You may now remove your tinfoil hats: (Official Recount Thread)

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by St Leo
2. Out of curiosity, are Cobb and Badnarik Democratic pawns right now, or is this a personal initiative on their part? I guess we'll never know.

Well, if you look at their agendas, I'm sure they'd rather have anyone in the oval office besides Bush. Plus, since Kerry doesn't want to push this re-election thing himself (to avoid looking like Gore did in 2000), Cobb and Badnarik are the only ones who can really pull this off, aside from some independently wealthy private citizen (who all vote Bush anyways).

But it wouldn't surprise me if they're working together behind the scenes either.

[mrmitchell]

Kerry will not win a single 2008 primary.

[Boris Godunov]

Nader's pushing for recounts, too. It's more for publicity for the 3rd parties. They want to be seen as the ones fighting to make sure every vote is counted and to bring to light election fraud of both major parties.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Kerry will not win a single 2008 primary.

They said the same thing about him in December 2003 for 2004.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm surprised you haven't blamed slavery and AIDS on Reagan.

Did you know that Reagan travelled back in time to the enteenth century and started the first Portuguese slave transportation enterprise?

Also, while working for the McCarthy Inquisitionary Committee, Reagan moonlighted as a biological warfare researcher in the top secret Pasadena labs of the US government. He personally distilled the first virile injection of HIV.

[St Leo]

Seriously, though, Thatcher also deserves her share of the blame.

[mrmitchell]

They said the same thing about him in December 2003 for 2004.

Yes, but 2003 Kerry wasn't the same Kerry that lost an election to a retarded drunken chimp.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

Yes, but 2003 Kerry wasn't the same Kerry that lost an election to a retarded drunken chimp.

He lost by more votes than any other President (excluding Bush 2004) has ever won by. Thats no small thing.

[mrmitchell]

He lost by more votes than any other President (excluding Bush 2004) has ever won by. Thats no small thing.

I think your wording is wrong; you mean he lost by less votes than any President has ever won by? That wouldn't be true either as he lost by 3 million whereas Gore won by 500,000.

I think what you're getting at is Bush had the smallest incumbent reelection margin since 1916, there aren't any other significant records that I've heard of.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

I think your wording is wrong; you mean he lost by less votes than any President has ever won by? That wouldn't be true either as he lost by 3 million whereas Gore won by 500,000.

I think what you're getting at is Bush had the smallest incumbent reelection margin since 1916, there aren't any other significant records that I've heard of.

No. Kerry lost with 57 million votes. In 2000, Bush won with 50 million (Gore got 51 million). Go back every four years and it gets less and less.

In any other election year, Kerry's total would have blown every other winner out of the water. The only candidate to EVER get more than Kerry got was Bush 2004.

[mrmitchell]

Okay. Let me flip your statement:

Bush won by more votes than any other President has ever won by. That's no small thing.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Okay. Let me flip your statement:

Bush won by more votes than any other President has ever won by. That's no small thing.

So what? Bush can't run again, Kerry can.

Besides, even the fact that Bush got more popular votes than Kerry is meaningless. Bush vs Gore 2000 proved that.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
No. Kerry lost with 57 million votes. In 2000, Bush won with 50 million (Gore got 51 million). Go back every four years and it gets less and less.

In any other election year, Kerry's total would have blown every other winner out of the water. The only candidate to EVER get more than Kerry got was Bush 2004.

That's absolutely retarded. There were less PEOPLE in the US then!

[chequita guevara]

There aren't significantly more people in 2004 than in 2000. More people just voted.

[Kuciwalker]

Doesn't make his point any less stupid.