You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #33: Where would one begin? There was the "heavier" paper made [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Skarbrowe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
33. Where would one begin? There was the "heavier" paper made
Edited on Sun Nov-04-07 12:36 PM by Skarbrowe
by a paper factory that had been producing the punch card paper for years with no problems. Suddenly, before the 2000 election they were constantly sent the wrong weight of paper. They would reject this paper, but it would end up coming back. The bad paper would cause the stylist to not clearly PUNCH out the whole, leaving those awful things called hanging chads. These batches of bad paper were to be sent to Florida.

Also, the Republican machine in Florida had already systematically disenfranchised thousands of minority voters who never had a chance for their vote to be counted in the first place by wiping all kinds of similar names to criminals off the voter rolls. These people didn't know this had happened to then until the day they tried to vote. They were turned away with no recourse. All phone lines to clear anything up were BUSY.

Also, if some parts of florida where you would mark your candidate on the optimal scanner sheets, you were told to write in the name of your candidate too. If you DID write in the candidate after marking him on the ballot, it was called an over vote and discarded.

After blocking thousands of Democratic votes with tricks like I'm pulling from my memory above, if every ballot had been looked at, ACTUALLY looked at, Gore still would have won. Now, just from the ballots that they did have a chance to go over before the count was unconstitutionally stopped, the weird way they set up how they would look at a hanging chad, one quarter out, half-out, really ridiculous stuff, some people said Bush would have won with the strictest interpretation of the ballot. If they could have just had a chance to read the ballots that had Al Gore's name written on it because that legally fell under voter INTENT, Gore probably had the election with ease.

Edited to point out that while I was taking forever to type all of this, several posters got in some great information with links.

Again, all this is right off the top of my head. I'm sure like people have said, Google should have it all.

