Sicko

criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Post by criddic3 »

Interesting, but the recounts had already begun in the counties selected. So this wasn't the first inclination of the Gore team. If they had suggested or requested the state-wide first, then I'd believe you. But seeing that the recounts had already been going on for a while, I cannot see it as anything more than an afterthought. Article is dated November 15th, 2000 and states within that counties were already asking for an extension, which they eventually got.

Florida Results by County, 2000
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Bush to Gore: No thanks
He rejects an offer for statewide hand recounts in exchange for no litigation and says the election process must be over by Saturday.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Salon staff


In the final counter-punch of a day packed with them, Texas Governor George W. Bush announced shortly after 10 p.m. EST that he was rejecting Vice President Al Gore's offer for a statewide manual recount of Florida's presidential ballots. Gore had made the offer earlier in the day, adding that he would not challenge the results should Bush accept the deal.

http://archive.salon.com/politic....ex.html

-------------------




The latest court action came after Gore proposed that he and Bush accept the manual recounts in three counties or hold a statewide manual recount, drop all legal action, and hold a meeting to "calm the rhetoric" between them.

"If this happens, I will take no legal action to challenge the result," Gore said.

Bush rejected the proposals. He said manual recounts "introduce error and politics into the voting process" and said he would not meet with Gore until the election was decided.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000....ex.html

-----------------------------

Scroll down to Nov. 15th, 10:15 pm

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLES/pe2000timeline.php
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Post by criddic3 »

Sonic Youth wrote:
criddic3 wrote:The article states that if the state had been recounted, Gore would have won. But Gore and his lawyers didn't go for a full state recount. They went for a partial, multi-county recount.

I remember reading that some news organizations had concluded that even a state-wide recount would not have led to the result that Mr. Parry claims, but even if we assume he is correct it makes no difference. Al Gore didn't use that route. Obviously he and his lawyers felt their best chance of changing the result to his advantage was the selected county approach. When the Supreme Court stopped the second deadline from happening, since by Florida law only one extension was allowed, Bush had an official 537 vote lead. This is the only number that counted, because this was the only path Gore chose to fight his battle. It's not a stolen election if Al Gore himself thought he chose the best road to victory and lost in that gamble.

That is another lie from you.

Al Gore DID try to go for a full state recount. But he couldn't do it because Bush didn't agree to one. Gore only did a partial recount because he had no other choice. It was all over the news when it happened. Gore asked for a statewide recount. Bush refused. Don't try to make it sound like Gore didn't want a statewide recount. He tried, and he would have. It's Bush who pussied out on that one, not Gore.
Give me an article on that one, Sonic.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

criddic3 wrote:The article states that if the state had been recounted, Gore would have won. But Gore and his lawyers didn't go for a full state recount. They went for a partial, multi-county recount.

I remember reading that some news organizations had concluded that even a state-wide recount would not have led to the result that Mr. Parry claims, but even if we assume he is correct it makes no difference. Al Gore didn't use that route. Obviously he and his lawyers felt their best chance of changing the result to his advantage was the selected county approach. When the Supreme Court stopped the second deadline from happening, since by Florida law only one extension was allowed, Bush had an official 537 vote lead. This is the only number that counted, because this was the only path Gore chose to fight his battle. It's not a stolen election if Al Gore himself thought he chose the best road to victory and lost in that gamble.
That is another lie from you.

Al Gore DID try to go for a full state recount. But he couldn't do it because Bush didn't agree to one. Gore only did a partial recount because he had no other choice. It was all over the news when it happened. Gore asked for a statewide recount. Bush refused. Don't try to make it sound like Gore didn't want a statewide recount. He tried, and he would have. It's Bush who pussied out on that one, not Gore.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Post by criddic3 »

Sonic Youth wrote:You're right, Sabin. Gore had more votes in the state of Florida.


Gore's Victory

By Robert Parry
November 12, 2001


So Al Gore was the choice of Florida’s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won.



The article asserts that if the state had been recounted, Gore would have won. But Gore and his lawyers didn't go for a full state recount. They went for a partial, multi-county recount.

I remember reading that some news organizations had concluded that even a state-wide recount would not have led to the result that Mr. Parry claims, but even if we assume he is correct it makes no difference. Al Gore didn't use that route. Obviously he and his lawyers felt their best chance of changing the result to his advantage was the selected county approach. When the Supreme Court stopped the second deadline from happening, since by Florida law only one extension was allowed, Bush had an official 537 vote lead. This is the only number that counted, because this was the only path Gore chose to fight his battle. It's not a stolen election if Al Gore himself thought he chose the best road to victory and lost in that gamble.

