2006-09-10 13:40:49 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I MEAN THE SECOND ELECTION...
2006-09-10 13:45:29 · update #1
Absolutely not. I saw him with my own eyes days before the election. He said he would win by 3-4 million votes. He was very cocky about it too!
Election day came and went. How did he know? He mysteriously won by 3 1/2 million votes.
Electronic votes were manipulated in Bush's favor. There is no paper trail, so how can this be verified. Some voters claim they pushed a button and it was not for Bush, but the vote showed that Bush was chosen.
2006-09-10 15:19:54 · answer #1 · answered by Schona 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wow, people rather don't comprehend history right here, even cutting-edge history. the rationalization Bush won is as a results of the fact the perfect court docket blocked yet another recount. After the election, it replaced into desperate that Gore did win the familiar vote (with the help of an exceedingly small margin). that may not a contested actuality. the two sides settle for this. To the OP, Bush did no longer win "consistent with regulation", he won based on the undeniable fact that the perfect court docket had extra conservatives than liberals on the time...
2016-11-07 01:47:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, of course Bush won both elections fair and square.
The real problem is you lieberals live in a world of your own making, and do not grasp reality very well.
First, Bush won in Florida for a very well known reason. Clinton did something that to me was the only good thing he did in 8 years, and it cost Gore, his VP, the State of Florida. He sent Elian home, and this was correct per both US and International law. Yet, it angered enough Cubans in FL that Gore lost.
To listen to you lieberals, one would swear Gore was ahead in every count, and the US Supreme Court gave the election to Bush. Not so. Bush was ahead in every single count, and it was not the Republicans who took it to the courts. It was Gore who tried to get the courts to change Florida election law after the election. The Republicans merely appealed the bogus ruling by the lieberal judges, to the Supreme Court.
Per the Consitution -- do any of you ever read that document? -- the courts are not supposed to settle contested presidential elections.
And, in 2004, there was no contest.
You lieberals better get used to losing. Not because of your lack of a platform of any useful kind.
No, the real reason is you lieberals kill your babies. A recent study showed 100 lieberals have an average of 147 kids. 100 conservatives have an average of 208 kids.
Each year, the reduction of lieberals by abortion gives the cons a 0.5% advantage. it is projected that by 2020 there will be no more Dem states. All gone.
In the 30's, after FDR saved this nation from the world's greatest depression, a majority of this nation was Dem. In 1973, the Supreme Court violated the US Consitution and announced that abortion on demand was hidden there somewhere in the Consitution.
Immediately, the pro-abortion lieberals started killing their babies, and slowly this nation swung to the right. In the 90's. for the first time in decades, the Federal legislature went Republican.
Soon, you guys won't be able to elect a dog-catcher.
2006-09-10 14:42:29 · answer #3 · answered by retiredslashescaped1 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't think either one of them.
want to read a scary book?
"Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One, Too" Mark Crispin Miller.
Even if what he says is half right, we could all be in big trouble
2006-09-10 13:50:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No.....
I also think it exposed how weak our system for voting really is and how easy it would be to manipulate an election.
When an American citizen is not given an equal chance to vote, there is a problem. Even if it was only 1 person, but in this case there were potentially thousands across the country who were not able to vote thier opinion...
2006-09-10 15:55:36 · answer #5 · answered by rocketman33 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He stole both elections, in 2000 and 2004. I believe it is called Diebolding.
You program the vote machines to just squeek by with enough votes to win the electoral college.
2006-09-10 14:59:11 · answer #6 · answered by nonjoo 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think we've had an honest election since Kennedy.
There are so many alphabet soup police agencies and covert government tentacles you and I have no way of knowing how presidents are chosen.
Most people already know the media is controlled, we're "told" what to think, and how to think it. All they have to do is issue the talking points to all the news hairdoos and we all conform our opinions to follow.
The US government corporation is there to make a profit.
Follow the money, the tax money, that is.
2006-09-10 13:50:51 · answer #7 · answered by s2scrm 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes. In 2000, Al gore only wanted to recount 3 counties that are heavlily Democrat. If you want a recount, count everyone's votes, not some.
Also considering most voting districts are run by Democrats. So who would have access to steal an election?
2006-09-10 13:44:08 · answer #8 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nope, he didn't win either one of them...but his friends who he has been supporting & now, he is supprting them so well, including his brother in Florida, cheated all by fudging the numbers...it may have been close, but his friends & relatives were putting all the indigents on busses to have them vote for Bush...thatis the only way he could even come close!
2006-09-10 14:46:41 · answer #9 · answered by fairly smart 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For sure not the first one, the second one I don't believe he did but there is less proof.
The first election went to the Supreme Court, if you study how our government works, that should not have been the case.
2006-09-10 13:46:01 · answer #10 · answered by Roland D. 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