Replies

Nice post of distortions and misinformation, Marajade. I've got a few questions for you. Unlike you, I'll also back up my points with citations.

Did you know that in 18 of 67 counties the vote was never recounted even once? Even the automatic recount mandated by law was never performed. We're talking about 1.58 million votes here.

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3698-2001May31.html

Did you know that the Civil Rights Commission you mentioned earlier actually found the exact opposite results of what you posted? Here's the report itself. Read it and make up your own mind about what it says.

http://www.washin gtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/ccrdraft060401.htm

Here's the second paragraph, in case you can't be bothered:

"Perhaps the most dramatic undercount in this election was the nonexistent ballots of the countless unknown eligible voters, who were wrongfully purged from the voter registration rolls, turned away from the polls, and by various other means prevented from exercising the franchise. While statistical data, reinforced by credible anecdotal evidence, point to widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights, it is impossible to determine the extent of the disenfranchisement or to provide an adequate remedy to the persons whose voices were silenced in this historic election by a pattern and practice of injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency."

Did you know that the GOP worked to include clearly illegal absentee ballots in Republican counties, some of them up to six days late, while striving to exclude late absentee ballots from Democratic counties? Gore never tried to disenfranchise the military. He never objected to a single military ballot that was legally cast. He should have done more to oppose the clear GOP ballot fraud in Republican counties. Read this link, and be sure to check the scans of late ballots. Disbelieve your own eyes if you wish, but this is documented history.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/o npolitics/transcripts/ccrdraft060401.htm

Did you know that the Supreme Court decision which installed Bush as president was so transparently faulty, even to those who wrote it, that they included a clause saying that Bush vs. Gore could never be used as a precedent for any future case? No wonder no one wanted to sign their name to it.

Did you know that the NORC study showed that in any state-wide recount, using ANY standard, Al Gore won?

I'll spell it out for you:

-PREVAILING STANDARD: County election officials told Florida journalists how they would define votes if required to do a recount and in this scenario the majority standard was imposed statewide. In punch-card counties, ballots with at least one corner of a chad detached counted as votes. In optical scan counties, where voters are required to fill in blanks on a paper ballot - like on a standardized test - ballots with any affirmative marks counted. That means a vote counted even if the oval was not completely filled in or a candidate's name was circled or underlined; so did ballots on which a voter correctly filled in the oval and also wrote the same candidate's name in the space for write-ins.

Result: Gore ahead by 60 votes.

-TWO-CORNER STANDARD: At least two corners of a chad must be detached to count as a vote, a position that had been argued, at times, by Bush supporters. Same as prevailing standard for optical scan ballots.

Result: Gore ahead by 105 votes.

-MOST INCLUSIVE: Ballots with dimpled chads count as votes, an argument often made by Gore supporters. Same as prevailing standard for optical scan ballots.

Result: Gore ahead by 107 votes.

-LEAST INCLUSIVE: Only cleanly punched chads count as valid votes. For optical scan, only fully filled ovals and those ballots on which a voter filled in the oval and wrote in the candidate's name, too.

Result: Gore ahead by 115 votes.

-COUNTY-by-COUNTY: Drawn from the county election officials. It accepts results from Broward and Volusia counties because those counties completed hand counts that were included in state-certified election totals. For those counties that said they would not count overvotes, relies on prevailing standard.

Result: Gore ahead by 171 votes.

-PALM BEACH STANDARD: Based on a standard Palm Beach election officials briefly used, this counts dimpled chads as valid votes if a pattern of dimpled chads exists elsewhere on the same ballot. Same as prevailing standard for optical scan ballots.

Result: Gore ahead by 42 votes.

Note that these counts INCLUDE the illegal absentee ballots from Republican counties. Even with these clearly inadmissable ballots, Gore wins. Further, they don't include the hundreds of ballots where people punched for Gore and then wrote "Gore" in the write-in field due to ambiguous instructions. These ballots, where the will of the voter could not be clearer, were not included.

To put in another way: if you count all the votes, even with various GOP scams added in, Gore wins. If you don't count all the votes, Bush wins. It's as simple as that.

What does this mean? It means the joker currently sitting in the Oval Office is not a legitimate president. It means what happened last year was basically a coup. If you think people are going to just forget about the subversion of democracy in the world's greatest country you're guaranteed to be disappointed. I understand wanting your side to win, but I don't understand trampling the constitution and destroying democracy to do it. I guess the ideals you Freepers claim to support -- liberty, law, democracy, fairness -- are just meaningless words if they stand between you and power. Now that you've revealed your true nature, don't expect the rest of us to ever forget it.

"Did you know that in 18 of 67 counties the vote was never recounted even once? Even the automatic recount mandated by law was never performed. We're talking about 1.58 million votes here."

The article stated they checked their results. If that didn't meet statutory requirements don't you think Al Gore's lawyers would have pointed that out in some legal brief before any one of a myriad of courts?

"Did you know that the Civil Rights Commission you mentioned earlier actually found the exact opposite results of what you posted? Here's the report itself. Read it and make up your own mind about what it says."

" ... it is impossible to determine the extent of the disenfranchisement or to provide an adequate remedy to the persons whose voices were silenced in this historic election by a pattern and practice of injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency."

Did you read where the report stated it is impossible to determine... That tells me that they couldn't find any evidence to support the argument.

"Did you know that the GOP worked to include clearly illegal absentee ballots in Republican counties, some of them up to six days late, while striving to exclude late absentee ballots from Democratic counties? Gore never tried to disenfranchise the military. He never objected to a single military ballot that was legally cast. He should have done more to oppose the clear GOP ballot fraud in Republican counties. Read this link, and be sure to check the scans of late ballots. Disbelieve your own eyes if you wish, but this is documented history."

If that was true why did some lawyer from Al Gore's campaign mail out a letter of instructions to those counties on how to count military ballots, in apparent conflict with Florida's consent agreement with the Fed's?

"Did you know that the Supreme Court decision which installed Bush as president was so transparently faulty, even to those who wrote it, that they included a clause saying that Bush vs. Gore could never be used as a precedent for any future case? No wonder no one wanted to sign their name to it."

What does that prove? Maybe it had to do with the fact that no one before Gore tried to count votes in violation of the 14th amendment?

"Did you know that the NORC study showed that in any state-wide recount, using ANY standard, Al Gore won?"

Using any standard would have been in violation of the 14th amendment though wouldn't it? The study also stated that the only way Gore would have won would be to count overvotes which have never been counted before.

I'm really surprised you cite both NORC and the Washington Post for your conclusions. Because, if you'd have bothered to read the actual report, AND the Washington Post, you'd have seen this:

"Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush"

Further into the article, it states:

"In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations."

Read the article for yourself here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A12623-2001Nov11

But let's at least be honest with each other--your not interested in being open-minded, your not interested in truth of information, nor are you interested in facts--after all, your a liberal, and a member of 'Bartcop.com'.

You know, I'm always more then willing to discuss the issues. Your 'Bartcop.com' special, in the forums over there, is truely incredible. You discuss being banned from freerepublic.com because of your disagreeing view here, yet, getting INTO the Bartcop.com Forum just to post, is nearly impossible. And just incase you do, you can be rest assured if you don't support thier view, you will be banned. Who's being the hypocrite now?

I really don't think your view of the election will change. Having read Bartcop.com, I find it to be not only misleading, but also simply disgustingly perverse and downright offensive. But, that's really what you leftist idiots are about, offensivness.