View Full Version : Kerry CHEATED at the debate????????
RJ2kWJ
10-03-2004, 05:38 PM
I dont consider this anything big at all but its just interesting. Either way I dont think it changed the outcome of the debate. Im a big Bush supporter and admit to Kerry taking this one but its just an interesting read...
Section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding "Memorandum of Understanding" that was negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns states:
"No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.... Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium..."
So what did Dem presidential contender John Kerry take out of his jacket as he approached the stage [with his back to the auditorium's audience]?
What did Kerry place on the podium?
Video replays of the Kerry maneuver played all weekend long on the internet.
[A tight zoom analysis of the Boston.Com feed shows Kerry pulling a mysterious item his jacket [14 seconds into video, after commerical]. Kerry appears to unfold some sort of paper seconds later, at his podium.]
A top Kerry campaign source explained to the DRUDGE REPORT late Sunday how Bush supporters were once again trying to distract.
"Kerry did not cheat," said the Kerry insider. "This is more lies from Republicans, who are hoping for a quick change of subject away from the president's performance, and the new polls."
When pressed on the fact that even brandishing a pen from his jacket would have violated debate rules, the Kerry staffer laughed, adding, "see you at the inauguration, Drudge".
I dunno whatever... I doubt anything will come out of this.
chevman
10-03-2004, 05:41 PM
Bush pulled out notes too - go check the video champ.
dmb@uvm
10-03-2004, 05:44 PM
Yeah OK great
RJ2kWJ
10-03-2004, 05:48 PM
Grasping at straws.
I dont think its grasping at straws...
http://img7.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img7&image=0929electoralmap.gif
If anything shouldnt Kerry be grasping for straws?
Once again, electoral maps are worthless. More people who have never voted before will be voting this year, and they aren't polled.
Bush lost. That's really all there is to it.
dmb@uvm
10-03-2004, 05:54 PM
Once again, electoral maps are worthless. More people who have never voted before will be voting this year, and they aren't polled.
Bush lost. That's really all there is to it.
:thumbsup Thats right and mine is going to be helping swing Wisconsin towards Kerry.
RJ2kWJ
10-03-2004, 05:54 PM
Once again, electoral maps are worthless. More people who have never voted before will be voting this year, and they aren't polled.
Bush lost. That's really all there is to it.
Didnt I admit he lost that one?
chevman
10-03-2004, 05:55 PM
I dont think its grasping at straws...
It's grasping at straws because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ELECTION. The debates are manufactured media events - nothing more, nothing less. If you think otherwise, count yourself as one of the 'sheeple.' (5 points if anyone can guess the movie reference).
RJ2kWJ
10-03-2004, 05:59 PM
It's grasping at straws because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ELECTION. The debates are manufactured media events - nothing more, nothing less. If you think otherwise, count yourself as one of the 'sheeple.' (5 points if anyone can guess the movie reference).
I said it was INTERESTING!!! I didnt say it meant anything or changed anything. Are you that fucking dumb or just cant read?
chevman
10-03-2004, 06:02 PM
I said it was INTERESTING!!! I didnt say it meant anything or changed anything. Are you that fucking dumb or just cant read?
fair enough.
wvumascotdmb
10-03-2004, 06:06 PM
Rob
Once again, electoral maps are worthless. More people who have never voted before will be voting this year, and they aren't polled.
What makes you possibly think that this election is going to make more people vote then the last election!?!?!
Where is your reasoning for this?
people have been apathetically not voting for years!
NUTS!
Are you kidding?
Please tell me you're kidding, so I don't need to waste my time here.
mwjorgens
10-03-2004, 06:12 PM
What makes you possibly think that this election is going to make more people vote then the last election!?!?!
Where is your reasoning for this?
people have been apathetically not voting for years!
NUTS!
who is in office? there you go. thats why people are gonna do what the have to to make it to the polls this year
RJ2kWJ
10-03-2004, 06:15 PM
Just curious... If Bush is in Office again will you be shocked? I know Im a Bush supporter but if Kerry wins I wont be shocked.
crozetiga
10-03-2004, 07:29 PM
Just curious... If Bush is in Office again will you be shocked? I know Im a Bush supporter but if Kerry wins I wont be shocked.
No I wouldnt be shocked at all. He has alot of support in this country especially in the heartland. I will be upset :( and really disappointed in people, but not shocked. I will be happy :D but not shocked if Kerry wins. I would, however, be very shocked if Ralph Nader or any 3rd party candidate wins!!! ;)
wvumascotdmb
10-03-2004, 08:01 PM
yeah we'll just see on election day how many of these people who claim they are gonna vote....really do vote! It has been said before it was going to happen and never did...we'll just see! Trust me I wish everyone in the country would vote but it's just not going to happen!!!
PilotC150
10-03-2004, 09:28 PM
If you wanna bring up "cheating," shouldn't be bring up the rule about 2:00 to answer the question, :90 for the rebuttle, then on the next question?
chevman
10-03-2004, 11:13 PM
If you wanna bring up "cheating," shouldn't be bring up the rule about 2:00 to answer the question, :90 for the rebuttle, then on the next question?
or the whole 2000 electon fiasco?
if it weren't for cheating, Bush wouldn't be in office today.
barefoot
10-04-2004, 09:16 AM
or the whole 2000 electon fiasco?
if it weren't for cheating, Bush wouldn't be in office today.
