No, it's just a really old/tired debate that has already been beat to death. Some people feel he was appointed, some people think it was absolutely fair and square. Since the govt. isn't really going to do anything about it, most people are willing to just wait to vote dumbya out of the office instead of sitting around for 4 years being unproductive. All I was asking is what position would you feel more honorable in - holding the popular vote and not being president; or having your brother's state create mass amounts of scandal/accidents/chads/bullshit which in turn resulted in the court appointing you president?
By court decision (4 people sitting in a room twiddling their balls, wondering how their decision will affect them), yes, Dumbya is our president. You win. By recount (in a state where the highest elected official happens to be his brother, with months/years preparation before the actual recounts), yes, Dumbya is our president. You win. How does all of this not make Dumbya a complete ass hat for wanting to wage war, cutting Education, and increasing defense spending in a time where the world couldn't possibly be in a better position for global peace? Adam. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Ousterhout [mailto:andy@;omygoodness.com] > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:41 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: CRUISE OF A LIFETIME > > > Beth, > > I agree with you. I find it interesting the resounding silence of the > "Stolen Election" camp when asked to discuss the facts. This > camp seems > much more comfortable name calling then truly discussing the issues. > > Andy > > -----Original Message----- > From: BethF [mailto:dawg@;alaska.com] > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 3:51 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: CRUISE OF A LIFETIME > > > > Would one of you from the "GW is a court appointed > president" team please > > discuss all of the recounts that have been performed? How > many would have > > swayed the election if the Supreme Court hadn't interfered. > Again, I > don't > > remember seeing a single one. So if you can't show a > recount that supports > > your view and there are recounts that support Bush won with > and without > the > > Supremes, are you just avoiding reality? > > > Its not a matter of saying that Bush didnt' win the electoral vote, he > clearly did - its a matter of whether the electoral college > is relevant and > fair. At the time of the creation of the electoral college > it was created > because the "common man" supposedly didn't have the smarts to vote for > himself so he voted for someone smarter than him to do it. > I personally > find that notion offensive & outdated and would prefer to > see the president > elected solely on the basis of the public vote. > > Does anyone know if there were any other times a president was elected > without winning the popular vote? > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_community This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
