It turns out that Bush never wins a fair election!

Post Reply New Topic

We're talking about different elections here. I'm talking about just one election. Now, were there any reports of people trying to vote for Bush on an electronic voting machine and getting a "Thank you for voting for John Kerry!" message? If there were reports of this in the 2004 Presidential Election, link me to them. (For the record, though I don't even support the democrats...as far as I'm concerned they're just as bad in most ways.)



Okay, I'll admit I'm m wrong on this detail...it was something I heard somewhere and I suppose I believed it to easily. However, regardless, shouldn't the voting machines have been designed to allow greater investigation?



Oh, indeed. This is why we should never be ruled by technology that we humans create.

I tend to agree with McJeff, the recent trends of conservatives winning elections has been more about good political strategy and definition of what's stood for by that party. Also, the grip that the liberal media had over the airwaves is getting shot up by AM talk radio, Fox News, and many of the online bloggers - from the 50's on up through parts of the 90's the liberal media ran pretty much everything which is party of the reason why a guy like Rupert Murdoch is so scary to so many people these days.

I don't know about anyone else but there's enough to arouse suspicion that an independent (nongovernment; nontampered-with) investigation should've been held.

Then you wouldn't have to argue back and forth about fact or fiction.

To be honest, I was a bit disturbed by some of what I read when I did the research about the election fraud. I hadn't heard anything about agencies making voter registration complicated for the college students (who generally vote strongly democratic), and had rather heard a lot of people laughing at how "dumb" these college kids were for not voting when the time came around.

So yeah - the voting problems were much more severe and anti-Democrat than I thought, and I stand corrected on my prior statement.

Back when it was going on, I found a lot of small posts - blog links, etc - claiming things like a woman in Massachusets was caught throwing out bins of Republican voter registration forms. Now that it's 2 years later, I was only able to find one thing, images of illegal partisan displays in a polling station in Manhattan. http://www.zombietime.com/ny_broome_st_ ... ce_11-2-4/

I'm sure there's some creepy CIA official monitoring this internet post somewhere, but sometimes you just feel like you have to have a death-wish and suggest that maybe a bi-partisan system is a perfect dictatorship and it's time to overthrow the federal government (it doesn't have to involve big explosions; just a subtle set of political replacements here and there) and completely rehaul the entire election process? Maybe while we're at it we could get rid of the electoral college, eliminate pork-barrel spending, eliminate the military-industrial complex, convert the ISS into an anchor-point for a space elevator (thus reducing the costs of shuttle launches), and stop subsidizing big oil?

I don't know if that post was joking or not - but I've heard Democrat voters say that sort of thing seriously.

And I honestly wish they'd knock it off, because they're mainly damaging themselves.

Always before, the parties have kept each other in a sort of balance. When the Republicans controlled the White House, the Democrats controlled Congress, and vice versa. But this time around, the Republicans control everything, and I believe it's because the Democrats have been concentrating mainly on slandering the Republicans. Justifiable or not (and some if not most of it is), they're still not coming up with any solutions, or even showing that they have a plan. They also alienate the moderates, who feel that they're at war with morality, and too much is better than none at all. I know SO many people who voted "Bush to keep Kerry out of office".

I know most of you won't believe this after some of my pro-Israel postings, but if the parties toed the political lines they theoretically hold, I'd be a loyal Democrat voter.

That's the scary thing, if the democrats don't hold themselves up as a relevant or logical alternative to the conservatives, even as a conservative I feel our party could get really corrupted and get as messed up as everyone likes to say it is - not because we're evil neocons who just want to pretend we don't want to take over the world but it's the entropy of human nature in general and happens when any party gains too much of a lead, it can get real ethically sloppy because there's no one there to keep them in check or on their toes (or at least no one who holds enough credibility with the people). People like George Soros are real threat to all of us just because, they're pulling what's pretty much supposed to be the ethical governance party (ie. the party that's not currently in power and is in charge of checking the majority) off the deep end, that's *BAD* for everyone and I think they really need to start pushing candidates who are more similar to Ghephardt or Leiberman and veer away from the sorts who want a socialist economy, government health care, and all kinds of drug legalization - those may all seem like very good ideas to a lot of people on the left but the rest of the country is watching western europe and just cringing at all the problems they see popping up from the implementation of these ideas. IMO the US is very wary about trying new things and a large part of that I think is it just seems like bad social science to jump into anything that hasn't been road tested and broken in in terms of the problems - we may even go socialist, have government health care, and legalize drugs but that kind of stuff will only happen when it seems that other countries who advocate those things have found fool-proofed solutions for the fallout and inefficiencies (most americans don't want to buy some new big ticket product that's new to the market until they're sure of it and all the recalls have been made and factory defects have been fixed - that's just how we are and the same ideas hold true with new ideas for government and major laws). Even if our government seems inefficient to a lot of people now, those kinds of changes are still jumping off a diving board into the deep end after reading 'Swimming for Dummies" and having no personal experience at it.

