Why I Can't Vote For Obama
Dear Friends, A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I
sent out an email with a few points. With the election just around the
corner I decided to complete my perspective. Those of you on my e-list
have seen some of this before but it's worth repeating...
First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support.
Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain
why I will not be voting for him.
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness. I
process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower)
means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is
I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because
that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone
from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now
I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus
and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets
abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning
to name a few, wrong economic concerns will soon not matter.
We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, don't judge someone by the
color of their skin but by the content of their character. I don't know
Obama so all I can go off is his voting record. His voting record earned
him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.
NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
To beat Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes
some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what
would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100% rating. There is a
reason the homosexual community supports him. There is a reason
Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him. There is a reason he
said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court. There is a
reason he voted against the infanticide bill. There is a reason he voted
No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. There is a reason he
voted No on banning partial birth abortion. There is a reason he voted No
on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are
conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The
same practice Obama wanted to continue.
Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue
The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedures:
A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead
baby is then removed.
God help him. There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law.
Think about this: You can't give a kid an aspirin without parental
notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental
notification. This is insane.
There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years.
Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright
teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why
Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A
disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 "Go and
make disciples of all nations." This means reproduce yourself. Teach
people to think like you, walk like you; talk like you believe what you
believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets
that said they have a ...
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills
available to the White Community.
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for
Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the
White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of
Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like
this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would
have been marching outside.
This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20
years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can't be
about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the
A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value
system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if
it's a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from
either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.
Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian
James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone
once wrote: "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified
totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and
against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.
Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
So what does all this mean for the nation?
In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to
lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel
1:9 "Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the
king who will reign over them will do."
Then God says
1 Samuel 1:18 " When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the
king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." 19
But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a
king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king
to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." 21 When Samuel
heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The
LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
Here is what we know for sure.
God is not schizophrenic
He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain.
As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so
obviously many people are not hearing from God.
Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama
contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt it.
For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the
face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though
I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion.
He might have to nominate three or four Supreme Court justices, and I am
sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are
against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights,
even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look
the other way because of the economy.
I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I
have two questions for all my liberal friends.
Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,
1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation.
2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the
Blessings, Huntley Brown
OK. There. I posted it. I await the hate mail that's sure to flow since I have to agree with a lot of what this guy says, even if the religious overtones of it all have colored his own viewpoint. That doesn't matter because religious reaction or not, Mr. Brown is entirely correct about Obama.
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil
Well. I guess that's that then.
I agree entirely, Mr. Brown's religious views have certainly colored his stated views in ways that I simply can't entirely agree with, but overall, he's dead on about Barak Obama as far as I can tell. If these are the opinions it takes to wake up Christians, these views should be published everywhere.
Let's add that to the list of reasons not to vote for the slimebag. ACORN gets caught with their hands in the cookie jar by processing false voter registrations, driving homeless guys down to register and vote for Obama, registering Mickey Mouse, and paying a college kid big money to register himself in 73 different precincts so long as he voted for Obama. And the best the Obama campaign can come up with is "McCain is colluding with Bush to rig the election"? Come on. Get real. That's so weak it's not even sauce.
An interesting side story to all this. Not entirely worthy of a full blow post. I was at Taco Hell...er...Bell the other night and overheard a political conversation. A girl was there with several guys. They were talking about miscellaneous political stuff that apparently young folk are worried about. She got up to go to the counter and one of the guys asked her "Barack Obama or John McCain?" She answered "Obama". The collective group she was with loudly booed her for it. Apparently all 8 of them are solid McCain supporters.
The only reason I bring that up is because I've heard persistent rumblings here in California that McCain might actually have a shot at winning the state. Of course the liberal press isn't covering it, but big surprise. Explains why Obama feels he needs to advertise here though. You'd think CA was a given, yes? Maybe those guys at Taco Bell are an indication of a deeper sentiment. One can hope. One should not hold their breath though.
What I actually wanted to talk about was two things:
1. So how about that third debate? Lot better than the first two. McCain sure was channeling his inner angry old man, though. Whatever happened to shutting up and letting the other guy talk?
2. As to Colin Powell, and if you didn't catch what he said you ought to here, frankly, I'm inspired by what he said. Deeply inspired, even, insofar as he echoes things I believe strongly about. Not so much about Obama and Powell's endorsement of him (even if I think he's right), but more about what he said about how things ought to be, in the tone of our politics, and how we treat the issues of the day, what it ought to mean to be an American. There's some real wisdom in there, if we cared to listen to it. It saddens me that I think we will largely not.
If I sound angry, I am. Not at you, at the arrogance of the left to think they know best what's right for myself, my life, and my country. I'm not angry at you. Just disappointed in you
3rd debate. What else is there to say other than McCain wiped the floor with Obama. Nailed him on every key economic issue he needed to. Pointed out the socialist nature of his policies, and told us all how his alternative is better. The preservation of a free market society is the number one issue right now. Obama seeks to utterly destroy that.
I have no desire to listen to what Powell had to say. It's enough to know that he's an anti-war crazy person now and his comments about how it wouldn't matter if Obama was a muslim who hung out with terrorists is something I find deeply disturbing from a man who used to be in a position of great power.
This is not, I hasten to remind you, the 1840s, say, when you really COULD get away with all sorts of shenanigans, many much worse than this.
Now, what I am worried about as regards voting fraud is things such as "losing" ballot boxes, miscounts, and other such official tomfoolery that we've seen before, and seen on both sides. That is what smacks of Soviet election tactics, although if Obama were really running Soviet style, John McCain would be dead. Let us not misconstrue the Soviets, here.
As regards Obama and ACORN, I feel as I do regarding Obama and Ayers. I have heard the accusations. I have heard the rebuttals of those accusations, in longer form than Obama's simple ones during the debates. I have further had the opportunity to listen to Obama talk at length on all manner of subjects. I have seen how he acts. I find it very difficult to believe that his future for us involves bread lines and serious overuse of the word comrade. Nor do I find it credible to believe that he is some sort of Manchurian candidate. I do find evidence that he has had to work with some people I find at best foolish, at worst, to use Obama's term, dispicable.
That having been said, I find many things that are frankly admirable about Obama. He is eloquent. He is calm and composed, and he presents himself as a leader ought to present himself. Furthermore, while I may not always agree with his conclusions, and one very strong disagreement I have with him is on the subject of Iraq, he shows every sign of having given mature, rational thought on many issues, including all of the great issues of our time. And he has gone to great lengths to show that he has, and I think that if you watch the debates fairly, agree or disagree with him, you must admit that he has made that intellectual effort. And I feel very strongly that that is an important characteristic in a leader.
Furthermore, throughout the course of this campaign, Obama's rhetoric, while often tough and sometimes wrong, has been generally honorable, and every time I have seen him speak, he proves that anew to me. It meant a lot, for instance, that in the depths all that nonsense about the Palin family, he came out and said, very plainly, that families were off limits. He has gone out of his way to be civil, polite, and high-minded, and those things mean a lot to me.
Now, all of that said, let us turn to John McCain. Also, I think, a great man, who has done great things for this nation in peace and war. And let me be clear on that, I respect that a very great deal. And I respect him for the great balance of his career as being the man he says he is - the principled maverick. We disagree on issues, and many of them, and if the Democrats had been running a lesser man, I suspect I should have had little trouble voting for him.
Or should I say voting for him as he used to be. I am deeply saddened that McCain, who I have heard speak intelligently and well on several issues of import previous to this campaign, has seemingly put himself in a position now where I am unable to detect a coherent and detailed plan for the nation beyond "trust me, I'll take care of it." I cannot in good faith but blind trust in any man on issues of this magnitude. And I'm not just saying that - I've been paying attention to all the candidates, of both parties, for basically the whole of this election cycle and in some cases before. I know reasonably well what John McCain's A game looks like, and this isn't it.
Now, you want to talk about associations. If it is poor judgement to associate oneself with terrorists on education boards, which I suppose you may make that assessment, that is one thing, impacting as it does the fate of schoolchildren in Chicago. I find it of rather lesser judgement to make as one's Vice Presidential pick, a person who has something like a 20% chance historically of running the country, Sarah Palin, who is plainly and obviously unqualified for that job in every single way that matters, as I have spent whole threads pointing out.
But such things pale to trivialities when I see the state to which McCain has sunk in the past few weeks. I once knew John McCain as an honorable man, willing to stand up against dishonorable things, a man who, like Obama is now doing, was willing to take the high road, who once said he wouldn't sell his soul to win an election. And I think it a vast tragedy that McCain has, in fact, sold his soul to try to win an election. I have seen his ads, I have heard him speak, I have heard his campaign speak. I have seen the lies, and I have seen the nastiness to which he has sunk. And it is my feeling that if you have no strengths on which to stand besides demonifying and belittling your opponent, well by God you deserve to lose, and good riddance.
You'll disagree with most or all of that, I'm sure. Y'all have fun doing so. Like I said, I'm not particularly interested in debating the points, such as they are. Debating if honorable public servents are terrorists or not holds no interest to me. Debating the issues does, but there's been scarce little of that lately, so.
A couple other things, though.
If I sound angry, I am. Not at you, at the arrogance of the left to think they know best what's right for myself, my life, and my country.
As I say, y'all have fun with that. For myself, I have seen one side that wants to control me and mine, knows what is best for me and mine, wants to control my life, that of my hypothetical wife and children, my religion come right down to it, and even my death. This side has not been the left.
3rd debate. What else is there to say other than McCain wiped the floor with Obama. Nailed him on every key economic issue he needed to. Pointed out the socialist nature of his policies, and told us all how his alternative is better. The preservation of a free market society is the number one issue right now. Obama seeks to utterly destroy that.
I will grant you that McCain did better in this debate than in previous. I also think Obama did worse than in previous debates, but. That aside, there are two defining moments from that debate for me. The first was really throughout the debate, where McCain continually interrupted Obama quite rudely, continually rolled his eyes, sighed, and generally showed a complete and utter lack of civility, much less respect. In short, he looked completely out of control and very unpresidential, and I don't think better of him for it. Once or twice, well, that's the nature of debate. Every time the other guy speaks, however, is another thing entirely. Secondly, that moment where Obama clearly stated elements of his tax plan, and McCain looked at him like he was a space alien. Very tragic.
None of which changes the basic fact that I think Obama is right on an awful lot more things than McCain, but we've been over that.
Frankly, as somebody who DID not only listen to what he said, but listened to the press conference after, and in general makes an attempt to understand Powell over time, you haven't got the least idea what you're talking about. In short, everything you just said is wrong, and is directly refuted by what Powell said in both videos. In them, he takes a nuanced but generally supportive view of what we've done in Iraq for the one, and he in no way said the latter statement for two.
And even if he had, your continued insistance on political orthodoxy in information is not only deeply disturbing to me, especially considering that he's Colin Powell, not some fringe lunatic, it happens to be giving you bad information, as I just mentioned. That's besides the point that the grand total of those two clips runs to about 12 minutes of your time, which isn't much.
Beyond that, it is also my understanding that nowadays you have to prove who you are at time of voting, and indeed such is my experience. It seems extremely unlikely to me that Mickey Mouse could do this, among others. Nor do I figure as how registering in 73 different precincts is going to get you far, both for that very same reason, and because some quick math tells me that if it takes the guy half an hour at each voting station, which considering transit times and lines is probably fair, it would take 36.5 hours to vote at all of them. Considering the polling day, this seems a bit hard.
How exactly does one have to prove their identity when they mail in their absentee ballot? How many hours does it take to complete and mail-in 73 absentee ballots, ad how much transit time and waiting in lines is involved? For that matter, even if this criminal choose to vote in person, many states this year are having early elections as well, are you really sure that it couldn't be done?
That aside, you also have to prove who you are when registering to vote, as well. In OR, I'm moderately sure that included SSN, and I believe CT did as well. Which, last I checked, certifying such things was a state job, with state elections folks checking to make sure you aren't registered elsewhere. Hence unless the guy who registered did so in a bunch of different states, which it didn't sound like he did, he'll be caught, as indeed he seems to have been if we're talking about it.
Based on personal experience it's probably possible to register in multiple different states if you can provide proof of residency, but that's reasonably hard for most of us.
That aside, everything I've read on the matter indicates that elections folks are aware of the issue and are dealing with it, and in any case it's not so widespread as all that - somewhere between 26 and 40 cases nationwide 2002-2005 or so, if this is to be believed, among others.
All of that having been said, it is also federal law that first time voters in federal elections, namely everybody ACORN registers, fraudulently or not, must provide photo ID at voting time. Which makes that whole Mickey Mouse thing a little hard to back up. Now, it may be that there are ways around that for absentee ballots for first time voters. I don't know - I've never had an absentee ballot as such. OR handles things differently, as I say.
Now, even given all of that, I will grant you that it is likely some minimal amount of voter fraud still occurs. But, and this is important, most federal elections are decided by somewhere between tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands or millions in the case of the president. It is difficult to believe that, in this country, voter fraud could be perpetrated to such a degree that some 540,000 (to use the 2000 split) to 3+ million (in 2004) could go undetected and unprosecuted. We are not, to be sure, Zimbabwe.
There is of course the anomoly of the 2000 election, and I suppose you could say that ACORNites or whomever will simply drum up the couple few hundred votes they'll need to carry whichever state it is that's key, but frankly, such a task would involve knowing the minds of every single voter in the country, and knowing which way the election was going to swing in sufficient time to do all that fake ballot punching. I think it goes without saying that we lack that sort of precognition, though I'm sure the politicians and pollsters would love it.
And that's just the bloody obvious stuff. If you believe the New York Times and this New Yorker editorial, which I suppose you won't - political orthodoxy of information sources and all that - ACORN is not only aware of the issue, they've fired the folks what did it, and pre-sorted the registration cards to flag all the bad ones. Which is nice and all, but even if you choose not to believe that, I think the rest of what I've said speaks reasonably authoritatively.
End result: Either John McCain will succeed on his own merits and become President of the United States, or Barack Obama will succeed on his own merits and do the same. You may believe as you wish, but having examined the evidence, I for one find all talk of vast voter fraud conspiracies to be utterly baseless and without any sort of merit.
With orthodox left wing news sources like the New York Times, it's no wonder you think that way. After all, according to them, there's no problem whatsoever! Fine. That being the case, why is ACORN under federal investigation in 15 states now? Why is it the 15 states considered likely to be battlegrounds? You don't find that the least bit suspicious? Don't you wonder why the media isn't looking into this? Why the NYT and LAT and ChiT are all looking the other way? With widespread voter fraud in 15 states, we could very well be looking down the throat of another 2000 election where the Dems very nearly stole that one in Florida. They tried again in 2004, but to his credit John Kerry told them to back off. I don't trust them not to be doing the same thing now. We just happened to catch them in the act this time around.
And RE: the Powell thing. Racist at its core. He endorsed Obama because he's black. Nothing more. Listen to his words carefully and you'll hear it there.
Actually I got that way with my own brain, thanks. The vast majority of everything I said up there was based on experience, laws, nonpartisan studies, and a little of my own logic. There's also various historical facts related to poll workers and state officials being responsible for most voting supression/fraud, but that wasn't the issue here so I ignored it.
It's actually not all battleground states - CT is one of the states in question, I believe, and believe you me, it's pretty solid Obama country up here. That aside, one very good reason you get a lot of voter registration drives in battleground states is...because they're battleground states. People have vested interest in getting out the vote one side or the other. So no, I don't find that suspicious at all.
That aside, one thing I will also do is give ACORN as an organization the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. My understanding is that they are and have been cooperating, so, fine. Let's see what the courts come up with. Until then, I'll be discounting it for all the reasons I gave up above.
As to the media, I am unconvinced that any of the accounts I have read have been sufficient one way or the other, including both the NYT and Fox, among others. But then, as I say, I've been paying attention to other, actually campaign-related issues, and not so much things I consider to be tangential like this.
Having showed up for that election, and partaken very deeply of the coverage of that time, it's my opinion that neither party was particularly a shining star in that election, and while I've never been a "OMG BUSHITLER STOLE TEH ELEKSHUNS AAAAAAA!" type, I will suggest that nobody in Florida particularly covered themselves in glory that time. 2004 wasn't even close to the same thing.
That aside, not only does every credible study I've ever read on the subject discount mass voter fraud, they further discount mass voter fraud by Democrats, going as far back in the study I linked to above as I think 1996. Considering that the majority of elected national offices for over a decade now have been Republican, I think that's fairly obvious, even discounting the other things I said above. And again, as regards to attempting to pull a 2000 Florida on purpose, I discussed that above, too, and it's not hard to realize that, not only is such a tactic, well, utterly fucking retarded, given the way elections information works it's essentially impossible to plan such a thing in any event. And again, like I said, if you expand vote inflation to try and outright win the popular vote, you're talking about somehow inventing hundreds of thousands and probably millions of votes, which would have to involve some sort of vast conspiracy.
And too, regarding Barack Obama's possible place in all of this, I would suggest that given the tenor of his campaign and what we have seen of his character that it is unlikely on the one hand, and that given his massive popularity and current excellent poll standings on the other, that for him to be party to such a conspiracy of voter fraud would suggest completely Nixonian levels of paranoia and stupidity, and I for one find that very hard to believe, especially since from all I can tell the people acting Nixonian in this campaign are all Republicans.
Funnily enough, I have listened to it pretty carefully, some ten times or so now, I suppose, and I've further listened to the whole interview version of the clip, where Tom Brokaw asks him something to the tune of "Well, aren't people just going to say of this 'Oh, he's just saying it because he's black?'" and Powell responds by noting that, in the first case, he gave the choice significant thought over months, and in any event had he wanted do the race thing, he could have done that months ago.
Now, I'm prepared to take him at his word on that, but it furthermore seems fairly obvious considering that, in 7 minutes worth of remarks he lays out a pretty good slate of arguments for the one candidate, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with judgement and being right about things, and in any case to say that he based it on race is essentially contrary to what we, or at least I know about the man.
It is very difficult for me to see somebody say "I thought John McCain stumbled very badly handling the economic crisis, and furthermore I think the tone of his campaign is terrible and isn't addressing the needs of America," and get racist out of that. I mean, if you listen carefully to what he said, and all.
And speaking as a white guy who agreed with every single thing Powell said, does that make me a racist too, or what? How does that end up working? I mean, I guess it seems to me like the man might be making a principled choice after having carefully examined both his choices, and acting like a conscientious American citizen and furthermore an honorable man, which are things we used to value him for, and things we used to give people the benefit of the doubt on.
I guess I'm just naive or something.
We're also unlikely to agree on Powell, since it was pretty obvious to me why he did what he did. And given my assessment of Obama, I cannot fathom how anyone could come to such a conclusion about him. Which suggests Powell has some serious issues of his own, and probably explains more why Bush didn't pick him for the second go around. Anyway. Apparently an awfully touchy subject, so perhaps we should leave it be?
Except you're missing the point. You don't need millions of votes. We don't elect a president through popular majority. If we did, things would have been very different in 1992, 1996, and 2000. Hence why battleground states even exist. Electoral college and all that rot, right? So target battleground states with voter drives. Check. Got 6 or 7 that are "swing" states? Target them with massive fraud drives to swing a few thousand bogus votes your way. Done deal. You've decided an election with maybe at most 100,000 bogus votes. That seems to me like it would be quite manageable and in line with what ACORN has actually been caught doing. Throw some good old fashioned dirty Democrat politics in to the mix with the Obama campaign pointing fingers at the Republicans, the media going along with it, and what started off as a small surgical operation explodes into a national trend that affects polling in a wider area than you're even active in.
Sadly, the vast majority of people in this country form their political opinions from sound bites on the 6 o'clock news each night. Where if you tune in, you find all sorts of heaps of praise for Obama style socialism, and loads of attacks directed toward the evil capitalist pig greedy Republicans who only care about giving tax cuts to rich people. It sinks in. Even though it's all transparently biased in favor of Democrats. So when the press reports on accusations made against ACORN and then plays a clip from an ACORN rep who says McCain only filed the charges because he's racist, and fails to offer up someone from the McCain campaign to counter that, that's all people hear. A one sided biased presentation that went unchallenged. Therefore it must be true, right?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this translate to, "I think anyone else who thinks rather differently from me in assessing a public figure's character has serious issues comprehending reality?" Now, I don't want to hear about how you're right because Obama is so clearly terrible for the country. I know that you think that, and why you do. I want to know if I was accurate in my version of what you said.
