Gore and democrats demanded recounts in 2000. There was no immediate concession or willingness to just abide by the results. To claim otherwise is simply false.

Wangchung said:

---

Gore and democrats demanded recounts in 2000. There was no immediate concession or willingness to just abide by the results. To claim otherwise is simply false.

---

No one's claiming otherwise. Trump had a right to go to court. The difference is that he refused to accept the results.

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

The rest of the democrats did that for him

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

A sizable piece of this country, including the crew steering Weekend at Biden's, would be happy to see a conservative judge knocked off so that they can appoint a new left wing judge in the very small window they have remaining. Not half, maybe not close to half, but sizable - a good chunk of the activist left would greet that news with thinly-veiled glee.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court. That's why Giuliani got his license suspended.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.

---

I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.

---

I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.

---

You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.

---

I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.

---

You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.

---

A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.

---

I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.

---

You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.

---

A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.

---

I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.

---

I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.

---

You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.

---

A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.

---

I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.

---

Bull***** Algore's fraud was the fact that he cherry picked only a couple of counties for the recount. Had he been honest and recounted the whole state, maybe your opinion would be valid. He went looking only for his votes and did not care about the validity of the election.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.

---

I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.

---

You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.

---

A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.

---

I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.

---

Bull***** Algore's fraud was the fact that he cherry picked only a couple of counties for the recount. Had he been honest and recounted the whole state, maybe your opinion would be valid. He went looking only for his votes and did not care about the validity of the election.

---

It's like having someone argue about what your mother's first name is, really. It was a really big deal at the time and the news cycle was non-stop for a month, so this attempt at revision is kind of ludicrous to witness.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.

---

I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.

---

You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.

---

A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.

---

I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.

---

Bull***** Algore's fraud was the fact that he cherry picked only a couple of counties for the recount. Had he been honest and recounted the whole state, maybe your opinion would be valid. He went looking only for his votes and did not care about the validity of the election.

---

Brings to mind that time Trump called the Georgia Secretary of State and asked him to "find" just enough votes to declare Trump the winner.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.

---

I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.

---

You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.

---

A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.

---

I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.

---

Bull***** Algore's fraud was the fact that he cherry picked only a couple of counties for the recount. Had he been honest and recounted the whole state, maybe your opinion would be valid. He went looking only for his votes and did not care about the validity of the election.

---

That is absurd. There's nothing fraudulent about requesting a recount where you think it would benefit you.

He didn't just request a recount. He requested multiple recounts of the same votes. He fought it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. He did not do ANYTHING gracefully. You're pushing a fantasy.

Wangchung said:

---

He didn't just request a recount. He requested multiple recounts of the same votes. He fought it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. He did not do ANYTHING gracefully. You're pushing a fantasy.

---

There's nothing wro-- never mind.

Maybe someone under 40 years old will believe your narrative of a graceful concession by Gore, but the rest of us had televisions and internet access.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did.

---

You have no way of knowing that or proving that since did happen.

But we're used to you posting your opinion and trying to pass it off as fact

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.

---

I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.

---

Samuel's "good faith argument" is utter horse***** I remember watching, on TV, a Gore lackey explaining the different chads. "This is a hanging chat, this is a pregnant, this is an indented chad, etc..."

He told the news guy that they were only trying to get the hanging chads counted for Gore and not the other ones. When the count came up short, the they tried suing to count the other chads.

There was zero good faith anything from Gore and the left during that election

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.

---

I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.

---

You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.

---

A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.

---

I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.

---

Bull***** Algore's fraud was the fact that he cherry picked only a couple of counties for the recount. Had he been honest and recounted the whole state, maybe your opinion would be valid. He went looking only for his votes and did not care about the validity of the election.

---

That is absurd. There's nothing fraudulent about requesting a recount where you think it would benefit you.

---

Yes, Highly fraudulent.

HuMcK said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.

---

I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.

---

You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.

---

A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.

---

I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.

---

Bull***** Algore's fraud was the fact that he cherry picked only a couple of counties for the recount. Had he been honest and recounted the whole state, maybe your opinion would be valid. He went looking only for his votes and did not care about the validity of the election.

---

Brings to mind that time Trump called the Georgia Secretary of State and asked him to "find" just enough votes to declare Trump the winner.

---

Really? Some 20 years later Trump used a tried and true Democrat strategy? Do tell . . .

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did.

---

You have no way of knowing that or proving that since did happen.

But we're used to you posting your opinion and trying to pass it off as fact

---

We were both stating opinions on a hypothetical, but thanks for your input.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.

---

I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.

---

You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.

---

A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.

---

I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.

---

Bull***** Algore's fraud was the fact that he cherry picked only a couple of counties for the recount. Had he been honest and recounted the whole state, maybe your opinion would be valid. He went looking only for his votes and did not care about the validity of the election.

---

That is absurd. There's nothing fraudulent about requesting a recount where you think it would benefit you.

---

Yes, Highly fraudulent.

---

Hilarious. Bush and Gore were both parties to the dispute and both acting in their own interests. It wasn't their job to be impartial judges or pursue evidence for the other side.

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Oh good, I'm glad you realize that your statement of "2000 and 2004 aren't even in the same ballpark. Gore and Kerry conceded, and that was it. " was false.

---

It's true. They conceded.

