• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bush Talks About Sham Elections... Irony Meter Please!

Tsukasa Buddha

Other (please write in)
Tsukasa Buddha
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
15,302
President George W. Bush on Saturday ordered U.S. sanctions against the "illegitimate" government of Zimbabwe, and called Friday's election a "sham" in which President Robert Mugabe appeared heading for a landslide victory.

He also said the United States would press for U.N. action, including an arms embargo.

"Given the Mugabe regime's blatant disregard for the Zimbabwean people's democratic will and human rights, I am instructing the secretaries of State and Treasury to develop sanctions against this illegitimate government of Zimbabwe and those who support it," Bush said in a statement.

...

"On Friday, the Mugabe regime held a sham election that ignored the will of the people of Zimbabwe," Bush said.
Click to expand...

Linky.

A comment is normally expected in the OP, but I think this speaks for itself.
 
Is Buddha a closet election kook? I have him muted currently, but I could only guess that's the case based on the thread title.

I love it when the undercover woos out themselves.
 
corplinx said:
Is Buddha a closet election kook? I have him muted currently, but I could only guess that's the case based on the thread title.

I love it when the undercover woos out themselves.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am a skeevy undercover woo :boxedin: .

I love how you still like to insult me when you can't even read what I am writing :rolleyes: .

Oh, but in case there is any confusion, I am alluding to the 2000 election, not the 2004 one.
 
Even as a Brit who thinks Bush is nothing more then a strategically shaved chimp in a suit, this is a huge stretch. There is a world of difference between the Florida 2000 mess and Zimbabwe now, where militias are raping and killing the opposition, then rounding people up to 'vote' for Mugabe.
 
Uzzy said:
Even as a Brit who thinks Bush is nothing more then a strategically shaved chimp in a suit, this is a huge stretch. There is a world of difference between the Florida 2000 mess and Zimbabwe now, where militias are raping and killing the opposition, then rounding people up to 'vote' for Mugabe.
Click to expand...

I know, I just thought his choice of words were rather ironic :p .
 
Did you hear that there's a presidential campaign underway this year?

Might it not be better to focus on that rather than to rehash partisan fairy tales?
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I know, I just thought his choice of words were rather ironic :p .
Click to expand...
Only if you believe the 2000 election was a "sham" election. There was no ballot-stuffing, no voter intimidation, and no murder, only a 7-2 bipartisan Supreme Court decision initiated by the (eventual) loser.
 
Sefarst said:
Only if you believe the 2000 election was a "sham" election. There was no ballot-stuffing, no voter intimidation, and no murder, only a 7-2 bipartisan Supreme Court decision initiated by the (eventual) loser.
Click to expand...
Yep, Gore personally picked the re-count counties, the ballot counting methods, and initiated the legal challenges starting in the Florida Supreme Court that resulted in appeals to the Federal Circuit Court and eventually the USSC. He called the shots from the beginning.
 
Texas said:
Yep, Gore personally picked the re-count counties, the ballot counting methods, and initiated the legal challenges starting in the Florida Supreme Court that resulted in appeals to the Federal Circuit Court and eventually the USSC. He called the shots from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Let's see. What did "Texas" forget? Oh, the fact that the ballots were horridly designed. The fact that the way votes were actually registered was very nearly deceptive compared to the way that people thought they were voting. The fact that votes as counted came out very different than the people who voted thought they voted.

Yeah, all that. Gore is accused of "personally picked the re-count counties" with the CRIMINAL insinuation that this was in order to falsify the election results, rather than the HONEST fact that there did appear to be large irregularities.

I do think it was in fact bad ballot design coupled with people who didn't understand how it worked for the most part, but the shoddiness went far enough that any suspicion does not belong on the Gore side.
 
jj said:
Let's see. What did "Texas" forget? Oh, the fact that the ballots were horridly designed. The fact that the way votes were actually registered was very nearly deceptive compared to the way that people thought they were voting. The fact that votes as counted came out very different than the people who voted thought they voted.

Yeah, all that. Gore is accused of "personally picked the re-count counties" with the CRIMINAL insinuation that this was in order to falsify the election results, rather than the HONEST fact that there did appear to be large irregularities.

I do think it was in fact bad ballot design coupled with people who didn't understand how it worked for the most part, but the shoddiness went far enough that any suspicion does not belong on the Gore side.
Click to expand...
The ballots were designed by a democrat and approved by both parties, Gore can only answer why he picked the counties he picked and if people are too stupid to read a ballot they don't need to be voting.
 
Texas said:
The ballots were designed by a democrat and approved by both parties, Gore can only answer why he picked the counties he picked and if people are too stupid to read a ballot they don't need to be voting.
Click to expand...

The 2000 election fight wasn't about the butterfly ballot.

It was about counting votes where the intent of the voter could be determined, the standard under Florida law at the time.
 
Texas said:
The ballots were designed by a democrat and approved by both parties, Gore can only answer why he picked the counties he picked and if people are too stupid to read a ballot they don't need to be voting.
Click to expand...

Blaming the victim? There was also the issue of criminals being banned from voting. This was done on the basis of names alone, IIRC. Anyone with a similar name could also be wiped off the list.
The ban, added to Florida’s Constitution in 1868, has been the subject of especially bitter debate since the 2000 presidential election. Some legal voters were removed from the state’s rolls that year after being misidentified as felons, adding to the drama of a recount that gave George W. Bush a razor-thin margin of victory over Al Gore.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/u...1214711754-sUidChSXAm+TyC0Jy6clzg&oref=slogin
 
Kestrel said:
The 2000 election fight wasn't about the butterfly ballot.

It was about counting votes where the intent of the voter could be determined, the standard under Florida law at the time.
Click to expand...
Not true Florida election law did not allow for assessing "voter intent" in the manner Gore's lawyers insisted upon:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-05-10-recountmain.htm

George W. Bush would have won a hand recount of all disputed ballots in Florida's presidential election if the most widely accepted standard for judging votes had been applied, the first comprehensive examination of the ballots shows. However, the review of 171,908 ballots also reveals that voting mistakes by thousands of Democratic voters — errors that legally disqualified their ballots — probably cost former vice president Al Gore 15,000 to 25,000 votes. That's enough to have decisively won Florida and the White House. Gore's best chance to win was lost before the ballots were counted, the study shows. Voters' confusion with ballot instruction and design and voting machines appears to have changed the course of U.S. history.
Click to expand...
He wanted to actually read the minds of voters that were not even ask for their intent. Why in the heck are so many democratic voters unable to vote correctly since we all know they are the most educated.
 
My only hope for this thread is that we can all come together in mutual condemnation of any comparison of the 2000 US presidential election with the "election" (if you can call it that) in Zimbabwe. You can debate hanging chads, butterfly ballots and absentee votes another time. The 2000 election was a viciously contested legal battle, but not something that can even honestly be mentioned in the same breath as the farce taking place in Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
 
Texas said:
Not true Florida election law did not allow for assessing "voter intent" in the manner Gore's lawyers insisted upon:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-05-10-recountmain.htm

He wanted to actually read the minds of voters that were not even ask for their intent. Why in the heck are so many democratic voters unable to vote correctly since we all know they are the most educated.
Click to expand...

Quoting Florida law section 101.5614 (5):
No vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board.
Click to expand...

Partially punched chads or a dimple made by a voting stylus were clear indications of the intent of the voter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom