Nader says he won't run in '04

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Spoiler my ass - Gore lost the election because of his own doing - not some third party candidate.
Then dittos on George I.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Ferocious
Gore lost decisive Florida by fewer than 600 votes, while Nader got nearly 100,000 there.
Wow.
And he lost his home state why?


Anyway - The radio is saying that while Nader won't run on the Green Party ticket he supposedly hasn't ruled out an "Independant" run.

Hmm...

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,124
5,292
126
Originally posted by: Ferocious
Gore lost decisive Florida by fewer than 600 votes, while Nader got nearly 100,000 there.
Wow.
Gore won in Florida. The votes weren't counted at the time of the election because the Supreme Coup selected Bush instead of counting the vote. Only after the the election were the votes counted. Gore Won. Bush isn't the real President. The elected government of the US was overthrown.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
Unfortunately, the Greens have gone over the edge, forgetting that the Dems have been their allies all along. So they "made a statement" and put Dubya in the Whitehouse. Amazing how you can shoot yourself in the foot and knife your friends in the back at the same time. Twits.

Wake up, Ralph- tell your friends and supporters to vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, not waste their votes in a fit of pique...
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Ferocious
Gore lost decisive Florida by fewer than 600 votes, while Nader got nearly 100,000 there.
Wow.
Gore won in Florida. The votes weren't counted at the time of the election because the Supreme Coup selected Bush instead of counting the vote. Only after the the election were the votes counted. Gore Won. Bush isn't the real President. The elected government of the US was overthrown.
Do you have any proof of that? Recount after recount has indicated that the President did indeed have more votes in Florida.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,124
5,292
126
I proved it about a thousand times in a thousand threads, and gave up doing it more. The recounts that were conducted just resubmitted their previous totals. The consortium recount showed that Gore got the most votes statewide of legal ballots, but the info was intentionally hidden by saying Bush won in this type and that type of count. The count he lost was the total legal fote count of all counties. Gore got the majority of actual legal votes. Try Google 'Gore won' and see if Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting comes up.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,620
12,216
136
Bad news for GW and the Pubs.

At this point, I foresee another very close election. It'll be interesting, that's for sure. Remember that Gore almost beat GW, and he's an idiot.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I proved it about a thousand times in a thousand threads, and gave up doing it more. The recounts that were conducted just resubmitted their previous totals. The consortium recount showed that Gore got the most votes statewide of legal ballots, but the info was intentionally hidden by saying Bush won in this type and that type of count. The count he lost was the total legal fote count of all counties. Gore got the majority of actual legal votes. Try Google 'Gore won' and see if Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting comes up.
And yet...not from one legitimate news source. Amazing.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I proved it about a thousand times in a thousand threads, and gave up doing it more. The recounts that were conducted just resubmitted their previous totals. The consortium recount showed that Gore got the most votes statewide of legal ballots, but the info was intentionally hidden by saying Bush won in this type and that type of count. The count he lost was the total legal fote count of all counties. Gore got the majority of actual legal votes. Try Google 'Gore won' and see if Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting comes up.
And yet...not from one legitimate news source. Amazing.
Everybody knows by now that GW Sr & family bought the Election for Jr. Money is the ultimate power.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I proved it about a thousand times in a thousand threads, and gave up doing it more. The recounts that were conducted just resubmitted their previous totals. The consortium recount showed that Gore got the most votes statewide of legal ballots, but the info was intentionally hidden by saying Bush won in this type and that type of count. The count he lost was the total legal fote count of all counties. Gore got the majority of actual legal votes. Try Google 'Gore won' and see if Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting comes up.
And yet...not from one legitimate news source. Amazing.
Everybody knows by now that GW Sr & family bought the Election for Jr. Money is the ultimate power.
Sorry I thought it was handed to him by the supreme coup. I get my illuminati conspiracies all mixed up. I wish you and Moonie would straighten this one out...
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,124
5,292
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I proved it about a thousand times in a thousand threads, and gave up doing it more. The recounts that were conducted just resubmitted their previous totals. The consortium recount showed that Gore got the most votes statewide of legal ballots, but the info was intentionally hidden by saying Bush won in this type and that type of count. The count he lost was the total legal fote count of all counties. Gore got the majority of actual legal votes. Try Google 'Gore won' and see if Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting comes up.
And yet...not from one legitimate news source. Amazing.
I used to have many many sources bookmarked from many major papers. The links died when stuff was archived. NYTimes, Newsweek, Miami Herald come to mind.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,124
5,292
126
Here is one account I can still find that contains some of the story. Take a good look. It will disappear soon too, no doubt.

