Would you rather: Your guy win dishonest election; Your guy lose honest election??

[Freemason9]

Would you rather: Your guy win dishonest election; Your guy lose honest election??

It makes no difference. Courtesy of the right-wing version of the United States Supreme Court, all modern American elections are dishonest, and it makes no difference who wins; the Government has been rendered bankrupt and dysfunctional. This is an intentional act by the right wing that wants to do away with democracy and install a truly authoritarian state.

"Money is free speech." This was the final nail in the coffin for the U.S. experiment in democracy, and it came courtesy of the Right Wing. It will get much worse.

 

[Immanuel]

I would prefer my candidate won an honest election, but since that is not an option I will go with losing an honest election.

Immie

 

[kaz]

Ask Rick Scott and Jon Husted how they feel about it.

We know Al Gore's choice. Fortunately he was stopped before he could pull it off...

Except that what Gore was doing was perfectly legal, and Bush had to run and get SCOTUS to make special rules for him.

Special rules? You need to stop getting your news from MS-NBC. Again, zero knowledge plus zero intellectual integrity = boring discussion. When you know something and care about truth, come back and this'll be a heck of a lot more fun.

 

[Jarlaxle]

So...what would you rather have happen?

YOUR guy wins in an dishonest election, where he or his party cheated (BUT...no one ever finds out)?

OR

YOUR guy loses.........but it's confirmed that the entire process was honest and legal???

Do you want your guy to win bad enough, or the other guy to lose bad enough, that you'd be willing to sacrifice the integrity of the process in order for him to win????

To answer your question directly, I'd rather lose honestly.

Then you are a fool.

 

[Pinocchio]

Ask Rick Scott and Jon Husted how they feel about it.

Don't forget Katherine Harris.

 

[Pinocchio]

So...what would you rather have happen?

YOUR guy wins in an dishonest election, where he or his party cheated (BUT...no one ever finds out)?

OR

YOUR guy loses.........but it's confirmed that the entire process was honest and legal???

Do you want your guy to win bad enough, or the other guy to lose bad enough, that you'd be willing to sacrifice the integrity of the process in order for him to win????

To answer your question directly, I'd rather lose honestly.

Then you are a fool.

I'd rather be a fool than dishonor our Founding Fathers principles. Can you live without principles?

 

[bripat9643]

So...what would you rather have happen?

YOUR guy wins in an dishonest election, where he or his party cheated (BUT...no one ever finds out)?

OR

YOUR guy loses.........but it's confirmed that the entire process was honest and legal???

Do you want your guy to win bad enough, or the other guy to lose bad enough, that you'd be willing to sacrifice the integrity of the process in order for him to win????

I wouldn't care if Romney won by shooting Obama in the head. I just want that piece of shit out of there so he can't continue fucking up this country.

 

[bripat9643]

To answer your question directly, I'd rather lose honestly.

Then you are a fool.

I'd rather be a fool than dishonor our Founding Fathers principles. Can you live without principles?

The Democrats flushed our founding principles down the toilet 100 years ago.

 

[Pinocchio]

Then you are a fool.

I'd rather be a fool than dishonor our Founding Fathers principles. Can you live without principles?

The Democrats flushed our founding principles down the toilet 100 years ago.

Actually, that would be the Tea party in the last two years.

 

[tjvh]

Sorry, dishonest people who win elections for people illegally regardless of party need to be held accountable... Condoning election fraud is the same as committing election fraud -both are ethically, and morally reprehensible.

 

[bripat9643]

Ask Rick Scott and Jon Husted how they feel about it.

We know Al Gore's choice. Fortunately he was stopped before he could pull it off...

Except that what Gore was doing was perfectly legal, and Bush had to run and get SCOTUS to make special rules for him.

You're a delusional moron.

The rules said that counting couldn't go past a certain date and that the Secretary of State could declare the winner on that date. Everything Gore's lawyers did was designed to violate that rule.

