Saw it = My thoughts

The thing is, AntiPolitrix, Bush got his beloved brother in California to stop many people from voting. Mainly black people with criminal records in fact. As you may realize many black people vote democrat. On top of this there was a scam with the actual voting cards themselves, the machines were "faulty" and any votes where the 'chad' had not been punched through was not counted. Now do you really think all things happened by accident? They sure helped Bush out alot..

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
In a Presidental Election here in the United States of America the popular vote does not win elections. It is the electoral votes that count. Bush won the 25 electoral votes in Florida meaning he won the election.

The only presidents ever to be elected without winning the popular vote are: John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Benjamin Harrison. It's been a long damn time since anything like this has happened. Frankly, it never should, IMO. So you're not very correct at all. I have a feeling this will start happening alot more now.

I'm not an idoit, I just look at what is fact and what is someones point of view. Just like his movie, he has munipulated the info on his website to agree with his veiws and to back up his story. He is still calling it a documentary when it is not.

There are more facts than not. As I said, which ones don't you think can be proven?

[edit on 19-7-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by earthtone
As you may realize many black people vote democrat. On top of this there was a scam with the actual voting cards themselves, the machines were "faulty" and any votes where the 'chad' had not been punched through was not counted. Now do you really think all things happened by accident? They sure helped Bush out alot..

1-I think it is fair to say, many black people vote or might have voted Republican too.
2-So...only Democratic voters had trouble punching the "chad" all the way through the card?
3-It is odd that many parts of the Florida Election went bad BUT until someone is charged with something, i can't say eitherway. I do know you can't assume how a person would have voted. But if you are right, someone needs to be punished. That brings up a whole new chapter, how would "they" be punished?

Originally posted by Damned

The only presidents ever to be elected without winning the popular vote are: John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Benjamin Harrison. It's been a long damn time since anything like this has happened. Frankly, it never should, IMO. So you're not very correct at all. I have a feeling this will start happening alot more now.

Popular Votes are important but they DO NOT decide election. The system we use in the US uses the Electoral College. We (the people) vote for state Representives who then vote for us. We do not directly vote for our President. We have never used the Popular Vote to decide the Presidential Election and we probably never will. Type "Electoral College" into google, they will explain it to you.

As for Michael Moore....i'll admit it, im a hater. I HAVE NOT seen the movie yet. Yea, im just talking out my ass. I've only heard he stretches the truth to fit his agenda. I do plan to watch the movie though and i will get back to you. I just dont see how a political ad can be a documentary but i guess ill have to find out.

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
I just dont see how a political ad can be a documentary but i guess ill have to find out.

I am waiting for anyone to step up and actually prove that Moore's 'facts' are simply his decieving opinion that he is somehow using as evidence In a way that incriminates Bush and his administration. I mean, what proof is there? Yes there will be political opinion in the movie, however political opinion doesn't create facts does it? Just because he is using what he has learned in a political way doesn't make them not true.... I am seeing alot of very bitter right wingers around.

I'm sorry AntiPolitrix but I refrained from posting in this forum until I had seen the film and I suggest you do the same. How can you debate this without even seeing it?

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
Popular Votes are important but they DO NOT decide election. The system we use in the US uses the Electoral College. We (the people) vote for state Representives who then vote for us. We do not directly vote for our President. We have never used the Popular Vote to decide the Presidential Election and we probably never will. Type "Electoral College" into google, they will explain it to you.

I know how it works, but it's long since outlived it's usefulness, unless it's use is to fix elections. Popular vote is most important, or should be. Our votes don't really count, as long as the electoral college is in place. They can be over-ruled unfairly. In years to come, this will become a more obvious problem. Once people come to realize that electoral votes no longer coincide with the popular vote, and it happens more and more, they're going to get mad. I have a feeling we'll be seeing alot more of these types of "wins". When it becomes common place, it's no longer "Of the people, by the people, for the people.", but "Of the representatives, by the representatives, for the representatives." When you also can't trust the reps, there's a real problem.

[edit on 20-7-2004 by Damned]

Again...i am sorry Earthtone, i will stay out of the debate until i have proof.

Originally posted by Damned

Popular vote is most important, or should be. Our votes don't really count, as long as the electoral college is in place....When it becomes common place, it's no longer "Of the people, by the people, for the people.", but "Of the representatives, by the representatives, for the representatives."
[edit on 20-7-2004 by Damned]

You are right Damned and im sure you know the system but it has NEVER been "Of the people, by the people, for the people" unfortunatly. We have never directly elected a President and that might have been the best thing for the 2000 Election. Al Gore vs. G.W. Bush leaves me to wonder what the Democrates and Republicans thinking? These were the most qualified people for the most important job in the US. Well...i guess from here on out, unless they eliminate the Electoral College, the party that finds the loop holes, or knows somebody, wins.
Who will find the loop hole in the 2004 "Dead Beat" Election. I want there to be a leader everyone can stand behind and be proud of America again. For the past 12 years we have been lied to repeatedly and everyone blames the other party.

Sorry AP, it would just help that you had actually seen what you were debating about, it helps you know?

Originally posted by earthtone
The thing is, AntiPolitrix, Bush got his beloved brother in California to stop many people from voting. Mainly black people with criminal records in fact. As you may realize many black people vote democrat. On top of this there was a scam with the actual voting cards themselves, the machines were "faulty" and any votes where the 'chad' had not been punched through was not counted. Now do you really think all things happened by accident? They sure helped Bush out alot..

Um, isn't Jeb Bush the governor of Florida?

Originally posted by earthtone
The one thing that I didn't like was the section in which Moore shows smiling iraqi people before the war, cutting to scenes of horribloe civilian death during the war. Here I feel that Moore went to far, giving up quality film making for a cheap emotional dig. I think everyone knows that life under Saddam was awful for many. However not as awful as the sanctions. . . .

Overall, I thought it was a good movie. However, some things seemed distorted. For example, shaking hands with foreign leaders is sort of a president's job. And I'd agree with you - life under Saddam didn't sound that pleasant. However, I think the part with Lila Lipscomb (the woman who lost her son) was really well-done. Also, the footage of our soldiers in Iraq seemed fair.

I thought the part where the lady lost her son was grossly overdone. To me, that was just cheap crap. Sure, we all know she's sad. She has to be some kind of freak to want to be sobbing and carrying on like that on camera, IMO. That's the kind of drama I thought didn't need to be in the movie, or maybe just not as much of it. Am I the only one who thinks he sort of exploited that lady to make his movie more powerful? I mean, it almost seemed like she was doing it up for the camera. I have my doubts that she wasn't acting, somewhat.

Originally posted by conflation

Originally posted by earthtone
The thing is, AntiPolitrix, Bush got his beloved brother in California

Um, isn't Jeb Bush the governor of Florida?

Yeh, don't know why I wrote California. whoops