Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic - Do you think that Bush has a trump card up his sleeve?

You probably could bribe an elector... not that 1 elector would make any difference...

Well, as the votes are shaping up now, 1 would hardly matter, just as 4 or 5.

Looks like Farenheit 9/11 really shot Bush down.
I didn't see the movie, and I won't see a political movie, especially if the filmmaker is a President-Bashing person.

Maybe Bush does have a Trump Card:

Name: Donald Trump
Powers: Buying stuff
Type: Wind
Power Level: 16
Special Abilities: Regenerating Power Units (2 per round)

(you have to imagine a cool picture of DT in a wizard's outfit)

ETA: oh yeah, and in recent history, there's usually one elector that votes differently than they're supposed to.

we, the citezens, dont ellect who will be president, the electoral college does. by missing one vote just means a canidate will have less votes for the popular vote. to me the popular vote is nothing. it just sees who people want, but it is all the electoral college's opinion that counts really.

"Usually"? Okay, no, there isn't "usually" one such elector, not even "in recent history". One incident in the past 15 years does not indicate a trend.

um. well, I was referring to the past, say, 30-40 years. it happened in 2000, 1988, 1976, 1972, and 1968. it's not a trend, but I'd hardly call that one incident.

"Is the GOP tampering with Florida elections?"

Does a bear poo in the woods?

So what do all of you think about the ironically-named Swift Boat Veterans for *cough*sputter* Truth?

Military records appear to contradict claims by a vocal critic of Sen. John Kerry that the
Democratic presidential candidate lied about coming under gunfire during a mission in Vietnam.

The newly obtained records of Larry Thurlow show that he, like Kerry, won a Bronze Star
for the same engagement and that Thurlow's citation said he came under
"constant small arms fire," the newspaper reported Thursday.

In his Bronze Star citation, Thurlow is praised for helping a
damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

Thurlow, also like Kerry, commanded a Navy Swift boat during the war.
Thurlow swore in an affidavit last month that Kerry was "not under fire"
when he rescued Lt. James Rassmann from the Bay Hap River.

Thurlow said he would not authorize release of his military records
because he feared the Kerry campaign would discredit him.

Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview
that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit
that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star.

Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign
the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

“I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable.
As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded.
Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry
served honorably in Vietnam.”

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.

Tom, why didn't you major in journalism?

one thing thats starting to tick me off about the campaign commercials is that the candidates are not saying what they have, but what their opponents don't have.

Today's news: Jeb Bush has already started manipulating Florida's ballots by defying a court order to get Ralph Nader's name on the ballot. I think "thick as thieves" is the phrase I'm looking for here.

The Democrats want Nader off the ballot because he has no chance of winning and almost every Nader voter would be a Kerry voter if Nader didn't make the ballot.

The Republicans have been trying very, very hard in battleground states petitioning to get Nader on the ballot. It's very surreal the lengths these guys go to.

The reason the judge ruled that Nader isn't allowed on the ballot is because he believes the Reform Party is "a shell of its former self" and isn't a legitimate national party under Florida's election laws.

And in the news, as of today, Nader is again off the ballot. This is going to be interesting, especially considering that overseas absentee ballots go out next week.

Author:	fahooglewitz1077 [ Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:25 pm ]
Post subject:
You probably could bribe an elector... not that 1 elector would make any difference...

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:37 pm ]
Post subject:
fahooglewitz1077 wrote: You probably could bribe an elector... not that 1 elector would make any difference... Well, in an election this close, one elector definitely could make a difference, as the "Votemaster" points out. But if not one, then how about three or five? Either has the cash to arrange that, and it's certainly plausible that the election might be that close.Say one candidate wins states whose votes add up to 266, and the other gets 272 (this is an unlikely combination, but it works for. Either candidate would only have to "compel" three electors in order to arrange a tie, and in a tie, Bush can't lose.

Author:	fahooglewitz1077 [ Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:42 pm ]
Post subject:
Well, as the votes are shaping up now, 1 would hardly matter, just as 4 or 5.

