| Author |
Message |
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
 Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:50 am Bush has 269, enough to win the tie breaker. 4 more years! |
|
At this point, Kerry would need to claim virtually every vote left in Ohio to win, or even to call for a recount.
With Ohio's 20 points, it pushes him to 269 which is enough to win in the case of a tie (though we all know that won't happen with NM and IA), in the House, which is predominantly controlled by the GOP!
This means that Bush is back for four more years!!!
 
Whoo hoo! See you back in Massachusettes Mr. Kerry!
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:10 am |
|
I read somewhere that the provisional votes are from the military, and since they tend to vote Republican then it looks like Bush could win.
|
|
|
Captain Dappet
Forum Revolutionist
Joined: 06 Feb 2002
Posts: 16756
Location: On my supersonic rocket ship.
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:19 pm |
|
Yeah, Bush for another 4 years...
I smell Nukes already.
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:51 pm |
|
It's not all bad. At least with Bush being re-elected, he gets to sort out his mess. If not, well, there's always 2008. But even then, I can see Americans, somehow, voting for him again.
|
|
|
Captain Dappet
Forum Revolutionist
Joined: 06 Feb 2002
Posts: 16756
Location: On my supersonic rocket ship.
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:10 pm |
|
He's not allowed to be in the election in 2008. They're only allowed to be re-elected once.
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:16 pm |
|
Ohio was not called for Bush. Those biased dumbasses at Fox News said so, and that was it. If you were watching CNN, you would have seen it was too close to call, period. But oh well, that doesnt matter...
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:59 pm |
|
| Captain Dappet wrote: | | He's not allowed to be in the election in 2008. They're only allowed to be re-elected once. |
Even better.
|
|
|
Toad
Chief of Security
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Posts: 936
Location: The Great Plains
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:34 pm |
|
Who's in the White House? Bush! Bush! Bush! Bush!
Who's in the White House? Bush! Bush! Bush! Bush!
Who's in the White House? Bush! Bush! Bush! Bush!
Who's in the White House? Bush! Bush! Bush! Bush!
Who's in the White House? Bush! Bush! Bush! Bush!
Who's in the White House? Bush! Bush! Bush! Bush!
Who's in the White House? Bush! Bush! Bush! Bush!
Who's in the White House? Bush! Bush! Bush! Bush!
Who's in the White House? Bush! Bush! Bush! Bush!
Who's in the White House? Bush! Bush! Bush! Bush!
Who's in the White House? Bush! Bush! Bush! Bush!
Who's in the White House? Bush! Bush! Bush! Bush!
|
|
|
Birdy
Socialist
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 13502
Location: Here.
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:50 pm |
|
^What's your point?  
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:57 pm |
|
| Belanna1985 wrote: | | ^What's your point? |
He's trying to prove why Kerry should have won, I think. When you consider that Kerry was man enough to stop things now, and not let them run on into the New Year, it's disappointing to get replies like this from people who voted for Bush.
|
|
|
Birdy
Socialist
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 13502
Location: Here.
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:02 pm |
|
^ I know. He doesn't have to push it like this, I agree. Ah well. You'll always have people like that.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:24 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | Ohio was not called for Bush. Those biased dumbasses at Fox News said so, and that was it. If you were watching CNN, you would have seen it was too close to call, period. But oh well, that doesnt matter... |
It was almost a certainty that Kerry couldn't win. It was the votes from the armed forces that were to be counted up, and they mostly vote republican. And Kerry would have had to have won almost all the 130 000 votes from them to have won.
|
|
|
Deciviel
Captain
Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 508
Location: Joe's Garage
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:34 pm |
|
Great...another four years with that dolt in the whitehouse.
-------signature-------
"Wheeee. Now say 'nuclear wessels'."
|
|
|
Josi Rockholt
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 29 Dec 2001
Posts: 10136
Location: Boston, Ma
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:51 pm |
|
Oh,well, I hear that Hilary Clinton is going to run in 2008.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:04 pm |
|
Holy gosh.
