A Stolen Election in 2004?
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
OP
OP
Tgace said:
Yeah, its one long apology for why people continue to get screwed in this country...of course you could always READ the things posted and ATTEMPT to see the facts as they PRESENT themselves, but that would require ENERGY which some people apparently lack when it pertains to the values in which this country is SUPPOSED to be founded.
It is so much easier to blow it off and act like nothing ever happened..."its nothing but another of your (that way its personal and so much easier to dismiss - one instead of one of many) silly conspiracies."
I find it absolutely preposterous that the importance of something like tampering with voting rights depends on ideology...and who are these people who keep carping that we are all American's?
upnorthkyosa
OP
OP
Tgace said:
It has been shown that random error COULD NOT have produced the results that it did. Our technology is "to good." You have build a bridge out of coincidences in order to get the above to work and if you believe that that chain of events could occur on its own, then I've got a bridge to sell you...
Of course, sour grapes. In part because of worries that, no matter what, one party would get into office. Them's pretty big sour grapes to me.
OP
OP
Tgace said:
Hmmm, one would like to see some sort of material that informs your skepticism regarding this issue? Otherwise this seems just like another case of the willfull ignorance that is running rampant in this country...
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
1. Please document the claim that, "it has been shown that random error," could not have produced the election irregularities and screwups this time around.
2. Kerry lost because a) we're in a war, and people didn't want to risk a new President; b) Bush lied a lot and folks believed him, more or less; c) Kerry campaigned badly in some ways, and came across as insincere (One suspects that if he'd looked the voters in the eye, just once, and said, "This is ********, and if that dodging little twerp and his minions question my sevice or patriotism one more time, I'm gonna take it up with him out back of the White House some night...," he'd have won.); d) right-wingers such as Michael Savage have whomped up an ugly, bigoted hatred for guys like Kerry rather effectively; e) fundamentalists are already whomped up about everybody else's moral failings and perfectly willing to demand that everybody convert right now; f) a lot of, "mainstream," voters hate gay people; g) people would rather stick their heads in the sand and vote ideology than confront our actual moment in history; h) the Democratic party is run by idiots (if Clinton had been running things, look out, mama); i) people like me have been doing a poor job of education for some time now.
3. He just got beat. It's just easier to believe in the Parallax Corporation.
2. Kerry lost because a) we're in a war, and people didn't want to risk a new President; b) Bush lied a lot and folks believed him, more or less; c) Kerry campaigned badly in some ways, and came across as insincere (One suspects that if he'd looked the voters in the eye, just once, and said, "This is ********, and if that dodging little twerp and his minions question my sevice or patriotism one more time, I'm gonna take it up with him out back of the White House some night...," he'd have won.); d) right-wingers such as Michael Savage have whomped up an ugly, bigoted hatred for guys like Kerry rather effectively; e) fundamentalists are already whomped up about everybody else's moral failings and perfectly willing to demand that everybody convert right now; f) a lot of, "mainstream," voters hate gay people; g) people would rather stick their heads in the sand and vote ideology than confront our actual moment in history; h) the Democratic party is run by idiots (if Clinton had been running things, look out, mama); i) people like me have been doing a poor job of education for some time now.
3. He just got beat. It's just easier to believe in the Parallax Corporation.
OP
OP
rmcrobertson said:
Tgace said:I agree with Robert on this one...maybe not entirelybut his explination seems much more reasonable than some rigged election theory.
Both of you, read this thread. These points have already been answered.
rmcrobertson said:
I called a friend of my father concerning an NPR story I heard. It was about right wing thug wagons chasing away/intimidating voters on reservations in SD. My father's friend has bullet holes in his truck...
The Right Wing SD media claimed that this was just a conspiracy, too. And when the case went to the Supreme Court they changed their tune and said that it didn't matter...the votes wouldn't have made a difference...I guess indians never make a difference...
I can come up with a ton of reasons why Kerry "lost" too.
rmcrobertson said:
Look, I see your point, there is no way that this race should have been as close as it was. Yet, somehow, I think it is easier for many liberals to blame themselves rather then face the fact that these fiends are willing to trash everything "American" in order to cram their agenda down everyone's throat.
Why burn flags?
upnorthkyosa
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
1. Have read whole thread. See no evidence of clear evidence: assertions that something might have happened, or that a system is inherently flawed, are very far from being objective proof that somebody cheated. Nor are they anything resembling statistical analyses of outcomes and probabilities.
