Poll: Majority Of Republicans Think Obama Didn't Actually Win 2008 Election -- ACORN Stole It!

[Saddle Bronc 124]

• Elections stolen by Democrats: 1960 (through machinations from Chicago's Daley clan)
• Elections stolen by Republicans: empty list (Gore was/is a sore-loser-shill, Kerry couldn't/can't get his story about "going into Cambodia on NIXON's orders" straight on timeframe)
• Elections lost due to useless candidates:
  • Democrats: 1952, 1956, 1968, 1980 (candidate's performance analysed from inauguration 1977), 1984, 1988
  • Republicans: possibly 1992, definite of 1996 and 2008

[scandal 951]

First of all, Al Gore empirically won the national popular vote in 2000, and lost in a disputed recount process in Florida. By comparison, John McCain lost the national popular vote by a 53%-46% margin.

I really wish people would stop making this argument. The popular vote had absolutely nothing to do with it. Who cares if Gore won the popular vote? That had no bearing on the matter, since that's not how we elect Presidents. The true issue in 2000 had to do with the vote counting, hanging chads, and a sufficient number of challenged ballots to affect the tally. A proper recount was clearly needed, yet never fully performed due to an unprecedented interference by the Rehnquist Supreme Court in a state matter that had no federal court standing.

• Elections stolen by Democrats: 1960 (through machinations from Chicago's Daley clan)
• Elections stolen by Republicans: empty list (Gore was/is a sore-loser-shill, Kerry couldn't/can't get his story about "going into Cambodia on NIXON's orders" straight on timeframe)
• Elections lost due to useless candidates:
  • Democrats: 1952, 1956, 1968, 1980 (candidate's performance analysed from inauguration 1977), 1984, 1988
  • Republicans: possibly 1992, definite of 1996 and 2008

Well, you're obviously wrong about Gore (see above), and I'd say you're wrong about 1960 too, though there were certainly irregularities in IL that year.

Kerry has never contested his 2004 loss - there is no question that Bush legitimately won Ohio that year.

But you also forgot the most famous stolen election of all : 1824 - the "corrupt bargain" in which John Quincy Adams / Henry Clay worked out their scheme to displace Andrew Jackson who, um, had won the popular vote

[rebeccajo 14]

Heres an email, I thought I'd share it...

We were in Pigeon Forge over the weekend. We left to come home on Sunday. Traffic was moving slow & a car in front of us had an Obama bumper sticker on it. It read: "Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8". Mike's Bible was lying on the dash board & he got it & opened it up to the scripture & read it. He started laughing & laughing. Then he read it to me. I couldn't believe what it said. I had a good laugh, too.

Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few; and let another take office. "

Oh how apropo for someone to take that very line of a very good Psalm out of context.

Interesting when you read the beginning of that Psalm:

O God, whom I praise, do not be silent, for wicked and treacherous mouths attack me. They speak against me with lying tongues; with hateful words they surround me, attacking me without cause. 4 In return for my love they slander me, even though I prayed for them. 5 They repay me evil for good, hatred for my love. My enemies say of me: 6 ² "Find a lying witness, an accuser to stand by his right hand, 7 That he may be judged and found guilty, that his plea may be in vain. 8 May his days be few; may another take his office. 9 May his children be fatherless, his wife, a widow.

.....

Maybe you can see the absurdity in that bumper sticker now.

I hate it hate it hate it when a 'christian' takes a bible verse and twists it to suit their agenda.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Heres an email, I thought I'd share it...

We were in Pigeon Forge over the weekend. We left to come home on Sunday. Traffic was moving slow & a car in front of us had an Obama bumper sticker on it. It read: "Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8". Mike's Bible was lying on the dash board & he got it & opened it up to the scripture & read it. He started laughing & laughing. Then he read it to me. I couldn't believe what it said. I had a good laugh, too.

Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few; and let another take office. "

Oh how apropo for someone to take that very line of a very good Psalm out of context.

Interesting when you read the beginning of that Psalm:

O God, whom I praise, do not be silent, for wicked and treacherous mouths attack me. They speak against me with lying tongues; with hateful words they surround me, attacking me without cause. 4 In return for my love they slander me, even though I prayed for them. 5 They repay me evil for good, hatred for my love. My enemies say of me: 6 ² "Find a lying witness, an accuser to stand by his right hand, 7 That he may be judged and found guilty, that his plea may be in vain. 8 May his days be few; may another take his office. 9 May his children be fatherless, his wife, a widow.

.....

Maybe you can see the absurdity in that bumper sticker now.

I hate it hate it hate it when a 'christian' takes a bible verse and twists it to suit their agenda.

They might hurry into church every Sunday but Christians, they are not. They're the wicked and treacherous mouths with lying tongues that attack without cause. Or, to put it into less biblical terms, they're scum.

[Kevin and 10]

interference by the Rehnquist Supreme Court in a state matter that had no federal court standing.

Agreed

Its a State's rights issue that the Fed had no business interfering in.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

Heres an email, I thought I'd share it...

We were in Pigeon Forge over the weekend. We left to come home on Sunday. Traffic was moving slow & a car in front of us had an Obama bumper sticker on it. It read: "Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8". Mike's Bible was lying on the dash board & he got it & opened it up to the scripture & read it. He started laughing & laughing. Then he read it to me. I couldn't believe what it said. I had a good laugh, too.

Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few; and let another take office. "

Oh how apropo for someone to take that very line of a very good Psalm out of context.

Interesting when you read the beginning of that Psalm:

O God, whom I praise, do not be silent, for wicked and treacherous mouths attack me. They speak against me with lying tongues; with hateful words they surround me, attacking me without cause. 4 In return for my love they slander me, even though I prayed for them. 5 They repay me evil for good, hatred for my love. My enemies say of me: 6 ² "Find a lying witness, an accuser to stand by his right hand, 7 That he may be judged and found guilty, that his plea may be in vain. 8 May his days be few; may another take his office. 9 May his children be fatherless, his wife, a widow.

.....

Maybe you can see the absurdity in that bumper sticker now.

I hate it hate it hate it when a 'christian' takes a bible verse and twists it to suit their agenda.

They might hurry into church every Sunday but Christians, they are not. They're the wicked and treacherous mouths with lying tongues that attack without cause. Or, to put it into less biblical terms, they're scum.

I dont think thats cool of you to post that. No one on VJ would get away with calling ANY other religious group scum. So what if you disagree with Christianity but on VJ to publically refer to Christians as scum is just ignorant IMO.

Edited November 20, 2009 by ~PalmTreeGurl~

[Saddle Bronc 124]

First of all, Al Gore empirically won the national popular vote in 2000, and lost in a disputed recount process in Florida. By comparison, John McCain lost the national popular vote by a 53%-46% margin.

I really wish people would stop making this argument. The popular vote had absolutely nothing to do with it. Who cares if Gore won the popular vote? That had no bearing on the matter, since that's not how we elect Presidents. The true issue in 2000 had to do with the vote counting, hanging chads, and a sufficient number of challenged ballots to affect the tally. A proper recount was clearly needed, yet never fully performed due to an unprecedented interference by the Rehnquist Supreme Court in a state matter that had no federal court standing.

• Elections stolen by Democrats: 1960 (through machinations from Chicago's Daley clan)
• Elections stolen by Republicans: empty list (Gore was/is a sore-loser-shill, Kerry couldn't/can't get his story about "going into Cambodia on NIXON's orders" straight on timeframe)
• Elections lost due to useless candidates:
  • Democrats: 1952, 1956, 1968, 1980 (candidate's performance analysed from inauguration 1977), 1984, 1988
  • Republicans: possibly 1992, definite of 1996 and 2008

Well, you're obviously wrong about Gore (see above), and I'd say you're wrong about 1960 too, though there were certainly irregularities in IL that year.

No, the recount in fact revealed that those whom Gore claimed as "disenfranchised" had in fact voted for Buchanan (unviable third-party, "known enemy better than pretend-friends")--any analysis other than "urban-legend" type (which you are using) shows Gore lost recount fairly!

