Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

USA 2024 presidential election

12526272830

Comments

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,383 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Why is Pennsylvania deciding somehow better than California deciding?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Trump only got 30% of the vote in California, Clinton carried it by over 4 million votes. She won the popular vote by less than 3.

    Across the rest of the country, not just the swing states, the results were much closer - eg in Texas Clinton got 43% and there was less than 1 million votes in it.

    California is an oversized outlier.

    As to what is better my view on this is against the whingeing after the event.

    Both candidates knew exactly how the electoral college system worked and campaigned accordingly. Trump targetted his campaign where it mattered better than Clinton did.

    Neither were campaigning to win the popular vote, and if they were they would have campaigned differently.

    To say the US election is undemocratic because Clinton won a race that her opponent was not trying to win is a bit absurd TBH.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    I would not rate Obama as a great President. He slipped up on Ukraine. He shouldvm have insisted Nato put troops into Ukraine as the first invasion happened. We would not have the mess in Ukraine if he had. He shat the bed and blinked for Putin.

    I would consider Harrus a much better candidate than him not as popular but I think she will make a great president if elected.

    However I would not bet the house on it as it tight in the battle ground states

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Clinton problem was she concentrated on trying to win Florida instead of the blue collar mid west states which she took for granted

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,490 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    It's puerile to say that she won the election and frankly sounds quite Trumpian.

    Is the electoral college undemocratic? Yes, I believe so. However everyone knows that that is how American presidents are elected - including the two main parties going in to 2016. That therefore determines strategies such as media buys, where the candidates held rallies etc.

    Under those rules she lost, quite decisively, in the only place that matters, the electoral college, 304 votes to 227.

    Saying that she won, just under a different rule set, is akin to a child declaring that they won a chess game because they had more captured pieces when their king got check-mated.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,383 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    To say the US election is undemocratic because Clinton won a race that her opponent was not trying to win is a bit absurd TBH.

    Indeed that would be silly, but I never said this. Clinton lost the election that was run, and her campaign was quite silly about it.

    The electoral college is an indefensibly stupid system however which is where I take issue with your post. You claim the electoral college forces the candidates to try and attract support across the country when it does the exact opposite. In a popular vote election the denizens of California etc wouldn't have anywhere near the power that Pennsylvania or North Carolina has today. In fact it would mean the 12 million or so Republican voters in California would no longer be completely ignored. A popular vote election would in fact be the one that forces you to attract as broad a support as possible.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Indeed that would be silly, but I never said this. Clinton lost the election that was run, and her campaign was quite silly about it.

    No but the exchange you interjected into was about exactly this silly claim.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,383 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    It was but your further claim that you don't want California deciding the election and the electoral college forces politicians to gather broad support is fundamentally flawed. That is what I was referring to.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    The claim about California was not a further claim - it was specifically, in conjunction with NY, in reference to the 2016 election with the benefit of hindsight. Clinton won these two states by about 6 million votes, but she lost the popular vote by less than 3 million votes.

    The claim you took issue with is my claim that the electoral college "forces candidates to try and attract support across the country".

    What I meant that is if you're a candidate with a 6 million surplus from principally urban voters in two states, you can't just rest on your laurels. You have to try and appeal beyond your geographic base, and also the urban rural divide.

    That's true of both parties. Neither can win the election simply because of the strength of their geographic base. They are forced to win over voters who will not automatically vote for them irrespective of their character or policies.

    That was Clinton's downfall - she was great at preaching to the choir, but did a terrible job with everybody else.

    You and I are obviously not the first to disagree on this, it's a well worn debate in the US, but tellingly the electoral college system remains so it must have some benefits.

    As noted above no candidate has ever won an outright majority in the popular vote and lost the electoral college.

    It appears that we agree on the important point. Calling the result undemocratic in hindsight is absurd. Can we leave it at that?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Donald Trump may or may not be a white supremacist, but he's the #1 candidate for white supremacists



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,249 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Which is why I think the idea of a "bounty" for the popular vote is the best balance.