How can you look at all the evidence from then and still say that?
EatSleepJeep
10-04-2004, 09:21 AM
Both candidates had notes and points along with blank notepaper to write on. Anything the Repubs can do to take the attention away from our shattered economy, our misled war, and our lack of respect in the international community.
Third Floor
10-04-2004, 09:42 AM
Once again, electoral maps are worthless. More people who have never voted before will be voting this year, and they aren't polled.
you do realize that some polls take this into effect and poll more than just likely voters right?
chellek23
10-04-2004, 11:03 AM
Actually even polls that are made up of "Likely Voters" poll people from all groups, even the ones that haven't voted before. A weight is put on each category of voter taking into account the average voter turnout of the last 30 or so years. From these formulas you can actually obtain a fairly accurate picture of who is 'likely to vote' and what the current political climate looks like. The important things to look at for polling is the number (N) of Registered voters polled, the margin of error, and whether or not the poll is made up of likely voters or just 'registered voters'. Likely voter polls are almost always more accurate than the latter. It's also a good idea to take into account WHO is taking the poll. Some groups have a better reputation of accuracy than others.
Third Floor
10-04-2004, 12:16 PM
Actually even polls that are made up of "Likely Voters" poll people from all groups, even the ones that haven't voted before. A weight is put on each category of voter taking into account the average voter turnout of the last 30 or so years. From these formulas you can actually obtain a fairly accurate picture of who is 'likely to vote' and what the current political climate looks like. The important things to look at for polling is the number (N) of Registered voters polled, the margin of error, and whether or not the poll is made up of likely voters or just 'registered voters'. Likely voter polls are almost always more accurate than the latter. It's also a good idea to take into account WHO is taking the poll. Some groups have a better reputation of accuracy than others.
where did you get this info? becuase everything that ive read says that a likely voter is someone who has voted in the past and is likely to vote again.
Proof2k3
10-04-2004, 02:51 PM
yeah we'll just see on election day how many of these people who claim they are gonna vote....really do vote! It has been said before it was going to happen and never did...we'll just see! Trust me I wish everyone in the country would vote but it's just not going to happen!!!
Each of the first 4 (or 5 i'm not sure) primaries had record turn outs. Many states are reporting huge increases in new voter registration. If people are willing to come out and vote in primaries, and get registered (which is actually the most annoying part) then I'm pretty sure they'll turn out to vote for the real thing.
chellek23
10-04-2004, 02:55 PM
I got this info from my many political science stats class... And oh yeah working for a pollster for two years. :)
Well, more weight is given to voters who have voted before, but most good polls do not just poll people who have voted in the past. Basically from my understanding this is how it works... Say you want to poll 1000 people. Within that number callers are given a quota of what type of voter they are looking for. Example, 20 black men/women, 50 white males, 60 white females, 20 hispanics... as well as people from each income category, age group, etc.
I could babble on more but it's time for me to go!
mray10
10-04-2004, 04:57 PM
Each of the first 4 (or 5 i'm not sure) primaries had record turn outs. Many states are reporting huge increases in new voter registration. If people are willing to come out and vote in primaries, and get registered (which is actually the most annoying part) then I'm pretty sure they'll turn out to vote for the real thing.
Registering isn't that hard given the extraordinary efforts both campaigns have been going to to find more voters to register. They're at booths in front of the grocery store, on college campuses, everywhere. So a person who signs up outside of Wal-Mart just to shut the person up isn't really likely to vote.
But I do expect this election will see a higher turnout than the last 3 or 4 Pres. elections. I sure hope so, anyway.
Daevian
10-04-2004, 06:38 PM
He pulled out a pen.....
A MAGIC PEN OF DEBATE WINNINGNESS!:lol
marco j
10-04-2004, 07:52 PM
Rob
Once again, electoral maps are worthless. More people who have never voted before will be voting this year, and they aren't polled.
What makes you possibly think that this election is going to make more people vote then the last election!?!?!
Where is your reasoning for this?
people have been apathetically not voting for years!
NUTS!
because if you would have read the papers today . a bunch of swing states are being pounded with the amount of people who are registering last minute. including ohio and wisconsin
pedelen99
10-04-2004, 08:05 PM
because if you would have read the papers today . a bunch of swing states are being pounded with the amount of people who are registering last minute. including ohio and wisconsin
ACT is putting $300 million into the ground game to register people and get out the vote. That's twice as much as the Bush & Kerry campaigns have combined. I have no idea how much MoveOn has committed, but it is significant, and I'm sure that there will be a comparable effort from the Bush side. Karl Rove doesn't get outplayed often (must have something to do with that direct link to Satan he has).
The effort being put into turning out the vote this year is massive and dwarfs previous elections.
- Phil
PilotC150
10-05-2004, 03:16 AM
or the whole 2000 electon fiasco?
if it weren't for cheating, Bush wouldn't be in office today.
If by cheating you mean following proper laws and rules of the electoral college, then yes.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.