Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Judge Bean" data-source="post: 12635" data-attributes="member: 42"><p><strong>People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I didn't mean to single you out for any particular criticism, but you have to back up and look at the election from a wider perspective. An unfair election was had here in this country in 1960, 1972, 1980, and 2000. The last one was almost too much for the Constitution to bear. The "winner" lost the popular vote; the "winning" State electoral delegation voted under a shadow.</p><p></p><p>Consider the difficulty of rigging the election by four million votes nationwide. Then consider what would have happened had Kerry won Ohio: he would have lost the popular vote by four million, and his supporters would have torn the country apart to get him the office on the basis of the obsolete electoral college vote. Bush's people may not have surrendered the White House... you think that 2000 was bad...</p><p></p><p>This is the difference between an unfair and a fair election: 2000 and 2004. Or: 2004 in <em>this </em>timeline, and 2004 in the timeline in which Kerry pulls off a squeaker in Ohio at 4:00 in the morning.</p><p></p><p>The electoral college is obsolete just because of the potential anomalous results-- that is, the potential for a 2000 election result, or the result that <em>almost </em>occurred because of the Ohio vote last week. Please let's differentiate between honest results (or as honest and fair as we can get) and plain crime, as in Florida in 2000.</p><p></p><p>The real threat to the democratic process represented by Bush is in the form of his political advisor Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney, and the collection of amoral conspirators surrounding him and feeding him advice without any accountability. You can't impeach Karl Rove. These people are urging Bush daily to circumvent or just plain ignore the Constitution, and they have so far been successful and he has done what they want. Well, how could he do otherwise?</p><p></p><p>While you're reforming the process, you might want to do away with the Senate, too. What is it supposed to be again? Does anybody remember what the Senate is supposed to represent?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Judge Bean, post: 12635, member: 42"] [b]People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)[/b] I didn't mean to single you out for any particular criticism, but you have to back up and look at the election from a wider perspective. An unfair election was had here in this country in 1960, 1972, 1980, and 2000. The last one was almost too much for the Constitution to bear. The "winner" lost the popular vote; the "winning" State electoral delegation voted under a shadow. Consider the difficulty of rigging the election by four million votes nationwide. Then consider what would have happened had Kerry won Ohio: he would have lost the popular vote by four million, and his supporters would have torn the country apart to get him the office on the basis of the obsolete electoral college vote. Bush's people may not have surrendered the White House... you think that 2000 was bad... This is the difference between an unfair and a fair election: 2000 and 2004. Or: 2004 in [i]this [/i]timeline, and 2004 in the timeline in which Kerry pulls off a squeaker in Ohio at 4:00 in the morning. The electoral college is obsolete just because of the potential anomalous results-- that is, the potential for a 2000 election result, or the result that [i]almost [/i]occurred because of the Ohio vote last week. Please let's differentiate between honest results (or as honest and fair as we can get) and plain crime, as in Florida in 2000. The real threat to the democratic process represented by Bush is in the form of his political advisor Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney, and the collection of amoral conspirators surrounding him and feeding him advice without any accountability. You can't impeach Karl Rove. These people are urging Bush daily to circumvent or just plain ignore the Constitution, and they have so far been successful and he has done what they want. Well, how could he do otherwise? While you're reforming the process, you might want to do away with the Senate, too. What is it supposed to be again? Does anybody remember what the Senate is supposed to represent? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
People talking of splitting USA (red-blue map)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top