    Each State still has its EC votes and therfore influence but by maximizing the vote Nationwide you can win a bonus of maybe 25 EC votes on top.

    So all those "minority party" voters in the non swing states become much more meaningful without diluting the value of the States in general.

    Essentially make the popular vote another "State" to win.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,252 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Laura Loomer wouldn't be considered 'white' by white supremacists, which is the ironic thing, being that she's Jewish.

    Although considering that she once used to have a flirtation with a fairly prominent (for that space) internet troll, neo-Nazi, 'Baked Alaska' after he sent her a gas chamber meme via Twitter, I can't discount the idea that she gets some kind of twisted pleasure from these people hating her also.

    But Loomer represents the one-upmanship that's prevalent within MAGA. It's all about how crazy and extreme can you be because that gets attention and eyeballs upon you. It can't be from one to a hundred, though, because that might be too much of a shock to maintain popularity, so it's been incremental from Sarah Palin to Lauren Boebert to Marjorie Taylor Greene and now to Laura Loomer. What would come next?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    You could add Tomi Lahren, Laura Ingraham, and Katie Hopkins to that list



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,677 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    Does a president really lead America anymore? Money and Lobbyists decide everything. These elections are only distractions.

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,252 ✭✭✭✭briany




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,883 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Marjorie Taylor Greene and now to Laura Loomer. 

    Amusingly those two are sparring over which is the biggest far-right headbanger



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,252 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Yes, I saw it quipped that you know it must be bad when you can make Greene look reasonable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs




  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Not a bad idea, but it still wouldn't have won Clinton the election in 2016. So you'd still have people complaining after the event that it was undemocratic.

    If I was a US voter seeking change above all I'd want to shake up party candidate selection processes.

    2024 will be the first election since 1976 in which none of a Bush, Biden or a Clinton is on the ticket.

    2020 was the first election since 1972 that did not feature to some extent a Bush or a Clinton. By feature I mean either on the ticket, ran for the primary, or was considered as VP pick.

    That's 48 years.

    It goes some way to explaining the sense of entitlement exuded by Hilary Clinton in 2016, and I suspect also some way to explaining her loss.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,776 ✭✭✭eire4


    haha well thank you for giving me a good laugh when I opened this reply. Accusing me of being Trumpian because of an opinion on this is to put it mildly hyperbolic. Adding in the childish insults to boot sounds like projection on your part when it comes to who is being Trumpian given his predilection for that type of invective.

    I am well aware of how the US president is selected. The electoral college indeed is the final arbiter of who becomes president and has the ability to over turn the democratic wishes of the voters which is exactly what it did once again in 2016. It is the system they currently use and is patently undemocratic. I would also add that according to a 2023 pew poll roughly 65% of all Americans favour getting rid of it. 82% of Democrats favour getting rid of it but only 47% of Republicans which is reflective of that parties slide to authoritarianism.

    As an aside I thought this was a good article on the dangers and how undemocratic the electoral college is:

    Here's What Critics Say Is Wrong With The Electoral College : NPR

    At no point have I disputed the outcome of the 2016 election. That is very clear. I simply made the point that to say Trump won that election with no context is to ignore the fact that Clinton despite all the Democrats hubris in selecting her did win the votes of roughly 2% more of the voters.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    At no point have I disputed the outcome of the 2016 election. 

    Really?

    You said "But to be fair she actually won the election by roughly 2%"

    In response to this when somebody pointed out that Clinton didn't win the election, Trump in fact won the 2016 election, you contradicted them by saying "Well she actually did win the election"

    All a misunderstanding no doubt, but surely you can see why you were misunderstood?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,776 ✭✭✭eire4


    Yes really. I was not and am not disputing the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. Fair enough on reflection my language could have been much more unambiguous and for that the fault is mine and apologies. All I meant by what I was saying was that Clinton won the election in the sense of she finished first in terms of winning the most votes but then the anti democratic electoral college over turned that fact and thus Trump won that election despite finishing second.

