You know, it's possible for the better man to lose the election

[Still_Loves_John]

even without voter fraud. It seems to me like so many people here are clinging to the possibility of voter fraud because they just don't want to imagine that they live in a country where Bush legitimately won, which is admirable in some ways.

But you know what? Bush won the popular vote, and he won Ohio, not by 537 votes, but by a hundred thousand. It sucks, but he won. After 2000, I think that we became too accustomed to telling ourselves that America didn't actually elect this idiot, but now they have.

What's important, though, is to understand that, even if Bush did legitimately win the election, that doesn't make him right. All it means is he convinced more people to be afraid that two guys might get married than they were of losing their job or being drafted. Kerry appealed to the greater good in people, but Bush appealed to the lowest common denominator, and that's a winning strategy.

You can win unfairly without voter fraud. You can slander your opponent as a baby-killing, gay-loving, bible-banning, compromising, flip-flopping left wing nut and get some people to vote for you, but that doesn't mean you're better.

Kerry could have lost by 80 percent and that wouldn't make our ideas any less right. The fact that Bush legimately got 51% of the vote doesn't make him any less wrong.

[leesa]

1. They used proven voter fraud in 2000, 2002 and the California governor's

recall election. How many times do you need to be screwed in the ass before you notice it??

[bobbieinok]

2. have you read, thought about ANY of the vote fraud threads???

[shraby]

3. Bye bye

:hi: