computo wrote:only a fucking idiot wouldnt be able to see that you can make no assertions about the numbers involved, if fraud occured.
You cant assert that if more people had voted things would be different, because you have no clue how many people voted for who, and the repubs saw to it that you never will. The kind of fraud that occured in the most recent election, you'd never know who voted for who, or how many voted.
Sorry - I'm from CA - I don't live under fear of the Republicans ever being that powerful.
so I guess that makes me a fucking idiot
computo wrote:
Some people just give up, others are vested, so they follow up, learn how these systems work. Maybe if you did, you'd see that the numbers dont matter if the machines they are using swallow or switch their votes.
If you have proof of this - you should seriously consider writing a book or better yet pitching a documentary. I personally pledge $100 to fund your project and will paypal it to you if you show me an outline or a production schedule/plan.
Anybody else want to back up computo's expose?
Anyone got any publishing/production connections?
computo wrote:
Also, Im not here to give you a solution, just deliver the truth. part of it is that the dems are pussies, as easily corrupted as anyone.
to take the vitriol out of your point (because I agree with you)...
All election regulations have been written to give an unfavorable advantage to both parties.
computo wrote:
If Im correct, rtopia gives respect for Bush because he had a plan to defraud the nation, and Gore was left with no plan to defraud them better?
No - you're not correct.
I rarely vote for GOP or DEM because they're too moderate for me.
I have little to no respect for any man/woman who's only career is politics.
I reserve that respect for men/women who actually produce something.
A politician can never produce/create anything except more legislation that creates new definitions for what is illegal.
My point was that in both elections Bush specifically said what he "planned" to do (in 2004 more than 2000).
I can objectively say that the 2004 Kerry campaign was more about "anybody but Bush" than a plan. You and I both know that campaigns are about getting the vote of the undecided (because the party faithful are already in the bag).
I would question the decision making power of a voter still undecided after the conventions have nominated candidates than I would widespread fraud and incompetence at the polling places. I saw more "one issue voters" and incomptence these last two elections than fraud - which explains why I'm not in hurry to cry conspiracy.
All I'm saying is Bush did a whole lot better "sales job" than Kerry did.
As I said in the previous message, I'm surprised the margin wasn't higher (like 55 - 60%).
computo wrote:so you dont vote rtopia?
I never said that.
I haven't missed an election in 22 years.
(I did say that "my candidates never win")
you might want to consider ratcheting down your "people skills".
I think you make valid points - but you're really coming across as one of those dictatorial assholes that scream in my face while i'm on my way into the coffee shop