 

[bripat9643]

I'd rather be a fool than dishonor our Founding Fathers principles. Can you live without principles?

The Democrats flushed our founding principles down the toilet 100 years ago.

Actually, that would be the Tea party in the last two years.

No it wouldn't, douche nozzle. You don't even know what the Founding principles were, let alone when they were flushed down the toilet.

 

[g5000]

It's truth, which I realize is alien to many ears around here.

.

In more than 50 years, I've seen a lot of election fraud; the dead voting for Kennedy in Chicago, Dallas garnering more votes for LBJ than there were registered voters, illegals voting for Loretta Sanchez, proven by B1 Bob Dornan; car trunks stuffed with Al Franken votes, ACORN registering Micky Mouse and other false names by the tens of thousands.

Yep, a LOT of voter fraud. But what I HAVEN'T seen is fraud by the GOP. Fraud is part of the DNC legacy. The democrats feel entitled to fraud, it's part of their history and their general method of campaigning.

Here is an example of GOP fraud: Ballot tampering reported in Clackamas County - SFGate

A ballot counter in Oregon put Republican votes on ballots that people had not completely filled out.

.

 

[mamooth]

It's an interesting question. It's asking if you think the ends justify the means in this case.

Everyone thinks the ends justify the means in some cases. Anyone who claims they don't is lying. Would it have been moral to change the election result that put Hitler into power? People would say yes. The ends there justify the means. (And that was not comparing any candidate to Hitler).

All the sane people will also admit that no one involved in this election is anything like Hitler, so the issue is more muddled. Me, as far as cheating goes, I say "Hell no". Absolutely, positively freakin' not. There's nothing going on here that says the ends would justify the means of cheating.

Obviously, not all agree. There's one openly treasonous little fuckstain here, BriPat, who proudly states that he'd lie, cheat and even kill to win. Given that he will proudly kill for political power, it is valid to compare BriPat to a Nazi. BriPat would have made the perfect little Stormtrooper.

Then we have the others here, who make up wild-eyed stories of the other side cheating in order to justify their own side cheating. Again, being more of a moral absolutist, I don't hold to such moral relativism.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The "poll watching" efforts by left wing organizations is simply a smoke screen for their efforts to promote vote fraud and steal the election if necessary. In contrast, most conservatives actually believe in democracy and are willing to accept the results of a free and fair election, no matter how stupid the voters are.

Conservative groups are mounting massive poll watching operations in various states, what do you call that? Is it somehow different than the ones liberal groups are doing?

Interesting that your response admits my premise but defends it by accusing conservatives of the same motives and behavior. Why does 90% of vote fraud issues involve Democrats?

Why are 62.73% of statistics posted on Internet chat boards made up?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I'd rather lose honestly than win dishonestly, as you never really get away with those tainted victories and they haunt everything you try to do from then on out. Bush, JFK, and others with tainted results paid long term prices.

Some times though, things are dire enough that winning today is the only way to ensure people tomorrow get to judge you. This isn't one of those moments. The Senate is staying Democratic and Romney and Obama are both liberal politicians from liberal states. I can live with either man.

 

[Politico]

Yes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, that would be the Tea party in the last two years.

Are you George Orwell?

Destroy the constitution by following it? The Tea Party supports the constitution. Simple as that.

Obamabots seek an authoritarian dictatorship with a (theoretically) benevolent ruler, who relieves them of the need to think.

 

[mamooth]

Obamabots seek an authoritarian dictatorship with a (theoretically) benevolent ruler, who relieves them of the need to think.

You're stupid and crazy. You understand that, right?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Why? Why in this election? Neither candidate is gonna improve your life one bit. Some folks will have their lives impacted by who wins, but WE aren't those folks. Those folks are few and far between, and aren't posting on USMB or shopping at WalMart.

Who wins determines who will appoint SCOTUS justices. Another radical on the court will impact your life far more than you imagine.

Amen. I don't want to be governed by corportists.