-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Kerry Preparing Grounds to Unconcede?
- Thread starter goodcow
- Start date
- Status
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
I would love to see this just for the social chaos it would create.
this is old, and kerry is not going to unconcede. that article is pure speculation -- however, that's not to say that kerry and the rest of the democrats aren't working hard in ohio to find out the truth concerning voter fraud.
they're taking their time and moving ahead carefully, not in an attempt to grab the presidency, but in an effort to show clear transparency and hopefully change how voting is done for president....
...oh yeah, to also cast doubt on the legitimacy of george w. bush's second-term reelection.
they're taking their time and moving ahead carefully, not in an attempt to grab the presidency, but in an effort to show clear transparency and hopefully change how voting is done for president....
...oh yeah, to also cast doubt on the legitimacy of george w. bush's second-term reelection.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Jesusland can take away our gay weddings, but they can never take OUR FREEDOM!
The Democratic party is gutless pack of vacillaitng capitulators. Nothing will come of this, despite the naked machinations of the Republican party in their Nov 2. victory. The people will get shafted -- again -- and George W. Bush will continue to smugly send young men and women to die for the pockets of his benefactors. That John Kerry was even nominated over Howard Dean is enough for me to not give two sh*ts. The base deserves this defeat.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Unfortunately the popular vote means jack diddly. Elections are won by getting pluralities in half-ish of the states.Incognito said:
Or maybe they just want to make themselves look better during the opening sequences of F911 1/2.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
XS+ said:
Much truth. He and Al Sharpton were in reality the only ones of the Democrats that had any backbone. Dean was really the reason the Democrats had any chance at all. Although it would have been a crushing defeat I would have paid good money to see Al Sharpton and Bush in the debates.
i know that joshua, but i'm saying it would be hard to reconcile to the american public why you should be president after losing the popular vote by 3 million votes. if you think bush had it bad his first term with chants of "illegitimate," and "president-select" could you imagine kerry? lame-duck doesn't even begin to cover it...
as for the people who believe dean would have done better than kerry. get real, seriously. dean would have been crushed.
as for the people who believe dean would have done better than kerry. get real, seriously. dean would have been crushed.
Had Dean been crushed, I would have slept at night knowing I had supported someone who stood for something. John Kerry is an opportunistic liar, a man who, in the tradition of Bill Clinton, opted for the most politically expedient route, never heeding the potholes of accountability. I hope the Democratic party nominates Hillary Clinton in 2008. I'll laugh all the way up until another Republican walks into the White House newly elected.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
XS+ said:
Fixed
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
You forgot about the accountability part. I mean I don't care about the morals or the rationale for the war those things don't matter to me at all. I'm profiting more than anyone you probably talk to from the war. So war works well for me. The problem is that someone has to pay for this export of freedom and it's not going to be the people that have the most to gain from it. The avg American is going to be in debt for years paying this fuck job up while those who can will offshore and shelter their funds so they don't have to pay into the system.
If they would have been up front about how much this was going to cost then it wouldn't have happened. My ONLY problem with the war is that they hid the cost and people fell for it.
If they would have been up front about how much this was going to cost then it wouldn't have happened. My ONLY problem with the war is that they hid the cost and people fell for it.
DJ Sl4m said:
reading comprehension 101, a class. take it, please. the article is purely speculative. three facts are clear, though:
-kerry and democrats have been working in ohio since the 3rd of november to figure out if voter fraud took did indeed take place on a massive scale
-kerry will be filing a suit on behalf of green/libertarian parties
-there have already been senate hearings on this very subject(voter fraud in ohio)
and did you not watch his concession speech? unlike so many politicians before him, he stuck to his word and conceeded with great grace rather than drag the country through another swarmy, messy legal process.
Incognito said:
Yea whatever, I'm sure all americans are too naive to realize it would have been a process started by him. Who cares, it's just another example of another democrat being a lil girl when he loses.
He'll save more face by moving on, if anyone believes it's be a clean transition without him looking like a crybaby if/when it occurs I truly feel sorry for them.
BTW, I was replying to the article, I could care less that you believe he's never lied to make progress in his career (which is a riot BTW).
Now go make snide remarks to someone actually talking to you, I'm done with it.
DJ Sl4m said:
THE ARTICLE BESIDES THE THREE FACTS IS PURELY SPECULATION.
JESUS CHRIST
WHAT IS WITH BUSH SUPPORTERS???
Was John Kerry a "lil girl" when he delivered that concession speech, dj? Is John Kerry being a "lil girl" in his effort for FULL TRANSPARENCY in the voting process? Can you cite some instances of John Kerry lying to further his career? If you can, you're a better researcher than even the RNC machine.
For the last time:
THIS IS NOT AN EFFORT TO DELIVER THE PRESIDENCY TO JOHN KERRY
DJ Sl4m said:
You show me a politician that's never lied to further their own agenda and/or get elected, and I'll show you someone who loses every election race they run.
DJ Sl4m said:
The Ohio recount was initiated - and paid for - by the Green and Libertarian parties. The DNC had zero hand in it.
Anyway, speaking of crybabies, I'd like to hear your opinion on the Washington gubernatorial race.
XS+ said:
It drives his base to orgasm, and as the 2004 election proved, your base is all that matters.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
But I believe that was less about Bush's popular vote coming in 0.5 million behind Gore's, than that they successfully took Florida by getting the Supreme Court to go along with not counting votes.Incognito said:
ToyMachine228
Member
Indian giver!
fennec fox
ferrets ferrets ferrets ferrets FERRETS!!!