2. Many of the citations are from one Thom Hartmann. While the results of an Internet search indicate considerable agreement on this writer's part with many of "Dr." (his Phd is in herbology/naturopathy, from an obscure school in New Hampshire) Hartmann's ideas, he is also a proponent of neuro-linguistic programming, a classic example of quackery.
3. Oh, left out a reason Kerry lost. A genuinely-condescending attitude on the part of the liberal intelligentsia (if not on Kerry's) which all too often genuinely believes that its education and its privileges justify telling the little people, the insignificant people, what they should do and how they would have voted if they weren't such dopes. This tends to piss off the little people, who from time to time go so far as to express their pissed-offedness with people who have very much more privileged lives. They may even go so far as to vote for a rich-boy Yalie born again dumbass, on the grounds that he seems more down-home.
4. To place oneself simply on the, "master," side of the Hegelian dialectic as the One Who Knows is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of that dialectic, to say nothing of Marx's correct identification of the middle-class intelligentsia's intricate ties to the development of capitalism.
5. That means you and me, not some other guys.
2. Many of the citations are from one Thom Hartmann. While the results of an Internet search indicate considerable agreement on this writer's part with many of "Dr." (his Phd is in herbology/naturopathy, from an obscure school in New Hampshire) Hartmann's ideas, he is also a proponent of neuro-linguistic programming, a classic example of quackery.
3. Oh, left out a reason Kerry lost. A genuinely-condescending attitude on the part of the liberal intelligentsia (if not on Kerry's) which all too often genuinely believes that its education and its privileges justify telling the little people, the insignificant people, what they should do and how they would have voted if they weren't such dopes. This tends to piss off the little people, who from time to time go so far as to express their pissed-offedness with people who have very much more privileged lives. They may even go so far as to vote for a rich-boy Yalie born again dumbass, on the grounds that he seems more down-home.
4. To place oneself simply on the, "master," side of the Hegelian dialectic as the One Who Knows is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of that dialectic, to say nothing of Marx's correct identification of the middle-class intelligentsia's intricate ties to the development of capitalism.
5. That means you and me, not some other guys.
OP
OP
rmcrobertson said:
What would your criteria be for this bar?
And there have been many good statistical analysis done, one of them has been posted. No comments?
OP
OP
upnorthkyosa said:
Ten preliminary reasons why the Bush vote does not compute, and why Congress must investigate rather than certify the Electoral College (Part One of Two)
by Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman
January 3, 2005
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1065
Ohio GOP Election Officials Ducking Subpoenas By BOB FITRAKIS, STEVE ROSENFELD and HARVEY WASSERMAN
http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=01-03-05&storyID=20433
OP
OP
Why the main stream media refuses to touch this story...
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4934
Major Networks refuse to release exit poll data...
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.p...=article&sid=1355&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4934
Major Networks refuse to release exit poll data...
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.p...=article&sid=1355&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
OP
OP
OP
OP
Conyers to Object to Ohio Electors, Requests Senate Allies
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/123104W.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/123104W.shtml
Well, I have no control over your interpretations but my intention was for the message to be screaming 'priorities.'upnorthkyosa said:
Our Democratic values have been subverted? From what to what may I ask? I am sure there are historically educated folks here and in quick internet searches that could point to election problems from the beginning of our nation....
I get this idea from your posts that you are working from an assumption that things were 'perfect' or at least 'better' than they are now at some point in history and that there are current events that are leading you to think the sky is falling...
There have been doomsday-ists in every religious/political time period and I think that the hubris that "NOW" is the worst it has ever been or that "NOW" is the moment that will end it all is exhausting and takes energy away from things that I CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN such as my family, my immediate community, my voting power, my personal development and such. Beyond that, what pray tell do you suggest as a way to change the pattern you seem to see, Nostradamus?
This, to me, equates to walking through my daily life as a Martial artist 'seeing bad guys' around every corner because I am not capable of moving from "BLACK/RED" mindset down to "YELLOW/WHITE" on the Color Code of Combat.
Tgace
Grandmaster
http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/news/stories/20041228/opinion/1797728.html
Congressman's election concerns appear selective
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITORIALS
As we learn that the election recount will cost Ohio taxpayers something in the neighborhood of $1 million, we wonder again about the self-serving individuals who have attempted to stir election turmoil in Ohio for their own personal agendas.
Sadly, well-meaning people, fueled by incessant Internet repetition of claims that have been debunked and/or explained over and over again, are viewing the Ohio election as a disgrace for democracy and claiming that the the election is a fraud.
