Did bush/cheney win the 2000 presidential election fair and square?

[Subdivisions]

[SDuderstadt]

1. You need more choices but...

since the answer cannot possibly be "yes", I not only vote "no", but "hell, no!".

[BeFree]

15. So

...was there a conspiracy to steal the election, or what?

[SDuderstadt]

16. I'm not interested in engaging with you, dude...

Hopefully, it will sink in at some point.

[BeFree]

17. I'm smiling

Got to hand it to you. My pleasure, indeed.

Of course there was a conspiracy to steal the election, duh.

The evidence is everywhere.

And did you know that the true story about the Florida count was about to be released in the week that 9/11 occurred? But when 9/11 happened they put off releasing the story about how Gore actually won Florida?

[Make7]

19. BeFree: "...it was Sept. 12 the report was due."

 

BeFree wrote:

Now, you'll say prove it... that it was Sept. 12 the report was due. Well, fuck that. It was. That's one reason I believe they set the date for MIHOP when they did.

However, if you care to wager, the wager would be: the loser leaves this forum. I will win that wager, dude. Go ahead, make my day.

link

 

[BeFree]

20. Thanks make, saved me a search. Good work.

Link to my post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=280053&mesg_id=281649

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=249

The Media Consortium was ready to publish their results the week after Sept. 11, but they postponed publication in order to avoid raising questions about Bush's legitimacy at a moment when the nation truly needed to unite.

[BeFree]

22. So

We see that, indeed, the report was ready by September 11.

The truth about bushco stealing the election was just about to be published.

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. so your source indicates that you were wrong about Sept. 12

You really, really might need to review Step 5. :hi:

[BeFree]

25. Step 5?

What does step 5 state? And are you experienced?

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. heh n/t

[SDuderstadt]

21. You mean the bet BeFree reneged on?

That bet?

[BeFree]

36. Eh?

You mean the bet that you refused to take because if you had you would have lost?

And here you are making shit up that I reneged. YOU are the one who was wise enough to not take on the bet. I only wish you had.....

[SDuderstadt]

37. BeFree logic...

"prove it" signifies you are declining a bet.

You also clearly lost the bet, as pointed out by several posters. Ever heard the expression, "let sleeping dogs lie"?

[BeFree]

39. There was no bet

Your "Prove it" does not, in any way shape or form mean: "I accept Befree's wager, or bet". Not even close. Well, maybe if you put it in a vice and twist really hard? Nope, not even then.

But it is a simple matter for everyone to see that the events of 9/11 postponed the report that was ready to be issued. Which was what my wager was based on. A wager you did not honestly accept.

[SDuderstadt]

40. "put it in a vice"

Jesus, you're funny, dude. I'll bet you even own the DVD of "Miami Vise".

BeFree logic: "Prove it!" means "I decline your bet". You're also moving the goalposts because the bet was that the report was due out 9/12 and the "evidence" you provided clearly disproves your claim. BTW, could you please tell us what, "A wager you did not 'honestly' accept" means? You seem to be acknowledging that I accepted your bet, but somehow did so "dishonestly". So, you are admitting I accepted your bet, no?

At this point, I'd be happy even for that because there is no way in hell you'll ever honor the bet you reneged upon, dude.

[Chris P. Bacon]

47. Good one, BeFree

:-) I guess some huge conspiracies do happen after all.

[Theobald]

42. Why can't the answer possibly be yes.

One could argue and it is probably true that more people went to the polls with the intention of voting for Gore, but the record shows that in all scenarios that were to be used for the recount Bush would have won. Gore would have won in a number of other scenarios but none of them were directed by the courts to be implemented.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11_3.html

The Florida Supreme Court's Dec. 8 order for a statewide manual recount of all undervote ballots also would have resulted in Bush as the winner, the study found. Gore's team protested when the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 9 agreed to the Bush campaign's request for a stay, halting that recount in midstream. But the study found that a count of all undervotes in the state would have left Bush ahead of Gore by 430 votes.

Some counties ignored the state Supreme Court order that weekend and refused to conduct manual recounts. Other counties included undervote and overvote ballots in their recounts. The media consortium surveyed the counties to determine what standards they were using. On the basis of those standards -- the closest approximation possible to what was happening that weekend -- the Post study found that, if the court had not intervened to stop the counting, Bush would have won by 493 votes.

But the results in Florida and, therefore, in the presidential election might have been different had the 67 counties been ordered to proceed with a manual recount of all undervotes and overvotes.

[BeFree]

43. I guess

If you are a character in 'Alice in Wonderland' you can say yes.

But in the real world: they stole the election.

