Did Clinton cheat?

chewy

ok if here are doubts over this election and the 2000 one what about '96, '94 etc etc, democrat administrations are are probably as corrupt as Republican ones?

and when does one have imperfect elections which this one was to all out fraud? What Im saying is that are clear documentated occurances of voter intimidation and challenging and people spending huge effort to remove people from voting rolls or even add them, but this is only been talked about in reference to the last two elections ,why not Clinton too?

or a question that came up in the split the forum thread...

Who has more influence on your life, as someone who lives in Ireland, Bush or Bertie?

RuggieBear

Huh!?

any links to allegations....?

aidan_walsh

I think this is supposed to be a "STFU about the US" thread... Either that or a troll...

And right now my billy goats are looking pretty scared...

Boggle

I see your point but (not that I remember that far back) I seem to remember Clinton being a rather popular and competent president whereas bush is a bumbling moron.... 'spose the theories are probably brought out of the disbelief that anyone could vote for such an idiot.

By the by dont underestimate the effects an american president can have on our economy.... if he encouraged companies to move amnuf home from Ireland, you would see a dramatic effect on those Irish companies who make their livings supplying these companies.... (for example, what would happen if Intel left Leixlip or Dell left Limerick??)

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

why not Clinton too?

Why not do the research?

Who has more influence on your life, as someone who lives in Ireland, Bush or Bertie?

Generally tends to be equal.

mycroft

chewy wrote:

ok if here are doubts over this election and the 2000 one what about '96, '94 etc etc, democrat administrations are are probably as corrupt as Republican ones?

and when does one have imperfect elections which this one was to all out fraud? What Im saying is that are clear documentated occurances of voter intimidation and challenging and people spending huge effort to remove people from voting rolls or even add them, but this is only been talked about in reference to the last two elections ,why not Clinton too?

chewy of all your inane posts this must be the most inane.

You wouldn't bother coming up with anything aside from a flimish accusation, this post rivals Hitler's brain is alive and well in America by Omnicorp.

Clinton won solid majoritys in both his elections which if you'd bothered to do any research you'd have found this out. Voter turn out was poor republicans only really won in stronghold states.

Sand

any links to allegations....?

Surely you mean proof? Though maybe not.

I seem to remember Clinton being a rather popular and competent president

Do a little research on the mans foreign policy. Limit yourself to his dealings with the UN in Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti and the Balkans for starters - I mean Clinton did get UN security council approval for attacking little old Serbia didnt he? He did support the UN in Somalia didnt he? He did rush to help in Rwanda didnt he? He did carry out a well planned and highly successful intervention in Haitia that allowed the repatriation of boat people didnt he? Then maybe look into how he dealt with Iraq and how the UN inspections there came to an end when Saddam threw them out. Or how he dealt with the emerging threat of Al Qaida. Million dollar missles and 10 dollar tents might crop up.

Popular? Yes. Competent.... as a political operator very much so.

Victor

mycroft wrote:

Clinton won solid majoritys in both his elections

This is the main point, even (the correction of) substantial corruption wouldn't have changed the result.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

chewy of all your inane posts this must be the most inane.

You wouldn't bother coming up with anything aside from a flimish accusation, this post rivals Hitler's brain is alive and well in America by Omnicorp.

Clinton won solid majoritys in both his elections which if you'd bothered to do any research you'd have found this out. Voter turn out was poor republicans only really won in stronghold states.

i think clinton was helped by ross perot in 92 who split the right wing vote
then in 96 again ross perot but not as much as 92
of course he was the incumbent then the economy was going good
and he was up against bob dole remember he fell off a platform not very presidential looking
i haven't checked but afaik clinton did not get over 50% of the vote
in either 92 or 96
but i have never heard of any suggestion of cheating

of course ff/pd did't get 50% of the vote either

Capt'n Midnight

mycroft wrote:

you wouldn't bother coming up with anything aside from a flimish accusation, this post rivals Hitler's brain is alive and well in America by Omnicorp.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1855960&postcount=91
ROFL - forgot about that one

Look at the elections in New York where a previous mayor's campaign cost the equilivant of $92 per vote obtained. Both sides are corrupt, but that doesn't make it right.

chewy

mycroft you take yourself a bit too seriously don't you

Hobbes

Just for the note. Saddam threw the inspection teams out of Iraq not because the inspection teams were actually inspecting as they should of been. What they were doing was spying on the country for the the US+UK. It was a major embarrassment for the inspection teams at that time.

It was covered on this very board some time ago.