    So yes it was a genuine misunderstanding due to the fact that I didn't use clear unambiguous language in making the point I was making.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,289 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    North Carolina's MAGA gubernatorial candidate is in for a time. An awful candidate already with an assorted history of deeply troubling and bigoted viewpoints, he's claiming to be the victim of a 'high tech lynching' now that his online sex life is coming to light this week:

    Many of Robinson’s comments were gratuitously sexual and lewd in nature. They were made between 2008 and 2012 on “Nude Africa,” a pornographic website that includes a message board. The comments were made under the username minisoldr, a moniker Robinson used frequently online.

    Robinson listed his full name on his profile for Nude Africa, as well as an email address he used on numerous websites across the internet for decades.

    CNN is reporting only a small portion of Robinson’s comments on the website given their graphic nature.

    https://www.mediaite.com/news/im-a-black-nazi-shocking-cnn-report-reveals-disturbing-comments-trumps-pick-for-nc-governor-made-on-porn-forum/

    Even the Trump campaign was trying to pressure Robinson to resign from the race before this story got out. North Carolina is critical for Trump's electoral victory pathway. His association with Robinson is now going to be very troubling for him, and not just for the 'nazi' remarks (which some of Trump's base may actually get a kick for), rather it's the trouble Robinson's comments make for the image he has built for himself since entering politics, like being virulently anti-LGBTQ and calling transgenderism "filth" while his comments seem to indicate… he likes the 'filth':

    Despite a recent history of anti-transgender rhetoric, Robinson said he enjoyed watching transgender pornography, a review of archived messages found in which he also referred to himself as a “perv.”

    The comments, which Robinson denies making, predate his entry into politics and current stint as North Carolina’s lieutenant governor. They were made under a username that CNN was able to identify as Robinson by matching a litany of biographical details and a shared email address between the two.

    And that's not all that will turn heads:

    “Slavery is not bad. Some people need to be slaves. I wish they would bring it (slavery) back. I would certainly buy a few,”

    It's altogether become clear why the Trump camp want him out now, this causes massive headache's for their anti-LGBTQ messaging, and is likely to result either in turnout, or ballot results, they will not like in North Carolina in November. Trump previously endorsed him as "Martin Luther King on Steroids" - "times two."

    https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-called-radioactive-gop-candidate-for-governor-mark-robinson-martin-luther-king-on-steroids/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,748 ✭✭✭Real Donald Trump


    Teamsters union not endorsing Harris is a strange one, always back Dems in the past but not now. Internal polling showed them favoring Trump 60-40 😐️



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,918 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Seen online: "Mark Robinson's laptop turned out to be far more interesting than Hunter Biden's."



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,598 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    It was all over the news yesterday.

    It's a weird one alright. I don't like the Teamsters boss, Sean wwhatever-his-name-is and his wooing of the likes of Josh Hawley. I'm more surprised they didn't endorse Trump (for some batsh*t insane reason). Trump agreed with Musk when 🦜 Ng about firing striking workers, yet Biden was the first President to actually join a strike and you would have thought that alone should have pushed the Dems over the line for union support.

    Some of the smaller groupings within Teamsters have broken ranks and have endorsed Harris though.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,249 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Yeah.. National Body not endorsing anyone , but Local/State level groups have endorsed Harris in several States.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,490 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    The Teamsters thing isn't as surprising when you consider their members are mostly men (the majority of whom are white) without a college degree, which is Trump's strongest demographic grouping. Their President spoke at the RNC because, as he said, "So many of my guys are Trump guys".

    It is a little bit infuriating for the Democrats though since the Biden administration literally passed legislation to pump federal money into their pension fund to keep it afloat. At the same time the Republicans are famous for introducing anti-union legislation such as "Right to Work" in states all over the country.