Published on Thursday, November 15, 2001 in the Long Island, NY Newsday
Not That It Was Reported, but Gore Won
by Jim Naureckas

IN JOURNALISM, it's called "burying the lead": A story starts off with what everyone already knows, while the real news - the most surprising, significant or never-been-told-before information - gets pushed down where people are less likely to see it.
That's what happened to the findings of the media study of the uncounted votes from last year's Florida presidential vote. A consortium of news outlets - including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Tribune Co. (Newsday's parent company), The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press and CNN - spent nearly a year and $900,000 reexamining every disputed ballot.

The consortium determined that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed the ongoing recount to go through, George W. Bush would still likely have ended up in the White House. That's because the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court - as well as the more limited recount asked for by Democratic candidate Al Gore - only involved so-called undervotes, ballots that when counted mechanically registered no choice for president.

Gore and the Florida Supreme Court ignored overvotes - votes where mechanical counting registered more than one vote - on the assumption that there would be no way to tell which of the multiple candidates the voter actually intended to pick.

But as the consortium found when it actually looked at the overvotes, one often could tell what the voter's intent was. Many of the overvotes involved, for example, a voter punching the hole next to a candidate's name, and then writing in the same candidate's name.

Since the intent of the voter is clear, these are clearly valid votes under Florida law. And Gore picked up enough of such votes that it almost didn't matter what standard you used when looking at undervotes - whether you counted every dimple or insisted on a fully punched chad, the consortium found that Gore ended up the winner of virtually any full reexamination of rejected ballots.

So there are two main findings: The Supreme Court's intervention probably did not affect the outcome of the limited recounts then under way, and more people probably cast valid votes for Gore than for Bush.

If the first finding was the important news, the consortium was scooped long ago: The Miami Herald and USA Today, working as a separate team, published stories in April that argued persuasively that the particular recounts that were halted by the Supreme Court probably would have produced a Bush victory.

What's new is the finding that, since voters are supposed to decide elections rather than lawyers or judges, the state's electoral votes appear to have gone to the wrong candidate. Given that the outcome in Florida determined the national victor, this is not just news but a critical challenge to the legitimacy of the presidency.

So how did the media report the results of the ballot reexamination?Overwhelmingly, they chose to lead with the news that was comfortable, uncontroversial - and seven months old. "In Election Review, Bush Wins Without Supreme Court Help," was The Wall Street Journal's headline on its story, paralleling The New York Times' "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote." That angle would be fine if you believed that the Supreme Court was the most important aspect of the story; but what about the presidency?

Other members of the consortium emphasized the most Bush-friendly aspects of the story: "Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds," was the Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times' main headline on its report, matching The Washington Post's "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush" and CNN.com's "Florida Recount Study: Bush Still Wins." The St. Petersburg Times' Web site put it succinctly: "Recount: Bush." While some of these outlets tried to convey greater complexity in subheads, all these headlines obscure the fact that the outlets' most comprehensive recount put Gore ahead of Bush.

Emphasizing the old and conventional while playing down the new and controversial is a recipe for being ignored, and sure enough, few outlets that were not part of the consortium did much with the findings. A story that may well be mentioned in high school history classes a hundred years from now didn't even merit an editorial comment from most newspapers.

It's tempting to attribute this coyness to Sept. 11, and news outlets' reluctance to undermine the legitimacy of the presidency when the country is at war. But the coverage of the consortium's findings is similar to the way earlier media recounts were handled; even the most preliminary Miami Herald/USA Today ballot stories prompted "Bush Really Won" stories across the country. Similarly, when Bush's inauguration was greeted by raucous marchers contesting his victory, many outlets played down the significance of the protests. The New York Times virtually ignored them.

War or no war, many journalists are instinctively protective of the legitimacy of the institutions they cover, but the job of a journalist is not to promote but to question. The theory behind the First Amendment is that the system will be strengthened by an unflinching look at the system's flaws. In looking back at the results of the Florida election, the media flinched.

Jim Naureckas is the editor of Extra!, the magazine of the media watch group FAIR.

Copyright © 2001, Newsday, Inc.


 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
An interesting article Moonbeam. I wonder if it will raise any eyebrows or lead to some members asking a few questions. To be honest however, I think it will probably be either ignored, or deemed irrelevant, just because it goes against what is commonly believed.

<---- knows way too little about the subject to have a solid opinion either way...but is acceptive to input on the subject.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,124
5,292
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
An interesting article Moonbeam. I wonder if it will raise any eyebrows or lead to some members asking a few questions. To be honest however, I think it will probably be either ignored, or deemed irrelevant, just because it goes against what is commonly believed.

