Guess McCain dodged a bullet here....

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

On how Gore actually beat Bush and the unorthodox role played by the Supreme Court.

The Consortium

None Dare Call It Treason

Interesting articles from 2001. Did you happen to catch the NYT final take on the Florida results, released after all the evidence was examined?

I think even you, Etta, would have to agree that the NYT is hardly a Bush-supporting newpaper, and the NYT tends to be critical of all things Bush... well, here's what the Old Gray Lady had to say:

New York Times
Tuesday, September 23, 2008

EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
By FORD FESSENDEN AND JOHN M. BRODER
Published: November 12, 2001

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

...

More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.

Thus the most thorough examination of Florida's uncounted ballots provides ammunition for both sides in what remains the most disputed and mystifying presidential election in modern times. It illuminates in detail the weaknesses of Florida's system that prevented many from voting as they intended to. But it also provides support for the result that county election officials and the courts ultimately arrived at -- a Bush victory by the tiniest of margins.

The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537-vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush.

For example, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. Florida officials had begun such a recount the next day, but the effort was halted that afternoon when the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 vote that a statewide recount using varying standards threatened ''irreparable harm'' to Mr. Bush.

But the consortium's study shows that Mr. Bush would have won even if the justices had not stepped in (and had further legal challenges not again changed the trajectory of the battle), answering one of the abiding mysteries of the Florida vote.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by jmichna

Interesting articles from 2001. Did you happen to catch the NYT final take on the Florida results, released after all the evidence was examined?

I think even you, Etta, would have to agree that the NYT is hardly a Bush-supporting newpaper, and the NYT tends to be critical of all things Bush... well, here's what the Old Gray Lady had to say:

Yes, I had heard that the New York Times had written this story. However, their interpretation of the study was not universal. They were just one member of the consortium.

I'm not a big conspiracy theory person - and I'm not invested in a big way whether Gore beat Bush in Florida. I voted for Bush anyway. It's my opinion that if Gore couldn't beat Bush with a wide enough margin, then he probably didn't deserve to win.

I'm just trying to show that there are many sources out there on both sides that offer proof of unfair, illegal or just shady voting practices. Both parties have done it.

And, the group, ACORN, despite some flaws and failures, has done a lot of good for many people.

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Many shady Republican practices are listed here:

Black Box Voting

Security flaws in Diebold Software, and sudden Republican election winners

Diebold Voting Machine Owner Committed To Give Votes To Bush in 2004

Republican Owned Diebold E-Voting Flaws Could Compromise Elections

DNC to Investigate Ohio Voting Irregularities (washingtonpost.com)

A few examples.

Unlike the ACORN voters registration violations and fraud, which have been proven in court... bottom line the links you provide draw conclusions with no proof, based on polls not matching actual election results, and because they have no other explanation, somehow the Republicans must have "cheated" or Diebold "cooked" the results. Trouble is, polls are not accurate, people lie to pollsters all the time. I lie any time I'm asked to do an exit poll. My vote is no business of the pollster. And, poll results based on counts taken during working hours can't reflect the working electorate.

For example, did you do any follow up with regard to that last article re Ohio voting irregularities? Were the allegations ever proven? Was there a summary article after all the evidence was collected?

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Yes, I had heard that the New York Times had written this story. However, their interpretation of the study was not universal. They were just one member of the consortium....

You are unbelievable. Did you read the NYT article? The article WAS the results of the entire consortium. Are you comprehensionally-challenged?

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by jmichna

You are unbelievable. Did you read the NYT article? The article WAS the results of the entire consortium. Are you comprehensionally-challenged?

I've posted that NYT story on here before for etta and she disregarded it then, so there is no use in trying now.

Basically, if anything doesn't conform with her own internal bias, then she automatically labels it as a lie fostered by the opposition.

Frank

[tomfoolery]

Blame it on Etta. When you can't pay your bills blame her. When you get stuck in traffic blame her. When you just don't feel like working blame her.

Throw the blame around with absolutely no factual backing like she does. If someone argues with you just tell them they are wrong, thats what she does.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by tomfoolery

Blame it on Etta. When you can't pay your bills blame her. When you get stuck in traffic blame her. When you just don't feel like working blame her.

Throw the blame around with absolutely no factual backing like she does. If someone argues with you just tell them they are wrong, thats what she does.

Frank

[tomfoolery]

I just felt inclined to plague the airways with anti Etta crap like she does with her anti bush/american crap

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by tomfoolery

I just felt inclined to plague the airways with anti Etta crap like she does with her anti bush/american crap

ahhh, I see.

Sorry, I just didn't get it at the time...I'm tired...

Carry on!

Frank