I hope not, 
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:31 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | Ohio was not called for Bush. Those biased dumbasses at Fox News said so, and that was it. If you were watching CNN, you would have seen it was too close to call, period. But oh well, that doesnt matter... |
Yeah, and the Liberals at NBC also said OH is Bush's.
Looks like Kerry's even admitted it now.
With a 125,000 vote margin of victory, and 150,000 votes left to count, Kerry would have to get 95%+ of them...
|
|
|
Toad
Chief of Security
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Posts: 936
Location: The Great Plains
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:25 pm |
|
| Kyre wrote: | | Belanna1985 wrote: | | ^What's your point? |
He's trying to prove why Kerry should have won, I think. When you consider that Kerry was man enough to stop things now, and not let them run on into the New Year, it's disappointing to get replies like this from people who voted for Bush. |
I believe you think wrong. Kerry was not going to win this election. And I just want to rub it into the Michael Moores and the Holywood Celebs and Rosie O'Donells and all the Kerry supporters. It's gloat fest 2004(and you democrats asked for it)!
That is what I really want to say deep down inside. But I despise sore winners, and people who shove it in the loser's face.
I think that there is really two Americas, two visions and two dreams. I respect both, but agree with only one. The Democrats have one dream, and the Republicans have another, and these ideas must mix in just one country. I think you must turn off Fox and CNN and decide what kind of America you want. Do not let someone else decide or persuade you.
One of the only reasons that I dislike Kerry supporters is that you take Bush to be a bad guy. He is a man who will not only profess his faith, but stand up for it as well. I don't believe Kerry did this. I don't HATE any democrat or Kerry supporter, I just disagree on how they percieve things.
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:04 pm |
|
| Lt.CmdrWorf wrote: | | Kyre wrote: | | Belanna1985 wrote: | | ^What's your point? |
He's trying to prove why Kerry should have won, I think. When you consider that Kerry was man enough to stop things now, and not let them run on into the New Year, it's disappointing to get replies like this from people who voted for Bush. |
I believe you think wrong. Kerry was not going to win this election. And I just want to rub it into the Michael Moores and the Holywood Celebs and Rosie O'Donells and all the Kerry supporters. It's gloat fest 2004(and you democrats asked for it)!
That is what I really want to say deep down inside. But I despise sore winners, and people who shove it in the loser's face.
I think that there is really two Americas, two visions and two dreams. I respect both, but agree with only one. The Democrats have one dream, and the Republicans have another, and these ideas must mix in just one country. I think you must turn off Fox and CNN and decide what kind of America you want. Do not let someone else decide or persuade you.
One of the only reasons that I dislike Kerry supporters is that you take Bush to be a bad guy. He is a man who will not only profess his faith, but stand up for it as well. I don't believe Kerry did this. I don't HATE any democrat or Kerry supporter, I just disagree on how they percieve things. |
First of all, if you really believe that Americans need to pull together and agree with each other more often, you're going about it the wrong way by gloating.
Secondly, Bush is, to a certain extent, a bad guy. The reason why so many people hate him (the rest of the world especially so) is because of Iraq. On the other hand, this is exactly why so many people voted for him. I watched a documentary about two days ago, which was investigating the fever pitch atmosphere before the election.
--------------------
Q. Who are you voting for and why?
A. Bush, because the safety of my family comes first.
--------------------
This came up again and again and again. And I agree with it, wholeheartedly. What these people don't seem to realise is that the fearmongering administration of Bush is the very machine that made things dangerous for Americans in the first place!
And while there is hope that Bush can make things right, thereby proving himself on the world stage, can you really see it happening? After all, he doesn't now have to worry about being re-elected. He can just sit back and do what he wants for four years.
- Four more years of isolation from Europe and the rest of the world.
- Four more years of job losses?
- Four more years of disregard for the environment.
- Four more years of a 'war on terror'?
