Stolen election?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 26 2007, 12:59 AM) [snapback]380955[/snapback]</div>

I'm unclear what recount was done -- of the pre-selected ballots, or the entire county ?
I'm also curious how this came to light.

This could be the footnote to the worse president in US history: *Served two terms, both gained through manipulation of the vote.

 

Election-rigging is a tradition in the U.S. since there've been elections. I won't go so far as to say elections are rigged as often as not, but they are rigged often enough that only a very sheltered person should be surprised when it happens, or imagine that their vote really makes a difference. I will say I'd be very surprised if we ever learn about a quarter of the elections that were rigged.

The silver lining is that whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, the rigging was in your party's favor as often as in favor of the other party; and if you are an independent, your candidate never had a chance anyway. In 2000 and 2004 the Repubs rigged it and we wound up with the stupidest president in U.S. history and a war that may end up bankrupting us. But other times it's been the Dems, and they'll manage to pull it off in the future.

It ain't about democracy, and it never has been. It's a war between two mafias, which they fight every couple of years (every 4 for the top office) and they fight it in their own way, and they let us play the voting game so we think we have some part to play in it all. (Or at least those of us who are blind or cannot remember back as far as the last election think so, anyway.)

 

These people weren't convicted of rigging an election. They were convicted of rigging a sample so that it wouldn't trigger a recount. Big difference. The final results were the same so where's the damage?

I remember seeing a piece on TV about the Florida recount. "The Media" (I don't remember if it was a group of newspapers or TV stations or what) conducted their own recount at their own expense. Under various conditions every tally gave Bush the victory.

Perhaps the losers just can't handle that their candidate isn't as "good" and have to cry foul. Maybe we should ask the UN to supervise our next presidential election.

I can understand why Democrats are so upset. They are the most civic-minded people in this country as proven by how many in Chicago continue to vote after they die.

Vote early--vote often.

 

As I understand it from a friend of mine "CNN" managed to trace this Obama-bashing email & a few others to someone from Hillary's staff, if this is true. Go Dems! :lol: :lol:

 

Yeah, there's been a lot of stuff "traced" back to Hillary's staff... I, for one, don't believe any of this tracing - it's easy enough for one person working in the media to say "oh yeah, someone from hillary's staff told me they started it" and for it to suddenly become "fact".

The thing is, with e-mails like that, there really isn't any way to trace them back. by the time anyone cares about it, it's been forwarded and copied a hundred times and it's roots are pretty much untraceable. Want an exercise in futility? Try proving to your self the origin of any of those chain e-mails. send people e-mails, call them... if you can follow back two different, relatively unrelated lines, i promise you that you'll have two different people who claim ownership for it. Then you'll do some fact checking on the web and find out that it actually originated 10 years ago, not 3 months like your "sources" told you.

And as for rigging the election... Prior to the election and all the hype leading up to it, Bush's approval rating (i believe) was below 30%. once he started facing off against Kerry, his approval rating skyrocketed into the 40's. After the election, it plummeted back down. What does that tell you about the average Joe's opinion of Kerry? The Dem's need to stop being sore losers and just accept the fact that they put forth a horrible candidate.