Bill Clinton got right about 45 million votes to George HW Bush's 39 million and Perot's about 20 million.
Bill Clinton got 32 states plus Washington DC, for 370 electoral votes, to George HW Bush's 18 states and 168 electoral votes.
Which isn't even remotely close, when you get right down to it.
Bill Clinton got 47 and change million votes, versus Bob Dole's 39 and a bit million.
Bill Clinton got 31 states and DC for 379 electoral votes, to Bob Dole's 19 states and 159 electoral votes.
Which is even worse for the Republicans than 1992.
Now, for 2000, you are correct.
Al Gore got something very close to 60 million votes, George W Bush on order of 400 or 500k less.
Al Gore got 20 states and DC for 266 electoral votes, whereas George W Bush got 30 states worth 271 electoral votes.
Which was, as we all know, very very close, and essentially decided by Florida. This is also unique in various ways for many years worth of elections, going back to the 19th century. Ultimately 2004 would go back to looking like a standard election.
So no, if you want somebody who lost the popular vote and became president, you need to go back to Harrison versus Cleveland in 1888.
That aside, again, to successfully pull this off on a national scale, you would first need to identify the key battleground states, accurately, using poll data, which we all agree is somewhat inaccurate. Remember that said results can often vary daily. You also need to start a massive voter registration/fraud drive in sufficient time to meet state deadlines, which can be weeks or months before the election. That seems moderately difficult to me. Or you could just do it nationwide, which is a little less tailored, but prevents that whole guessing wrong thing, but that's not really what you're saying here, so.
So, ok. Given a whole bunch of voter reg cards back to ACORN in this case, a hundred thousand or so as you say, assuming for the sake of argument that ACORN itself isn't weeding out bad ones to help the elections officials, which as it turns out ACORN is apparently doing, you now have 100k+ bogus reg cards going to state elections officials, who are supposed to be checking in various ways for bad cards, which it appears they are doing. Now, assume you get all 100k+ bad registrations past the elections officials, who are apparently, every single one of them in multiple states, corrupt, completely incompetent, or both. Assuming that, according to the Help America Vote Act of 2002, all first time voters, which every single one of these bogus votes would be, must present photo ID in order to get a ballot and vote. Which assumes that somebody somewhere made up 100,000 or more fake IDs, and good enough fakes to pass inspection, which suggests that either many many DMVs in many many states are very corrupt or incompetent, or somebody somewhere has access to some, considering how good DLs get made these days, very good fake ID creation stuff, which IME not so much.
Remember that evidence suggests that, in the last decade, nation-wide, total prosecution for illegal voting has been something like a hundred or two, dropping to 26-40 between 2002-2005.
The idea of a national conspiracy to commit voting fraud on an unprecedented scale, for a guy who is consistently winning, given all those difficulties, seems a little whack to me.
All of this ignores your bit about apparent Democratic smear tactics while exonerating the Republicans, and also whatever media bias there may or may not be. Neither of which is particularly germane to a voting fraud discussion, and frankly I'm sick and tired of arguing about them, as we never seem to get anywhere productive on the subjects.
What ACORN claims to be doing and what the truth is are two different things. Plenty of people have deliberately tested them to see what would happen and got bogus registrations past them without so much as a blink. It is therefore naive to simply accept them at their word when all one needs to do is Google for a bit and you'll find out.
And yet, said same state officials told the judge in the case that was brought that there's no systems in place to coordinate the kind of database searches this would require. The state made no bones about it. Their entire argument against the Republican lawsuit was not that they didn't want to comply, but that they are unable to do so due to bizarre technical systems issues preventing them from doing so. The court agreed with the Republicans and ordered them to comply with the law, since the law makes no exceptions for "technical issues". The liberal wackjob judges on the state supreme court there overturned the decision on the basis that it's not the state's fault they can't comply! I don't know how else to put it, but there's your conspiracy if you want one. The supreme court of Ohio KNOWS the federal law. Yet they told the state they don't have to comply because doing so is impossible??? Uh....