Our editorial last week decrying the situation and the role of individuals who are more interested in their own image and personal gain than they are in the democratic process has promoted critical e-mails from across the country.
The truth is, there are always some problems with elections, and this year's Ohio vote was no different. But it appears to have been about as good as could be expected given the enormous pressure placed on the operation in advance and the intense scrutiny afterward.
For those who continue to doubt that there are personal agendas involved in the outcry over the Ohio voting, we offer this from a Detroit News column by Thomas Bray about the congressman calling for an FBI investigation of the Ohio election.
John Conyers, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is demanding an investigation into Ohio's voting. "We're talking ... about thousands of complaints about failure of process, coercion, suppression of the vote," Conyers asserted on public radio.
On its face, it's the effort of a bitter-ender to deny the obvious. Ohio's voting, like the voting in most states in every election, wasn't perfect. Local election officials failed to plan adequately for the increased turnout -- some 900,000 more voters than in 2000, creating long lines in many precincts. But nothing has surfaced to suggest systematic fraud. George Bush won Ohio by more than 118,000 votes, a comfortable margin as these things go.
If Conyers was so concerned about voting problems, where was he in 1998 when election officials in his hometown of Detroit took a disgraceful two weeks to count ballots due to lost poll books and miscounting of precinct totals?
Where was he in 2001 when the counting of absentee ballots in Detroit had to be halted in midstream by state officials after it was discovered that the city clerk was simply ignoring state requirements for the use of software that would eject ballots that couldn't be read by machine?
And where was he when a memo allegedly drafted by Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's aides in 2002 claimed that Detroit's voter rolls were overstated by about 150,000 people -- a strong hint that something may be seriously amiss in the Detroit election process, threatening the value of the ballot for people who are genuinely qualified to vote?
Conyers' outrage appears to be highly selective. The target of his investigative demand -- a demand in which he has been joined by Jesse Jackson and others -- is the Ohio secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell, who is black and Republican. In other words, he is one of those non-conforming minorities who is threatening to bust up the liberal plantation from which Conyers and others earn a handsome living.
Moreover, Blackwell has said he plans to run for governor of Ohio -- and is leading in the polls among GOP candidates. That would transform him from a relatively minor state functionary into a national figure.
Conyers and Jackson have criticized the fact that Blackwell chaired the Bush re-election effort at the same time he presided over the Ohio election, but that's not unusual. Local election officials in Columbus and Cincinnati headed the Kerry campaigns in those areas. ...
But if Blackwell was trying to suppress the black vote in Ohio, he didn't do a very good job. Black turnout more than doubled in Ohio.
Claims of voter suppression may also help to divert attention from the real problem in most states, including Michigan, which is that election officials have a hard time purging voter rolls of dead or otherwise non-qualified voters, mainly in the big cities. In the past, any effort to do so brought cries of racism. In 1998, Michigan started to tackle this problem by developing a computerized, statewide list of voters. This eliminated double entries, but it hasn't solved the problem of matching death rolls and other data bases -- including driver licenses -- with voter listings.
If John Conyers were serious about protecting the rights of voters, particularly in the area he represents, he would be demanding faster action on this front, not wasting time harassing the Ohio secretary of state.
Congressman's election concerns appear selective
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITORIALS
As we learn that the election recount will cost Ohio taxpayers something in the neighborhood of $1 million, we wonder again about the self-serving individuals who have attempted to stir election turmoil in Ohio for their own personal agendas.
Sadly, well-meaning people, fueled by incessant Internet repetition of claims that have been debunked and/or explained over and over again, are viewing the Ohio election as a disgrace for democracy and claiming that the the election is a fraud.
Our editorial last week decrying the situation and the role of individuals who are more interested in their own image and personal gain than they are in the democratic process has promoted critical e-mails from across the country.
The truth is, there are always some problems with elections, and this year's Ohio vote was no different. But it appears to have been about as good as could be expected given the enormous pressure placed on the operation in advance and the intense scrutiny afterward.
For those who continue to doubt that there are personal agendas involved in the outcry over the Ohio voting, we offer this from a Detroit News column by Thomas Bray about the congressman calling for an FBI investigation of the Ohio election.
John Conyers, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is demanding an investigation into Ohio's voting. "We're talking ... about thousands of complaints about failure of process, coercion, suppression of the vote," Conyers asserted on public radio.
On its face, it's the effort of a bitter-ender to deny the obvious. Ohio's voting, like the voting in most states in every election, wasn't perfect. Local election officials failed to plan adequately for the increased turnout -- some 900,000 more voters than in 2000, creating long lines in many precincts. But nothing has surfaced to suggest systematic fraud. George Bush won Ohio by more than 118,000 votes, a comfortable margin as these things go.
If Conyers was so concerned about voting problems, where was he in 1998 when election officials in his hometown of Detroit took a disgraceful two weeks to count ballots due to lost poll books and miscounting of precinct totals?
Where was he in 2001 when the counting of absentee ballots in Detroit had to be halted in midstream by state officials after it was discovered that the city clerk was simply ignoring state requirements for the use of software that would eject ballots that couldn't be read by machine?
And where was he when a memo allegedly drafted by Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's aides in 2002 claimed that Detroit's voter rolls were overstated by about 150,000 people -- a strong hint that something may be seriously amiss in the Detroit election process, threatening the value of the ballot for people who are genuinely qualified to vote?
Conyers' outrage appears to be highly selective. The target of his investigative demand -- a demand in which he has been joined by Jesse Jackson and others -- is the Ohio secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell, who is black and Republican. In other words, he is one of those non-conforming minorities who is threatening to bust up the liberal plantation from which Conyers and others earn a handsome living.
Moreover, Blackwell has said he plans to run for governor of Ohio -- and is leading in the polls among GOP candidates. That would transform him from a relatively minor state functionary into a national figure.
Conyers and Jackson have criticized the fact that Blackwell chaired the Bush re-election effort at the same time he presided over the Ohio election, but that's not unusual. Local election officials in Columbus and Cincinnati headed the Kerry campaigns in those areas. ...
But if Blackwell was trying to suppress the black vote in Ohio, he didn't do a very good job. Black turnout more than doubled in Ohio.
Claims of voter suppression may also help to divert attention from the real problem in most states, including Michigan, which is that election officials have a hard time purging voter rolls of dead or otherwise non-qualified voters, mainly in the big cities. In the past, any effort to do so brought cries of racism. In 1998, Michigan started to tackle this problem by developing a computerized, statewide list of voters. This eliminated double entries, but it hasn't solved the problem of matching death rolls and other data bases -- including driver licenses -- with voter listings.
If John Conyers were serious about protecting the rights of voters, particularly in the area he represents, he would be demanding faster action on this front, not wasting time harassing the Ohio secretary of state.
Tgace
Grandmaster
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/206360_gov04.html
Keep counting till you win election
By DAVID E. JOHNSON
GUEST COLUMNIST
If you don't win the election on the first count -- demand a recount and litigate until you get the result you want (or the U.S. Supreme Court says enough of this foolishness).
That has become the Democrats new mantra as seen in the past week's certification of Christine Gregoire as governor of Washington following three counts of the ballot; two of which she lost.
The third, a manual recount with dubious ballots suddenly discovered in heavily Democratic King County that were not counted previously gave her the election Now we must stop counting ballots or contesting irregularities, cry the Democrats because they might lose again.
It was Al Gore's strategy in Florida in 2000 until the U.S. Supreme Court quashed the madness. John Edwards and the trial lawyers wanted to pursue this strategy in Ohio until John Kerry, to his credit, overruled them and said this is not the American tradition.
Having lost two presidential elections, the Senate and the House of Representatives, Democrats suddenly have discovered that values matter to Americans. But they have overlooked the fact that Americans don't like sore losers or attempts to change the rules after the game has been played. Democrats in 2000, cried that President Bush was an illegitimate president who stole the election and they would avenge their loss in 2002 and 2004. In both elections, Bush and the Republicans scored resounding successes comparable to only one other president -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Democrats still can't understand how this happened.
Overlooked in this is that Americans expect their political leaders and parties to be as graceful in defeat as they are magnanimous in victory. The greatest example of this was Richard Nixon. In 1960, there was widespread voter fraud in the election in Texas, Missouri and Illinois that tipped the election in John F. Kennedy's favor. Leaders from Dwight Eisenhower to Everett Dirksen urged Nixon to contest the election. Nixon refused. In 2000, Republicans had ample evidence to contest the results in Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico, yet refused to do so.
In Washington, it has gone beyond just contesting an election. Democrats are overturning the election results to install their candidate as governor. Their argument is that a manual count that included ballots that had not been counted and mysteriously appeared after the election became in doubt are an accurate reflection of the voters' will. All evidence shows that manual recounts are not as accurate as machine counts (both of which showed the Republican nominee Dino Rossi winning). No matter, argue the Democrats, this last count that shows them winning is all that matters and it's time to move on. Does anyone believe if Rossi had won the manual recount, the Democrats would be willing to concede the election?
