posted on December 13, 2000 05:05:08 PM newBush won the first count and the machine recount, and Gore could still not come up with enough in the manual recounts that were held.However would you know whether Gore could come up with more votes in a manual recount? There was no manual recount As for repeating ad nauseum that there was a "count and a recount", if the machines screwed up the first time, whyever would you think they would tally correctly the second time? The fact is machines are NOT the most accurate counting method. The machine manufacturers THEMSELVES will tell you (and REtell you this) and they have under oath in court. All of these Bush supporters who keep chanting about "counts and recounts" remind me of my 7 year old daughter, who when doing her math homework insists to me that the answer is right, when I know it is wrong. She "counts and recounts", but the answer is still wrong, until I sit down with her and we go over it together until we get it right. Shar made an excellent post in another thread asking what possible harm could it have done to simply take a closer look at those votes given the closeness and serious portent of the election. None, unless you're Bush, and you know that you lost.
I live in a very republican neighborhood, and have had some (friendly) discussions with neighbors who are republican and voted for Bush. And while they are certainly happy that Bush will be President, even THEY think something is stinky in Florida. So, while you keep quoting statistics, njrzad, that 50% of the people are going to be supportive of Bush as our President because he got 50% of the vote (and actually it was less) keep in mind that many people who voted for Bush are having second thoughts after this whole fiasco. And they don't think he won "fair and square".
