7 ms·

There's a huge difference: in Bush v. Gore, Gore stepped aside for the good of the country, choosing to respect the institution of the courts even if the decisi

There's a huge difference: in Bush v. Gore, Gore stepped aside for the good of the country, choosing to respect the institution of the courts even if the decision was dodgy. Trump is willing to burn down the institutions if it gives him an edge. The danger from the Trump narrative is not that die-hards are still grumbling, it's that the candidate doesn't seem to care about anything beyond his own interests.

freedomben 5y ago
eh, I think you're being pretty generous to Gore there. It was a long, drawn, fought out battle involving many lawsuits and lots of court coverage. In the end, when Gore had basically lost all of his challenges, he did "step aside" as far as dropping the lawsuits. But he continued to be a presence and he was still pretty bitter about it many years later (and brought it up nearly every time he was on TV). 6 years later in 2006 his movie "Inconvenient Truth" he reopened the wound all over again. Now that said, Gore is a lot better than Trump on this for sure.
- okonomiyaki3000 5y ago
  There's nothing wrong with a long, drawn-out fight through the proper channels. A couple of months is not really a long, drawn-out fight by the standards of the American legal system anyway. Gore owed it to everyone who voted for him to fight for his win to the full extent of the law, which he did. When that was exhausted, he stepped aside and stepped out of the public eye for a long time. He did not push beyond the limits of the law, he did not rally his supporters against the new administration, he did not immediately start running for the 2004 nomination. When he finally did start making news again, it was, as you said, 6 years later. Bush had already been reelected with no interference from Gore. He didn't reopen any wounds, "An Inconvenient Truth" was not a political statement, it was not a diatribe against his political foes, it was not a platform on which to build another run for president. It was a return to the core issues that drove him earlier in his career. Issues that should be non-political in the first place. To say "Gore is better than Trump on this" is to imply that they are both operating in the same universe, just on different levels. That is a false premise. There can be no comparison here.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  I think the bigger difference is intent and actual facts (or non existence of any) behind the legal battles. Trump simply does not live in reality and was enabled by lawyers abusing the legal system and attacking our institutions and literally attacking the government. On absolutely bonkers baseless accusations. Gore had solid arguments, actually argued in court (didn't get thrown out with prejudice).
innocentoldguy 5y ago
That’s not how I remember it. Gore whined incessantly about “hanging chads” until he was forced to step aside by the Supreme Court.
- btmiller 5y ago
  These were at least valid evidential concerns, not something completely made up.
  - mythrwy 5y ago
    People see the evidence they want to see as valid maybe?
  - BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
- giaour 5y ago
  That's funny, I remember Roger Stone staging fake protests to stop court-ordered recounts until the Bush team ran out the clock. Guess memory is a fickle thing!
  - kelseyfrog 5y ago
    Far too few people are aware of the Brooks Brothers riot.
- guelo 5y ago
  Right. Once the case was over he stepped aside instead of trying to take down our whole system of government like you know who.
  - BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
    > ” trying to take down our whole system of government like you know who.” This is pure hyperbole and exaggeration. Emphasis on “our whole system of government”.
coldtea 5y ago
>There's a huge difference: in Bush v. Gore, Gore stepped aside for the good of the country, choosing to respect the institution of the courts even if the decision was dodgy And why would that be the better way to go about it? Respecting an election you consider stolen that an institution favored to "respect the institution" means you're respecting a faulty institution - and encouraging similar behavior in the future.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  Because that institution then worked another four times without incident. The institution, as flawed as it is, still kept transferring power peacefully. In 2020's case, there was no dodginess, but nevertheless one candidate would rather discredit the institution rather than admit he lost, and -there is nothing to replace it with-. We've had 250 years of peaceful transfers of power because of this system; without a universally agreed to system to transfer power, we will have civil war.
  - splintercell 5y ago
    > Because that institution then worked another four times without incident. The institution, as flawed as it is, still kept transferring power peacefully. The question you aren't answering is: At what point do YOU draw the line. Stop trying to explain that the line wasn't crossed in 2020 election (or in any other election before that). When, according to you, is the line crossed and the system has shown itself to be faulty. My claim is that your answer will be either a deflection or implication that the system can never be faulty (anything but a clear answer).
    - lostcolony 5y ago
      What line are you referring to? -I- said that the system "worked" in the sense that power was transferred peacefully. I didn't say the system was flawless; just the opposite. But to tear down and discredit the system, as Trump has been endeavoring to do, without providing a replacement (other than "Trump is president no matter what the vote says", if that needs clarifying), means that power will no longer be able to transfer peacefully. That's the -one and only feature- that the system HAS to have; and it's that one that we'd be dispensing with. I have no idea what any other lines being crossed has to do with anything.