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. this story is seriously flawed

You can read the Florida Supreme Court ruling for yourself. It doesn't contain an order for a statewide manual recount. It reverses and remands to the circuit court. The language of the ruling doesn't clearly distinguish between "undervotes" and "non-votes" (which would appear to include overvotes). It certainly doesn't preclude the circuit court from ordering both undervotes and overvotes to be counted when voter intent was clear.

I don't think we can say for sure who would have won if the SCOTUS hadn't stepped in. (That is, we don't know whether overvotes with unambiguous intent in fact would have been counted.)

[greyl]

48. It finishes strong.

Gore's largest margin in a statewide recount involving all ballots comes under a scenario that sought to recreate the standards established by each of the counties in their recounts. In that case, Gore emerged with 171 more votes than Bush.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11_4.html

[OnTheOtherHand]

49. yeah, the pivot is whether overvotes are inspected

I'm looking at Table 1 in Keating's paper (page 8), where the best scenario for Bush (short of the certified outcome) is a variant of "Review of Limited Sets of Ballots" called "Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes," and the best for Gore is a variant of "Review of All Ballots Statewide" called "Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey." It might seem contradictory, since each one seems to be "letting the counties do what they were doing" -- but the key is undervotes versus overvotes. Table 2 is very helpful in this regard.

ETA: The fact that the story "ends strong" is noteworthy in itself, apart from trying to understand the facts about the ballots. I'm glad you pointed out that the Post did get around to mentioning that result.

[Subdivisions]

2. Is there anything especially challenging about this poll? Do you guys

not understand the question?

[zappaman]

3. just why would you even bother posting this poll?

are there really people on DU who thought it was won fair and square?

[reinvestigate911]

4. just another goofy conspiracy theory

[SDuderstadt]

5. Then explain why I voted "no"...

dude.

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. well, it isn't well worded

"fair and square"? "stolen"? "legitimate"? Any one of those is ambiguous, yet you opted for all three.

Bottom line: I think five Supreme Court justices intervened to prevent a recount under Florida law because they were afraid it might turn out the wrong way, using a flimsy constitutional pretext. And, no, that wasn't fair.

[AZCat]

12. Why should we vote in your poll?

Is it going to spawn an interesting discussion, or does it inspire me to consider a perspective I hadn't considered before? If the answer to those questions is no, then why should I (or anyone else) participate?

[Subdivisions]

13. Ummmm...because ALL I am asking for is ONE CLICK. Is that too much trouble? n/t

[AZCat]

24. But WHY are you asking for one click?

Is there a point to this poll? Why should I participate - no matter how minor the effort - if there's no point?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

33. Why are you so offended at a simple question?

What is the point of the poll? That's all I'm asking, yet you not only get offended but accuse me of hassling you (on edit - it's called a discussion forum - perhaps you should expect a little discussion if you post something, be it a poll or otherwise). I won't make the mistake you did of assuming what motivates you to behave in such a manner but it does seem a little bizarre.

[greyl]

6. Do you think Obama/Biden won the 2008 election fair and square? nt

[30rock]

9. I do

There was no controversy whatsoever, and the margin was too high to have been a fraud.

[greyl]

10. That's cool.

However, I asked Subdiv specifically because of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x291346">his thread here.

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. ahhhh

I was sort of puzzled about your question myself.

[Subdivisions]

14. I have no doubts about Obama/Biden's win. I didn't when I was standing

with 2,000,000 people in 10 degree cold on Jan 20, 2009 and I have no doubt about it today.

Does that mean I'm not allowed to criticized this administration? NO. I EARNED my right to do so and I will and I don't care who dislikes it.

[LARED]

18. You EARNED your right to criticize?

What does that even mean?

[BeFree]

26. Me too

I earned the right to criticize the government in any way shape or form by participating to a degree which places me in the top few percentile.

And on occasion, when the need arises, I drop a 9/11 inference into the politicing. One has to be careful, tho, there are some real whacked, total believers in the OCT on the loose.

[SDuderstadt]

28. More unintentional irony from...

the king of unintentional irony.

[BeFree]

29. DUDE!!!

Glad to see you back, DUDE. I was afraid you had faded away.

Your words yesterday led me to believe you didn't want anything to do with me.

I'm smiling again.....

[SDuderstadt]

31. Read the post more carefully and you'll see...

it's aimed at everyone but you. Duh.

[BeFree]

32. Step 7. Read it again, DUDE.

This time try and realize its meaning.

I do have hope for you, and am interested in engaging you in discussions, but you are making this difficult, eh?

