Why Bush will win Florida

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by diamond geezer, Sep 28, 2004.

  1. diamond geezer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #1
    link

     
  2. diamond geezer thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #2
     
  3. diamond geezer thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #3
    Sorry about the length of this article, but it was to hard to decide what to leave out.

    I look forward to hearing how the Republicans on this board, defend (the undefendable) this behavior.
     
  4. slughead macrumors 68030

    slughead

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #4
    you could've posted a link instead

    Anyways, I'm far more worried about e-voting machines than anything else
     
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  6. diamond geezer thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
  7. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #7
    Of course he'll win, his brother is the governor, and we saw after last election that they can't be trusted to be objective.
     
  8. slughead macrumors 68030

    slughead

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #8
    I'd just like to point out that the Dems are setting things up to blame Republicans for their future loss in florida.

    Everyone writing and executing these laws was either elected or appointed by someone who was elected.

    In other news, the democrats have successfully sued Nader off the ballot in Ohio. But see, it's OK when Democrats use legal technicalities against their enemies :X.

    So cry me a river if this becomes another debacle--the Floridians obviously like it like that, and Depublicans have no right to complain about legal trickery--at least the person you want to vote for was allowed on the ballot!

    Meanwhile I'm voting against 2 evils at once.
     
  9. diamond geezer thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #9
    I find your concern for the democratic process, touching.
     
  10. slughead macrumors 68030

    slughead

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #10
    Oh I have concern, that's why I'm doing my part and not voting republicrat. There are laws like this in every state, and laws in the federal government to give the 2 parties ungodly amounts of campaign money on the taxpayers' dime while giving everyone else the shaft.

    Oh, and those laws were written by both republicans and democrats.

    You may complain all you want about the broken down democratic process... as long as you're not contributing to it by voting republicrat.

    You should be overjoyed at the corruption your party benefits from. Yeah, sure, here and there the other pack of wolves get the upper hand, but look at it this way: you could be EVERYBODY ELSE.

    <3

    Sorry, I'm just bitter because Badnarik's only on the ballot in 49 states :(
     
  11. sorryiwasdreami macrumors 6502a

    sorryiwasdreami

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Location:
    way out in the sticks
    #11
    I understand where you're coming from. But let's just get Kerry over the finish line, and continue the progressive movement on November 3rd.
     
  12. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #12
    Um, Thresa LePore, um, hate to let you know this, but she is a democrat. Big Time. So, in essence, this article says that it was her fault that Gore lost, and will be her fault that Kerry will lose?

    Wow, conspiracy theories are so overrated. :rolleyes:
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Who cares what side she's on? All I want is a clean election. I should hope that's what everyone else wants too. :rolleyes:
     
  14. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #14
    Yea mactastic, except one thing. All of these threads start the same way. Lets make another bleading heart feel good about Kerry and bad about Bush. Even this article, as laughable as it was makes the same assumtion. People need a reason to feel good about lurch, sorry, Kerry.

    Now, that being said. This thread has been a great Bush bashing thread, and because of an article that BLAMES A DEMOCRAT for the 2000 election. It is Bantha Fodder. Nothing more, nothing less.
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    Umm... I hate to bring facts into your partisan-colored ranting here, but there is only one post in this thread that is even remotely anti-Bush, and really that one is more anti-Jeb than anti-Scum... I mean George.

    There is also a post bashing Democrats, but I assume you failed to notice that one?

    Which makes this thread about even.
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    Remember, the new definition of fair and balanced is

    Point: ultra-conservative; counterpoint: moderate

    So, by the new standards, since we have both a strong liberal and a conservative standpoint represented, we have a lack of "new balance" (if you will).
     
  17. slughead macrumors 68030

    slughead

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #17
    You think Kerry will fix this? The Democrats are equally guilty to republicans in this.

    Look what they're doing to Nader! They're no different, and every time you vote for them, you do nothing but let them take you for granted.

    I'll go the the polls, show I'm willing to vote, just not for them. If they want my vote they can google Libertarian. Think about it: wouldn't that be more effective than just voting for them because you don't like the other guy?

    If you hate Bush's fiscal policy, but vote for him anyway, you lose, he wins!

    If you hate the fact that Kerry's just like Bush, but you vote for him anyway, you lose, he wins!

    You can complain all day long, if you still vote for the guy, they wont listen.
     
  18. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #18
    Um, hate to tell you this in a sarcastic and pissed off manner, um, Theresa LePore, um, hate to let you know, but she WAS a Democrat. Now she's an independent taking money from Republicans.

    Nevermind that the portion of the original story concerning Theresa wasn't about partisan politics. It was about a lack of a stable, secure and fair election process in Florida and how that hurt Gore (as well as Theresa's opponents) in prior elections and the fact that it hasn't been fixed. It was NOT an implication of the Republicans in the problems of Palm Beach county. It was an implication of an inept public servant and the problems she has caused.

    THEN, consider the fact that there were TWO MORE PAGES in the article. When you consider the whole article, your analysis seems a bit, well, lacking, given you address one of three themes in the article, and only address that theme by pointing out something irrelevant to the point of the article. Good work. :rolleyes:

    Lose the attitude. It was so much better when you came here to debate facts instead of spew hatred at the other posters for their liberal tendancies.

    Whatever.

    Taft
     
  19. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #19
    Just a teeny bit less venom please....

    Come on guys... I've been conversing with both of you for years now. I can usually get along with both of you and I know you to be rational (if somewhat passionate) patriots.

    Shall we agree on the confusion falling squarely in the lack of adequate elections standards for security, methodology and qualifying the electorate?

    Shall we also agree that the electoral college has been perverted and become the anachronism that is used, time and againg to manipulate the democratic process through fiddling of districts?

    I think that both parties have contributed to the mess through ever-increasingly polarized actions and rhetoric. It's no longer about serving the people... it's about beating the other team. Shame on you for getting sucked in. If this were old times I'd Pie you both and call in Winky for a wedgie each and his special scalp treatment. ;) :D
     
  20. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #20
    More on the rampant voter fraud in Florida

    5-second summary: 60,000 Black felons (largely democratic voters) were excluded from the voter roles in 2000. Meanwhile 15,000 Hispanic felons (largely republican voters) were allowed to vote.
     
  21. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #21
    And who got him on the ballot? Republicans. Happened in OR, too. Repubs tried to get him on, Dems tried to keep him off. Though I agree on your main point. They both suck.

    Vote for a third party. It's your right. But they won't win. Better to play the system and just pick the lesser of 2 evils who actually might have a chance if people who hate Bush don't throw their vote away. Nader's a great guy, but he is not Presidential material.

    Why you should vote for Kerry.
     
  22. slughead macrumors 68030

    slughead

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #22
    If the ability to vote for a 3rd party candidate will cause you to lose, the most unamerican and antidemocratic thing you could do would be to try and get him off the ballot.

    If any democrats have problems with Republicans helping Nader, why don't you donate to the Libertarians?

    I like that idea, go ahead republicrats, support your parties' "spoilers."

    If you were on death row, and your choice was between electrocution, lethal injection, or trying to escape, which would you choose?

    Or how about this: if you were the DNC and you lose because people overwhelmingly chose to vote for someone "they'd know would lose" rather than vote for the same old crap... what kind of a person would you put on the ticket the next time around?

    People say this election is too important to vote for who you want to be president... well it's always "too important," the parties LIKE that way of thinking: it keeps the 3rd parties out! It's always a state of emergency, well you know something?: Both Bush and Kerry are for the war, democratic peace theorists, fiscal serial murderers, against the same civil liberties, and rich as hell off other people's money.

    After Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992, the parties were so scared they cut spending increases, taxes, and reformed welfare (the biggest issues at the time). NPR even had a piece on how government is effected in the years following a 3rd party boost.

    So, you can vote republicrat, I'll vote Libertarian, and you can thank me later :)
     
  23. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #23
    Sluggy, despite what you may think, there are real and important differences between both the Democratic and Republican Parties and their Candidates for President.

    Yes, it is unfortunate that both sides have been co-opted by business and the status-quo, but that does not make them identical.

    Clinton was a much different President than Bush (either), and different priorities are set by either party, even if the spectrum of choices is somewhat diminished.

    As for the individual Politicians, they of course make a difference, as even within a party there is a difference between a McCain and a Frist, or a Feingold and a Lott.

    These differences matter.

    As for Nader, well I feel that ALL parties should be ashamed of their behavior...as for Florida, it is an indictment of the health of our Electoral process, that allows, through action and inaction, the manipulation of a Democratic process for partisan goals.
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #24
    Trust me, if Bush wins, I won't be thanking you. I agree with your principles. I get it, I do. You want to send a message with your vote. It is better than not voting. But this is a practical fight. Of course Kerry is a douche-bag. It even says so in that link. But do you really want GW to continue being the pres? Lesser of 2 evils here. In the last election, I thought I could have ideals. Give me a better candidate, and I'll vote. Almost voted for Nader. Now we have Bush in the oval office. Maybe Gore wouldn't have been much better, but he wouldn't have been worse. And we probably wouldn't be in Iraq right now.

    I get it, you want a better candidate. But what's more important? That you vote for someone who has no idea what they are doing and has no chance of being pres over principle, or you vote for someone who might not suck too bad and might actually have a chance of beating our current pres, who has no idea what he's doing and is screwing up this country? And will continue to do so.

    Last year I was apathetic. This year, we can't afford that. And we can't afford principle. John Kerry sucks, but I'm still voting for him because he sucks less than Bush and he can actually win.

    It sucks, I know, but that's the reality.
     
  25. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #25

    No offense, but you still sound apethetic now. If everyone who didn't like Bush and Kerry had the guts to vote for a 3rd party candidate imagine what could happen. It's a chicken/egg problem. Candidates need to look like legit options to get votes, but candidates need votes to look like legit options. And "leading" candidates will continue to suck as long as people vote for them. If you're a dirty b*stard but you keep winning why should you stop being a dirty b*stard?

    If you vote Kerry, and he wins, and the sh*t just keeps getting deeper are you going to comfort yourself w/the hope that if Bush had been re-elected things would "undoubtedly" be worse? If Kerry loses are you going to be mad at the people who voted for someone they thought would make a good President instead of voting for the least crappy person? That doesn't make much sense. Maybe if we, as a nation, started voting for who we thought was the best candidate America might be a better place in 20 years. Change doesn't happen over night.


    I can't speak for everyone else but '08 can't get here fast enough.


    Lethal
     

Share This Page