    Trump has managed to convince a lot of these guys that he is personally pro-union, through nothing more than repeatedly saying so, despite the actions throughout his career showing that he most definitely is not.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,598 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    And of course, agreeing with Musk that striking staff should be fired.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,648 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    The problem is that people who vote for Trump are doing based on who they hate as opposed to what they think Trump will do for them. He's a working class person's nightmare. There's even a term in construction, the "Trump discount", which alludes to his propensity for paying most of what he owes, knowing that what's left isn't worth fighting a court case over.

    There's a reason he openly loves the poorly educated.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,490 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    The hilarious (and tragic) thing here is that this guy assumes that he'd be the one doing the buying rather than the one being sold.

    It appears that he's still on the ballot which is frankly good news for Harris. North Carolina is definitely a stretch for her but with a candidate that is possibly even more unqualified than Trump for high office that may swing her a few more votes from independents who just decide to vote all Blue this cycle.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,165 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    I don't think North Carolina is a major stretch tbh, its something like 2.10 on betfair for her to win it? Not exactly Wyoming territory😁 Its not 50/50 as Trump should win but its close and having this drag on the ticket can't help.

    I know the GOP had a good result in 2022 senate race but from what I recall the GOP candidate Budd was one of the few who was competent , and could hang with MAGA and the old school wing of the party so basically not a weirdo and had a lot of money behind him. He only won by 2% or so even with those traits.

    Their is a lot of "was this guy not vetted" chatter but he was and the fact he was a freak was irrelevant he kissed the ring and that's all that matters for Trump.

    What do you think of Arizona? Trump pulling away in the betting markets despite having a freak on the ticket (lake who is struggling in the senate race)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,490 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    Oh yeah at the end of the day NC is still a swing state but it's one that seems like if it went for Harris then a few of the others would have already gone to her so it's significance isn't as much in a way. This is the concept of the "tipping point" state as illustrated by this 538 diagram

    Regarding AZ. It appears to be very much in the balance still

    The bottom line is that all of these states are super close and will go right down to the wire.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,490 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    This is an interesting developing story. Republicans in Nebraska may be about to try and change the law in order that the district around Omaha no longer get to deliver a single electoral college vote to the Democrats.

    That in turn could prove pivotal in the following map:

    If it's a 269-269 tie (or if there is confusion about that Omaha vote) the Republicans will win since the tie-breaking mechanism is that the state delegations in the (new) House get a single vote each and in a close election there are almost always more red states than blue states.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,289 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Because the Teamsters President is in the tank for Trump.

    He has gotten himself into a bit of trouble claiming for example that the Teamsters chapter covering AOC's district 'overwhelmingly voted for Trump' in internal polling… yet the chapter has endorsed Kamala Harris, directly contradicting his claim.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4888967-ocasio-cortez-teamsters-presidential-endorsement/

    It's not alone either, many other chapters of the Teamsters have flouted O'Brien's refusal to advance a Harris-Walz endorsement by doing it themselves.

    I'm unclear if any chapters have endorsed Trump. Hmm.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/09/19/teamsters-endorsement-harris-trump/

    Teamsters regional councils — representing hundreds of thousands of members and retirees — in Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and western Pennsylvania — endorsed Harris hours after Teamsters President Sean O’Brien revealed Wednesday that the union would withhold its endorsement, saying, “neither major candidate was able to make serious commitments to our union.”

    Separately, powerful local Teamsters unions in Philadelphia; New York City; Long Beach, Calif.; and Miami — as well as the union’s National Black Caucus and a group of retirees — have endorsed Harris and urged members to vote for her.

    Seems shenanigans are afoot:

    The Teamsters released results from two internal surveys of members that they say show rank-and-file members strongly favored a Trump endorsement over one for Harris. The Teamsters reported the periods during which the polls were conducted, whether they were conducted by phone or online, and the percentages that supported Trump and Harris. But the Teamsters did not disclose how participants were selected for the surveys, the number of people who completed them, whether the samples were weighted by demographics, or the exact questions they asked.