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:51 pm ]
Post subject:
fahooglewitz1077 wrote: Well, as the votes are shaping up now, 1 would hardly matter, just as 4 or 5. Are you going according to the EV Predictor? While I get a kick out of the site, I don't think that even the Votemaster would call it an accurate reflection of this election's outcome. You're right, if the election was held today and the poll data was completely accurate (and it never is), then Bush would have to "buy" 38 votes, which, even though he could certainly afford it, wouldn't fly with the American people. There would be riots. Or at least I like to think so. But anyway, check out the graph just before F9/11 released. And that was just two months ago. Think how much could change between now and November.

Author:	fahooglewitz1077 [ Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Looks like Farenheit 9/11 really shot Bush down. I didn't see the movie, and I won't see a political movie, especially if the filmmaker is a President-Bashing person.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Do you think that Bush has a trump card up his sleeve? http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=323	Page 3 of 4

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:16 am ]
Post subject:
Maybe Bush does have a Trump Card: Name: Donald Trump Powers: Buying stuff Type: Wind Power Level: 16 Special Abilities: Regenerating Power Units (2 per round) (you have to imagine a cool picture of DT in a wizard's outfit)

Author:	AgentSeethroo [ Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: Maybe Bush does have a Trump Card: Name: Donald Trump Powers: Buying stuff Type: Wind Power Level: 16 Special Abilities: Regenerating Power Units (2 per round) (you have to imagine a cool picture of DT in a wizard's outfit) Yer fired. <point>

Author:	Brunswick Stu [ Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:
of course, Trump has spoken out against Bush... in regards to the original question, I would say no. I wouldn't put any dirty trick past this administration, but their campaign has been run so slipshod, I just don't think they have anything in their pocket. all they've been doing is throwing everything they can think up at voters, trying to get something to stick. pity for them, nothing's sticking. ETA: oh yeah, and in recent history, there's usually one elector that votes differently than they're supposed to. in 2000, one of Gore's electors in DC abstained to protest DC's lack of representation in Congress. but this was always when there was a clear winner. I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to switch or abstain if it was 270-268 -- imagine the amount of pissed-off people they'd encounter.

Author:	warlordofhomsaria [ Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:34 pm ]
Post subject:
we, the citezens, dont ellect who will be president, the electoral college does. by missing one vote just means a canidate will have less votes for the popular vote. to me the popular vote is nothing. it just sees who people want, but it is all the electoral college's opinion that counts really.

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:
Warlord: Your vote helps determine the electoral vote. If you don't vote, then the electoral vote representing your state/district could end up going to the other candidate.

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:
Brunswick Stu wrote: ETA: oh yeah, and in recent history, there's usually one elector that votes differently than they're supposed to. "Usually"? Okay, no, there isn't "usually" one such elector, not even "in recent history". One incident in the past 15 years does not indicate a trend. warlordofhomsaria wrote: we, the citezens, dont ellect who will be president, the electoral college does. by missing one vote just means a canidate will have less votes for the popular vote. to me the popular vote is nothing. it just sees who people want, but it is all the electoral college's opinion that counts really. Um, warlord, did you just miss the whole conversation? And the part where we posted a lot of links that describe how the electoral college works? Yes, sometimes electors don't vote according to the popular vote. Does that mean that the Electoral College has been running things all these years with no regard for the popular vote of their constituency? Of course not. Look at it this way, in the 215 years of Presidential elections in the U.S., 20,237 electoral votes (you have no idea what a pain it was to figure out that number, but I'm pretty sure it's accurate) have been cast. Of those, somewhere between 8 and 85 votes (I refuse to counts the votes changed due to candidate deaths) haven't gone along with the popular vote that they represent. That's somewhere between 0.04% and 0.4% (yes, four hundredths and four tenths of one percent) of the total votes cast , and as you know it has never influenced the outcome of a Presidential race. The Electoral college system is not great. It may not even be very good. And I appreciate a good bit of cynicism when it comes to this country's electoral process. But your vote does dicate the outcome of the election.

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:17 pm ]
Post subject:
Thank you IJ. Good use of documentation.