Gregoire may well be sworn in as the next governor of Washington, but at a very high price -- not for herself but for the Democratic Party. Her election under such dubious circumstances reinforces the belief of many Americans that Democrats will do anything to win an election -- even steal it.
For a political party already suffering from the perception that it is out of touch with American values, this new perception could be deadly. Most Americans fear that lawsuits over election results will become the norm in national politics and want this stopped -- indeed the Washington theft reinforces the idea.
If Democrats are perceived as the cause for these lawsuits, could further electoral punishment be in their future? In 2006, if they lose more Senate seats and governorships, they might begin to get the message, or, perhaps, they might sue voters. In 2008 they could then nominate Gregoire with the slogan "If at first you don't win, try, try, try again until you get the result you want."
Keep counting till you win election
By DAVID E. JOHNSON
GUEST COLUMNIST
If you don't win the election on the first count -- demand a recount and litigate until you get the result you want (or the U.S. Supreme Court says enough of this foolishness).
That has become the Democrats new mantra as seen in the past week's certification of Christine Gregoire as governor of Washington following three counts of the ballot; two of which she lost.
The third, a manual recount with dubious ballots suddenly discovered in heavily Democratic King County that were not counted previously gave her the election Now we must stop counting ballots or contesting irregularities, cry the Democrats because they might lose again.
It was Al Gore's strategy in Florida in 2000 until the U.S. Supreme Court quashed the madness. John Edwards and the trial lawyers wanted to pursue this strategy in Ohio until John Kerry, to his credit, overruled them and said this is not the American tradition.
Having lost two presidential elections, the Senate and the House of Representatives, Democrats suddenly have discovered that values matter to Americans. But they have overlooked the fact that Americans don't like sore losers or attempts to change the rules after the game has been played. Democrats in 2000, cried that President Bush was an illegitimate president who stole the election and they would avenge their loss in 2002 and 2004. In both elections, Bush and the Republicans scored resounding successes comparable to only one other president -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Democrats still can't understand how this happened.
Overlooked in this is that Americans expect their political leaders and parties to be as graceful in defeat as they are magnanimous in victory. The greatest example of this was Richard Nixon. In 1960, there was widespread voter fraud in the election in Texas, Missouri and Illinois that tipped the election in John F. Kennedy's favor. Leaders from Dwight Eisenhower to Everett Dirksen urged Nixon to contest the election. Nixon refused. In 2000, Republicans had ample evidence to contest the results in Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico, yet refused to do so.
In Washington, it has gone beyond just contesting an election. Democrats are overturning the election results to install their candidate as governor. Their argument is that a manual count that included ballots that had not been counted and mysteriously appeared after the election became in doubt are an accurate reflection of the voters' will. All evidence shows that manual recounts are not as accurate as machine counts (both of which showed the Republican nominee Dino Rossi winning). No matter, argue the Democrats, this last count that shows them winning is all that matters and it's time to move on. Does anyone believe if Rossi had won the manual recount, the Democrats would be willing to concede the election?
Gregoire may well be sworn in as the next governor of Washington, but at a very high price -- not for herself but for the Democratic Party. Her election under such dubious circumstances reinforces the belief of many Americans that Democrats will do anything to win an election -- even steal it.
For a political party already suffering from the perception that it is out of touch with American values, this new perception could be deadly. Most Americans fear that lawsuits over election results will become the norm in national politics and want this stopped -- indeed the Washington theft reinforces the idea.
If Democrats are perceived as the cause for these lawsuits, could further electoral punishment be in their future? In 2006, if they lose more Senate seats and governorships, they might begin to get the message, or, perhaps, they might sue voters. In 2008 they could then nominate Gregoire with the slogan "If at first you don't win, try, try, try again until you get the result you want."
Tgace
Grandmaster
How Bush Really Won
(and this is from Mother Jones....)
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/12/12_583.html
(and this is from Mother Jones....)
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/12/12_583.html
OP
OP
Tgace said:
Firstly, there are numerous outright lies in both of those peices. Compare them to the articles and excerpts posted.
Secondly, the spin war has begun. The Red Truth machine is gearing up to pull the wool over peoples eyes.
Yet, the facts remain. An investigation will uncover some harsh reality and just watch as the same machine above starts talking about "a few bad apples..."
Similar threads
