yet have never accepted that they were defeated in 2000. Can you honestly hold open debate with someone who still claims Bush stole the 2000 election. Our Supreme Court backed by the US constitution concluded that Bush won. This was before Bush appointed any judges. That is how our government works.
2007-07-12 09:29:28 · 19 answers · asked by mbush40 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Roscoe...I got your loser boy.
2007-07-12 09:36:23 · update #1
Nick F...you might tell that to Harry Reid.
2007-07-12 09:37:05 · update #2
They are used to defeat.
2007-07-12 10:28:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
not being an american, We have always counted all the votes, and if there was a dispute you counted them again. 2000's election did not count the votes, the supreme court stopped the count. If Bush thought he had won he would have not taken it to the supreme court which was republican leaning. It was so bad that they did not allow the votes to be counted even after he had been appointed. We wont even talk about the republican owned Daboldt voting machines in Ohio in 2004.
2007-07-12 09:39:54 · answer #2 · answered by douglas m 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because this defeat would further their power, the other did not. It's really that simple to all politicians, not just Dems, the Reps pretty much took out their frustrations on Clinton over and over again, although I do believe some of it was warranted. In comparison, Clinton makes Bush look like a saint.
2007-07-12 09:36:16 · answer #3 · answered by Scott L 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If I had thought I was going to be defeated before being defeated I would accept it really easily. But if I was not expecting it I certainly wouldn't!
2016-05-20 23:32:19 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sweetheart... I'm a Dem. I don't even think about the results of the 2000 election until someone like you dredges up the past yet again.
It was seven years ago. Time to move on, honey.
2007-07-12 09:33:46 · answer #5 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 7⤊ 0⤋
What's funny is we will never really leave Iraq.
We are building like 7 new bases there since we are pulling out of our bases in Saudi and moving them to Iraq but I guess nobody on either side ever mentions this.
2007-07-12 09:45:38 · answer #6 · answered by Tim B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can you hold a debate with someone who still claims that there were no election malpractices in Florida? It goes both ways,life is not a war game
2007-07-12 09:40:00 · answer #7 · answered by ericktravel 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I never said the 2000 election was stolen, and winning a war that never should have been started is retarded. Claiming we "accept" defeat for something we never wanted is even more retarded.
Tough to understand I know, but that's the facts.
2007-07-12 09:35:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because it would be a defeat for Bush and the Republicans, and thus a political victory for them.
And in the final-days-of-Rome society we live in, winning a victory over your political rivals is more important than winning a victory over your foreign enemies. (And, don't think that wouldn't go for the Republicans, too, were the Democrats in the driver's seat).
2007-07-12 09:33:46 · answer #9 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Even Gen.Petraeus has said publicly that success in Iraq might take 10+years!!
And would require mainly diplomatic efforts!
Doesn't quite sound like the cakewalk Rumsfeld said it would be does it?!!
2007-07-12 09:35:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because it's not the Dems war. It's not the American people's war, either, it belongs to one administration and a whole group of people who stand to make a big profit off it.
2007-07-12 09:37:17 · answer #11 · answered by jd 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