There is really isn't much that leads me to belive that the recount would have changed anything
Al Gore
George W. Bush
I'm curious to see how people perceive the impact of the Supreme Court decision to disallow the Gore recount on the outcome of the election. The reason that I'm asking is because of a specific way in which a news piece I saw tonight was presented.
Please participate in the poll, but give it a few days before discussing the answer. Thanks.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
There is really isn't much that leads me to belive that the recount would have changed anything
Too bad, Obama and Hillary are in the same party. I d rather see them compete for the president. A female and a Black people, that is more intriguing.
It could be still that shrub in the office whom we have seen today. I m curious that the supreme court overruled the appeal for recount by following the precedent or rendering it a new lawcase thus trying with creation? what did it hold for the judgment?Who would have won the 2000 election if the Gore recount had been allowed?
Last edited by Tangyiying; 03 Apr 08, at 04:49.
I need to change my answerI voted Bush
I saw Gore recount and just thought recount.
Under the Gore plan ( pick and choose various counties/districts) He may have won.
Under a statewide recount, he would have lost.
Typical liberal. You only see skin colors and the location of reproductive organs. Both of them are socialist.
McCain is a socialist also, but at least the difference between him and the other 2 are greater than just those 2.
The recount was halted because Gore was picking and choosing the districts he want recounted. The court didn't want it to turn into a farce.
As what Gun Grape said, if the recount involved a standardized method of counting and involved the entire state, Bush would have won anyways.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
GG and gunnut,
You both got it backwards![]()
They are other scenarios that weren't pursued by the Gore campaign that would have put Gore ahead.EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - New York Times
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.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
This piece that motivated this poll is here - it's a 60 Minutes piece with Gore. The first link is the article on the piece, and the second link is the video itself. As you'll see if you watch, the way the question is presented, the implication is that the election was stolen by the courts, which is false.
Al Gore's New Campaign, Tells 60 Minutes That Doubting Global Warming Is Man-Made Is Akin To Believing Earth Is Flat - CBS News
CBS News Video - Top Stories and Video News Clips at CBSNews.com
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
That's quite a stretch -- if he were a socialist he's be advocating nationalized health care, higher taxes, more re-distributive programs, etc. The man's supported every free trade agreement he's had the opportunity to vote on.Originally Posted by gunnut
Furthermore, and most importantly, socialism advocates state control/ownership of the means of economic production.
I'm not sure what your definition of socialism is, because John McCain, quite clearly, does not support state ownership of the means of production.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Share this thread with friends: