Other video games, TV shows, movies, general chit-chat...this is an all-purpose off-topic board where you can talk about anything that doesn't have its own dedicated section.
Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:45 pm
**DISCLAIMER**
I'm not necessarily saying this is some sort of political rigging or a conspiracy theory, I'm just posting this because I thought it could provoke some form of conversation with the more politically informed amongst us.. that does not include myself
Someone from another forum wrote:Have a look at the two screen shots below. Carefully.
What's wrong with these pictures?
I'm told no numbers, texts or figures of any type have been tampered with by the fella who captured the screenshots. It's exactly the way they appeared on the CNN webpage.
Screenshot 1Screenshot 2Some smart bloke from that other forum wrote:By my calculations:
In the first snapshot, there were 452 males voting for Bush.
In the second snapshot, there were 494 males voting for Bush.
This means that there were 42 extra males, but if you work out the figures based on total number of extra men, there have only been an extra 27 males to have voted in total. Meaning that they would have had to vote 1.56 times each (assuming they were all voting for Bush).
Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:57 pm
hmm, so theres more people voting in the second screenshot? isnt it possible that just more votes were counted in the second screenshot?
Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:04 pm
TheCambyManVol3 wrote:isnt it possible that just more votes were counted in the second screenshot?
I would say so, there is an 81 minute difference, plenty of time for more people to vote or for them to update the count. After all, it is the whole point of it being updated.
Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:39 pm
I think this is the "controversial" bit...
This means that there were 42 extra males, but if you work out the figures based on total number of extra men, there have only been an extra 27 males to have voted in total. Meaning that they would have had to vote 1.56 times each (assuming they were all voting for Bush).
Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:01 am
Meh, i don't understand. I'm gonna go load a different thread now, lol.
Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:37 pm
It really does not matter now because Kerry gave up
I'm happy for our country because I believe that Bush will do better than Kerry.
Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:16 am
eh... Bush sucks... it's all about Hillary Clinton in 2008, baby!
yeah too bad our country is too close-minded (read:sexist, racist) to ever elect a woman or a black person to the presidency.
Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:07 am
I didn't really care that much about the election this year...no matter who won we would have a crappy president.
Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:05 am
The G.O.A.T. wrote:I didn't really care that much about the election this year...no matter who won we would have a crappy president.
It could have been worse, might have been Arnold
Mon Nov 08, 2004 9:14 am
He'll be back.
Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:26 am
Arnold for President in 2008? It's not a tumour!.. er... rumour
Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:32 am
qballer wrote:eh... Bush sucks... it's all about Hillary Clinton in 2008, baby!
yeah too bad our country is too close-minded (read:sexist, racist) to ever elect a woman or a black person to the presidency.
Speaking of which, I saw Barak Obama on the NBC or something at 4am this morning, that guy's got something about him. If he were running for President instead of Kerry he would've given Bush a run for his money (assuming the rednecks don't wake up and decide to vote)
No, I didn't feel the need to edit my previous post
Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:39 pm
Lets not joke about Arnold, this is a very serious matter. Im sure when people 1st heard about him wanting to be governor of cali everybody laughed and made jokes.
After all Ronald Reagan was president, and what was he?
There is a back up plan though, if ever he gets elected we can all thank god that he i married to a Kennedy, we all know what happens to them.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.