Time to Close this Subforum

[Charlie Monoxide]

I agree this forum should be shut down. The election is over and we should move on.

Charlie ('nuff said) Monoxide

 

[Upchurch]

All good things must come to an end. What's the next good thing?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Re: The Constitution of the United States...

A coalition of newspapers later analyzed the vote, in essence, doing their own recount. They found Al Gore had won.

Not only is that a patently ridiculous statement, it doesn't even contradict the claim that you are trying to disprove.

 

[Ion]

Re: Re: The Constitution of the United States...

Arty, you are incorrect about this:

Not only is that a patently ridiculous statement,...

This:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

supersedes earlier statements about the 2000 election, and shows the final verdict:

"...While that was the tone of coverage in these leading news outlets, it’s still a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots.

“Full Review Favors Gore,” the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.

Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots – punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards.

The new, fuller study 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..."

So, webfusion is correct:

Gore won the 2000 election, and Bush stole it.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Gore won the 2000 election,

Elections are won by whomever has the most votes counted, not by whomever some newspaper decided would have had the most votes counted in some alternate universe. The complete absence of the subjunctive mood shows that you people simply don't understand what an election is.

and Bush stole it.

Neither you nor webfusion has presented any argument in support of that proposition, even if the previous proposition were accepted.

 

[Ion]

Elections are won by whomever has the most votes counted,
...

...providing it is a fair counting of votes and crooks don't tamper with.

That's why in a democratic election, counting in a honest way the votes is paramount.

The newspaper shows that Gore should have won in a democratic election.

The honest count of votes was tampered with by Bush's people.

So the democratic election should have gone to Gore, but Bush stole the election, he made it undemocratic:

proof of this is votes double checked and recounted in the newspaper, giving a fair majority to Gore.

The democratic election didn't work in 2000.

But there is no surpise there:

in February 2003, Powell lied in UN about Iraq, then US killed thousands of civilians while pursuing Iraq's oil.

This is Bush and his people, all along.

 

[Art Vandelay]

...providing it is a fair election that crooks don't tamper with.

No, even then, the person who has the most votes counted wins the election. Wins unfairly, but wins nonetheless.

That's why the newspaper shows that Gore should have won in a democratic election, but was stopped by Bush's people.

See, there's that word you were missing before! You think Gore SHOULD have won the election.

So the democratic election should have gone to Gore,

I don't think that deviation from a perfect ideal means that it is undemocratic.

but Bush stole the election, he made it undemocratic:

You STILL haven't presented anything in support of this clai, despite my pointing it out several times.

proof of this is votes double checked and recounted in the newspaper, giving a fair majority to Gore.

That does not prove your claim.

The democratic election didn't work in 2000.

It didn't work perfectly. I think that our country can survive the absence of perfection.

in February 2003, Powell lied in UN about Iraq, then US killed thousands of civilians while pursuing Iraq's oil.

Gee, even more claims without support!

 

[Ion]

I won't go through all Arty's garbage, just this garbage:

No, even then, the person who has the most votes counted wins the election. Wins unfairly, but wins nonetheless.
...

Depends on the country:

.) democratic,

or

.) undemocratic.

In democratic countries, "...Wins unfairly..." is undemocratic, disrespects voters and is prohibited.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No, even then, the person who has the most votes counted wins the election. Wins unfairly, but wins nonetheless.

See, there's that word you were missing before! You think Gore SHOULD have won the election.

I don't think that deviation from a perfect ideal means that it is undemocratic.


You STILL haven't presented anything in support of this clai, despite my pointing it out several times.


That does not prove your claim.


It didn't work perfectly. I think that our country can survive the absence of perfection.

Gee, even more claims without support!

Given that Ion can barely speak English, I think you might be asking for a bit much.

 

[Ion]

Scrotchy, how come there is never data and reasoning coming from you, just emotions?