It turns out that Bush never wins a fair election!

Post Reply New Topic

The problem isn´t with the system (as with any system), its with the people. People are biased, they´re not perfect. A perfect system is only as perfect as the people who run it. Until we can create some superhuman perfect people, all systems will have problems no matter how many ´checks and balances´we have.

Well, really, one could see it as the Democrats moving back from the left as welfare and things like that weren't issues in the earlier part of the 20th century. It also may be in reaction to the resurgence of the right during the Reagan years, however, one parties move to the right does not mean that there isn't a 2 party system, it really means that people are not electing socialist leaning politicians and possibly an errosion in party differences. There is still inter-party criticism and things like that. Of course Clinton is not some raving leftie, I think that the idea simply comes from ideologues and people who hated Clinton as a politician due to their political views.

The parties are not exactly the same, and they do take different views on certain issues like the Iraq War for the most part. The claim that they are becoming identical either means that many voters have similar ideas on certain aspects of politics or it could be an aspect of catering to the middle as all politicians try to get swing voters who tend to be centrist and to do so they have to appear logical to the center. I know that America tends to be against gay marriage for whatever reason and this has generated Democratic response to try to cash in on that, however they are still trying to maintain the support of gay organizations who fund their politics and vote for them. I dunno, perhaps we are entering another guilded age of politics. Dan Rather according to some sources is a liberal, I have not seen anything about him being a conservative at the very least, there is even an article on CNN where it has the transcript of an interview involving his co-worker Andy Rooney where he claims that he(Andy Roony) has liberal bias and that Dan Rather could be transparently liberal. Now, the claim of liberal bias from a liberal co-worker has more weight than just some claim by a conservative nutjob, doesn't it?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... kl.00.html

As well the claim also arose from the Killian documents where CBS rushed to do its story even though the papers were later found out to be forgeries. Now of course, the latter is not something that I am going to claim is solid proof of anything, it could be just incompetence.

Sen. Feinswine?? She's more corrupt than most Republicans!! (Perhaps that's her greatest job qualification)

You should have seen in Washington State in 2004, except the Republicans were going to win the election to have Dino Rossi in office. Everyone thought it was unfair, since Dino Rossi won the first time, and by recount 2 or 3 times, and Christine Gregoire won only once, and they quickly swarn her in. That's not the weirdest part either. People were actually voting for people that were already dead! And they even counted all the dead people's votes. Then the people counting the votes were "finding" all these votes that somehow were lost or something. They counted dead people's votes, but they didn't count the soldier's votes (who were in Iraq at the time) from King County, who sent them out late. It was just nuts. But people have settled down over the dispute now, but it was really wild the week that the results came through. People were rallying outside of the state capitol, and the Olympian (a popular local newspaper around the Olympia/Puget Sound area) didn't even say anything about that, just the 50 people verses the 2000 ralliers outside of the capitol who were happy about the result. Anyways, yes, there have been crooked votes, and it sucks sometimes. I'm not sure about the President's election being crooked, but I know that the election in the other Washington was pretty crooked. I think it would be frustrating to vote, and then not have your individual vote counted correctly (yes, and they did hand-count votes instead of machine counting, which isn't as reliable). Next time that voting takes place I'll get to vote, and I'll be able to see what it's like I guess.

Damnit, wrong Fein. I meant Feingold. Sorry for the mistake; I don't pay as much attention since I gave up hope.

If the day before the election in 2008 polls for republicans are similar to the support for Bush now (30-40%) and it is mostly correct, yet the Republicans win, then there is fraud.
If electoral fraud did happen, then we would hear about eventually.
You can't fool everyone all the time.

Sure you can. It's actually quite easy if you know how.

Oops, just sent the wrong email out.
Oops, wrong newscast.
Who was that masked guy with the camera cell phone?

Well, the thing is, we DO hear about it--just from sources of media that aren't controlled by the government. So of course it's all seen as "liberal conspiricy theory mumbo jumbo."

And the 2004 polls did indicate, quite clearly, that Kerry was going to win the election. It's what all the analysts thought.

NOT TRUE!! ! Most anylists (Dick Morris chief among them) thought it would be close , but Bush would win. You're just parroting mis-information.

Can it already. Bush won fair and square.

That's not what I heard--like everything else, this depends on where you get your information.




Are you just saying that because you want it to be true? Or are you so quick to be guillible when pretending to be skeptical? I ask you, what if he didn't win fair and square? What if all that "liberal mumbo jumbo" did in fact happen? What if evidence surfaced that proved that absolutely, without a doubt, Bush didn't win either election? What would you say then?

Well sir, if it actually happened I wouldn't be pleased at all. But the thing is - I have yet to see any sources claiming 2004 was a sham that don't rely on two faulty pieces of reasoning. 1) The exit polls were valid. Exit polls are notoriously unreliable, and of course for every complaint about faulty voting machines, there's an opposite complaint about harassment from packs of democrats intimidating voters who they thought might be Republicans. And 2) the assumption that because one machine in Ohio malfunctioned and gave Bush something like 800 extra votes, the same must have happened all over the country except the Republikkkan Damage Control Committee or whatever you're calling it now, kept it from being reported.

It doesn't work like that.

You'll make a note that if it were more than just educated speculation for these last two elections, Bush wouldn't be president now.

I'm not saying anyone should cite speculation as fact either. But there's at LEAST enough circumstancial evidence to be highly suspicious. Especially with what all else has gone on with this administration.

1) Okay, so let's think of how many complaints about the faulty voting machines there were (quite a few, though I admit I don't know the number off hand). Now, let's double that, because if there's an equal amount of complaints from people being harassed by democrats, then by the sound of things there's a lot of people who voted democrat.

2) Firstly..."malfunctioned" isn't the word I'd use. Personally, I don't think it'd be hard at all for someone skilled with computers to rig a machine. How do we know that the republican party didn't rig it, or multiple machines for that matter? Why are investigations into the matter being told to cease and desist if there wasn't something to hide? Plus, as I said, I don't remember the exact number, but it sure was more than 800. All over the country? Not necessarily. But okay, say Bush gained 800 more votes than he should have in just Ohio. Now, I -think- that the number of complaints was a bit more in the hundred-thousands, and minus 800, that's still quite a few. And the government's control of the mainstream press has been something that's been well-documented already.

The other problem of course, is that you also assume that every problem with the voting machines was to the detriment of Kerry/Democrats and betterment of Bush/Republicans - which again is mostly unfounded. I cite the Washington State governor election.

The strongest and most reasonable accusations of election theft came from Bob Fitrakis. While it doesn't automatically invalidate anything he says, he is a politician, a member of the Green Party, and has an agenda to push just like anyone else.

However your accusations about investigations being told to cease and desist are, well, wrong. Extensive investigations were done, although many were found to be inconclusive because the voting machines left no paper trail.

Of course, there's also the old saying, "To err is human, but to really screw things up requires a computer".