Years later with only about a year and a half left to Bush's second term, it makes little difference what might have been if Al Gore had chosen a state-wide recount. President Bush won fair-and-square by the rules of Gore's game and constitutional law. If you're bitter, that's tough. But you'd be wrong if you believe that this was a "stolen" election or that Al Gore was the "real winner."
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

Still, that was a nice, booze-induced faux-comic-on-stage exit.


Booze-induced? No...I was drunk, asshole!
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

You're right, Sabin. Gore had more votes in the state of Florida.


Gore's Victory

By Robert Parry
November 12, 2001


So Al Gore was the choice of Florida’s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won.

Gore won even if one doesn’t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed “butterfly ballots,” or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls.

Gore won even if there’s no adjustment for George W. Bush’s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida’s voters anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide.

The Actual Findings

The new, fuller study of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.

This core finding of Gore’s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush.

Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even ignoring the “butterfly ballot” and other irregularities that cost him thousands of ballots.

A Third Hypothetical

The articles about the new recount tallies make much of the two hypothetical cases in which Bush supposedly would have prevailed: the limited recounts of the four southern Florida counties – by 225 votes – and the state Supreme Court’s order – by 430 votes. Those hypothetical cases dominated the news stories, while Gore’s statewide-recount victory was played down.

Yet, the newspapers made little or nothing of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision represented a third hypothetical. Assuming that a brief extension were granted to permit a full-and-fair Florida recount, the U.S. Supreme Court decision might well have resulted in the same result that the news organizations discovered: a Gore victory.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s proposed standards mirrored the standards applied in the new recount of the disputed ballots. The Post buries this important fact in the 22nd paragraph of its story.

“Ironically, it was Bush’s lawyers who argued that recounting only the undervotes violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. And the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Dec. 12 ruling that ended the dispute, also questioned whether the Florida court should have limited a statewide recount only to undervotes,” the Post wrote. “Had the high court acted on that, and had there been enough time left for the Florida Supreme Court to require yet another statewide recount, Gore’s chances would have been dramatically improved.”

In other words, if the U.S. Supreme Court had given the state enough time to fashion a comprehensive remedy or if Bush had agreed to a full-and-fair recount earlier, the popular will of the American voters – both nationally and in Florida – might well have been respected. Al Gore might well have been inaugurated president of the United States.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

'Founding Fathers' is supposed to be capitalized, pinko.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

criddic3 wrote:
Sabin wrote:No. In fact, we didn't want to go down that path in the first place, which is funny because they weren't elected in the first place - OOOOOOOH! SNAP! God bless. Tip your waitress. Wear a condom. Good night, folks.

They WERE elected in the first place. If you win 270 electoral votes, you win the Presidency. We have a system whereby the votes count toward the electoral vote, but not by overall popular vote. This was designed deliberately by the founding fathers for various reasons, some of which have been debated over the decades. Since Bush/Cheney did win the Florida vote, they won enough electoral votes to be elected to office. Regardless of what you think of the process by which the final result was reached, this is the case. Still, that was a nice, booze-induced faux-comic-on-stage exit.
Post of the year.
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Post by criddic3 »

Sabin wrote:No. In fact, we didn't want to go down that path in the first place, which is funny because they weren't elected in the first place - OOOOOOOH! SNAP! God bless. Tip your waitress. Wear a condom. Good night, folks.

They WERE elected in the first place. If you win 270 electoral votes, you win the Presidency. We have a system whereby the votes count toward the electoral vote, but not by overall popular vote. This was designed deliberately by the Founding Fathers* for various reasons, some of which have been debated over the decades. Since Bush/Cheney did win the Florida vote, they won enough electoral votes to be elected to office. Regardless of what you think of the process by which the final result was reached, this is the case. Still, that was a nice, booze-induced faux-comic-on-stage exit.

*edited. Thanks for the correction, Sonic
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

No. In fact, we didn't want to go down that path in the first place, which is funny because they weren't elected in the first place - OOOOOOOH! SNAP! God bless. Tip your waitress. Wear a condom. Good night, folks.
"How's the despair?"
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Post by criddic3 »

OscarGuy wrote:Oh, you mean like Cheney and Bush and their inventing, manipulating and bending facts to get us into war?
Do you really want go down that path again?
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Eric »

The best "documentary" I've ever seen, Sans soleil, has very little to do with presenting "facts."
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Oh, you mean like Cheney and Bush and their inventing, manipulating and bending facts to get us into war?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Post by criddic3 »

Greg wrote:
criddic3 wrote:No, but he does call his movies "documentaries," which implies a more factual and less emotional approach to his subjects.

As if facts can't be presented emotionally.
Yes they can. But that's not my objection. My problem with Moore is that he doesn't just present the facts emotionally. He invents, manipulates and bends the facts to suit his ends.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Post Reply

Return to “2000 - 2007”