    And WaPo confirms no chapter or division has actually endorsed Trump. This all begs a lot of questions about how accurate O'Brien's polling was.

    The budding relationship with Trump also spurred backlash from liberal Teamsters leadership and many rank-and-file members. After the conventions, a growing cohort of Teamsters local unions began issuing endorsements for Harris, and in some cases condemning O’Brien for not endorsing her.

    As of Thursday, at least eight regional councils, covering active Teamsters members in some 14 states, as well as 10 union locals, had endorsed Harris. The regional councils alone represent more than 500,000 Teamsters members.

    No regional or local Teamsters organizations have endorsed Trump.

    At over 500,000+ members that's north of 38% of the teamsters total membership base representing for endorsements to Harris-Walz (1.3 M members). If that number significantly grows in the next week or so, O'Brien will have a lot of scrutiny to reckon with.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    The head of the teamsters is very pro Trump but after Trump's remarks about unions, they couldn't realistically endorse him. Also if I was in a union, I'd be genuinely concerned with Trump being in office since he intends on giving the likes of Musk power given how anti union he is.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,624 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2024/0922/1471248-us-voters-abroad/

    Votes from abroad were the difference for Joe Biden in the states of Arizona and Georgia in 2020. … Back in 2020, the number of votes that really decided this election was less than 50,000 spread across just three states. We are likely to have that same kind of election and if 15,000 more overseas voters participate that could decide the election,

    Provided both parties can get their voters to turn up the choice of president falls to a relatively small number of undecideds from (but not necessarily in) swing states.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,216 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Called it. When the Trump team were searching for nicknames for Kamala I said this was the one that would stick.

    Obviously it goes without saying how bottom of the barrel and infantile this is, but as always is the norm for Trump

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8jg11ynj7o



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,778 ✭✭✭Red Silurian




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,748 ✭✭✭Real Donald Trump




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,778 ✭✭✭Red Silurian


    No… That's quite the opposite to terrible… That's democracy in action.

    What is terrible is when people say that the 2 candidates they can choose from are candidates that nobody wants, why not join a party and vote for different candidates then!

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/09/biden-trump-presidential-election-no-one-wants

    Notably this rhetoric hasn't been heard much since Harris was made the Democrats candidate, I wonder why…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,289 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Yes, we all know how much Trump enshrines the right to choice…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59 ✭✭Torcaill


    Posted my vote during lunch. €4 stamp well worth it!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,918 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Georgia AG, who told their Trumpy election board that the new hand-counting rule wouldn't stand up to legal challenges, is getting legal challenges going against it. Georgia really hasn't been a good place for the GQP to fcuk with elections.

    https://www.salon.com/2024/09/26/unlawful-experts-say-backed-georgia-board-rules-threaten-to-disrupt-count/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,289 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    They're starting the shenanigans early.

    This was a surprisingly thorough piece about the 2000 election, how Republicans cheated, and there are a number of ways this could repeat itself. And it was eye opening how many of the same MAGA players like Roger Stone and Matt Schlapp were involved in the 2000 recount too - or let's call it what it really is, a coup, since we know for a fact years later that Al Gore in fact won more votes in Florida.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,906 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    It was known at the time that Al Gore won Florida, and so the Presidency.

    The SCOTUS ordered that counting be stopped when GWB was ahead before the lead could change.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,624 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The Republicans wanted every pregnant chad aborted.

    Democrats should not have conceded that election, because the Republicans wouldn't.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,906 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I heard from someone that some of the punch ballots were pre-punched for Trump so a Trump vote was valid but a Gore vote was invalid. Now it could be a fake theory, but it was a way to favour Trump if true. Now it would be possible to have tested this at the time, but of course the will to do so was absent.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,586 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    From memory, Gore would have had more votes in a statewide recount, but not in the counties that were actually involved in the case. Still an utterly disgraceful decision by Scotus, the first major step of Robert's dismantling of American Democracy



Advertisement