > different, thereby being illegitimate. > > Sounds like selective jurisprudence. Something we need a lot less of. > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
