Yes, people outside the USA can't access www.georgewbush.com directly, but there are quite a few ways of getting around the block:
https://georgewbush.com/
http://65.172.163.222/
http://origin.georgewbush.com/
EDIT:// You used to be able to use those, but the 'backdoors' seem to have been blocked off as well. *shrug*
If I was 18, I'd definitely vote for Kerry. I live in America, more specifically, Georgia, and the majority of the people who go to my school are very conservative and love Bush. I'd try to explain to them how many people in other countries really dislike him, but the argument wouldn't really be worth much. These are people who think that nuking other countries is a good way to solve problems.And I have a teacher who believes we should have conquored Mexico and Canada during the 1800s. All I could say was...WTF?
If this election is decided by courts like the last election, I'm not voting for president again. There are so many barriers between the popular vote and who becomes president, that for all the debating, I don't care much. Even if the majority of US citizens elect Bush, the electoral college can still elect Kerry. It happenned in the Bush Gore election, after all. If the results of the popular vote aren't what the candidates would like, they can throw out as many votes as they want, by calling on every legal obscurity they can find - and apparently there are many. After the people are overruled by the electoral college, the supreme court gets to, by deciding which votes will count, and which won't, appoint the next president of the United States with no regard for either of the two results. Once again, if this election is decided by an army of lawyers, and the next president is appointed rather than elected, I'll write off voting as a wasted effort.
Knock yourselves down.
www.bushgame.com
its really good actually. and they do state their references.
Garland,
Oh please. Bush won the last election fair and square. There were rules, and according to the rules, he won. Now, I will agree with you that they are not be the BEST possible rules (as evidenced by the fact that Bush failed to win the popular vote), but by the rules, he won.
As per your own argument, why would they even bother trying to throw out votes from the popular vote, when the electoral college votes are all that matter?If the results of the popular vote aren't what the candidates would like, they can throw out as many votes as they want, by calling on every legal obscurity they can find
The sad reality is that, even if the system allowed maximum voting power per person (straight popular vote), your vote is still just one in a sea of 150 million or so. One of my friends took a probability class, and one of their exercises was the following: they assumed that 51% of the voting US supported candidate A, and 49% supported candidate B. If only 10,000 people show up to the polls on election day, what is the probability that candidate A will win the election (I don't remember whether they used the popular vote or electoral college model - electoral college model being where a state's votes go to the candidate receiving the majority of the state's votes)? The probability turned out to be 97.5%. That really casts doubt on how much it matters to show up at the polls on election day, huh?
Originally Posted by MartyM
No.
Bush didnt win the last election, the Supreme Court in a massive overstepping of its own Jurisdiction decided to end the official counting of votes. Giving Bush the presidency. The votes where later counted and Gore won Florida by 1400 votes. Gore decided not to challenge the Supreme Courts decision to DECIDE the election. So guess we can blame it on Gore, but that doesnt mean Bush won.
The world has a problem with Bush, therefore our President doing business with them is compramised. Also since he declared that WmDs were in Iraq and we havent found any, our(*he is representing us*) credibility is compramised until the world can give us a new slate, in other words a new president is needed or else our nations will be hard pressed to beileve us in the event of an actual world threat.
Source?Bush didnt win the last election, the Supreme Court in a massive overstepping of its own Jurisdiction decided to end the official counting of votes. Giving Bush the presidency. The votes where later counted and Gore won Florida by 1400 votes.
I have a source in front of me right now that says:
1 - The day after the polls closed in 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush won the popular vote, 2,909,135 to 2,907,351.
2 - The Miami Herald, along with a consortium of the nation's major news organizations, each hired outside consultants to examine the "uncounted" ballots - those that never went a manual recount, and which were machine-rejected as "overvotes" or "undervotes" (you know, the ones that Gore WANTED to be recounted). But according to the Miami Herald, had the manual recounts continued in Gore's 4 hand-picked counties (which that he won initially by a huge margin, and theorized that there were more uncounted ballots there for him), he still lacked enough votes to overcome Bush (Bush would have won by 537 votes rather than the 1800ish given by the machine counters).
3 - The supreme court's decision was based on the fact that in the manual recount, in some counties, slightly dimpled/scratched chads were being counted as votes for Gore, whereas in other counties, only fully punctured or hanging chads were counted as votes. Nevermind that the instructions on the card clearly stated that only fully punctured cards with no hanging chads would be counted.
