Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

1,014 hits Rate me! Share Favorite | Flag 17 years ago by KikiPeepers

Which was more suspect: Bush winning the 2000 election, or Bush winning the 2004 election?


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 3 Next (showing 1-25 of 60)

Bottom Last Post

17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Tuesday 11/16/04 - 7:07:22 PM EST (GMT-5)
2004 election
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Tuesday 11/16/04 - 7:25:26 PM EST (GMT-5)
WHO dratING GIVES A poo ABOUT THIS dratING MORONIC non-nice individualD TOPIC?
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Tuesday 11/16/04 - 7:43:53 PM EST (GMT-5)
2000 definitely, because of the fuss over him not winning the popular vote.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Thursday 11/18/04 - 10:58:48 PM EST (GMT-5)
Duhh, neither. The only reason there was any "fuss" was because both times the democrats complained about losing.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Thursday 11/18/04 - 11:00:49 PM EST (GMT-5)
There is no suspect about either. He deserved to win both times.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Thursday 11/18/04 - 11:10:27 PM EST (GMT-5)
They recounted Florida in 2000, several private groups checked and rechecked those counts, never was there any other winner than Bush in any of those counts. The 2004 election wasn't even that close. PA was a lot closer to going for Bush than OH was to going for Kerry. I'm sure there was some voting fraud, on both sides. The dems have got to learn how to be more graceful losers.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 3:10:27 PM EST (GMT-5)
Neither. His opponents in both elections conceded.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 4:51:37 PM EST (GMT-5)
This question doesn't make any sense. The Dumocrats are just angry that they lost both times.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 4:55:55 PM EST (GMT-5)
That picture on the left is pretty funny

Anyway, I think that he deserved to win both times, and neither were "suspect" in my book. The Left just complain a lot.

17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 4:57:10 PM EST (GMT-5)
Yes, there is no reason to question why someone is your president when he loses the popular vote and is appointed by 9 people. How COULD democrats even be questioning it.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 4:58:27 PM EST (GMT-5)
2004....still make me wanna hurl
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 5:06:20 PM EST (GMT-5)
Hottsmug, I agree. Actually, he was appointed by 5 people. 4 of the justices voted against stopping the vote counting.

The 2000 election was straight out of a Third World country. Just as corrupt and just as disenfranchising.

17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 5:18:01 PM EST (GMT-5)
2000 was a time of impatience, and 2004 was just dumb.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 7:18:03 PM EST (GMT-5)
Wake up hotts, Those votes were recounted by several independant groups. NONE of them found a different outcome. The election is based on Electoral College votes, not popular votes. It's the way it is, it's the way the canadates knew it would be, changing that after the election because you don't like the outcome WOULD be unfair. Get over it.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 7:31:01 PM EST (GMT-5)
He won legitimately both times. Some people just can't handle that their ideas have been rejected so they lash out at false targets rather than look at why they failed.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 8:52:47 PM EST (GMT-5)
Neither was "suspect". He won. Period. Get over yourself and stop acting like there's some sort of conspiracy.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 10:01:25 PM EST (GMT-5)
They stopped the counting in Florida in 2000. Do you wonder what all the fuss was about? Thousands of voters in Florida were effectively disenfranchised and 5 Supreme Court justices decided the outcome, not the people.

He didn't "win", he was handed the election without counting all of the votes when the tally was extrememly close. It is the worst election scandal and most controversial election in US history.

Many scholars of law also consider that Supreme Court decision that effectively ended the vote count the worst in US history or at least on a par with the horrible decisions like the Dred Scott Decision or Plessy vs. Ferguson.

17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 10:08:55 PM EST (GMT-5)
LOL^ doesn't get it.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 10:10:36 PM EST (GMT-5)
What don't I get? Please explain yourself fully so that I may "get" it.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 10:16:48 PM EST (GMT-5)
The SCOTUS forced the Florida courts to correctly interpret the Florida election law. They did not install Bush as president of the United States. The democrat party was attempting to change the Florida law so that they could manipulate votes into algore's column thus stealing the presidency from Bush. As long as you continue to persist in the silly notion that Florida was "stolen" you will never actually see why you lost and why you will continue to lose in the future. Not that I mind your not seeing this it makes your defeats all the more pleasant.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 10:55:25 PM EST (GMT-5)
They hadn't counted all of the votes you idiot! In a real election, every vote is supposed to be counted and in such a close election, the Bush team went way out of its way to keep its slim lead by preventing a full count.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 11/22/04 - 11:04:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
They counted them all Bush won by 500 and some odd votes. The democrats wanted to change the rules so that they could count non punched ballots in the three counties Gore won heavily and not in the rest of the state. This was a violation of Florida election law that says all votes have to be counted equally. Since Broward, Miami Dade and Palm Beach were violating election law and the Florida Supremes were openly violating Florida law the SCOTUS had to step in to prevent the theft of the election by the democrats. How not allowing the democrats to steal the election came to be Bush stealing the election is a testament to the demagoguery of the Mainstream Media and the willful ignorance of the democrat party's base.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Tuesday 11/23/04 - 4:11:52 AM EST (GMT-5)
I'm over it, dacash. I was answering the question. You know, with this being the QUESTION forum and all.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Tuesday 11/23/04 - 5:51:33 AM EST (GMT-5)
2000, as much as by default as anything else. He won the Electoral vote- the vote that matters- fair and square, but only after all that crazy stuff in the state governed by his own brother. He didn't win the popular vote, which doesn't matter, really, but it's still a point that affects people's opinions.
2004 was not suspicious at all. Surprising, perhaps. Terribly saddening and shameful, certainly, but there is no denying that he won.
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Tuesday 11/23/04 - 6:38:07 AM EST (GMT-5)
Everything that man does is suss! enough said..

Prev 1 2 3 Next (showing 1-25 of 60)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 What does your money do?

2 If you had a genetic disease, would you reproduce?

3 Do you ever leave your dog in your vehicle with the windows rolled down a bit?

4 Do you live in a home that has been owned by your family for multiple generations?

5 How do you pronounce the word 'Italian'?

6 Have you ever won a radio competition?

7 Have you ever seen an Aurora?

8 If a defendant is found `not guilty`, do you assume that they are innocent?

9 Do people become more likeable once they`ve realized their faults?

10 Does your favourite movie pass the Bechdel test?

More Questions
 
Edit