[SDuderstadt]

34. I see you're tone deaf, too...

I have stated repeatedly that I have no interest in engaging with you because of your gameplaying and hypocrisy. I don't ee any point in trying to reasonwith anyone who claims something as dumb as contrails are "chemtrails". I have a hard time understanding why that's not sinking in, dude.

In the meantime, you might want to, once again, note the large number of times other members have kicked your "Honest Discussions - Ten Steps" OP imploring you to follow your own counsel. Why do you think that is, dude?

[BeFree]

35. See? That's the difference

I think your gameplaying and hypocrisy must be engaged each time it pops up.

And, I have noticed that the "10 steps" are having an impact. There are fewer and fewer posts which do not follow the "10 steps".

Keep digging, DUDE, you are almost there..!!


In reply to:

SDuderstadt


I have stated repeatedly that I have no interest in engaging with you because of your gameplaying and hypocrisy. I don't ee any point in trying to reasonwith anyone who claims something as dumb as contrails are "chemtrails". I have a hard time understanding why that's not sinking in, dude.

In the meantime, you might want to, once again, note the large number of times other members have kicked your "Honest Discussions - Ten Steps" OP imploring you to follow your own counsel. Why do you think that is, dude?

[SDuderstadt]

38. Dude...

I think it's safe to assume that others assume that when you reply to a post, it's clear you're replying to the post as shown and it's, therefore, unnecessary to cut and paste the entirety of what you're replying to. If I were you, I wouldn't keep drawing attention to your OP that so many others have kicked specifically in response to your blatant hypocrisy.

Don't you have to go "hound Bushco" or something? How's that going? There's a reason you're regarded so derisively and treated so dismissively here. Perhaps one day you'll actually figure it out.

[jberryhill]

8. No /nt

[Ter]

41. They didn't PLAN on stealing it

But once Florida happened, they quickly tried to put a halt on the recounts, and succeeded.

[greyl]

44. I think there's plenty of evidence that Republicans, prior to election day,

put a lot of effort into dishonestly gaining an unfair advantage, not be redundant and repetitive.

[defendandprotect]

55. Especially when the computers are considered ... put in place long before this election ...

and, IMO, many elections stolen inbetween --

They began coming in -- large ones used by MSM in mid-1960's -- and the

voting coming in late 1960's --

Until then, MSM could only report ACTUAL vote tallies --

This gave them new powers to PREDICT and CALL elections -- name winners and losers!

And in 2000 -- to reverse them!

I'd question elections all the way back to Nixon/Humphrey -- another squeaker, as I recall.

I'd also question whether there was ever a "Southern Strategy" or whether there were

only computer steals? Incidentally, these computers began to come in just about the time

that America was passing The Voting Rights Act!

The South voted for LBJ after the JFK coup --

and they voted for Carter -- all of the Confederacy, if I recall???

[defendandprotect]

50. To the contrary, they did plan to steal it ... and, in the event, that Bush had

won the popular vote but not the Electoral College vote, they were prepared to

argue that the popular vote should prevail!!

They also argued two different positions re the "illegal" military ballots --

The "butterfly ballot" IMO was also a questionable plan to steal . . . with "Democrat"

Theresa La Pore later connected to the Republicans.

And, certainly, the ability of Fox/Jon Ellis to REVERSE the call of Florida for Gore

was based on simply REVERSING the power of the large MSM computer prediction.

Not only have the large computers used by MSM provided a "crystal ball" for MSM to predict

and call elections/winners and losers -- but you can also simply reverse those calls!!

They also quickly organized a GOP-sponsored fascist rally to STOP the Miami-Dade County

vote recounting mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court . . . something they couldn't

manage to do by any honest means!!

Btw, our SC Justice John Roberts, was an advisor to GOP during these times --

and presumably his SC nomination was the reward for this dirty work.


From the highest perspective, however, couldn't have been done without their pre-planning

for computer steals and having stacked the SC with the "Gang of 5" -- !!

[LARED]

51. 'they were prepared to argue that the popular vote should prevail!!'

Really? I have never heard that before. Care to back that up?

This is not in any way a defense of Bush. I am simply seeing if you just made it up out of thin air.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Actually, I believe that is...

true and I further believe Toobin corroborated it in "Too Close to Call". Bush's campaign team expected him to win the popular vote, but lose the Electoral College and they were prepared to argue that the "will of the people had been thwarted", all of which goes to show the hypocrisy of the Bushies knows no bounds.

[LARED]

53. Wow, it's hard to believe the Bushies were that stupid

but then again maybe not.

[SDuderstadt]

54. Or...

desperate to win. That's my guess.

[Iggo]

46. Yes. Absolutely.

:eyes: