George W. Bush Remains America's Illegitimate President

[MarcATL]

Both, count 'em, BOTH of his elections were won under a shroud of conspiracy and uncertainty.

In 2000, it took the US Supreme Court to give the palooka the win...not votes:
Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2004, it again took the courts, this time the, RW controlled, Florida Supreme Court to reward the incumbent with a win:
United States presidential election, 2004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Making G Dubya THEE only illegitimate President in history.

Meanwhile President Obama beat BOTH the RW Palooka candidates handily.

What a great time to be alive.


lol

 

[Lakhota]

Amen! Bush never actually won either election.

Gore Won Florida

Kerry Won Ohio

 

[MarcATL]

Amen! Bush never actually won either election.

Gore Won Florida

Kerry Won Ohio

If they didn't lie, steal, cheat and possibly kill...they'd be gone decades ago.

 

[Cowman]

Ugh, let's not do this.

 

[there4eyeM]

It would make me feel somewhat better about America if I could really accept this, but it remains that a very large percentage actually did vote for that character. Twice! How could it have even been close?

 

[MarcATL]

It would make me feel somewhat better about America if I could really accept this, but it remains that a very large percentage actually did vote for that character. Twice! How could it have even been close?

Here's the thing...there was a LOT of cheating going on. And none of the Democratic candidates really fought for it tooth and nail, I mean, after the RW shenanigans were exposed and there was contesting...they both caved far too early.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL, you people are beyond ignorant. In 2000 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed that Bush was not only right in bringing the case before the Court but that he was right on the merits of the case.

The only person in 2000 trying to lie and steal an election was Gore and the Supremes, 7 of them, agreed.

As for 2004, you have had 8 years to prove the claim and have utterly failed on every count.

And you were complaining about the right whining and throwing childish temper tantrums. You have been doing it since 2000.

 

[MarcATL]

LOL, you people are beyond ignorant. In 2000 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed that Bush was not only right in bringing the case before the Court but that he was right on the merits of the case.

The only person in 2000 trying to lie and steal an election was Gore and the Supremes, 7 of them, agreed.

As for 2004, you have had 8 years to prove the claim and have utterly failed on every count.

And you were complaining about the right whining and throwing childish temper tantrums. You have been doing it since 2000.

Stole it or not, there was NEVER any mandate, he always one by the skin of his teeth.

Not to mention we were RIGHT on how DISASTROUS he would have been, as he was a total COLOSSAL FAILURE!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL, you people are beyond ignorant. In 2000 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed that Bush was not only right in bringing the case before the Court but that he was right on the merits of the case.

The only person in 2000 trying to lie and steal an election was Gore and the Supremes, 7 of them, agreed.

As for 2004, you have had 8 years to prove the claim and have utterly failed on every count.

And you were complaining about the right whining and throwing childish temper tantrums. You have been doing it since 2000.

Stole it or not, there was NEVER any mandate, he always one by the skin of his teeth.

Not to mention we were RIGHT on how DISASTROUS he would have been, as he was a total COLOSSAL FAILURE!!!

I get it.... You know Obama is a fraud and will fail even worse and so are trying once again to claim Bush is to blame. Did not work in his first term it sure as hell won't work in his second.

Go cry somewhere else.

 

[Meathead]

Looking at Bush's family history and comparing with Obama's, I can only say that Obama seems for more illegitimate to me. Obama's is an old story.

 

[Unkotare]

Both, count 'em, BOTH of his elections were won under a shroud of conspiracy and uncertainty.

In 2000, it took the US Supreme Court to give the palooka the win...not votes:
Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2004, it again took the courts, this time the, RW controlled, Florida Supreme Court to reward the incumbent with a win:
United States presidential election, 2004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Making G Dubya THEE only illegitimate President in history.

Meanwhile President Obama beat BOTH the RW Palooka candidates handily.

What a great time to be alive.


lol

So, your guy just won an election and all you can think to do is bitch and moan about two elections that you lost?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldTjXFlWtkM]Men in Black - Tunnel Scene - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Stephanie]

lol, and there isn't any shroud of fraud or conspiracy with Obama winning a second term..

if there was his media lapdogs wouldn't report it

 

[Rozman]

Both, count 'em, BOTH of his elections were won under a shroud of conspiracy and uncertainty.

In 2000, it took the US Supreme Court to give the palooka the win...not votes:
Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2004, it again took the courts, this time the, RW controlled, Florida Supreme Court to reward the incumbent with a win:
United States presidential election, 2004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Making G Dubya THEE only illegitimate President in history.

Meanwhile President Obama beat BOTH the RW Palooka candidates handily.

What a great time to be alive.


lol

Heh ehh heh... If this is bothering you so much you might want to seek some professional help...I however am feeling great joy that this is gnawing at you.
So please don't ever stop posting this here....

 

[editec]

Is there anybody here who is a statistiaal analysis wizard?

I'm not and I'd like an expert opinion on this claim

PROOF: GOP Party Bosses Rigging Elections For Romney | Addicting Info


If we can put aside the inflamatory claim that the party bosses are working fror Romeny, and just concentrate on the outrage if ANYBODY can manipulate the count?

That would be great.

Because I'm fairly certain that if the elections are rigged, then it really doesn't matter who wins the elections.

If the elections are rigged then truly this nation is hosed.

Again, does anyone here actually understand statistical analysis well enough to tell me of the data in this website makes sense, mathematically?

 

[Stephanie]

Is there anybody here who is a statistiaal analysis wizard?

I'm not and I'd like an expert opinion on this claim

PROOF: GOP Party Bosses Rigging Elections For Romney | Addicting Info


If we can put aside the inflamatory claim that the party bosses are working fror Romeny, and just concentrate on the outrage if ANYBODY can manipulate the count?

That would be great.

Because I'm fairly certain that if the elections are rigged, then it really doesn't matter who wins the elections.

If the elections are rigged then truly this nation is hosed.

Again, does anyone here actually understand statistical analysis well enough to tell me of the data in this website makes sense, mathematically?

addicting info? really
but if the elections were rigged it was in favor OF OBAMA
how someone could win a second term WITH HIS RECORD and the conditions of our country is VERY SUSPICIOUS

 

[Papageorgio]

LOL, you people are beyond ignorant. In 2000 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed that Bush was not only right in bringing the case before the Court but that he was right on the merits of the case.

The only person in 2000 trying to lie and steal an election was Gore and the Supremes, 7 of them, agreed.

As for 2004, you have had 8 years to prove the claim and have utterly failed on every count.

And you were complaining about the right whining and throwing childish temper tantrums. You have been doing it since 2000.

It is outright dishonest, they believe that the person they elected is so incompetent, that they have to find some kind of fault with the other party.

What is really sad, these are the same people that will complain that the side they didn't vote are unwilling to compromise, you would think they'd be smarter.

 

[Papageorgio]

LOL, you people are beyond ignorant. In 2000 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed that Bush was not only right in bringing the case before the Court but that he was right on the merits of the case.

The only person in 2000 trying to lie and steal an election was Gore and the Supremes, 7 of them, agreed.

As for 2004, you have had 8 years to prove the claim and have utterly failed on every count.

And you were complaining about the right whining and throwing childish temper tantrums. You have been doing it since 2000.

Stole it or not, there was NEVER any mandate, he always one by the skin of his teeth.

Not to mention we were RIGHT on how DISASTROUS he would have been, as he was a total COLOSSAL FAILURE!!!

Lol! Backing off the claim of your thread already.

How bad is Obama that you have to keep digging four years later? You express no confidence in Obama at all, how sad for an American, that he can't be proud of his country or his fellow Americans.

Your hate is part of the divisiveness that we see in Congress today. Your attitude is a sad commentary on politics today.

 

[martybegan]

LOL, you people are beyond ignorant. In 2000 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed that Bush was not only right in bringing the case before the Court but that he was right on the merits of the case.

The only person in 2000 trying to lie and steal an election was Gore and the Supremes, 7 of them, agreed.

As for 2004, you have had 8 years to prove the claim and have utterly failed on every count.

And you were complaining about the right whining and throwing childish temper tantrums. You have been doing it since 2000.

Stole it or not, there was NEVER any mandate, he always one by the skin of his teeth.

Not to mention we were RIGHT on how DISASTROUS he would have been, as he was a total COLOSSAL FAILURE!!!

Lol! Backing off the claim of your thread already.

How bad is Obama that you have to keep digging four years later? You express no confidence in Obama at all, how sad for an American, that he can't be proud of his country or his fellow Americans.

Your hate is part of the divisiveness that we see in Congress today. Your attitude is a sad commentary on politics today.

The downfall of politics is when people cannot comprehenod that someone, who is as good of a person as they are, can have an ethical or political position that is opposite of thiers. To them, there is no other opinion that is just, only thier opinion is just, and thus those who do not agree are evil, stupid, or fooled into thinking the way they do.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats just can't get over George Bush being our last successful president.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Let's go over some facts about the 2000 election:

1. The Gore team only asked for manual recounts in four heavily Democratic counties. If they were so concerned that "every vote be counted," why didn't they ask for a manual recount in every county that had a significant percentage of uncounted votes?

2. The Florida Supreme Court (FLSC), which was composed of seven Democrats, extended the seven-day deadline set by the legislature for certification. The law set a specific deadline for certifying election results. Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that state legislatures are to determine the time, manner and place of elections. State supreme courts do not have that authority. The FLSC overstepped its authority and acted as a legislature, and therefore its decision to order a statewide recount deserved to be overturned.

3. The FLSC's decision to order a statewide recount of undervotes in Florida was decided by a narrow 4-3 margin. In other words, even three of the seven Democrats who comprised the FLSC dissented, including the chief justice of the court, Charles Wells. Chief Justice Wells wrote a stinging dissent, in which, among other things, he said the court's ruling had no foundation in Florida law:

I believe that the majority's decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution. . . . The majority's decision to return this case to the circuit court for a count of the undervotes from either Miami-Dade County or all counties has no foundation in the law of Florida as it existed on Nov. 7, 2000, or at any time until the issuance of this opinion. . . . The prolonging of judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis. . . . I have to conclude that there is a real and present likelihood that this constitutional crisis will do substantial damage to our country, to our state and to this court as an institution.​

4. Seven of the nine SCOTUS justices agreed that the statewide recount was constitutionally problematic. Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter wanted to give Florida six more days to complete the statewide recount, but they agreed there were equal protection problems with the recount process. They voted with the minority because the five conservatives insisted on demanding that the statewide recount be completed by December 12.

Where the court was split more closely (5-4) was on the remedy. Only five justices agreed that recounts must stop by Dec. 12, the state of Florida's deadline for certifying elections. Two other justices, David Souter and Stephen Breyer, would have given the recounts six more days because Dec. 18 was the federal deadline for certifying the list of electors.

5. The FLSC did not order a statewide manual recount of all uncounted votes, but only a recount of the undervotes, i.e., the ballots that didn't register a vote when they were read by vote-counting machines. Berkowitz and Wittes explain:

It was not a full manual recount of the presidential vote. Nor was it a full manual recount of undamaged ballots that failed to yield a valid, machine-readable vote for president, as would appear to have been required by the Florida Supreme Court's own principle that all votes should be counted in pursuit of a "clear indication of the intent of the voter." Rather, the Florida court ordered a manual recount of a subset of the so-called nonvotes, the undervotes, which are ballots (estimated to number about 60,000) with no machine-readable vote for president. Despite the objections raised by Florida chief justice Charles T. Wells in his dissent, indeed without explanation, the majority excluded from the recount overvotes, an entire class of undamaged ballots (estimated to number about 110,000) that were invalidated because machines detected multiple votes for president. And yet, like the undervotes, they too may have contained (and we now know did contain) discernible choices. ("The Professors and Bush v. Gore")​

6. It wasn't Bush's fault that the four Gore-selected counties couldn't complete their manual recounts prior to the statutory certification deadline. One of the counties that Gore selected, Miami-Dade County, didn't even begin its manual recount until after the statutory certification deadline had passed. Then, Miami-Dade County suspended its manual recount five days after it started it. Another one of the four Gore-selected counties, heavily Democratic Palm Beach County, failed to complete its manual recount even by the extended deadline set by the FLSC because it chose to only work half days and to take Thanksgiving Day off! It wasn't Bush's fault that the Democratic election officials in Palm Beach County were so lazy and inefficient even though the outcome of the presidential election was on the line.

7. The Gore campaign targeted military ballots for rejection on any technical grounds no matter how trivial. Gore lawyer Mark Herron sent a five-page letter on November 15, 2000, to Democratic attorneys throughout Florida, detailing how to challenge military absentee ballots. This certainly didn't seem to be in keeping with the Gore team's battle cry of "count all the votes" and "every vote should be counted."

8. One of the Gore-selected counties, Broward County, changed the criteria for determining votes from manually counted ballots in the middle of the first manual recount. Broward County began their recount using a strict standard for determining votes, which primarily required clear punches or chads hanging by one or two corners in order for a vote to be counted. About midway through the process, the standard was changed to a more liberal standard, which allowed dimples and pregnant chads to be considered primary evidence of voter intent. This change gave Gore an extra 884 votes. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is not usually viewed as fair or proper.

9. Another one of the Gore-selected counties, Palm Beach County, also changed vote-counting standards during the manual recounts. Before the recount got under way, the canvassing board set a hard, clear policy on "how to judge invalid ballots." According to those rules, a vote could be counted from a ballot only if the ballot's chads had two or three corners disconnected. But, just hours into the recount, the canvassing board, which was controlled by Democrats, changed the standard to a more liberal one in which only one corner of the chads had to be disconnected.

10. One can make the perfectly valid argument that Bush won the Florida election among votes that were properly and legally cast. It wasn't his fault that so many Democratic voters in Palm Beach County couldn't figure out the butterfly ballot, which, after all, was designed by a Democrat. Nor was it Bush's fault that so many Gore voters made extra marks on their ballots, which caused them to be disqualified (as overvotes).

11. There would have been more time for a court-ordered recount in the contest phase if Gore hadn't challenged the certification of the election results, as Katherine Harris points out in her new book, Center of the Storm. Some of Gore's legal advisors urged him not to challenge the certification but to focus on the contest phase that would follow certification. If Gore had done this, there may have been enough time to complete the manual recounts. But, Gore chose to listen to his political advisors rather than his legal advisors. Gore's political advisors were afraid that if Bush were "certified" as the winner, this would create the impression that the election was over. So Gore chose to contest the certification. He failed, and in the process he used up precious time that could have been used for the manual recounts. That wasn't Bush's fault either.

12. Bush may have received several thousand more votes in Florida if the TV news networks had not prematurely projected Florida as going to Gore even though he had only a razor thin lead and even though the polls in the heavily Republican Florida panhandle region were still open. The Florida panhandle is in the central time zone, an hour behind the rest of the Florida. There were reports of long lines at the polls in that area, and of people leaving when they heard the state had been called for Gore. Some analysts suggest the media's premature projection of a winner in Florida may have cost Bush as many as 10,000 votes from the panhandle. Other analysts put the number at around 5,000 votes. If this is true, the recounts may never have been requested in the first place because Bush would have had a much larger lead from the first machine count. See:

Poll: Networks' False Reports Cost Bush Thousands of Votes

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895262274/104-6973252-1742350]At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election: Bill Sammon: 9780895262271: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


13. Bush may have won a statewide manual recount. An independent accounting firm studied over 20,000 of the Florida undervotes and concluded a manual recount of the undervote ballots would not have produced a Gore victory. Studies have also shown that Bush would have won if the first manual recounts had been allowed to continue (i.e., if the recounts in the four Gore-selected counties had been completed). Another study found that Bush would have won in three of nine recount scenarios. In an article titled "Under the Two Most Likely Scenarios, Bush Wins Florida," Palm Beach Post staff writers said,

Al Gore was doomed. He couldn't have caught George W. Bush even if his two best chances for an official recount had played out, according to a Palm Beach Post analysis of 175,010 uncounted Florida ballots from last November's chaotic presidential election.​

See:

Independent Review Backs Bush's Florida Victory

Bush Would Have Won Recount