I've read somewhere that Bush did steal Ohio's votes and the electoral votes were handed out to him. And that's it's a fact.
Is this true? If so, can you give me more details? Thanks!!
2007-02-04 18:01:15 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Here is rolling stone magazines article about what you ask. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
It suggests Republicans denied voting to 350,000 in Ohio, enough to get Kerry elected President.
2007-02-04 18:07:31 · answer #1 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 5⤊ 6⤋
I don't see any proof here. Voting machines are not racist as some people have posted. Rediculous. Machines count the votes, people only post them. Why do you libs keep hunting up some kind of conspiracies going on? You all still haven't gotten over getting beat in the past two elections even tho we had chads and dimples counted numerous times by both party counters. I have a couple of real statistics also. 5600 felons voted in Florida, and 1135 felons voted Democratic in North Carolina alone. Most felons and prisoners are Democrats, Wonder why?
2016-05-24 14:41:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let's set the record straight here! First of all people are going to be sentence because the ballots were counted behind closed doors! Which out the proper officials! That happen in Cuyahoga county! A county which Kerry won!!
So yes there was voter fraud however it was Kerry who took that county!!
2007-02-04 20:32:04 · answer #3 · answered by wondermom 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush did NOT steal Ohio's votes.
He even won in the recounts in FL from 2000. Even in the one the New York Times paid for.
Anyone who says he stole the election has an agenda. Always consider the source of any of these stories.
2007-02-04 18:13:13 · answer #4 · answered by C B 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
No, in Gore v. Bush (2000) it shows that the election was concerning the Equal Protection Clause, which Gore violated, and has nothing to do with stealing. No one intelligent contended the 2004 election, either
2007-02-04 18:11:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
The major difference between a Republican and a Lib, is that a Republican can take a loss gracefully, while a Lib will still be crying about it for decades to come, because they CAN'T believe THEY'RE NOT RIGHT!! Which is why it's so hard to find a bi-partisan Lib.
GET OVER IT, ALREADY!!
2007-02-04 18:15:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
And still we hear nothing about the absentee ballots in Florida 2000.. Maybe because they are primarily military votes that traditionally vote Republican. Pick and choose, pick and choose..
2007-02-04 18:14:33 · answer #7 · answered by bopoppa 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
what a bunch of crap. neo-libs will continue to cry until they have dominating power to destroy traditional America. I just can't believe how many quote Rolling Stones Mag. as a credible source. My goodness folks where do you get your other political views from High Times Mag. by chance.
2007-02-04 18:09:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
I can't tell you every place I've read or seen it, but it is a fact.
There's a huge article in Rolling Stone by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. a few months back. I'm sure you'll find it online.
Also, there's a guy named Mark Crispin Miller that has written several books about Bush's election theft.
2007-02-04 18:07:29 · answer #9 · answered by bettysdad 5 · 4⤊ 8⤋
certain county officials in ohio are being charged
search for yourself
2007-02-04 18:05:43 · answer #10 · answered by WMD LIEr W 1 · 3⤊ 4⤋