| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| How did Bush become POTUS; Moved from Womens Rights Thread | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 27 2004, 05:26 PM (268 Views) | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 27 2004, 05:26 PM Post #1 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Wrong again. I'm glad I was disappointed that I heard "selected, not elected" before the sun set. The current president was elected BY THE LAWS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. If you want to point the finger at someone for attempting to steal an election, look at Al Gore, who NEVER was ahead in any ballot count, no matter how the Dem precinct judges tried, and was determined a year later (by recounts by the New York Times, USA Today, and Washington Post) to have still lost. At the same time, the Bush campaign did not contest accusations of election fraud in Oregon, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Iowa. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Apr 27 2004, 05:57 PM Post #2 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
For Admiral and Dan, although you'll probably dismiss this as "liberal propaganda" before even reading it: 2000 election |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Apr 27 2004, 06:02 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
This was in the Womans marching thread and was going off-topic as usual so I started a new one. It is easy to start new topics.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Apr 27 2004, 06:10 PM Post #4 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Indeed there are facts on that website, being a news site, I would assume that fulfulls your standards, but somehow, I doubt it. This is exactly the problem I had before. I provide evidence, but it's just not good enough for you. Please tell me what you want to consider the argument. There are facts, this is a news site. What more do you want? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Cool Vulcan | Apr 27 2004, 06:25 PM Post #5 |
|
Captain
|
What a load *******! I like to see real proof? Here is the actral stats of that election and Bush did when. Bush got the popular and got Florida. You know little of your own country Sisko and our own electol colleage, Bush dodn't need the popular vote. Sourse |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 27 2004, 06:26 PM Post #6 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
You're right! I read it anyway, and yes it is STILL liberal propaganda. When will you people get over the 2000 elections? Gore lost. Live with it. Here's one example of the utter wrongness of your post:
They were not illegally designed. They were legally designed by a Democrat, and passed muster in a Democrat county. Here's what I love about your source (which I have pointed out once previously):
The site features such independent journalistic stories as, "The Bush Doctrine's Vietnam Paradox," "Bush's Tet," "Never Having to Say Sorry," and the ever popular "Bush's Terror Hysteria."
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Apr 27 2004, 06:37 PM Post #7 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Taverner. I know that popular vote doesn't count in the electoral college. You didn't have to tell me that. I think it's obvious that I have demonstrated I know how US elections work. Your personal attack is not only in bad taste, it's completely erroneous, but I expect no better from you. Admiral: I get news from all kinds of sources. I read the mainstream paper everyday. Consortiumnews like other left wing news sources don't take corporate money so they can report on things thier advertisers would rather they didn't. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Apr 27 2004, 07:58 PM Post #8 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
HERE HERE HERE |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 28 2004, 08:49 AM Post #9 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Thanks for posting those links, Rose.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| anon_persona | Apr 28 2004, 10:41 PM Post #10 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
Sisko, if you understand how our voting system works why do you think thwe Supreme Court gave the election to Bush? They didn't even vote on the issue, meaning they had no effect on the decision! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Vger_art | Apr 29 2004, 10:00 AM Post #11 |
![]()
To baldly go
|
Probably a stupid remark coming from a dutch guy but why doesn't the candidate with most of the peoples votes get to be president? That way you would never have to argue who the real president is, the selected one in the white house or the elected one 'in exile'. The current laws don't sound very democratic to me. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 29 2004, 10:11 AM Post #12 |
|
Time to put something here
|
It has to do with individual states rights. The US is a big country and things that work well and are good for people say on the west coast, aren’t good or work well on the east coast. Something that works well in New York (one of our bigger pupations sates) might not work well in Idaho (one of our smaller populations states). So if we went with a pure popular vote, the federal government would only have to deal (make happy) with New York and could forget about Idaho because we in New York have a lot lot more voters. There for we have what is called the electoral college. Popular vote wins each states, but each states has a more balanced pull on the federal government. There for there are times when the popular vote loses to the electoral vote. If a candidate wins the majority of states, but they are all smaller populations states then he could win with out having the popular vote. It’s a much fair system in the idea that larger sates cant over influence the system at the expense of smaller ones. The problem that occurred in 2000 is not the result of the system, it was a result of the fact that both Gore and Bush where so close in the electoral college vote (they won almost equal states votes), and it came down to one state and then on top of that the popular vote in that one state was so very close. This gave the loser something to complain about and demand a recount because he had lost. Also the problem had to do with the fact that our election system (as in equipment) is antiquated and needs a serious over hall and a better regulation system. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 29 2004, 12:57 PM Post #13 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Because if it were up to the popular vote, the candidates would only have to campaign in the ten largest urban areas and ignore the rest of the country. With the electoral college, smaller states get better representation to offset the population blocs in the larger states. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 29 2004, 06:59 PM Post #14 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Normally the admiral is very good at pointing out this one aspect about the U.S., which is that our system of government is technically a "representative republic". Though it operates this system utilizing democratic principles and methods. The electoral college method assures all regions of the country are represented in the selection of the President. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |




2:11 PM Jul 11