As for what Clinton 'did' + 'didn't do' in his terms speaks volumes compared to Bush. At least he didn't manage to alienate the whole world while pushing the US agenda.

mycroft

chewy wrote:

mycroft you take yourself a bit too seriously don't you

Only compared to some......

bonkey

Would you two girls quit with the bitch-fight?

Stabshauptmann

That’s something that would make a good discussion though: Who has a better record on the international scene, Bush or Clinton? Sand, while posting in a clearly belligerent and biased manner, is actually on the right track (and that’s only a short list, there was questionable carry on in Indonesia, Sudan and other places as well).

The great thing about Clinton was that he was great with spin. I believed him, and still would only for a few very interesting books by Chomsky (See: A new generation draws the line).

Clinton seemed intelligent and competent where as I feel insulted when Bush lies because he has so little respect for us that he makes no effort to seem truthful sincere or plausible.

However I think that Clintons domestic policy was (marginally) better than Bush’s. The true test of a president is what they do in their second term when they don’t have to worry about reelection.

mycroft

Necromancer wrote:

That’s something that would make a good discussion though: Who has a better record on the international scene, Bush or Clinton? Sand, while posting in a clearly belligerent and biased manner, is actually on the right track (and that’s only a short list, there was questionable carry on in Indonesia, Sudan and other places as well).

The great thing about Clinton was that he was great with spin. I believed him, and still would only for a few very interesting books by Chomsky (See: A new generation draws the line).

Clinton seemed intelligent and competent where as I feel insulted when Bush lies because he has so little respect for us that he makes no effort to seem truthful sincere or plausible.

However I think that Clintons domestic policy was (marginally) better than Bush’s. The true test of a president is what they do in their second term when they don’t have to worry about reelection.

Take a look at the camp David summit. Clinton looked like the great statesman and Palestine got boned.

It's one of the many great myths about the Israeli Palestinian conflict that Palestinian officals rejected peace, it's used time and time by the Israelis' as justification "The Palestinians rejected peace". When on close examination the terms of the agreement would have led to an emasculated Palestinian state.

Clinton's unwilliness to allow US troops to engage in serious peace keeping roles in his first term due to Somalia greatly hampered the UN, and the botched handling of Kosovo with the "stragegic" bombing will lead to bitterness and simpering anti US sentiments in the region.

The simple fact is Clinton either ignored a litanty of situations or some cases exaserbated problems to create the litany of world problems to grow.

He supported Saudi Arabia allowing the further rise of terrorist groups.

He continued funding Israeli with a budget of approx $7 billion in weaponary alone, which until a US president stops doing this you'll never have middle eastern peace. I can't believe any US brokered peace accord in the occupied terrirtories can be taken seriously until they stop giving guns to one side.

He ignored the taliban pretty much.

He gave good reasons for Muslim resentment in the west with his bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutial company, and among Kosovo muslims.

Would you two girls quit with the bitch-fight?

Oooooh look at the state of her

Okay I'll play nice, but chewy for FFS would it kill you to some thought or a shred of research before posting these inane ideas?

Stabshauptmann

mycroft wrote:

Take a look at the camp David summit. Clinton looked like the great statesman and Palestine got boned.

Thats it in a nutshell, he was as bad if not worse than Bush but he had the image.

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

the botched handling of Kosovo with the "stragegic" bombing will lead to bitterness and simpering anti US sentiments in the region.

But if and when it does, it will be because whoever is bitter and/or anti-US hates freedom and the American way of life...not because the US botched anything, ever.

Okay I'll play nice, but

No buts. Just play nice.

jc

the_syco

Boggle wrote:

I see your point but (not that I remember that far back) I seem to remember Clinton being a rather popular and competent president whereas bush is a bumbling moron....

Aye, but America got attacked a number of times, & Clinton did nothing. Bush comes in, the whole place is in tatters, and the WTC get hit again (the 1st time being when Clinton was there)... and Bush reacted.

RuggieBear

the_syco wrote:

Aye, but America got attacked a number of times, & Clinton did nothing. Bush comes in, the whole place is in tatters, and the WTC get hit again (the 1st time being when Clinton was there)... and Bush reacted.

I'd like to think that Clinton would have reacted too...but perhaps he wouldn't have invaded and occupied Iraq...

Yoda

This report of fraud in Ohio and Florida is rather chilling. http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater270.html

Stabshauptmann

was there something about ppl not registered to vote being allowed to vote or some thing strange

sovtek

Sand wrote:

Then maybe look into how he dealt with Iraq and how the UN inspections there came to an end when Saddam threw them out.

Do I really need to repeat this again???????????????
Saddam did not throw out the inspectors in 1998, or any other year.
Otherwise I commend you on a very effective tactic...repeat something often enough and it becomes "truth".