(The ones I amn't so sure of are the questions)
But it's a moot point complaining about it. He did win the popular vote, by about what, three million votes? That says alot. So, yes, he has the trust of alot of Americans. But in my opinion it was Bush who put you folks in a precarious international position in the first place, and then by focusing on that, he was able to be re-elected.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:23 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | Ohio was not called for Bush. Those biased dumbasses at Fox News said so, and that was it. If you were watching CNN, you would have seen it was too close to call, period. But oh well, that doesnt matter... |
Hey, you're forgetting NBC.
| Lt.CmdrWorf wrote: | | Kyre wrote: | | Belanna1985 wrote: | | ^What's your point? |
He's trying to prove why Kerry should have won, I think. When you consider that Kerry was man enough to stop things now, and not let them run on into the New Year, it's disappointing to get replies like this from people who voted for Bush. |
I believe you think wrong. Kerry was not going to win this election. And I just want to rub it into the Michael Moores and the Holywood Celebs and Rosie O'Donells and all the Kerry supporters. It's gloat fest 2004(and you democrats asked for it)!
That is what I really want to say deep down inside. But I despise sore winners, and people who shove it in the loser's face.
I think that there is really two Americas, two visions and two dreams. I respect both, but agree with only one. The Democrats have one dream, and the Republicans have another, and these ideas must mix in just one country. I think you must turn off Fox and CNN and decide what kind of America you want. Do not let someone else decide or persuade you.
One of the only reasons that I dislike Kerry supporters is that you take Bush to be a bad guy. He is a man who will not only profess his faith, but stand up for it as well. I don't believe Kerry did this. I don't HATE any democrat or Kerry supporter, I just disagree on how they percieve things. |
Same here. Agreed.
| Kyre wrote: | | Lt.CmdrWorf wrote: | | Kyre wrote: | | Belanna1985 wrote: | | ^What's your point? |
He's trying to prove why Kerry should have won, I think. When you consider that Kerry was man enough to stop things now, and not let them run on into the New Year, it's disappointing to get replies like this from people who voted for Bush. |
I believe you think wrong. Kerry was not going to win this election. And I just want to rub it into the Michael Moores and the Holywood Celebs and Rosie O'Donells and all the Kerry supporters. It's gloat fest 2004(and you democrats asked for it)!
That is what I really want to say deep down inside. But I despise sore winners, and people who shove it in the loser's face.
I think that there is really two Americas, two visions and two dreams. I respect both, but agree with only one. The Democrats have one dream, and the Republicans have another, and these ideas must mix in just one country. I think you must turn off Fox and CNN and decide what kind of America you want. Do not let someone else decide or persuade you.
One of the only reasons that I dislike Kerry supporters is that you take Bush to be a bad guy. He is a man who will not only profess his faith, but stand up for it as well. I don't believe Kerry did this. I don't HATE any democrat or Kerry supporter, I just disagree on how they percieve things. |
First of all, if you really believe that Americans need to pull together and agree with each other more often, you're going about it the wrong way by gloating.
Oh, it's just fun!
Secondly, Bush is, to a certain extent, a bad guy. The reason why so many people hate him (the rest of the world especially so) is because of Iraq. On the other hand, this is exactly why so many people voted for him. I watched a documentary about two days ago, which was investigating the fever pitch atmosphere before the election.
WHAT! Bush, a bad guy? NOT BY FAR!
--------------------
Q. Who are you voting for and why?
A. Bush, because the safety of my family comes first.
--------------------
This came up again and again and again. And I agree with it, wholeheartedly. What these people don't seem to realise is that the fearmongering administration of Bush is the very machine that made things dangerous for Americans in the first place!
Fearmongering!
And while there is hope that Bush can make things right, thereby proving himself on the world stage, can you really see it happening? After all, he doesn't now have to worry about being re-elected. He can just sit back and do what he wants for four years.
And at last clean up the borders!
- Four more years of isolation from Europe and the rest of the world.