Some percentage corrupt, some percentage incompetent. Large portion simply overwhelmed with the situation. Have you been to a government office lately? Ever? Last time I was in a welfare office, the system couldn't cope. Last time I went to a physical unemployment office, the whole thing was a mess. So much so the state was ordered to clean it up and the only way they could do that was to close every last office and move all operations to phone banks. ACORN knows they can't possible check every last ballot, even if they're genuinely trying to comply with the law. Which I don't honestly believe Ohio is attempting to do anymore after the lib judges gave them a way out.
Guess what? The fake documents industry is very good at what they do. Just ask the various illegal aliens living here how good their fake IDs and social security cards are. California has one of the most technically sophisticated driver's licenses in the world. Not just in the country. And it gets faked routinely. The bad guys can get ahold of the same mass production equipment the DMV uses. Downside of a free country as it were. Get one or two people working for you on the inside and you don't need to corrupt the entire agency. Further, cops and other law enforcement agents get trained to spot fake IDs and it takes months and months of training to do it well. Pollsters? Not so well trained. Even poor imitations would be more than enough to get past someone at the polling site who's trying to verify ID for new voters. Unless you're going to suggest that the poll workers have gone through police ID training? Somehow I think they haven't.
However, I think that whether voter fraud would be easy to do, and whether it's actually been done, are two separate questions, and in the second, I agree with Dwip that what with the foresight, luck, and massive scale necessary to pull off actually stealing an election through fraudulent registrations, doing so not really feasible. (However, if you add in corruption by the poll workers, voter intimidation, and purges - then we might be talking.) Which isn't to say that we shouldn't investigate ACORN for what they're doing, and punish them if and in respect to where they've broken the law.
And please to be responding to my above post.
A copy of my PA driver's license? Ok. Fake or not, by the time Xerox gets done making an ass quality 2D black & white image of it, no state official will be able to tell if I didn't just take Photoshop to town and fudge up numerous copies of my so-called identity and mail them all in with copies of said form to PO boxes all over the place months before the election. One can register to vote anytime. One can also rent PO boxes which then forward all mail sent to them to another address. Nothing stops me from using one centralized place. On my own, I'm pretty sure that with shop skills I could fake 30 or so registrations. [Ditto disclaimer: FBI or whoever you are, I ain't doing this!]
We note also that not once have I ever been asked for picture ID to vote. Ever. Not even when I was a newbie. I think not only should this be required for new voters, but for every voter, all the time. Every election. No ID? No vote. Period.
You and Dwip both seem to be assuming that all this got started 3 days before the deadline to register. I'm saying this got started months and months before the deadline. In the midst of primaries when nobody was paying much attention on a federal scale. Primaries being about state stuff, and yes even who the state nominates for president. I have no doubt rampant fraud was involved in registering folks then too. Especially in open primary states.
And in answer to your other post: The way you worded the question leaves no room for the perfectly valid stance that being right is enough.
So. Colin Powell has issues comprehending reality and/or is being racist because he thinks and speaks differently from you, and you're right. Valid?
Cynical? You betcha. Democrats have given me no reason to trust their motives and intentions. Neither do RINO's. All one needs to do to know socialism is a disaster is look at Cuba, Russia, Western Europe ( the Easterners learned the hard way ), China ( they seem to be coming around ), Venezuela, and a whole host of other South American countries. Anyone who openly endorses candidates who support the same systems has "serious issues" and I dare say has problems comprehending reality. Or is just incredibly naive. I'll leave it up to you to decide which.
Regardless, none of this has a thing to do with whether I'm right or not, and history is a harsh teacher. I'm still holding out a slim hope that we'll learn the lesson before it destroys us completely.
Yeah. And we wonder why the FBI feels the need to start their own investigation? Yet another example of being caught in the act, though at this point too late to do anything about it.