My source is "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America" by Larry Elder (a libertarian). It's a very slanted book, but it offers a refreshingly different viewpoint on a lot of issues. I used it as my source for the above because I knew it had info on the 2000 elections and I don't have time for mass web searches right now. Elder also cites a number of sources in his bibliography on the issue and I'd be happy to cite them for you as well.
Edit - I should mention that, with regards to your post, "the official counting of votes" would be better described as "the official recounting of votes in the 4 counties Gore specified." After all, Florida law allows either candidate to demand a manual recount, and Gore did, but only in those 4 counties.
Anyway, what's your source?
Last edited by MartyM; 11-01-2004 at 02:13 AM.
Well hey guess my civics teacher was wrong. I can admit ive made a mistake unlike the oh-so unfalible almighty Bush who cant name a mistake hes made(*Refering to the Debate response*).
Also before i continue On Dec. 13, Gore conceded. meaning he DIDNT push the Supreme Courts decision possibly leaving us Presidentless for an unknown period of time, which would have been the best idea.
But all of this doesnt change the fact that Bush won by 1 vote, the vote of the Supreme Court. And lets not forget the thousands of illegally disenfrancised voters and convicts whose case was thrown out. Point being democracy was on vacation that day. The system failed and now for 4 years we have been paying the price.
Now the world wants a new leader, 30 of 35 countries polled would elect Kerry source:cnn.com, and if all those countries would cooperate more with Kerry than Bush and also find him more credible then i think that should have atleast some impact on the voters decision. Cuz if there is a real threat that presents itself to the world i want the world to not have any reservations about US credibility, since they obviously wont beileve Bush anytime soon.
The recount system in Florida actually specifies that, if a manual recount is asked for, it must be completed within 7 days. So no dice there. Gore lacked enough time for his recounts because it surfaced, several days into the recounting, that different counties were using different standards for their interpretations of poll cards.
Source about illegally disenfranchised voters? I don't doubt what you're saying, but I'd like to see some evidence. Also, are convicts even allowed to vote? I don't know.But all of this doesnt change the fact that Bush won by 1 vote, the vote of the Supreme Court. And lets not forget the thousands of illegally disenfrancised voters and convicts whose case was thrown out. Point being democracy was on vacation that day. The system failed and now for 4 years we have been paying the price.
Well, it's not the COUNTRIES that would be cooperating with Bush or Kerry per se, it's the LEADERS of the countries. The fact that a country would elect Kerry over Bush says little about how willing the country's leaders are willing to work with either candidate, considering that many countries don't even elect their own leaders. I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just pointing out a logical gapNow the world wants a new leader, 30 of 35 countries polled would elect Kerry source:cnn.com, and if all those countries would cooperate more with Kerry than Bush and also find him more credible then i think that should have atleast some impact on the voters decision. Cuz if there is a real threat that presents itself to the world i want the world to not have any reservations about US credibility, since they obviously wont beileve Bush anytime soon.And again, the source that started this thread stated that an average of 54% of voters in certain countries (or something like that) would vote for Kerry. 54% is NOT a landslide, contrary to the popular belief. I believe that America itself is divided according to a similar percentage.
"Well, it's not the COUNTRIES that would be cooperating with Bush or Kerry per se, it's the LEADERS of the countries. The fact that a country would elect Kerry over Bush says little about how willing the country's leaders are willing to work with either candidate, considering that many countries don't even elect their own leaders. I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just pointing out a logical gap And again, the source that started this thread stated that an average of 54% of voters in certain countries (or something like that) would vote for Kerry. 54% is NOT a landslide, contrary to the popular belief. I believe that America itself is divided according to a similar percentage."
Usually though, the leaders of said country will follow the popular opinion of the general population of a country, so if the people are against Bush, the leaders will be as well.
Actually, in this day and age, 54% would be a landslide when you account for the fact that about half of the world, at least the Western world, does not vote.
Also of note, probably the single greatest misunderstanding in this country has to do with polls. Polls do not reflect the will of the people, but only reflect people who have been asked their opinion. You can skew a poll completely by only asking one group of people their opinion and completely leaving another group out. The current group being left out: the youth of America. Since many will be voting for the first time, they have not been factored into polling numbers and thus, all polls in my opinion are more or less moot points.
I still think we need to get away from polls as it just leads to candidates tailoring their messages to reflect a higher number in said polls. Instead of focusing on issues, they focus on lobbyists and a small core of issues that reflect a fluctuation in the polls. We need a president who is forward thinking and willing to make a difference not just in America, but in the world.
Take care all.
Posting Permissions