Yeah, four more years of bribed off countries not helping us. (Hints to the UN Oil for Food scandal)
- Four more years of job losses?
No.
- Four more years of disregard for the environment.
Disregard for the environment!?
- Four more years of a 'war on terror'?
The War on Terror will go on! It's not a Bush thing, it's an American thing! A matter of defense! It's a World thing!
(The ones I amn't so sure of are the questions)
But it's a moot point complaining about it. He did win the popular vote, by about what, three million votes? That says alot. So, yes, he has the trust of alot of Americans. But in my opinion it was Bush who put you folks in a precarious international position in the first place, and then by focusing on that, he was able to be re-elected. |
Yes. Both Popular and Electoral this year.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:53 pm |
|
- As far as I'm aware, only Britain, France and Russia had any dealings with the Oil for Food scam, and I know that only one British guy was suspected to be involved (and he's an evil git anyway who I hate). To mention oil seems slightly obtuse, when you consider the position of the US in Iraq.
- Environment? Yes, the environment. Bush has flat out refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, a worldwide agreement to cut down on emissions which pollute the environment. Considering America is, by far, the nation which contributes most pollution, it seems slightly arrogant to ignore this. It's not a magic wand, and it wont cure the Earth's pollution issues, but heck, at least it's a start.
Bush's reasons are even better, too. He wont sign it because it will harm the American economy. Sure, it will, but if all these other countries are making the sacrifice too, why not him?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:50 pm |
|
| Kyre wrote: | - As far as I'm aware, only Britain, France and Russia had any dealings with the Oil for Food scam, and I know that only one British guy was suspected to be involved (and he's an evil git anyway who I hate). To mention oil seems slightly obtuse, when you consider the position of the US in Iraq.
Actually, I don't think Britain was really involved, but France, Russia, Germany, China, and the UN were, and it's been documented.
- Environment? Yes, the environment. Bush has flat out refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, a worldwide agreement to cut down on emissions which pollute the environment. Considering America is, by far, the nation which contributes most pollution, it seems slightly arrogant to ignore this. It's not a magic wand, and it wont cure the Earth's pollution issues, but heck, at least it's a start.
He did not NEED to sign the Kyoto Protocol, and I'm glad he did not.
Bush's reasons are even better, too. He wont sign it because it will harm the American economy. Sure, it will, but if all these other countries are making the sacrifice too, why not him? |
Because he doesn't have to. I agree with him 100%
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:58 pm |
|
The Kyoto Protocol was useless. Canada should never have signed it, it is merely a concession to developing countries and does nothing to limit the effects of global warming. Even I, a strong advocate for environmentally-friendly applications, acknowledge that the Kyoto Protocol will not be effective.
|
|
|
Superman
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 06 Dec 2003
Posts: 10220
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:59 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | The Kyoto Protocol was useless. Canada should never have signed it, it is merely a concession to developing countries and does nothing to limit the effects of global warming. Even I, a strong advocate for environmentally-friendly applications, acknowledge that the Kyoto Protocol will not be effective. |
And, of course, does global warming even exist? Some scientists say it doesn't. But I guess that is another topic for another time.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:00 pm |
|
Yes . . . but I can't resist commenting.
It exists. The actual question is: is it a threat? I tend to say yes. It is not a threat within the next 25 years, perhaps not within the next 50 years. But a responsible society is obligated to look out for its descendants even a century down the line, when global warming will affect us.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:08 pm |
|
| Starfleet Dentist wrote: | | Hitchhiker wrote: | | The Kyoto Protocol was useless. Canada should never have signed it, it is merely a concession to developing countries and does nothing to limit the effects of global warming. Even I, a strong advocate for environmentally-friendly applications, acknowledge that the Kyoto Protocol will not be effective. |
And, of course, does global warming even exist? Some scientists say it doesn't. But I guess that is another topic for another time. |
It does exist, but it's not a threat. I won a debate over this.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
