The Cellar - View Single Post

Xugumad · 11-26-2001, 03:06 PM

That claim is incorrect. If all Florida votes had been recounted - and had the recount been confirmed as legal, then Gore would have won Florida. Go search the web for the results of the AP recount. The press intentionally didn't publish the results so as to not cause 'trouble' during the bombing of Afghanistan.

This is well-documented. It's not speculation. Had Gore continued with his declared strategy, however, he still would have lost, as he wasn't demanding a Florida-wide recount, merely a recount of certain counties - where the difference wouldn't have turned it around for him.

http://www.salon.com/politics/featur...ndex_np.html?x

The Economist is a moderately right-wing publication, which has almost always favoured Republican economic policy over Democratic economic policy. They supported Major over Blair in Britain in 1997. They have *NO* reason to support Gore, other than impartiality. You claim that they should get 'over it'. It's tough to get over the facts, and ignore the truth. Read the article linked above - the US press certainly tried it.

X.

11-26-2001, 03:06 PM	#3
Xugumad Punisher of Good Deeds Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 183	That claim is incorrect. If all Florida votes had been recounted - and had the recount been confirmed as legal, then Gore would have won Florida. Go search the web for the results of the AP recount. The press intentionally didn't publish the results so as to not cause 'trouble' during the bombing of Afghanistan. This is well-documented. It's not speculation. Had Gore continued with his declared strategy, however, he still would have lost, as he wasn't demanding a Florida-wide recount, merely a recount of certain counties - where the difference wouldn't have turned it around for him. http://www.salon.com/politics/featur...ndex_np.html?x The Economist is a moderately right-wing publication, which has almost always favoured Republican economic policy over Democratic economic policy. They supported Major over Blair in Britain in 1997. They have NO reason to support Gore, other than impartiality. You claim that they should get 'over it'. It's tough to get over the facts, and ignore the truth. Read the article linked above - the US press certainly tried it. X.