Actually I think that has nothing to do with it. Many people who had voted for Gore had voted for Bush in the 2004 election because they didn't "trust" Kerry. He didn't provide a whole lot of sources, and was under fire from all the media. Many people said they would have voted for a different Democrat. Some areas Kerry still seemed to do well, but he lost a lot of votes in my area due to the media, and lack of sources.

I will say Bush was most likely liable for what I consider immoral Jerrymandering. (Aligning the voting areas so Republicans get the most electoral votes, and Democrats little. All you need to do is have a small majority in each area, and each electoral vote is based on that area. The areas also don't exactly look logical when you first see them.)

It's kind of laughable to say that the fact that the democrats used to have more control over congress and the media means that congress and the media used to be liberal, though. The democratic party isn't really liberal at all, haven't been for years and years and years--they're almost as conservative as republicans, and are just less ruthless and prefer to sit on their hands and knees, doing nothing while their opponents take over. In a way I kind of hate their party even more than the republican party for that reason.

And from what I've heard the US in general's kind of a joke to the rest of the world, not because people want to legalize drugs or government health care but because many Americans are such arrogant pro-war buffoons who don't even realize the meaning of the freedom they keep claiming to have.

Bill Clinton stole the election in '92 and '96.

Eh, wouldn't surprise me much, I always hated him too. But what're your sources for this?

1993
Clinton won the 1992 presidential election (43.01% of the vote) against Republican George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the vote) and billionaire populist H. Ross Perot, who ran as an independent (18.9% of the vote)

1996
Bill Clinton 49.2%
Robert Doll 40.7%
Henry Perot 8.4%

Bill Clinton didn't steal the election as much as Henry Perot took votes away.
Is Henry more of a Liberal or Conservative?

Bush is a f****n' idiot.

Bush claims to be a "Christian".

What happened to turn the other cheek? Or do unto others as you'd have them do unto you?

By my count, he has killed innocent people (correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that's one of the ten Commandments), lied (another one), stolen (yet another one), and claims to do this in the name of God (Commandment #2, which falls under the category of blasphemy).

What scares me the most is not that he is the way he is, a lot of people are just as screwed up as he is, but that a large number of people believe that the coke-addled, C average, privleged son of the former head of the CIA who claims that God talks to him is the right man to lead this country. That ENOUGH people voted for him for his party (or whoever) to swing the votes enough to put him in office turns my stomach.

And I don't see how anyone calling themselves Christian could vote for the man responsible for more death than any other American President. Obviously, there are a lot of people out there, whether in the majority or not, who disagree.

In all reality, almost the entire Christian Right does the opposite of what Jesus preached. Jesus went around, helped people, sacrificed himself for the salvation of us all, and taught us that lovs and peace, as well as helping others are paramount.

Now look at our current administration.

It's started one war (Iraq), has backed Israel in its invasion of Lebanon (troops and weapons sent), and is or has supported legislation (I can;t remember if it's been killed or passed) that would cut funding from a vast myriad of social programs. And most of the administration's initiatives have costs that, while not really affecting us now, will end up dooming us ino poverty later on (when we have to pay for all of this).


The Christian Right has no problem mentioning Jesus in their speeches; but when it comes to following Jesus's example, they seem to fail miserably (in reality, the Liberals more exemplify Jesus's teachings, but that's a rant for another time).

Technically by commiting acts of cruelty and war they are indeed following the Christian bible's example, even if not the example of Jesus Christ the man:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html