Kerry has never contested his 2004 loss - there is no question that Bush legitimately won Ohio that year.

But you also forgot the most famous stolen election of all : 1824 - the "corrupt bargain" in which John Quincy Adams / Henry Clay worked out their scheme to displace Andrew Jackson who, um, had won the popular vote

I only used post-WW2 elections for comparison. But YOU missed a clinching point--Kerry's claim was of going into Cambodia in DECEMBER 1968 on NIXON's orders (last-I-checked, President has no power until inaugurated--Nixon wasn't inaugurated until January 1969) and he still hasn't changed the story even after the absurdity has been pointed out repeatedly.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Heres an email, I thought I'd share it...

We were in Pigeon Forge over the weekend. We left to come home on Sunday. Traffic was moving slow & a car in front of us had an Obama bumper sticker on it. It read: "Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8". Mike's Bible was lying on the dash board & he got it & opened it up to the scripture & read it. He started laughing & laughing. Then he read it to me. I couldn't believe what it said. I had a good laugh, too.

Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few; and let another take office. "

Oh how apropo for someone to take that very line of a very good Psalm out of context.

Interesting when you read the beginning of that Psalm:

O God, whom I praise, do not be silent, for wicked and treacherous mouths attack me. They speak against me with lying tongues; with hateful words they surround me, attacking me without cause. 4 In return for my love they slander me, even though I prayed for them. 5 They repay me evil for good, hatred for my love. My enemies say of me: 6 ² "Find a lying witness, an accuser to stand by his right hand, 7 That he may be judged and found guilty, that his plea may be in vain. 8 May his days be few; may another take his office. 9 May his children be fatherless, his wife, a widow.

.....

Maybe you can see the absurdity in that bumper sticker now.

I hate it hate it hate it when a 'christian' takes a bible verse and twists it to suit their agenda.

They might hurry into church every Sunday but Christians, they are not. They're the wicked and treacherous mouths with lying tongues that attack without cause. Or, to put it into less biblical terms, they're scum.

I dont think thats cool of you to post that. No one on VJ would get away with calling ANY other religious group scum. So what if you disagree with Christianity but on VJ to publically refer to Christians as scum is just ignorant IMO.

I haven't referred to Christians as scum. Try to read again what I wrote.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

On tangential note about NY-23 (which many in media claim--falsely, checking wiki shows opposite--as "Republican since Civil War") now is subject to claim of ACORN vote-stealing.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/11...d_in_NY_23.html

The Scorecard: Hoffman alleges vote fraud in NY 23

[size="1"November 18, 2009

[/size]Even as he faces near-impossible odds of pulling ahead in the count, Doug Hoffman announced Wednesday night that he is officially revoking his concession from Election Night, and is accusing labor unions and ACORN of stealing the election for Rep. Bill Owens (D-N.Y.).

Hoffman posted a message on his campaign site Wednesday alleging dirty tricks by Democrats, and is asking for additional campaign contributions to fund a legal challenge to the election results.

“As evidence surfaces, we find out that reported results from election night were far from accurate. ACORN and the unions did their best to try and sway the results to Obamacare supporter Bill Owens," Hoffman wrote on his campaign site. "Rest assured, they will not succeed, and I am therefore revoking my statement of concession.”

Despite his unfailing optimism, Hoffman currently faces next-to-no chance of pulling ahead, with nearly half of the absentee ballots counted. The Watertown Daily Times reports that Hoffman currently trails Owens by 2,832 votes, with 4,262 absentee ballots left to be counted, with him only picking up a net of 344 votes in the process.

Hoffman would need to win nearly 80 percent of the outstanding absentee ballots to win. St. Lawrence, Oswego, Jefferson, Clinton, Essex and Franklin counties still have to finish their absentee count – with much of the remaining votes coming from Democratic strongholds that Owens carried on Election Night.

And Hoffman's claims are being undermined by his own staff and Republican election workers in the district. His campaign adviser, Rob Ryan, told the Syracuse Post-Standard that the campaign "knows chances for a victory grow more remote with each passing day."