Because all liberals are radical Moore-donating Kerry-really-won-ites. C'mon.Docwiz said:
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Yeah. Admittedly Gore's folks' concentration on limited counties was stupid.Docwiz said:
http://anton-sirius.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/6/125810/5754
Father_Brain
Banned
Huh? I've seen your previous posts. Who do you support - the Constitution Party?Docwiz said:
The great thing about America is that there's always an acceptance of the will of the people and an orderly and peaceful transfer of power after an election. The losers concede gracefully, and the elected government is allowed to conduct its business.
This recent trend of crying foul and suggesting that some sort of lawyerball is needed to correct a perceived wrongdoing is more than unbecoming. It's genuinely disturbing.
Understand that John Kerry lost the election. As a loser, he did the correct thing by graciously accepting defeat. It's too bad a lot of the public is unable to do the same.
This recent trend of crying foul and suggesting that some sort of lawyerball is needed to correct a perceived wrongdoing is more than unbecoming. It's genuinely disturbing.
Understand that John Kerry lost the election. As a loser, he did the correct thing by graciously accepting defeat. It's too bad a lot of the public is unable to do the same.
After all of the provisional votes were counted in Ohio (which dealt a major, devastating blow to my morale :lol), I figured that it's time to move on. I'll let the more staunch opponents of Bush re-re-re-re-tabulate the votes of Bush/Kerry. I did what I could to get Kerry elected (though my heart and soul was for Dean), but since he didn't win, I'm ready to move on.
Until and unless there is breaking news on CNN/MSNBC about how Bush's victory is null and void, I can safely say that I'm done with the 2004 election.
Currently, my priority rests in the research and information that could possibly serve as an indictment to have Bush impeached (or dragged kicking and screaming to The Hague...whichever comes first)
[rant]But if he gets his dick sucked by someone other than his wife, than he'll have done my job FOR me!! *rolls eyes*[/rant]
Until and unless there is breaking news on CNN/MSNBC about how Bush's victory is null and void, I can safely say that I'm done with the 2004 election.
Currently, my priority rests in the research and information that could possibly serve as an indictment to have Bush impeached (or dragged kicking and screaming to The Hague...whichever comes first)
[rant]But if he gets his dick sucked by someone other than his wife, than he'll have done my job FOR me!! *rolls eyes*[/rant]
I agree that sending elections to the courtroom is disturbing, and looks like ass. (See: Ukraine.)Disco Stu said:
On the other hand, wouldn't the presence of election fraud mean that the will of the people hasn't been implemented? Your position sounds a lot like the NFL rule that once the next play happens, you can't issue a challenge. That may keep things moving forward in the game...but it doesn't mean that a terrible mistake wasn't made by the officials. If there is the possibility of setting things right before it's "too late" (whatever THAT means), why would you be against that?
:lol
Sorry guys, I agree with xs(is that you, fatumi?) on this one. John Kerry IS an opportunistic piece of right leaning trash. He got what he deserved for selling out the principles his party should be standing up for by trying to appeal to the right.
The democrats HAVE to stop doing that. It just doesn't work. Too bad that I hate Howard Dean for becoming Kerry's lapdog after Dean lost in the primaries, or I would pay attention to what he's saying nowadays about not shifting the party to the right, blah blah blah. Dean's actions give him away: he is ALSO an opportunistic piece of unprincipled trash who sold out when he got outmanuevered. Just because he's espousing the correct principles for the Democratic party to follow doesn't make him any less of an opportunist.
Sorry guys, I agree with xs(is that you, fatumi?) on this one. John Kerry IS an opportunistic piece of right leaning trash. He got what he deserved for selling out the principles his party should be standing up for by trying to appeal to the right.
The democrats HAVE to stop doing that. It just doesn't work. Too bad that I hate Howard Dean for becoming Kerry's lapdog after Dean lost in the primaries, or I would pay attention to what he's saying nowadays about not shifting the party to the right, blah blah blah. Dean's actions give him away: he is ALSO an opportunistic piece of unprincipled trash who sold out when he got outmanuevered. Just because he's espousing the correct principles for the Democratic party to follow doesn't make him any less of an opportunist.
-jinx- said:
I would argue that no election is free from irregularities. I would not accept the idea the last U.S. election was fraudulent.
Your statement about setting things right is part of what's so disturbing to me. A lot of people cannot accept these election results as correct, even though Bush won both the popular and electoral votes -- and by a decisive margin.
As a student of history, I am unnerved by this recent trend of crying foul and seeking to remove the legitimacy of elections. It's not about looking like ass. It's about the smooth and peaceful transition from government to government. Take that away -- or erode it bit by bit -- and the United States has lost something precious.
shoplifter
Member
Phoenix said:
you don't have to if you find out later that you actually won. concessions mean jack.
Disco Stu said:
What about the recent trend of people being denied their right to vote either though overt means, ie being told they can't vote when they can and turned away from the booths, or by subversive means, striking the names of people with names simular to people with felonies off the rolls without verifing that they are indeed the correct person. If you have a problem with people crying foul, make sure there is no reasonable case to be made that the election was purposefully rigged and you wouldn't have these problems.
Phoenix
Member
shoplifter said:
Once the other guy has been sworn in you'll have to undergo a lengthy legal process as there aren't really any clear definitions to do in a case where the winner would go from a 'clear and decisive victory' to losing and in this case I don't see anything that suggests that the actual outcome of the election would change.
dskillzhtown
keep your strippers out of my American football
Roshamboi said:
I think the Civil War Part 2 will come around 2015 myself.
Disco Stu said:
On the other hand, your attitude is no better as it fails utterly in the face of an *actual* attempt to hijack an election. The ability to challenge the validity of an election is vital. Close elections will always breed questioning of their validity.
I think the only disturbing trend I've seen lately is that of considering as tight a margin as 3-4% of the popular vote a 'decicive margin.' Elections being essentially polls where participaction is not mandated, that seems like if anything a razor thin margin to me, and it's sad that such an important election was so close.
- Status