Bleh, I'm o sick of this. We are the most litigeous nation in the world. DO you think for a second that if this kind of discrimination were going on that it wouldn't be aired out to the heavens? No, we don't have dark conspiracies like this, Dems just like to use them like the boogy man because they don't have the support to win any other way.

YOU LOST... welcome to reality.

Try going to a pub. That's what I did.

Beer works great. Especially guinness.

BakerStreet: I ain't got no boogey men up my sleeve.

Reply #15 By: bleedingheartliberal - 11/5/2004 3:13:37 AM This is my last comment for this morning, and it is simply this: a concession is simply a public statement, and nothing else. It is not legally binding. Just because the Kerry campaign doesn't want to fight, doesn't mean that his supporters won't fight for him. And this is not about "technicalities", this is a matter of discrimination against black voters.

Get it right he made no consession! He conceded. Big difference! Because what he did IS legally binding!

One entry found for concede. Main Entry: con·cede Pronunciation: k&n-'sEd Function: verb Inflected Form(s): con·ced·ed; con·ced·ing Etymology: French or Latin; French concéder, from Latin concedere, from com- + cedere to yield transitive senses 1 : to grant as a right or privilege 2 a : to accept as true, valid, or accurate b : to acknowledge grudgingly or hesitantly

COMPLETELY FALSE!
Link
Gore retracted his concession, and Kerry could, but probably won't, do the same.

"And this is not about "technicalities", this is a matter of discrimination against black voters. "

*sigh* We went through this in Florida and yet none of those people even held marches or tried to correct "the corrupt system".

If so many voters are disenfranchised why aren't they rising to the streets instead of letting you speak for them.

Bush "stole" the election, huh? Yeah, those criminals in Ohio sure did John Kerry in by not counting votes. But shhhh...good thing that Bush hasn't noticed how close Michigan and Pennsylvania were....Don't tell him! Or he might want a recount THERE. After all, those two states were BOTH closer than Ohio was. Second thought, let's recount EVERY SINGLE state. At LEAST 4 times. Yeah, the Al Gore method: If you don't like the results, keep counting and re-counting until you do!

You cannot have it both ways, Kid. Kerry lost. Bush won. You can cry in your pillow another four years at the very least. Make all your excuses you want, but that majority of this country sees the truth, and knows who the right man for the job is.

"knows who the right man for the job is."

Only time will tell that my friend.

Bright blue on white is unreadable to me. I get instant headache, thanks.

Let me reinforce what I'm trying to say: If Kerry were to depend on the provisional ballots alone, he would have to get almost all of them, that is unrealistic. But, by not pursuing legal action they are disregarding the 92,672 discounted ballots. These discounted ballots are the punch card ballots, like the ones used in Florida in 2000. Without legal action ONLY the provisional ballots would be counted and Kerry could not win. BUT, with legal action the provisional ballots and the "discarded" ballots where "voter intent" is in question there is a much greater chance that he could win Ohio. Again, counting the provisional and discarded ballots together, there are almost 250,000 votes and he would need only 55 percent of them to overtake Bush. Remember, he got his numbers from a Cleveland, Ohio newspaper, he didn't just make them up.

Again, your math is severly flawed. If we accept your numbers (which are in no way official or accurate), then for Kerry to win, he would have to get about 140k MORE votes than Bush. That means he would have to pull in almost 200k of the ballots in question as Bush would get the rest (assuming that all ver valid, anotehr faulty assumption). That is 80% of the ballots in question.

Add on top of that the fact that many of the provisional ballots were from Military personnel who registered late or on the day of the election, and the military went 3-1 for Bush, puts your whole hypothesis in serious jeopardy.

With 10,000 lawyers, if Kerry thought he had a snowballs chance in hell, he would have kept at it. But when your own people are telling you that you lost, then it is time to do the noble thing and throw in the towel. That you cannot accept it is your problem, not Kerry's or anyone elses. Gore put the nation through 5 weeks of hell for nothing as both FOIA Media recounts clearly showed. Kerry did not want to be turned into another screeching maniac like Gore has become.

Reply #19 By: bleedingheartliberal - 11/5/2004 8:23:09 AM COMPLETELY FALSE! Link Gore retracted his concession, and Kerry could, but probably won't, do the same.

I notice however that you do not dispute my math?

You still don't get it. There is absolutlely NO way Kerry could win! Even if you brought in ALL 93,000 ballots they still figure only 10% of the provisional ballots will be valid. Now do the math. 10% of 155,000 is? 15,500. Now add the 93,000 to the 15,500. Equals 108,000 Bush was ahead by 130,000. There ain't enough there even if all of them were for him.

Your math just doesn't hold up. You must be one of those "children left behind."

If you counted every one of those 247k ballots you want counted and Kerry got 55% of them, Bush would have gotten 45% of them, meaning his margin of victory would have been reduced by about 25k (10% of the outstanding ballots), under you best-case scenario.

What would be the point?

Cheers,
Daiwa

My apologies for the mathematical errors. The point, suing for the "miscounted" ballots is fundamentally right. They promised to make sure "every" vote was counted, so they should carry out their promise.

What's really sad here is that people think it's OK that thousands of ballots go uncounted. Tossed out. Ignored. Disregarded.

WHAT THE F*UCK IS OK WITH THAT??!!

It's not OK. It's horrendous. I have accepted Kerry's defeat, because that was his choice. Fact is, he really had no choice. Doesn't matter. What does matter is that so many dunderheads with their heads up their asses think it's OK that votes are not counted.

Think about this. Maybe, the only votes we're talking about here is Ohio. But, what about every other state in this country? They ALL have uncounted votes. I do not think this is OK. This is definitely NOT OK.

This election was so close in so many states, for the votes to not be counted, then bush states he's got a mandate, is nothing but arrogance. Lowlife, despicable arrogance. There was no mandate. Only a bunch of votes that were never counted. I sure wish there would be some organization who would look into what exactly wasn't counted, and where did those no-counts come from. I suspect they would be predominantly democratic districts. But, we'll never know. And, that's what's so criminal about this. Smacks very loudly of fascism to me. The line iinto fascism is too fine to simply ignore. It's so sad.

Bleedingheartliberal, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But, that blue text is tough. Someone already mentioned it. Thanks.

Reply #26 By: Daiwa - 11/6/2004 12:46:25 AM Your math just doesn't hold up. You must be one of those "children left behind." If you counted every one of those 247k ballots you want counted and Kerry got 55% of them, Bush would have gotten 45% of them, meaning his margin of victory would have been reduced by about 25k (10% of the outstanding ballots), under you best-case scenario.

My math holds up just fine! There are NOT 247K ballots to be counted there were only 155K! Link
Now figure what the FEC says that "usually" only 10% of those ballots will be valid. Now lets see you math again, and try using the right figures this time..
I just realized that you probably weren't talking about me. If that is the case let me apologize right now.