View Single Post
Old 06-17-2004, 03:21 PM   #27
Noxrepere
 
Noxrepere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally posted by Kain
You’re joking, right? Gore wins the election, but wait, Florida, the state where Jeb Bush is governor, needs a recount. Gore wins again. NOPE!! RECOUNT!! Gore wins. Recount again. Bush wins? Wait, that doesn't make sense!
I can't really tell what time line you're going by there but, yes, on election night, Florida was originally called for Gore. That was due to the media releasing their projected winner before the rest of the state had voted. Florida is in two time zones and therefore the west most portion of the state had not closed the polls yet. That was an irresponsibility on the media’s part.

Even Gore himself originally called Bush and conceded that Bush won and then later called back to say that he wasn't conceding yet.

As far as the recounts go, I can't see how anyone can see that as anything other than one sided in the manner that it was being done. Gore only wanted to recount certain counties within Florida, not the whole state, and "coincidentally" they happened to be predominantly Democratic counties. Who stands to gain more votes if they only recount in democratic counties?

Originally Bush's people were saying that if any recount were going to take place it would be state wide, not just selected counties.

You mention three specific recounts before saying that Bush won. If those recounts only counted more votes in Democratic counties, then Gore would gain more votes, but, again, it was hardly a formal recount.

The justification for the whole recount thing was also based on a margin of error for the counting machines. Both Bush and Gore stood to loose votes because of a margin of error, but it's not like the machines would favor one over the other.

I don't think the recount could have progressed without personal biases leading towards tipping the votes. There were just too many people handling them to say that no one could have changed anything on any of the ballots. The original count was done by impartial machines. Putting humans into the mix only introduced a greater chance of interference. Those who were handling the votes knew that the election was riding on Florida. It just seems too easy for temptations to set in for those directly involved in any recount.

I fail to see how anyone can consider any part of that unfair for anyone other than Bush.



In that article the person who objected to the report was a politician. Again that article says that the 2003 number is in question, and makes no mention of any inaccuracies for the 2001 and 2002 numbers. Seeing as how the numbers from 2001 to 2002 did go down, how is that not a victory?

Quote:
Originally posted by toms
It is also the case that a number of people on these forums are from outside America, and bush is universally seen as an idiot (perhaps even to an unfair degree) outside of America.
I would agree with that. Especially the "unfair degree" part. But it's not like people in other countries outside of America aren't subject to receiving biased reports by those who don't agree with Bush's politics. Challenging his intelligence makes a convenient target for them rather than just focusing on the issues.

Quote:
Both of these articles hardly appear to be evidence of any sort that give justification to wanting Bush fired or that the White house is “blowing it"
I was merely saying that neither of these articles alone is enough evidence to warrant any justification of “firing” him. It makes much more sense to just say that you want him fired because you disagree with his politics rather than continually looking for reasons to have him fired.
Noxrepere is offline   you may: quote & reply,