Was the 2004 election stolen?

[D H]

i assure you, i am not joking at all. i believe the conspiracy theory that says Kerry was planted into the presidential election so that Bush would win.

 

Dean was also a Yalie. Could it be that the infamous Dean Scream that tanked the Dean campaign was done on purpose as a part of a grand scheme by Yalies to turn the Democratic nomination over to fellow Yalie John Kerry, who would in turn hand the election over to GW? Something so bizzare must be true!

[iglak]

Dean was also a Yalie. Could it be that the infamous Dean Scream that tanked the Dean campaign was done on purpose as a part of a grand scheme by Yalies to turn the Democratic nomination over to fellow Yalie John Kerry, who would in turn hand the election over to GW? Something so bizzare must be true!

 

it's possible. but he's not a member of the Skull and Bones society.

also, if Dean was winning the primaries, and his intent was to let GW win, he could have done so during the presidential election, and his Dean Scream wouldn't matter at all.

 

it's equally possible that the "Deaen Scream" was purposefully caused by anyone who had some control of the technical details of the situation that made Dean's voice seem like a pointless scream (specifically: whether the microphone was noise-filtering or not), or that it was sabotaged in that way.

[D H]

it's possible.

 

No it is not. I was joking. Most conspiracy theories are just plain nuts; the conspiracy theory that Kerry intentionally tanked the election is chock full of nuts.

[iglak]

No it is not. I was joking. Most conspiracy theories are just plain nuts; the conspiracy theory that Kerry intentionally tanked the election is chock full of nuts.

yeah, i'm aware that you were joking.

and as such, i pointed out the obvious difference between your nonsense conjecture and the Kerry & Bush conspiracy theory, while pointing out that everything is technically possible.

 

i mean sure, many conspiracy theories are just plain nuts. but if you use that as an argument, you're stereotyping and letting your bias completely influence you. and as such, i have absolutely no reason to think you know what you're talking about.

 

so far, you have failed to even adress the conspiracy theory i mentioned, and yet you still support that it's wrong. why is that?

i have provided a bit of evidence, and i would appreciate it if you either refuted that evidence or provided some evidence toward the contrary. so far, you have only used 2 fallacious arguments to support your side.

 

please tell me how "the conspiracy theory that Kerry intentionally tanked the election is chock full of nuts."