The Jefferson County Republican elections commissioner told the Watertown Daily Times that Hoffman's allegations were “absolutely false.”

But that's not stopping Hoffman from crying foul.

"The people of NY-23 deserve to have their ballots counted properly, but we can't let ACORN or the unions keep that from happening. They have more lawyers and more experience tampering with democracy," he wrote.

"We need to make sure that fair elections are a reality in NY-23, just like our Founding Fathers envisioned. So long as we remain the "land of the free," we MUST ensure every vote is counted. Help us today so we may be the first of many conservative victories during the Obama Regime."

Posted by Josh Kraushaar 10:42 PM

I guess it gets noticed when Hoffman plays Jackson-Farakhan-Sharpton game, which Dems have long been playing (through those aforenamed proxies particularly). Edited November 20, 2009 by Saddle Bronc

[alienlovechild 75]

interference by the Rehnquist Supreme Court in a state matter that had no federal court standing.

Agreed

Its a State's rights issue that the Fed had no business interfering in.

The presidential election was a national election. All counts done (Gore's methods and Bush's method) all gave Florida to Bush. Still surprised people don't remember all the media recounts done after the election.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

interference by the Rehnquist Supreme Court in a state matter that had no federal court standing.

Agreed

Its a State's rights issue that the Fed had no business interfering in.

The presidential election was a national election. All counts done (Gore's methods and Bush's method) all gave Florida to Bush. Still surprised people don't remember all the media recounts done after the election.

The fact that Gore hired a shark to keep the recount bakvas running for several weeks was enough to disprove his case.

[scandal 951]

interference by the Rehnquist Supreme Court in a state matter that had no federal court standing.

Agreed

Its a State's rights issue that the Fed had no business interfering in.

The presidential election was a national election. All counts done (Gore's methods and Bush's method) all gave Florida to Bush. Still surprised people don't remember all the media recounts done after the election.

The fact that Gore hired a shark to keep the recount bakvas running for several weeks was enough to disprove his case.

ALC - American presidential elections are not "national elections". In fact, they are a sequence of 50 state elections (as well as federally supervised elections in the District of Columbia, Guam, etc.). Each state has complete jurisdiction over the procedures it uses to hold its election, and it is the state courts that rule in any disputes. In fact what the states are entitled to do is to elect the Electors to the Electoral College, who in turn cast the votes for President/Vice President. Universal practice is for each state to give its citizens the indirect right to elect its Electors by popular vote. However in theory a state could choose another means to elect its Electors (e.g. by a vote of the state legislature). This is clearly established by the US Constitution Article II, and amended by the Twelfth Amendment.

Saddle -

Do you want to discuss things on the level, or just descend into the mob?

I know you are capable of rational and balanced discourse - I've seen you do it. It's your call, dude.

As to the facts:

Fact: The vote in Florida was incredibly close. They were separated by about 500 votes in a state with millions of voters. That's a statistical tie by any measure.

Fact: BOTH campaigns organized massive legal teams to fight their cases in state and federal courts. Sure, Gore had legal teams fighting for him (Warren Christopher). But "Hiring a shark?" Just what do you think James Baker was doing during those fateful months of Nov-Dec 2000?

Fact: Under Florida state law, when an election result is that close a mandatory recount is initiated. The procedure for that recount is ENTIRELY governed by state law, according the aforementioned provisions of USC Article II and the Twelfth Amendment. Florida courts and the Florida Secretary of State have complete authority over the procedures to be followed in the recount.

Fact: A statewide recount, and a hand recount was indeed initiated in four counties (Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Volusia) as prescribed by Florida law. The two sides battled in Florida courts as to whether to continue the recount (Gore) or stop it (Bush). A judgment of the Florida State Supreme Court declared that the recounts should continue. That is a decision entirely consistent with the Constitution - that the Florida state court have ultimate say over the recount procedure.

Fact: The Bush team appealed to the US Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case, and ultimately ruled in early December to provide emergency injunctive relief and to halt the Florida recounts. Their rationale was based on US Constitutional principles (violation of the Equal Protection clause, 14th Amendment). The recount was halted, Florida's Electors were certified (for Bush) by Secretary of State Harris, and Bush was ultimately elected President by the Electoral College.