Author:	Brunswick Stu [ Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:14 am ]
Post subject:
InterruptorJones wrote: "Usually"? Okay, no, there isn't "usually" one such elector, not even "in recent history". One incident in the past 15 years does not indicate a trend. um. well, I was referring to the past, say, 30-40 years. it happened in 2000, 1988, 1976, 1972, and 1968. it's not a trend, but I'd hardly call that one incident.

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:21 am ]
Post subject:
Brunswick Stu wrote: um. well, I was referring to the past, say, 30-40 years. it happened in 2000, 1988, 1976, 1972, and 1968. it's not a trend, but I'd hardly call that one incident. You said "in recent history". Maybe 40 years is "recent history" to Greeks, but that's an entire sixth (plus) of this country's entire history.

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:50 am ]
Post subject:
I found another great article about GOP vote-tampering in the 2000 election. They sure are a swell bunch. Remember those 51,000 black voters I mentioned awhile back who didn't get to vote last time 'round because of arrangements Bush's Campaign Manager made? The above reminds us of the other one million whose votes were conveniently "discarded".

Page 3 of 4	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Aggghhhrrhhhvffvak;jdra;emvaaewwr.awe.r, More GOP antics. Jeb Bush's Florida Department of Law Enforcement is taking time out of the Law Enforcement part of its job to spend some quality time with elderly black voters. To paraphrase a Metafilter commenter: Quote: "Is the GOP tampering with Florida elections?" Does a bear poo in the woods? And Republican John Pappageorge, State Rep in Michigan, is helping encourage his party to "suppress the [83% black] Detroit vote". But don't worry, he wants to get "[get] the vote down ... with a positive message." Maybe Jeb could give him some tips on "positive messages" for black voters.

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Fri Aug 20, 2004 5:50 pm ]
Post subject:
So what do all of you think about the ironically-named Swift Boat Veterans for coughsputter* Truth? The New York Times says Rove is behind it all, but we had assumed as much anyway, right? You can read quite a lot about the group over at NYT, or you can check out my pal Lane's slightly more bombastic analysis. Ooh, fun times. "I'm George Bush and I approved this sham."

Author:	Tom [ Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:22 pm ]
Post subject:
InterruptorJones wrote: So what do all of you think about the ironically-named Swift Boat Veterans for coughsputter* Truth? [url=http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB9ATWE2YD.html[/url]Military Documents Cast Doubt on Kerry Critic's Version of Combat, Published Report Says[/url] article wrote: Military records appear to contradict claims by a vocal critic of Sen. John Kerry that the Democratic presidential candidate lied about coming under gunfire during a mission in Vietnam. The newly obtained records of Larry Thurlow show that he, like Kerry, won a Bronze Star for the same engagement and that Thurlow's citation said he came under "constant small arms fire," the newspaper reported Thursday. In his Bronze Star citation, Thurlow is praised for helping a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him." Thurlow, also like Kerry, commanded a Navy Swift boat during the war. Thurlow swore in an affidavit last month that Kerry was "not under fire" when he rescued Lt. James Rassmann from the Bay Hap River. Thurlow said he would not authorize release of his military records because he feared the Kerry campaign would discredit him. So a Larry Thurlow wins a bronze star for being under fire. Later Larry makes an affidavit that John Kerry doesn't deserve his bronze star for being in that very same fire fight. Hmm, did anybody think the records on this wouldn't come out? George Elliot retracts criticism of Kerry article wrote: Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star. Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here." This is what they do. They did the same to McCain in 2000. McCain slams ad questioning Kerry's medals; White House won't condemn it McCain deplores anti-Kerry ad John McCain wrote: “I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.” And check out this article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 10, 2004, written by Jim Rassmann, the man who Kerry saved to earn his bronze star. Jim wrote: Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat. As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice. Also, see this snopes article on the topic. And just for good measure, a picture of Kerry with his crewmates:

Author:	Stu [ Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:
InterruptorJones wrote: Tom, why didn't you major in journalism? I really think Tom just majored in google and wikipedia. sneaky ninja edit: Rereading through his post I just realized that there isn't a single link from google or wikipedia... doh Anyway, I am just now starting to realize how ridiculous this whole debate is. Both sides. We are arguing about something that happened more then 35 years ago. I really think there are much more important current issues that ought to be getting all of the spotlight. All of this mudslinging and name calling (on both sides) just makes me ill. I really don't care if Bush was in the national guard, or if Kerry was in the navy, nor what either of them did. I do care about their opinions on taxes, stem-cell research, job outsourcing, and the current war in Iraq. I am not the best person for staying up to date with each parties views (and advertisements). But what I do see are threads in message forums such as this one, where people debate stuff that happened loong ago. I am not saying that what they did or didn't do isn't important (and the issue of honesty is VERY important). It just makes me wonder when people base their whole opinion of either candidate on an issue like this. Sorry for the rant. It really wasn't directed at anyone in particular (or really even at this thread). I didn't feel like creating a new thread, and just felt that it fit best here.

Author:	tobodahobo [ Sun Aug 29, 2004 4:02 pm ]
Post subject:
one thing thats starting to tick me off about the campaign commercials is that the candidates are not saying what they have, but what their opponents don't have. Vote not bush '04

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Mon Aug 30, 2004 1:44 pm ]
Post subject:
tobodahobo wrote: one thing thats starting to tick me off about the campaign commercials is that the candidates are not saying what they have, but what their opponents don't have. Well, this is nothing new, of course, but just for a little perspective, last I heard (you can Google it if you like, and let me know if my numbers are off), about two-thirds of Bush's ads are attack ads, as compared to one quarter of Kerry's.

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:38 pm ]
Post subject:
Today's news: Jeb Bush has already started manipulating Florida's ballots by defying a court order to get Ralph Nader's name on the ballot. I think "thick as thieves" is the phrase I'm looking for here.

Author:	Didymus [ Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:24 am ]
Post subject:
I just wonder what Ralph Nader has to say about that.

Author:	Stu [ Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:
InterruptorJones wrote: Today's news: Jeb Bush has already started manipulating Florida's ballots by defying a court order to get Ralph Nader's name on the ballot. I think "thick as thieves" is the phrase I'm looking for here. I don't exactly understand what is going on here... It seems that the democrats want to keep Nader off the ballot (which makes sense, seeing as he would most likely hurt their chances). But why is he being kept off the ballot at all? Saying "because a judge said so" doesn't really cut it. (It would just as bad as a republican tampering with votes)

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:
The Democrats want Nader off the ballot because he has no chance of winning and almost every Nader voter would be a Kerry voter if Nader didn't make the ballot. The Republicans have been trying very, very hard in battleground states petitioning to get Nader on the ballot. It's very surreal the lengths these guys go to. The reason the judge ruled that Nader isn't allowed on the ballot is because he believes the Reform Party is "a shell of its former self" and isn't a legitimate national party under Florida's election laws. And in the news, as of today, Nader is again off the ballot. This is going to be interesting, especially considering that overseas absentee ballots go out next week.

Author:	Stu [ Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:
InterruptorJones wrote: The Democrats want Nader off the ballot because he has no chance of winning and almost every Nader voter would be a Kerry voter if Nader didn't make the ballot. The Republicans have been trying very, very hard in battleground states petitioning to get Nader on the ballot. It's very surreal the lengths these guys go to. The reason the judge ruled that Nader isn't allowed on the ballot is because he believes the Reform Party is "a shell of its former self" and isn't a legitimate national party under Florida's election laws. And in the news, as of today, Nader is again off the ballot. This is going to be interesting, especially considering that overseas absentee ballots go out next week. I still don't understand why Nadar should be off the ballot. (I completely understand why people want him on/off the ballot). What is/are the criteria for being on the ballot? If there is some reason that he should be off the ballot, then I can agree with the judge. Otherwise it just seems he is trying to do the same sort of thing that you (ij) complain so much about the republicans doing last election. (Coming from someone who voted for Nader last election, as a vote for anyone other then bush in Utah is as good as a vote for my llama)