Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

It only helps if one accepts your statements from authority as "facts," without questioning whether or not you are correct in your statements.

If you think any of my statements are not factual, you are welcome to offer citations to prove them untrue.

Of course, the reality is that we've been down this road too many times. I realize that there are some, EB among them, who simply don't care what the facts are, they just intend to pretend amongst themselves that their version of reality is actual reality and have a tacit agreement not to ever acknowledge the blatant failings of their view. This allows them the pretense of being in agreement with a majority (which it is not) and also absolves them of any personal responsibility to address the available facts.

I happen to think that this is a pretty good description of how children "reason", and think it sad that adults find it acceptable to approach such weighty issues with the intellectual integrity of a child.

I'm not obliged to disprove your claims, you are obliged to prove them. I've never "been down this road" with you. You sent me a buch of your nonsense by PM, and i simply had no interest in arguing the topic with you. I similarly have no interest in such a fruitless endeavor now. I note that after your pious calls for decorum and respect made in another thread, you cannot resist the impulse to impute childishness to those who don't accept your statements from authority--an authority i have no reason to believe you have.

If you want people to address "the available facts," you need to do more than just assert that you know them and that others don't.

Some facts

National Opinion Research Council Newspaper Consortium funded recount

Published November 11, 2001

Certified Florida results
Bush 2912790 margin +537
Gore 2912256

If Gore requested recount in four counties
Bush 2913351 margin +225
Gore 2913126

IF US Supreme Court had not stopped the recount
Bush 2915559 margin +493
Gore 2916006

If only fully punched ballots had been recounted, correctly marked, optically scanned
Bush 2915136
Gore 2915245 margin +115

Recount using each county's standard
Bush 2917676
Gore 2917847 margin +171

Recount including dimpled ballots
Bush 2924588
Gore 2924695 margin +107


Quote from Bush Watch
"Third, discounting such unretrievable invalid votes, Consortium interpretations, which allow only fully-punched ballot cards and correctly marked optical scanned ballots, conclude that Gore still beat Bush in a statewide recount in Florida by a thin margin of over 100 votes".


http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm


If you are going to steal an election the first thing you must insure is that the ballots are not counted correctly.

Additonally, Acq, there is the interference of the Supremes. I am always amused when conservatives rant about "judicial activism," as has recently been the case in the issue of same sex marriage. No such quibble apparently occurs to them in the matter of the Supremes intervening when the constitution does not grant them either original nor appellate jurisdiction, and despite the IXth and Xth amendments--it would seem that judicial activism is to be defined by outcome.

Set - Take a deep breath, buddy. It'll be okay.

First, when I wrote that "we've" been down this road before, I really meant I've been down it with the anti-Bush/anti-reality crowd here in A2K rather than with you specifically. Second, I'm sorry if you don't like that I find this type of "thinking" childish, but I do. Third, I don't know what "pious" calls I may have made for civility, but I know I've never claimed to be perfect. I hope you'll allow me to strive for things I may not yet do perfectly. Also, I suspect that others can see the difference between the type of name calling that often occurs here and my offering my opinion of a type of reasoning I have encountered here. Fourth, I have shared my facts in A2K, and know you to be aware of them, so I do think it is incumbent on you to explain how you think those facts are invalid if you do, or to accept that your conclusions regarding the 2000 election are not based on facts.

I don't think I have a "fifth" thing, but let me know if I missed any of your points.

Scrat:
End of discussion. I wanted fact, not fantasy.

I actually thought Scrat was right about the newspaper recounts showing that Bush would still have won in a recount, I thought I remembered such from a NYT article ... but these numbers suggest otherwise.

Scrat, you've gone on a lot about how you have the facts and the opponents are just indulging in fantasy - what is your reaction?

This is the one that many people have "complained"
about - that the SC picked the winner of this contest.
"IF US Supreme Court had not stopped the recount
Bush 2915559 margin +493
Gore 2916006"
That margin number 493 should belong besides Gore's number - as the winner.

Err, no c.i. - I think that recount showed that even if the SC had not stopped the recount, Bush still would have won, by a 493-vote margin.

Its just that, apparently, if a full recount had taken place - of a scope beyond the one that the SC stopped - then Gore would have won.

Did I get that right?

Yes.

But Gore never asked for that kind of full recount, right?

It's not the first time I've been confused with all the different results of the Florida vote. So it seems it's only those three situations outlined by nimh that would have resulted in the Gore win. I don't care for the dimpled ballot result in any form.

That's also correct, nimh.

He had always only asked for recounts in four counties rather than a full statewide recount.

Moot in either event, because the USSC's decision hinged on the contention that there was not time enough to complete a recount without damage to petitioner (Bush).

There were also plenty of Democrats, mainly or only black, who were kept from voting at all.

ABC NEWS:


CNN:


Miami Herald (as reported by ABC):

Want more?

Those are the facts upon which I base my opinion. I note that yours lacks any attribution--no link or citation as to source. Of course, I'm willing to concede that one or two recounts may have indicated Gore was the winner since the margin was so small, though in the case ABC cites (first citation of mine, above) it was only through using the most lax standards for what constituted a vote that Gore came out on top, and that method of counting votes was not legal under FL law.

But let's assume this isn't me having facts and you lacking them. Let's say their are facts that support each position. What do you do then? Well, logic and reason dictate that you consider the volume of data on each side of the argument, right? So, how many recounts showed Gore was the winner, and how many favored Bush? Do a simple search of the Internet, and if you can keep yourself from cherry-picking the stories that suit your desired outcome, I am confident you will find far more information stating that Bush won according to recount after recount.

And that's not even discussing the bigger issue that the election HAD TO BE conducted according to FL law in place at the time, and Gore's team tried to stray from the law in the middle of the process. Federal election law is absolutely clear and unambiguous on this point: the election and vote counting must be performed based on the law at the time the election occurred. Obviously our system would fall apart if every candidate who didn't like the way things were shaping up were free to simply ignore the law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1111592.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1111592.stm

The black vote in Florida.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10191

The black vote in Florida.
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/civil9_20010609.htm