You're right....

No, you didn't show me any examples of the *election* being challenged.
That would make it the "Exact same thing".
[...]
But you said that the Republicans did the "exact same thing" (recount and demand explanations and look for reasons that Florida were lost (even granting "election" instead of "Florida)) - and that's not correct.

My original quote was "So...yeah, I expect Democrats are going to be going on about this for at least 3.5 years. Ya can't blame them, Republicans did the same exact thing with Clinton."

Remember that 3.5 years...it'll be important. Apples to apples - oranges to oranges.

This could mean that Democrats are officially challenging Bush's Presidency for another 3.5 years. To keep apples to apples, oranges to oranges, this would require that Republicans to have officially challenged Clinton's Presidency for 8 years.

However, I haven't argued that. In fact, I admitted that officially, the Republican party has never challenged the legality of (either of) Clinton's election(s). Furthermore, I have repeatedly asked for references to Democrats continuing to officially challenge Bush's presidency. Since you haven't provided any, I have to assume that they are none.

So...apples to apples - no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Now, you are correct that Democrats did officially and quite legally challenge Bush's election based on irregularities. But this was over, by what, February? So, a few months compared with 3.5 years. (Apples, oranges) So, I don't see how my statement can apply here. You're absolutely right. I do NOT expect to see Democrats OFFICIALLY challenging Bush's election over the next 3.5 years. (Amazing, I didn't think I was arguing that!)

Of course, my quote might have referred to how individual democrats are going to treat Bush over the next 3.5 years and how individual republicans treated Clinton during his last 8 years (I can even include similarities in how these individuals acted after the election.) But that would be apples to apples.

You can disagree with me, but it's unlikely it'll change the outcome.

Remember that 3.5 years...it'll be important. Apples to apples - oranges to oranges.

I was pointing that out, you don't need to point it out to me. :)

Furthermore, I have repeatedly asked for references to Democrats continuing to officially challenge Bush's presidency. Since you haven't provided any, I have to assume that they are none.

Of course there are several. I'll be lazy and look them up tonight/this weekend. My apologies for not addressing that.

So...apples to apples - no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

That requires the assumption that the Democrats aren't challenging the legallity of the Presidency.

Because:
I do NOT expect to see Democrats OFFICIALLY challenging Bush's election over the next 3.5 years. (Amazing, I didn't think I was arguing that!)

But its what I objected to, so its certainly what I thought you were arguing.

If you mean that the Democrats will act like whiny children, and the Republicans did under Clinton, I can agree with that, but that's not what I read you in the first post.

Addison

Welcome to IWETHEY!