<---- knows way too little about the subject to have a solid opinion either way...but is acceptive to input on the subject.
It was buried by the media so you can pretty well figure where it will go. I just think it's nice to remember that the asses who claim to have character stole the election.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I proved it about a thousand times in a thousand threads, and gave up doing it more. The recounts that were conducted just resubmitted their previous totals. The consortium recount showed that Gore got the most votes statewide of legal ballots, but the info was intentionally hidden by saying Bush won in this type and that type of count. The count he lost was the total legal fote count of all counties. Gore got the majority of actual legal votes. Try Google 'Gore won' and see if Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting comes up.
Yet you never took me and many other's up on offers to create a thread where you could lay out your case and us ours. You just continue to say you "proved" something which you most definitely did not. Legal ballots only include those ballots which meet the election laws that existed at the time the vote was cast.

If you think the laws concerning the counting of ballots is wrong - get them changed the right way - ie through the body of gov't that makes law;)

Although it's funny - I have plenty of links(that still work;)) that try to support your argument and were posted by people who share your position. I also have plenty of links to information and LAW that refute the accusations brought up by "the people who have yet to get over it".:)

I wonder if more "Independents" will support Nader if he doesn't run as a "Green" and tries it as an "Independent". Should be interesting to see if he jumps into the game when things get flowing. Maybe Susan Sarandon will support him again - that should help:)

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
CAD - Legal ballots only include those ballots which meet the election laws that existed at the time the vote was cast.

Cad, those 'overvotes' that the article talks about weren't legal?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I used to have many many sources bookmarked from many major papers. The links died when stuff was archived. NYTimes, Newsweek, Miami Herald come to mind.
I may have mentioned this before, but that's why I started posting full article text. It's frustrating to collect a lot of information, then have it start disappearing a few weeks later.

Fascinating article, by the way. That's an aspect to the story I've never heard before.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD - Legal ballots only include those ballots which meet the election laws that existed at the time the vote was cast.

Cad, those 'overvotes' that the article talks about weren't legal?
That article doesn't provide the relevant data behind it's statments. Moonie should have the data - it is out there.;) Yes the ballots were cast legally, however the laws of Florida at the time the ballots were cast are the only laws relevant to the discussion of how they were counted and called for recount. Ask moonie to start a thread on this and present his case so we can have a lively discussion over the holidays :D

A commentary on the 'Green' situation.

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,124
5,292
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I proved it about a thousand times in a thousand threads, and gave up doing it more. The recounts that were conducted just resubmitted their previous totals. The consortium recount showed that Gore got the most votes statewide of legal ballots, but the info was intentionally hidden by saying Bush won in this type and that type of count. The count he lost was the total legal fote count of all counties. Gore got the majority of actual legal votes. Try Google 'Gore won' and see if Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting comes up.
Yet you never took me and many other's up on offers to create a thread where you could lay out your case and us ours. You just continue to say you "proved" something which you most definitely did not. Legal ballots only include those ballots which meet the election laws that existed at the time the vote was cast.

If you think the laws concerning the counting of ballots is wrong - get them changed the right way - ie through the body of gov't that makes law;)

Although it's funny - I have plenty of links(that still work;)) that try to support your argument and were posted by people who share your position. I also have plenty of links to information and LAW that refute the accusations brought up by "the people who have yet to get over it".:)

I wonder if more "Independents" will support Nader if he doesn't run as a "Green" and tries it as an "Independent". Should be interesting to see if he jumps into the game when things get flowing. Maybe Susan Sarandon will support him again - that should help:)

CkG
Been there and done that about a thousand times. You've either been asleep or not a member yet.



 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD - Legal ballots only include those ballots which meet the election laws that existed at the time the vote was cast.

Cad, those 'overvotes' that the article talks about weren't legal?
"So there are two main findings: The Supreme Court's intervention probably did not affect the outcome of the limited recounts then under way, and more people probably cast valid votes for Gore than for Bush. "

It doesn't matter, the Electoral College folks were already bought out.



 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD - Legal ballots only include those ballots which meet the election laws that existed at the time the vote was cast.

Cad, those 'overvotes' that the article talks about weren't legal?
"So there are two main findings: The Supreme Court's intervention probably did not affect the outcome of the limited recounts then under way, and more people probably cast valid votes for Gore than for Bush. "

It doesn't matter, the Electoral College folks were already bought out.

Good job in pointing out the word 'valid' in the article Dave. I guess this means that the overvotes were indeed legal...at least according to the author.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,124
5,292
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD - Legal ballots only include those ballots which meet the election laws that existed at the time the vote was cast.

Cad, those 'overvotes' that the article talks about weren't legal?
Cad, those votes were legal:

Florida election law Section 101.514(5) promulgates the following standard for canvassing votes rejected by the counting machines: "No vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board."
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY