If the voting was today...

[Guest OctoberBlood]

Just wanting to get the general feel about the people in this froum.

[Firestarter 0]

President Bush. Surprise.

[Guest thebigjig]

Edwards... any day of the week and twice on sunday

 

At least Bush finally has the opportunity to be voted in by the people this time around

[Zorin Industries 0]

4) I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

 

Plus, I won't get to vote in this anyway

[NoCalMike 0]

Nader.

[Guest Cerebus]

Nader.

So you're for four more years of Bush eh?

[Guest thebigjig]

Nader.

So you're for four more years of Bush eh?

at this point, I question Nader's sanity... and the only reason you would vote for Nader would obviously be symbolic, because you would be insane to actually vote thinking he's the likely winner

 

Hopefully Nader won't be a factor like he was in 2000... in which he was one of many factors that led to a tainted Bush victory

[Vern Gagne 0]

James Knox Polk

[Guest BDC]

Oh Lord, there it goes again. Yes, let's do the 2000 election debate again. God save us.

 

I'd vote for President Bush easily.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Probably no one, considering I have no faith in anyone running. If Edwards or Kerry do something I like by November, I'll vote for them.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

I like a Kerry-Edwards ticket. Preferably with Kerry leading the ballot, but if he winds up as the VP nominee, I certainly have no qualms with that.

 

I voted for Kerry.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Edwards... any day of the week and twice on sunday

 

At least Bush finally has the opportunity to be voted in by the people this time around.

Oh Lord, there it goes again. Yes, let's do the 2000 election debate again. God save us.

 

Now, now, if it makes him/her happy let he/she continue with it.

 

Bus WAS voted on by the people last election -- problem was some of them happened to be far-sighted Jews in a crucial state.

 

Oh, chalk another one up for W. here...

[snuffbox 0]

Oh Lord, there it goes again. Yes, let's do the 2000 election debate again. God save us.

 

I'd vote for President Bush easily.

Yeah, I know, it was a whole 4 years ago! I mean, a presidential race was won by a court decision and not by the votes of the people...but it was FOUR years ago!

 

Ya'll still bitching about this being brought up should consult your history books - chapter Hayes-Tilden.

[Guest thebigjig]

Edwards... any day of the week and twice on sunday

 

At least Bush finally has the opportunity to be voted in by the people this time around.

Oh Lord, there it goes again. Yes, let's do the 2000 election debate again. God save us.

 

Now, now, if it makes him/her happy let he/she continue with it.

 

Bus WAS voted on by the people last election -- problem was some of them happened to be far-sighted Jews in a crucial state.

 

Oh, chalk another one up for W. here...

lol I'm not trying to stir up another debate on the subject... because there would be no debating. Gore won the popular vote, meaning more people voted for Gore than Bush, meaning the majority wanted Gore more than Bush, meaning Bush's election was tainted by the fact that he was appointed by the republican supreme court of the united states with help from Kathryn Harris: Republican Bush Supporter, Jeb Bush: Republican brother/governor of Florida, and many many many disgusting tactics that were used as a sort of guerilla warfare attack to get Dubyah coronated

 

Thats not just liberal speak, thats facts speak. But hey, I'm not bitter... I got over that around the time of 2001, primarily when 9/11 occurred and I decided to support Bush 100%. He has since lost that support... I'm just saying this is his chance to prove himself in my eyes by actually getting the majority of the vote

 

Either way, I'm looking for the dirtiest election in history here, and regardless of who wins, it should be just as emotional as Bush/Gore, and 10 X exciting just because half of the country hates Bush with a passion, and the other half think he can do no wrong

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh Lord, there it goes again.  Yes, let's do the 2000 election debate again.  God save us.

 

I'd vote for President Bush easily.

Yeah, I know, it was a whole 4 years ago! I mean, a presidential race was won by a court decision and not by the votes of the people...but it was FOUR years ago!

 

Ya'll still bitching about this being brought up should consult your history books - chapter Hayes-Tilden.

Man, I've never seen people so unable to handle a loss as this.

-=Mike

...Hey, the only reason there were manual recounts was a court decision. Take courts COMPLETELY out of the equation and Bush STILL wins

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

U.S. Supreme Court > Fla. Supreme Court.

 

Amazing how the U.S. Court is portrayed as this right-wing cabal with their Gore v. Bush decision, but there's no comment regarding the actions of the wacky state court located in the Sunshine State.

 

But it's all good. I like the "Bush-is-the-President-Select LOL2004" crowd -- they make me laugh when I can't find a WTO or IMF protest on C-Span...

[Guest thebigjig]

Oh Lord, there it goes again.  Yes, let's do the 2000 election debate again.  God save us.

 

I'd vote for President Bush easily.

Yeah, I know, it was a whole 4 years ago! I mean, a presidential race was won by a court decision and not by the votes of the people...but it was FOUR years ago!

 

Ya'll still bitching about this being brought up should consult your history books - chapter Hayes-Tilden.

Man, I've never seen people so unable to handle a loss as this.

-=Mike

...Hey, the only reason there were manual recounts was a court decision. Take courts COMPLETELY out of the equation and Bush STILL wins

Not necessarily... the fact remains that Gore won the popular vote 58,158,094 to 49,820,518... Bush became the first president to win the election by the electoral college and not the popular vote since Benjamin Harrison, and the fourth in history to do so. The reason for wanting recounts in the first place, is because of all the disgusting tactics used by the republicans to try and throw essential votes out... tens of thousands of undervotes were never counted. Overwhelming evidence exists of voter tampering, and the turning away of minority votes

 

The funniest facts are the most ironic... Bush signed a fucking law in Texas allowing manual recounts and in favor of dimpled ballots, but when the 2000 election scandal occurred, he wanted the manual recounts haulted and opposed dimpled ballots... or hey what about when Republicans charged that the Democrats only wanted manual recounts in counties with heavy minority populations, and when the Democrats countered by offering a statewide recount, the Republicans told the FSC that they were not willing to do so??

 

The fault remains primarily on Republicans, Supreme Court, Antiquated System, Stupid Old Jews... in that order

 

Now for those that may think this topic should be dead and buried, thats moronic and stupid... it was 4 years ago, not 20. We're not debating Kennedy/Nixon and how Kennedy stole that election with Chicago. This was the LAST election, and the results of that election will play HEAVILY on this election... and to push it in the past as if it's ancient history is foolish.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ah heck, I'm bored enough to rehash all of this.

Not necessarily... the fact remains that Gore won the popular vote 58,158,094 to 49,820,518...

Umm, I think you got that wrong. Gore did not win by over 8M votes.

 

And, it's IRRELEVANT. You don't run a campaign to win the popular vote if you wish to win.

Bush became the first president to win the election by the electoral college and not the popular vote since Benjamin Harrison, and the fourth in history to do so. The reason for wanting recounts in the first place, is because of all the disgusting tactics used by the republicans to try and throw essential votes out... tens of thousands of undervotes were never counted.

They WERE counted. They were undervotes. They aren't VOTES. If the holes are not clearly punched out --- then it is NOT a vote.

 

All of the BALLOTS were counted. All ballots aren't votes.

 

The Dems did a great job of claiming that all ballots are votes when --- in every single election in recorded history --- they aren't. There are ALWAYS under- and over-votes.

 

And WHAT "disgusting tactics"? Can you even name one?

Overwhelming evidence exists of voter tampering, and the turning away of minority votes

Ah, you read that?

 

Don't you mean "made it up"?

The funniest facts are the most ironic... Bush signed a fucking law in Texas allowing manual recounts and in favor of dimpled ballots, but when the 2000 election scandal occurred, he wanted the manual recounts haulted and opposed dimpled ballots... or hey what about when Republicans charged that the Democrats only wanted manual recounts in counties with heavy minority populations, and when the Democrats countered by offering a statewide recount, the Republicans told the FSC that they were not willing to do so??

The funniest fact is that there was no legal justification for manual recounts, as machine error was not proven to have occurred. Funny, huh?

 

And why on God's Earth would the WINNING CANDIDATE agree to a recount? That is ridiculous. WINNERS don't ask for recounts. "Yeah, sure I won --- let's recount ANYWAY just for the heck of it"

The fault remains primarily on Republicans, Supreme Court, Antiquated System, Stupid Old Jews... in that order

Hmm, the Florida Supreme Court receives no heat here. Odd.

Now for those that may think this topic should be dead and buried, thats moronic and stupid... it was 4 years ago, not 20. We're not debating Kennedy/Nixon and how Kennedy stole that election with Chicago. This was the LAST election, and the results of that election will play HEAVILY on this election... and to push it in the past as if it's ancient history is foolish.

It's irrelevant. Bush won legally and fairly. Katherine Harris exercised all legal powers issued to her Constitutionally and did not violate her powers one iota.

 

The FL Supreme Court, on the other hand, did so. Manual recounts are only legal in Florida due to machine error. That was not proven. So, those shouldn't have occurred.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Overwhelming evidence exists of voter tampering, and the turning away of minority votes.

 

Like those po-po road blocks and attack dogs not allowing blacks to vote?

 

So the GOP and Supremes forced the Old Jews to vote for Pat Buchanan?

 

I've said this before on this board, but it needs repeating. In 2000 I had my first experience with a punch-ballot. When I stepped into my little booth I admittedly did a little double-take because I never experienced such an antiquated voting system in my life.

 

But, even with my schooling by a public education system, I bravely lined up my voting card, made sure each time I voted, my rod achieved full penetration, and, when I was all finished voting for Republicans and voting against tax-hike referendums, I *gasp* looked at backside of my card and made sure there weren't any paper dingle berries.

 

If an American can't do all of these things correctly, their vote shouldn't count in the first place...

[Guest Cerebus]

Another 2000 election debate. Hoorah.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Oh shut up. These are fun...

[snuffbox 0]

I agree with you Mike. Bush DID win, and I said the same in 2000. Anybody running for president of the USA knows going into the election that the electoral college counts, not the popular vote. Obviously.

 

But, it still deserves discussion/debate. It was very controversial and touchy to many people. More Americans voted for Gore than Bush and the results could have badly harmed our political system. Elections with similar results that occured more than 100 years ago are still argued/discussed to this day. It is a very important topic that still warrants discussion and will for a long long time.

 

Also, another very valid point is that after such a close election George Bush should have remained a more moderate president, not the near ultraconservative run that hes had.

[snuffbox 0]

Another 2000 election debate. Hoorah.

Goodbye then bitch.

[Dr. Tom 0]

No, they're really not much fun, but here are a few points to chew on:

 

1. It doesn't matter who won the popular vote, since that's never been how we've elected Presidents in this country. But if saying over and over "OMG BUT GORE WON TEH POPULAR VOTE!!!!!1!!" helps you sleep at night, then clutch that stuffed animal to your chest and squeeze it for all it's worth, slugger.

 

2. The Florida Supreme Court was trying to change their own election laws in the middle of the election. The US Supreme Court stepped in and told them they couldn't do that. It's fine if a state wants to change some of the minutiae in its elections laws, but (1) that's the job of the legislature, not the courts, and (2) you can't do it in the middle of a goddamn election.

 

3. Several newspapers, none of them known for being conservative, have done independent recounts of the entire state of Florida. In each of those recounts, President Bush won, and by a wider margin than the official one. The newspapers were USA Today, the NY Times, and the Miami Herald.

 

4. None of this would have mattered if Gore weren't a walking charisma vortex and could have won his own state. Really, how much of a wooden tool do you have to be not to win YOUR OWN STATE? Even Walter Modale won his own state in 1984, but Gore couldn't do it in 2000. That's why your boy lost, not because of any imaginary shenanigans in Florida.

[Guest MikeSC]

I agree with you Mike. Bush DID win, and I said the same in 2000. Anybody running for president of the USA knows going into the election that the electoral college counts, not the popular vote. Obviously.

 

But, it still deserves discussion/debate. It was very controversial and touchy to many people. More Americans voted for Gore than Bush and the results could have badly harmed our political system. Elections with similar results that occured more than 100 years ago are still argued/discussed to this day. It is a very important topic that still warrants discussion and will for a long long time.

 

Also, another very valid point is that after such a close election George Bush should have remained a more moderate president, not the near ultraconservative run that hes had.

He's run as an "ultraconservative"?

 

Hmm,

1) Medicare prescription bill

2) Bloated education bill supported by Ted Kennedy

3) Immigration amnesty bill

4) Big increase for the NEA

5) No vetoes at all

 

"Ultraconservative"?!?!?

-=Mike

...He's passed more liberal measures than friggin' Bill Clinton did

[snuffbox 0]

I agree with you Mike. Bush DID win, and I said the same in 2000. Anybody running for president of the USA knows going into the election that the electoral college counts, not the popular vote. Obviously.

 

But, it still deserves discussion/debate. It was very controversial and touchy to many people. More Americans voted for Gore than Bush and the results could have badly harmed our political system. Elections with similar results that occured more than 100 years ago are still argued/discussed to this day. It is a very important topic that still warrants discussion and will for a long long time.

