It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Not a "conspiracy" - Link to a fact ! Proof 2004 Prez Election was stolen !!

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 11:37 AM
Skull in Bones or whatever secret society is the name of the day is not in control of anything. The election was won by the republicans. I am sure if the democrats won there would be the same cry foul going on. Both parties just love to attack each other over anything and everything and they both are guilty of the same things they accuse each other of.

Sorry but sometimes I think people just read way to much into things.

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 01:39 PM

Originally posted by feyd rautha
Sometimes i meet people who talk nonsence to me, like you, on the subway. First i tell them with a friendly smile on my face to go to hell, if they do not respect my warning and take my smile as an invitation to speak on, i bitchslap them untill they cry for mercy. i am not a violent psycho, but for some people words are just not enought. i really would enjoy to meet you on the subs one day.

Bitchslap them until they cry for mercy. Right.

I call BS on you. The cry for mercy comment was enough for me. Very, very bad scripting. *removed crude remark*

Not to mention that "i really would enjoy to meet you on the subs one day." is a threat of violence.

Welcome to ATS, toughguy.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:50 PM
The title is a bit misleading it should read George Bush's handlers stole the 2000 & 2004 elections.
But life goes on

Introduction: Did George W. Bush steal America's 2004 election?
by Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman
June 16, 2005


• Despite repeated pre-election calls from officials across the nation and the world, Ohio's Republican Secretary of State, who also served as Ohio's co-chair for the Bush-Cheney campaign, refused to allow non-partisan international and United Nations observers the access they requested to monitor the Ohio vote. While such access is routinely demanded by the U.S. government in third world nations, it was banned in the American heartland.

• A post-election headline from the Akron Beacon Journal cites a critical report by twelve prominent social scientists and statisticians, reporting:
"Analysis Points to Election ‘Corruption': Group Says Chance of Exit Polls Being So Wrong in '04 Vote is One-in-959,000."

• Citing "Ohio's Odd Numbers," investigative reporter Christopher Hitchens", a Bush supporter, says in Vanity Fair: "Given what happened in that key state on Election Day 2004, both democracy and common sense cry out for a court-ordered inspection of its new voting machines."

Paul Krugman of the New York Times writes: "It's election night, and early returns suggest trouble for the incumbent. Then, mysteriously, the vote count stops and observers from the challenger's campaign see employees of a voting-machine company, one wearing a badge that identifies him as a county official, typing instructions at computers with access to the vote-tabulating software.

When the count resumes, the incumbent pulls ahead. The challenger demands an investigation. But there are no ballots to recount, and election officials allied with the incumbent refuse to release data that could shed light on whether there was tampering with the electronic records.

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 09:46 PM

Originally posted by thelibra

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012 Then why even have a popular vote in teh first place? LOL!
If as you say the electorial college decides the election(s)?

Aw jeez...

Does ANYONE pay attention in class anymore? Or do they just listen to the same regurgitated crap that the ignorant have been feeding each other for generations?

If you don't know why there's an electoral college, or even whether or not they control the vote, how on Earth can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you claim election fraud?

Your assignment is to look up (on a REPUTABLE site, like Wikipedia) the Electoral vote vs. the Popular vote, how it works, and why it was instituted, and if you can't be bothered to learn it, you really have no business posting anything regarding the current voting system.

Yargh! Sorry, it just really makes me mad when people can't even be bothered to look up HOW the voting works, and then go about bashing the system in ignorance.

Ehheyyyy easy, easy.
I wanted to know his opinion (or anyone elses?) about why they still have people vote? ...... When its now common knowlege the Electorial College decides who wins, not voters.


Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Sorry, but Fahrenheit 9/11 was completely lacking in objectivity and was just as biased (and therefore questionable in terms of evidence) as any other rabidly anti- or pro- conspiracy fodder.

Moore, whilst a dab hand at certain types of journalism, shot himself in the foot (so to speak) on that one; while there were issues of veracity about BFC, the same trend of perhaps "manipulating certain facts" in F9/11 was exaggerated to the point where it undermined the real facts which were presented.

Sorry, but quoting MM doesn't make something more or less "true".

Though if I used the wrong Snopes debunking, then I'm fine with admitting I'm wrong

please re-read my post above your post. I never quoted Michael Moore. I even went to great lengths to say the part of his movie I'm talking about wasn't even made by Michael Moore. It was recorded by local Florida TV news. All Moore did was get a copy of the TV news station video and show it in his movie, to a national audiance. I even pointed out how unreliable Michael Moore ultimatly is, how even he is owned, and controlled.
But the video of Bush "reading" the upside down book holds up. It wasn't made by Moore. It was made by the Florida TV news station.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by OpenSecret2012]

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 09:12 AM

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
I wanted to know his opinion (or anyone elses?) about why they still have people vote? ...... When its now common knowlege the Electorial College decides who wins, not voters.

The Electoral College isn't an entity; it's not a group of people, or even a person. The Electoral College is the way the popular vote is tabulated across all 50 states. Different states have different numbers of “Electoral Votes” whereby the popular winner from each state gets that state’s vote. Alternately, I believe some states are able to split their votes to reflect the winner vs. loser more appropriately.

(puts on the professor hat)

All right, class, pull out your pencil and paper, and take notes.

Let’s break it down to a nation with only 3 states. One state is large, one is medium, one is small. However, the population is split up not neccesarily according to the size of the state. You don't want to give unfair advantage to size when population is lower than another state. So the votes are divided by population, and you want every state to matter at least a bit.

So to give every state an equal say, Senators are the same across the board. Every state has 2 senators, and thus, 2 electoral votes.

Then, to represent the population, you have representatives. These vary from state to state, regardless of physical size, because it's the number of people that count.

State X has 7 representatives, State Y has 3, and State Z has 5. That's how many additional electoral votes each state has.

So in total, X=9, Y=5, Z=7.

Again, the senators and house reps do not vote. These votes are immaterial, and not cast by any person, they are simply the swaying power of that particular state.

Now, you have two presidential candidates, A and B.

State X loves A, and they vote 10mil to 2mil in favor of Candidate A. Thus, candidate A gets all 9 of the electoral votes.

State Y loves B, but has less of a population. Their vote is 3mil to 0.25mil in favor of B. Candidate B gets all 5 of the electoral votes.

So, Candidate A has 9 EVs, Candidate B has 5 EVs. State Z will be the determining factor...

They have an extremely close popular vote, 4.9mil for Candidate A, and 5mil for Candidate B. Candidate B wins the state and all remaining 7 electoral votes.

Final score A=9, B=12. B wins the Presidential election.

But who won the popular vote? Candidate A did, with 14.9mil votes, and Candidate B only got 8mil. But since B won the overall state electoral votes, they become President.

Now that margin is much wider than it would probably be in real life, but should serve as an example. Normally the two will coincide, because the division of electoral votes is across 50 states, with a much better representation of the population. However, voter turnout is a big part of it as well. If the voters do not come out and actually VOTE, there's an inadequate representation of the population.

So, that's why they still have people vote, and that's how the electoral college determines the vote. Without the people, there isn't an electoral vote. If the entire state of Z had abstained, their 7 electoral votes would be lost, and Candidate A would have won.

I hope this clears up why the electoral college is used. If not, I can, at some point, write a thread about why a direct democracy in anything other than a very small country, is a really bad idea in modern times.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in