Fact: A year after the election, a group of media institutions including the New York Times did a manual recount of the disputed Florida ballots. By their tally, Bush would have won the election even if the recount had been allowed to proceed the previous year.

Those are facts, not subject to dispute. The rest of what I write is opinion.

Bush did more than likely have enough votes to win. Sure, Gore was disadvantaged by stupid sh!t like the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County that likely gave away thousands of Gore votes to Pat Buchanan. He woulda, coulda , shoulda won. So what - that only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

If the Florida recount had been allowed to proceed, and Bush indeed had the votes, I would have respected that outcome and considered Bush legitimately elected.

Moreover - if the FLORIDA court had decided to halt recounts, I would have respected that too.

Even further - had a unanimous (or an 8-1, or even 7-2) US Supreme Court made a sound constitutional ruling to intervene and halt the recount - I would respect that too.

But what happened was that a divided court make an extraordinary per-curiam 5-4 ruling to halt the recount. That ruling by a partisan court is a lasting blemish on SCOTUS to this very day. In my view, the court should have allowed the recount to proceed. Bush would have won anyway, and not had the stain of having illegitimately taken office. A great disservice was done to our nation by the Supreme Court in Dec 2000.

That is my view. I would be happy to consider a reasoned contrary point of view - that SCOTUS was right to halt the recount, that their constitutional concerns were legitimate and worthy of interfering in an area long recognized as being a state's rights issue. But that's not usually the argument I hear. The argument usually put forward is yours - that we are sour grapes for still remembering this important piece of American history, and not letting your ilk cloud our memory and perception of it.

[alienlovechild 75]

But what happened was that a divided court make an extraordinary per-curiam 5-4 ruling to halt the recount. That ruling by a partisan court is a lasting blemish on SCOTUS to this very day. In my view, the court should have allowed the recount to proceed. Bush would have won anyway, and not had the stain of having illegitimately taken office. A great disservice was done to our nation by the Supreme Court in Dec 2000.

The final arbiter were the American people who in in the 2004 election re-elected Bush whether you like it or not. The Court is no more "partisan" than usual. In fact the SCOTUS it designed to be the least likely to swayed by politics as they serve for life and never have to face an election. Anyway Obama got an early start on reshaping the makeup of the Court with Sotomayor.

[scandal 951]

But what happened was that a divided court make an extraordinary per-curiam 5-4 ruling to halt the recount. That ruling by a partisan court is a lasting blemish on SCOTUS to this very day. In my view, the court should have allowed the recount to proceed. Bush would have won anyway, and not had the stain of having illegitimately taken office. A great disservice was done to our nation by the Supreme Court in Dec 2000.

The final arbiter were the American people who in in the 2004 election re-elected Bush whether you like it or not. The Court is no more "partisan" than usual. In fact the SCOTUS it designed to be the least likely to swayed by politics as they serve for life and never have to face an election. Anyway Obama got an early start on reshaping the makeup of the Court with Sotomayor.

Weak, Dave. You can do better.

The 2004 election was an entirely different event that has no bearing on the legitimacy of the 2000 election.

Besides, I agree with you that Bush won in 2004. That too was a close contest, with Ohio lying in the balance, but it did not have the extraordinary circumstances of Florida in 2000.

Regarding the Court, you are correct that it is designed to be above the fray. That is an intrinsic part of the separation of powers. All the more extraordinary and unfortunate that the court acted in an apparently partisan way in 2000. That is the true tragedy of what occurred. Not that Bush won, not that Gore lost, not even that the votes weren't properly counted. But that the court abandoned its cherished role and intervened in a state matter on a questionable and weak constitutional pretext.

Finally - Sotamayor has not changed the court makeup, at least not yet. She took Suter's place- leaving the basic liberal/conservative makeup of the court unchanged at this time.

[HAL 9000 96]

interference by the Rehnquist Supreme Court in a state matter that had no federal court standing.

Agreed

Its a State's rights issue that the Fed had no business interfering in.

