Thu Nov 5, 2015, 12:57 PM
StrongBad (2,047 posts)
New study claims Bush actually won in 2000
Apparently the newest counting of undervotes puts him on top:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/
Not sure what to think about this. Why all of a sudden is this result being produced?
It still shows double vote inclusion going to Gore. So confusing.
Response to StrongBad (Original post)
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 01:03 PM
Star Member joeybee12 (52,357 posts)
4. Gore won...the judge in charge of the recount that never happened...
SAid he intended to use a standard that would have shown Gore won...all these hypotheticals about what standard would have been used is just BS to try and blur the fact that Gore won and on December 10, 2000, democracy ceaesed to exist in this country.
Response to joeybee12 (Reply #4)
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 01:04 PM
StrongBad (2,047 posts)
5. But isn't citing a judge that would have used a certain standard a hypothetical itself?
That argument kind of collapses on itself.
Response to StrongBad (Reply #5)
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 01:06 PM
Star Member joeybee12 (52,357 posts)
6. NO, no and no...
The recount was set to begin, the judge who was to oversee it had been chosen, then SCOTUS stopped everything...all these studies about what he might have used are BS...the judge had chosen his standard, and that standard would have shown Gore won...google it
Response to StrongBad (Original post)
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 01:07 PM
Star Member underpants (113,568 posts)
8. A. BS B. BS
Response to StrongBad (Original post)
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 01:12 PM
CJCRANE (17,500 posts)
10. So it's not April 1st and this isn't the Onion...
They always leave out the part about the MULTIPLE recounts that were done and the reason the USSC stepped in was because it was getting stupid. Gore lost all of the recounts, if I remember correctly, but every time the ballots were handled he was getting closer and closer to being the winner.
KC
As I recall, the decision by the FSC or the USSC was that a recount could happen but it had to encompass the entire state, not just 4 or 5 targeted counties (which used confusing butterfly ballots designed and implemented by democRATS).
Trying to recall, but I thought that the absentee (heavily Military) ballots hadn't even been counted yet.
And, all the major news outlets called the race in FL for Gore before the polls closed in the panhandle, thereby causing a lot of voters to leave the long lines and go home since it was already over before they voted.
That whole thing was messed up from top to bottom.
KC
They always leave out the part about the MULTIPLE recounts that were done and the reason the USSC stepped in was because it was getting stupid. Gore lost all of the recounts, if I remember correctly, but every time the ballots were handled he was getting closer and closer to being the winner.
KC
Didn't that happen with the gubernatorial election several years back in Washington or Oregon? I seem to remember the dem losing and demanding a recount because she wanted all of the people heard. She lost the recount, but it was closer. She demanded another recount because she wanted all of the people heard. On the third recount she pulled ahead slightly and declared that the people had spoken.
Response to StrongBad (Original post)
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 01:03 PM
Star Member joeybee12 (52,357 posts)
4. Gore won...the judge in charge of the recount that never happened...
SAid he intended to use a standard that would have shown Gore won...all these hypotheticals about what standard would have been used is just BS to try and blur the fact that Gore won and on December 10, 2000, democracy ceaesed to exist in this country.
Thu Nov 5, 2015, 12:57 PM
StrongBad (2,047 posts)
New study claims Bush actually won in 2000
Apparently the newest counting of undervotes puts him on top:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/
Not sure what to think about this. Why all of a sudden is this result being produced?
It still shows double vote inclusion going to Gore. So confusing.