---

After Gore demanded recounts. So "and that was it" is false. "After a lot of noise and recount interference attempts by democrats... Gore eventually conceded." is an accurate statement.

---

Gore conceded, and that was the end of it. He didn't spend the whole Bush presidency trying to convince everyone he'd actually won.

---

Sure, AFTER he demanded a recount and almost sued for a second recount, along with all the noise from the media and democrats trying to cheat DURING the recount, he conceded. He didn't need to keep trying to persuade people that he had won anyway, he had the media and the rest of the democrat party to do that for him.

---

I don't know where you got the idea that there's something wrong with recounts. Trump had a right to his recounts; it was what he did afterwards that was the problem.

---

Your claim that Gore just conceded and that was it was false. Your claim that after Gore eventually conceded the narrative of a stolen election wasn't pushed for years is also false. Sorry, man, I was alive for all of it. You won't be able to convince me that what I personally witnessed never happened.

---

I'm not interested in hurt feelings or media conspiracies. I'm interested in what Gore actually did. What he did was concede gracefully in order to avoid permanent damage to the republic. Trump did very much the opposite.

---

He didn't concede gracefully. That's a lie. He demanded recounts and cast all kinds of aspersions before seeing he had NO WAY of winning, weeks after the election. Your fantasy that Gore conceded gracefully is just that; a fantasy. It took a SCOTUS ruling to stop him.

---

Again (and again, and again), there's nothing wrong with demanding a recount or having your day in court. If that's all Trump had done, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

---

Taking his claims all the way to the Supreme Court while the media and democrats do all the attacking for him is the opposite of conceding gracefully. Your narrative is false. I will address your attempted point here and say if Gore had lost in the manner that Trump lost, with last second, overnight vote dumps from mail in voters amid unprecedented changes to local voting systems going on using the Kung Flu as cover, I doubt Gore would have settled for media blitzes and lawsuits.

---

Under those facts, Gore would have conceded sooner than he did. This is the key difference and the real point of my original post. Gore at least had a good faith argument. The problem with Trump is not just that he pressed the issue all the way to January, it's that his claims were fraudulent to begin with. His lawyers were making claims they knew they could never back up in court.

---

I disagree with your assertion Gore had a good faith argument after the first recount was completed. I also disagree that the reaction of Gore and democrats would have been more subdued than Trump's, as evidenced by every election they have lost beginning with Gore. Democrats rioted at Trumps inauguration. Democrat politicians called for violence against their political opponents and do so to this day. It all got rolling with Gore and his lawsuits stemming from his fraudulent claims.

---

You can disagree with Gore's argument, but his intention was to win in the courts. When that failed, he conceded in a timely manner. Trump's team knew they weren't going to win in court. They used the litigation to create hysteria and pressure the legislatures to deliver a result that wasn't supported by the evidence. That's fundamentally different from what Gore attempted. And if Democrats rioted at Trump's inauguration, it wasn't because Hillary convinced them she could still win or because she was under any such illusions herself. Again, very different from Trump.

---

A riot to attack the democratic process and peaceful transition of power is still a riot attacking the democratic process and peaceful transition of power. Hillary's actions damned sure were inflammatory. Gore's claims were fraudulent and that was proven in court. Trump's claims never saw an actual day in court in the majority of cases, and not based on a lack of evidence but lack of standing even to bring a case forward at the time. Trump didn't have a complicit media to do his talking for him, he had to make his case directly to the American people, just as he was forced to do his entire presidency.

---

I think you're saying "fraud" when you really just mean something that's incorrect or that you disagree with. Gore didn't intentionally deceive the courts or the public. Your assertion about lack of standing is an example of Trumpian disinformation, by the way. It's been debunked repeatedly.

---

Bull***** Algore's fraud was the fact that he cherry picked only a couple of counties for the recount. Had he been honest and recounted the whole state, maybe your opinion would be valid. He went looking only for his votes and did not care about the validity of the election.

---

That is absurd. There's nothing fraudulent about requesting a recount where you think it would benefit you.

---

Yes, Highly fraudulent.

---

Hilarious. Bush and Gore were both parties to the dispute and both acting in their own interests. It wasn't their job to be impartial judges or pursue evidence for the other side.

---

Bush called for a recount of heavily leftist counties? Fraud is fraud. Own it.

Gore conceded, then reneged the concession and asked for a recount. When the recount started, he asked it to stop and do a hand recount. After the changes in the recount method was contested up to the Supreme Court, he conceded again.

Also in play were some military ballots coming in that Democrats did not want counted.

Gore did not just walk away. He and other Democrats complained that they had been cheated in 2000 of victory. One example in 2017:

(about 2:40 in)

2000 was just the beginning of election issues coming to the forefront like never before. It proved that close elections would be in high dispute unless procedures were put in place to clean up ballots and faulty counting. Florida improved things, with some election officials losing their jobs. Other states need to take notice and start cleaning up the cesspool pockets of weak vote counting that have been known for decades. However, as long as one of the political parties has no political will to clean these pockets up, it will not likely happen. And the party lacking political will could be different in each state.

It would behoove both parties and the country in the long run to get elections cleaned up as much as possible. But that doesn't seem to be an issue they are willing to deal with as long as the voters aren't rising up to demand it. We all get what we all deserve together in this.