The presidential election was a national election. All counts done (Gore's methods and Bush's method) all gave Florida to Bush. Still surprised people don't remember all the media recounts done after the election.

The fact that Gore hired a shark to keep the recount bakvas running for several weeks was enough to disprove his case.

ALC - American presidential elections are not "national elections". In fact, they are a sequence of 50 state elections (as well as federally supervised elections in the District of Columbia, Guam, etc.). Each state has complete jurisdiction over the procedures it uses to hold its election, and it is the state courts that rule in any disputes. In fact what the states are entitled to do is to elect the Electors to the Electoral College, who in turn cast the votes for President/Vice President. Universal practice is for each state to give its citizens the indirect right to elect its Electors by popular vote. However in theory a state could choose another means to elect its Electors (e.g. by a vote of the state legislature). This is clearly established by the US Constitution Article II, and amended by the Twelfth Amendment.

Saddle -

Do you want to discuss things on the level, or just descend into the mob?

I know you are capable of rational and balanced discourse - I've seen you do it. It's your call, dude.

As to the facts:

Fact: The vote in Florida was incredibly close. They were separated by about 500 votes in a state with millions of voters. That's a statistical tie by any measure.

Fact: BOTH campaigns organized massive legal teams to fight their cases in state and federal courts. Sure, Gore had legal teams fighting for him (Warren Christopher). But "Hiring a shark?" Just what do you think James Baker was doing during those fateful months of Nov-Dec 2000?

Fact: Under Florida state law, when an election result is that close a mandatory recount is initiated. The procedure for that recount is ENTIRELY governed by state law, according the aforementioned provisions of USC Article II and the Twelfth Amendment. Florida courts and the Florida Secretary of State have complete authority over the procedures to be followed in the recount.

Fact: A statewide recount, and a hand recount was indeed initiated in four counties (Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Volusia) as prescribed by Florida law. The two sides battled in Florida courts as to whether to continue the recount (Gore) or stop it (Bush). A judgment of the Florida State Supreme Court declared that the recounts should continue. That is a decision entirely consistent with the Constitution - that the Florida state court have ultimate say over the recount procedure.

Fact: The Bush team appealed to the US Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case, and ultimately ruled in early December to provide emergency injunctive relief and to halt the Florida recounts. Their rationale was based on US Constitutional principles (violation of the Equal Protection clause, 14th Amendment). The recount was halted, Florida's Electors were certified (for Bush) by Secretary of State Harris, and Bush was ultimately elected President by the Electoral College.

Fact: A year after the election, a group of media institutions including the New York Times did a manual recount of the disputed Florida ballots. By their tally, Bush would have won the election even if the recount had been allowed to proceed the previous year.

Those are facts, not subject to dispute. The rest of what I write is opinion.

Bush did more than likely have enough votes to win. Sure, Gore was disadvantaged by stupid sh!t like the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County that likely gave away thousands of Gore votes to Pat Buchanan. He woulda, coulda , shoulda won. So what - that only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

If the Florida recount had been allowed to proceed, and Bush indeed had the votes, I would have respected that outcome and considered Bush legitimately elected.

Moreover - if the FLORIDA court had decided to halt recounts, I would have respected that too.

Even further - had a unanimous (or an 8-1, or even 7-2) US Supreme Court made a sound constitutional ruling to intervene and halt the recount - I would respect that too.

But what happened was that a divided court make an extraordinary per-curiam 5-4 ruling to halt the recount. That ruling by a partisan court is a lasting blemish on SCOTUS to this very day. In my view, the court should have allowed the recount to proceed. Bush would have won anyway, and not had the stain of having illegitimately taken office. A great disservice was done to our nation by the Supreme Court in Dec 2000.

That is my view. I would be happy to consider a reasoned contrary point of view - that SCOTUS was right to halt the recount, that their constitutional concerns were legitimate and worthy of interfering in an area long recognized as being a state's rights issue. But that's not usually the argument I hear. The argument usually put forward is yours - that we are sour grapes for still remembering this important piece of American history, and not letting your ilk cloud our memory and perception of it.

In-for-the-kill...