freedomben 5y ago

eh, I think you're being pretty generous to Gore there. It was a long, drawn, fought out battle involving many lawsuits and lots of court coverage. In the end, when Gore had basically lost all of his challenges, he did "step aside" as far as dropping the lawsuits. But he continued to be a presence and he was still pretty bitter about it many years later (and brought it up nearly every time he was on TV). 6 years later in 2006 his movie "Inconvenient Truth" he reopened the wound all over again. Now that said, Gore is a lot better than Trump on this for sure.

okonomiyaki3000 5y ago
There's nothing wrong with a long, drawn-out fight through the proper channels. A couple of months is not really a long, drawn-out fight by the standards of the American legal system anyway. Gore owed it to everyone who voted for him to fight for his win to the full extent of the law, which he did. When that was exhausted, he stepped aside and stepped out of the public eye for a long time. He did not push beyond the limits of the law, he did not rally his supporters against the new administration, he did not immediately start running for the 2004 nomination. When he finally did start making news again, it was, as you said, 6 years later. Bush had already been reelected with no interference from Gore. He didn't reopen any wounds, "An Inconvenient Truth" was not a political statement, it was not a diatribe against his political foes, it was not a platform on which to build another run for president. It was a return to the core issues that drove him earlier in his career. Issues that should be non-political in the first place. To say "Gore is better than Trump on this" is to imply that they are both operating in the same universe, just on different levels. That is a false premise. There can be no comparison here.
dillondoyle 5y ago
I think the bigger difference is intent and actual facts (or non existence of any) behind the legal battles. Trump simply does not live in reality and was enabled by lawyers abusing the legal system and attacking our institutions and literally attacking the government. On absolutely bonkers baseless accusations. Gore had solid arguments, actually argued in court (didn't get thrown out with prejudice).

innocentoldguy 5y ago

That’s not how I remember it. Gore whined incessantly about “hanging chads” until he was forced to step aside by the Supreme Court.

btmiller 5y ago
These were at least valid evidential concerns, not something completely made up.
- mythrwy 5y ago
  People see the evidence they want to see as valid maybe?
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
giaour 5y ago
That's funny, I remember Roger Stone staging fake protests to stop court-ordered recounts until the Bush team ran out the clock. Guess memory is a fickle thing!
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  Far too few people are aware of the Brooks Brothers riot.
guelo 5y ago
Right. Once the case was over he stepped aside instead of trying to take down our whole system of government like you know who.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  > ” trying to take down our whole system of government like you know who.” This is pure hyperbole and exaggeration. Emphasis on “our whole system of government”.

coldtea 5y ago

>There's a huge difference: in Bush v. Gore, Gore stepped aside for the good of the country, choosing to respect the institution of the courts even if the decision was dodgy And why would that be the better way to go about it? Respecting an election you consider stolen that an institution favored to "respect the institution" means you're respecting a faulty institution - and encouraging similar behavior in the future.

lostcolony 5y ago
Because that institution then worked another four times without incident. The institution, as flawed as it is, still kept transferring power peacefully. In 2020's case, there was no dodginess, but nevertheless one candidate would rather discredit the institution rather than admit he lost, and -there is nothing to replace it with-. We've had 250 years of peaceful transfers of power because of this system; without a universally agreed to system to transfer power, we will have civil war.
- splintercell 5y ago
  > Because that institution then worked another four times without incident. The institution, as flawed as it is, still kept transferring power peacefully. The question you aren't answering is: At what point do YOU draw the line. Stop trying to explain that the line wasn't crossed in 2020 election (or in any other election before that). When, according to you, is the line crossed and the system has shown itself to be faulty. My claim is that your answer will be either a deflection or implication that the system can never be faulty (anything but a clear answer).
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    What line are you referring to? -I- said that the system "worked" in the sense that power was transferred peacefully. I didn't say the system was flawless; just the opposite. But to tear down and discredit the system, as Trump has been endeavoring to do, without providing a replacement (other than "Trump is president no matter what the vote says", if that needs clarifying), means that power will no longer be able to transfer peacefully. That's the -one and only feature- that the system HAS to have; and it's that one that we'd be dispensing with. I have no idea what any other lines being crossed has to do with anything.