 

Also, another very valid point is that after such a close election George Bush should have remained a more moderate president, not the near ultraconservative run that hes had.

He's run as an "ultraconservative"?

 

Hmm,

1) Medicare prescription bill

2) Bloated education bill supported by Ted Kennedy

3) Immigration amnesty bill

4) Big increase for the NEA

5) No vetoes at all

 

"Ultraconservative"?!?!?

-=Mike

...He's passed more liberal measures than friggin' Bill Clinton did

Jesus Christ man...read my post plese. "NEAR ultraconservative". Read it, its simple. I dont think he was 'ultra' anything, but has ventured 'near'.

 

But for your points - the medicare bill favors big businesses, not American people. Youre a polisci guru, you should realize that, even if Bush can do no wrong by you.

 

And the education bill cant be successful if we spend all our money and dig deeper into debt by spending on supporting the brilliant Patriot act and attacking/conquering/occupying other countries. But hey, signing bills is fun though.

 

Hes 'near', not 'ultra'. Read first, thanks.

[Firestarter 0]

read my post plese. "NEAR ultraconservative". Read it, its simple. I dont think he was 'ultra' anything, but has ventured 'near'...

Hes 'near', not 'ultra'. Read first, thanks.

So um what, in fact, would "near ultraconservative" but not "ultraconservative" be? Conservative? Well yes, that was his platform. That's what his party is supposed to be. What exactly did you expect him to do?

 

"Well, it seems more people like Al Gore than me... I guess I'll govern as Al Gore"

[Guest MikeSC]

Jesus Christ man...read my post plese. "NEAR ultraconservative". Read it, its simple. I dont think he was 'ultra' anything, but has ventured 'near'.

He hasn't APPROACHED "Ultra" anything, except maybe wasteful spending.

But for your points - the medicare bill favors big businesses, not American people. Youre a polisci guru, you should realize that, even if Bush can do no wrong by you.

The Medicare Bill is a massive, bloated entitlement program. It is what it is. Call it whatever you wish. Conservatives HATE the bill. It's WAY more than we can afford and the costs will only skyrocket.

 

And that the Dems attack the bill for that is odd. Bush spends too much (which I do agree) --- and their solution is to SPEND MORE THAN HIM?

 

Odd.

And the education bill cant be successful if we spend all our money and dig deeper into debt by spending on supporting the brilliant Patriot act and attacking/conquering/occupying other countries. But hey, signing bills is fun though.

Yup, that Patriot Act has been a budget-buster. TONS of spending involved with that one.

 

Well, primarily amongst psychotic leftists who don't wish to actually read the bill and find it easier to demagogue it --- but heck. Tons of spending nonetheless.

 

And the education bill can't be successful because the public education spending needs MASSIVE overhaul that NEA won't allow to happen.

 

And, yeah, we invade countries by the truckload. Huge spending there. Doesn't the Medicare bill amount to about as much as the entire Iraq operation --- and the Iraq operation actually has a bright side because it won't cost this much forever?

Hes 'near', not 'ultra'. Read first, thanks.

Get a clue what you're talking about, 'K?

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

near-ultra conservative? So he's to a higher degree, but not quite to a higher degree? Why didn't you just say "conservative" then? The near- and ultra- cancel each other out.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

No, they're really not much fun

 

Jeepers Creepers, someone is sure getting grouchy in his old age.

 

Also, another very valid point is that after such a close election George Bush should have remained a more moderate president, not the near ultraconservative run that hes had.

 

So I guess...

 

1) Medicare prescription bill

2) Bloated education bill supported by Ted Kennedy

3) Immigration amnesty bill

4) Big increase for the NEA

5) No vetoes at all

 

Makes you a near ultra-conservative?

 

I shudder to think what makes someone a liberal.

 

Then again, we do have HITLER at the helm.

 

Oh, and the final vote tally, according to this biased site, reads as follows:

 

(Gore) - (Bush) = (differential)

 

(50,996,582) - (50,456,062) = (540,520)

 

Not quite the 58,158,094 - 49,820,518 = 8,337,576 that was previously claimed earlier in this thread. (BTW: Where did those figures come from -- W. didn't turn away THAT many Palm Beach voters to warrant so many extra Gore votes)

 

I think the facts speak for themselves in this case...