Still bugs me to death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -so an associate told me that the NYT confirmed the recount in Florida indicate bush won still_one  Nov-04-07 11:59 AM   #0 
  - BullShit..  zidzi   Nov-04-07 12:01 PM   #1 
  - Yup, I agree, I just want to provide some documentary evidence  still_one   Nov-04-07 12:08 PM   #8 
     - Yeah..sorry I was so  zidzi   Nov-04-07 12:17 PM   #19 
        - I felt the same way. Thanks /nt  still_one   Nov-04-07 12:33 PM   #35 
  - Nope. Just the opposite.  Lefty-Taylor   Nov-04-07 12:04 PM   #2 
  - do you have the link to the NYTimes story. I will subscribe to it just to justify he is full of it  still_one   Nov-04-07 12:09 PM   #12 
  - Did you ask your associate to provide proof of that ridiculous assertion?  annabanana   Nov-04-07 12:04 PM   #3 
  - No, but I know his answer would be for me to provide the proof /nt  still_one   Nov-04-07 12:10 PM   #14 
     - Call bullshit, then. He made the assertion. He needs to bring the proof.  Fridays Child   Nov-04-07 12:12 PM   #17 
        - Actually other posts in this thread have made my case for me, so I actually have substance  still_one   Nov-04-07 12:24 PM   #27 
  - Total BS. Google is your friend.  John Q. Citizen   Nov-04-07 12:04 PM   #4 
  - Try this site for starters;  JeffR   Nov-04-07 12:05 PM   #5 
  - That link has the NYT article in it, and they are talking out of both sides of their mouths  still_one   Nov-04-07 12:18 PM   #20 
     - nyt talking outta both sides of  zidzi   Nov-04-07 12:48 PM   # 
        - "Mock shock." I like that. Plan to steal it.  aquart   Nov-04-07 12:51 PM   #47 
           - Good! I  zidzi   Nov-04-07 12:59 PM   #50 
  - They published a very confusing account, as I remember it, and cherry-picked data  DemItAllAnyway   Nov-04-07 12:07 PM   #6 
  - A lot of ballots never made it to the SoS office to be counted. Of course  alfredo   Nov-04-07 12:09 PM   #10 
  - I watched it carefully at the time.  JDPriestly   Nov-04-07 12:13 PM   #18 
  - Wrong. Read this article.  Selatius   Nov-04-07 12:08 PM   #7 
  - Thanks, a previous link to the NYTimes article showed me that the NYTimes played it both ways  still_one   Nov-04-07 12:20 PM   #21 
  - google "gore won election"  niyad   Nov-04-07 12:08 PM   #9 
  - That first link is right on, thanks /nt  still_one   Nov-04-07 12:23 PM   #26 
  - They counted the votes by different measures  JDPriestly   Nov-04-07 12:09 PM   #11 
  - We need a "FACTS YOU MUST KNOW AS A PROGRESSIVE"  hlthe2b   Nov-04-07 12:10 PM   #13 
  - That is why DU is such a terrific place, but you have a a good point /nt  still_one   Nov-04-07 12:37 PM   #38 
     - Don't get me wrong.. I'm glad folks are asking...  hlthe2b   Nov-04-07 12:48 PM   #44 
  - 55,000 people were wrongly removed from the voter registration rolls  bluestateguy   Nov-04-07 12:11 PM   #15 
  - Only kinda sorta  MonkeyFunk   Nov-04-07 12:11 PM   #16 
  - Right...the consortium did a number of "recount scenarios"  deutsey   Nov-04-07 12:21 PM   #23 
     - Some links...but none that your friend will see as unbiased, though  deutsey   Nov-04-07 12:29 PM   #31 
        - Thanks. Found enough to challenge him with /nt  still_one   Nov-04-07 12:39 PM   #40 
  - As I recall the recap of the various "studies" that were done by newspapers,  patrice   Nov-04-07 12:21 PM   #22 
  - Outright theft of the election process by the BFEE  sce56   Nov-04-07 12:22 PM   #24 
  - Link here: The media reports of the recount of the whole state were spun by the media to  papau   Nov-04-07 12:22 PM   #25 
  - Excellent, thanks /nt  still_one   Nov-04-07 12:28 PM   #30 
  - he's referring to the "Consortium"  Enrique   Nov-04-07 12:24 PM   #28 
  - just saw that, thanks /nt  still_one   Nov-04-07 12:29 PM   #32 
  - Archives of Democrat.com  flashl   Nov-04-07 12:28 PM   # 
  - The associate who told you this was being honest. Others who say differently are not  NNN0LHI   Nov-04-07 12:28 PM   #29 
  - Only partially honest, because as your last sentence states if all the votes were taken  still_one   Nov-04-07 12:32 PM   #34 
  - Most people don't read beyond the headline  NNN0LHI   Nov-04-07 12:34 PM   #36 
     - I know, but that is what I needed /nt  still_one   Nov-04-07 12:42 PM   #43 
  - not quite true - see post 25 above n/t  papau   Nov-04-07 12:34 PM   #37 
  - Where would one begin? There was the "heavier" paper made  Skarbrowe   Nov-04-07 12:30 PM   #33 
  - And Gore still won all 4 variations of a statewide recount - see post 25 above n/t  papau   Nov-04-07 12:37 PM   #39 
  - Best reply is that without the PURGE it wouldn't have been close.  JanMichael   Nov-04-07 12:40 PM   #41 
  - That is a complete distortion of the actual truth  Gman   Nov-04-07 12:41 PM   #42 
  - Ask your associate for the source he is using or tell him to go Cheney himself  whistle   Nov-04-07 12:48 PM   #45 
  - And it is very much worth noting that...  Gman   Nov-04-07 12:51 PM   #46 
  - Imagine how big Gore would have won without Nader taking away votes!  B Calm   Nov-04-07 12:52 PM   #48 
  - Nader pulled many times the amount of votes that Bush won by  Gman   Nov-04-07 12:54 PM   #49 
  - "The 2000 election wasnt even close...Gore's true margin was close to 3 million, not the 540,000  tiptoe   Nov-04-07 02:38 PM   #51 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC