Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election fi

[sgtmac_46]

Ok. Then why did every single reported e-vote machine error in every state across the nation favor our current president Bush?

Lets discuss them in detail. Name one and only one e-vote made, where it was made and what makes you think it was "fraudulent". Just one, not "Every single one" lets examine them one at a time. The truth is in the details, not vague, broad generalizations.


As an example of this, I have a friend who is a detective...When he goes in to an interrogation, he brings a HUGE thick folder full of, what appears to be, photographs, statements, finger prints. He puts the name of the person he is interrogating on the cover, along with the case name. This HUGE pile of "evidence" appears to be massive. If you looked at it closely, you'd see it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the case at all. It's a prop. But to the suspect, it looks as if the evidence is overwhelmingly damning. It's the "illusion" of evidence, by shear volume of material.

Now, knowing that trick, I don't fall for the "mountain of evidence" gag. I demand proof, in detail. Nobody fools me by pointing to a "mountain of evidence" and expecting me to take their word that "it's ALL in there".

 

[Makalakumu]

Name a single vote? 40% of the machines leave absolutely no paper trail. How would one "check" anything about those votes? A single vote among millions? I don't see how that could be a more powerful tool then the statistics.

Anyway, the information you want to discuss in located in the Congressional report. Specific individuals who saw there vote change from Kerry to Bush on an e-voting machine testified under oath about it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Name a single vote? 40% of the machines leave absolutely no paper trail. How would one "check" anything about those votes? A single vote among millions? I don't see how that could be a more powerful tool then the statistics.

Anyway, the information you want to discuss in located in the Congressional report. Specific individuals who saw there vote change from Kerry to Bush on an e-voting machine testified under oath about it.

But your "statistics" don't show anything. They certainly don't show that anyone attempted to defraud the election. It is not evidence of anything, and it's been distorted and manipulated. It's all insinuation, hyperbole and innuendo.

In the end, you don't have one single shred of direct evidence of ANYTHING. Not ONE shred of evidence to support your claim, other than nebulous and unvarifiable anecdotal stories by biased sources? You've claimed that person(s) have engaged in a concerted effort to defraud and disinfanchise and ENTIRE country, and yet you don't have one single shred of evidence to support even ONE single incident where this took place, other than "The numbers just don't make sense to me"....Interesting.

Allegations that are vague, over-generalized, and unsupportable....are usually bogus.

 

[Makalakumu]

But your "statistics" don't show anything. It's all insinuation and innuendo. So you're admitting you don't have ONE shred of evidence to support your claim, other than nebulous and unvarifiable anecdotal stories by biased sources?

I don't admit that at all and I pointed you in the direction of some verifiable data. The sampling of things that ended up in the congressional report are only the tip of the iceberg. You know what, we've been around this tree before.

Think about this...imagine, for one moment, that you are wrong. Think for a moment, what if these people actually experienced what they are claiming to have experienced? Think about what the GAO report does for those allegations? What if you are wrong? If I'm wrong, its no big deal, but if you are...

It needs to be investigated further.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I don't admit that at all and I pointed you in the direction of some verifiable data. The sampling of things that ended up in the congressional report are only the tip of the iceberg. You know what, we've been around this tree before.

Think about this...imagine, for one moment, that you are wrong. Think for a moment, what if these people actually experienced what they are claiming to have experienced? Think about what the GAO report does for those allegations? What if you are wrong? If I'm wrong, its no big deal, but if you are...

It needs to be investigated further.

No, what you DID was make a vague allegation and then refuse to provide even ONE shred of evidence that this happened ANYWHERE.

Now, your argument is "Well, if it were true...." Is that supposed to be a supporting argument. Imagine that argument in court "Well, if he WAS guilty, then all this fabricated evidence would support it."

And, by the way, the idea that if i'm wrong, it's a big deal, but if you're wrong it's not, is silly. If you're wrong, you've spent all this time trying to overturn a legitimate election with bogus allegations. How is that different than defrauding one to begin with? The righteousness of your politics?

 

[Makalakumu]

If you're wrong, you've spent all this time trying to overturn a legitimate election with bogus allegations. How is that different than defrauding one to begin with? The righteousness of your politics?

How is anything that I say on this internet forum going to make any difference in the real world? This is just a discussion...and not even a serious one in the sense that if will have any affect on reality.

However, if you are wrong, that will have FAR more meaning then my little rantings...

Again, the evidence you seek is in the congressional report. One of the problems here is that I have done a lot of work and so far, you've done zilch to my knowledge. I've read the congressional report. I've read the GAO report. I've read ANOVA statistical analysis done by caltech, havard and MIT that analyze the data from this election.

Here is an example of the type of question that I'm prepared to ask and answer, but of which you have no idea..."please tell me why you reject the results of the independent ANOVA analysis done by Caltech, Harvard, and MIT?"

These studies were cited in in the report and in several court cases. You could read these and attempt to find out where I'm coming from if you are actually curious and sincere about paticipating in this discussion.

Thus far your wit has been amusing, but we aren't going anywhere and we won't go anywhere until you take a step.

The bottom line, just to set the record straight, is that I suspect that the election results were tampered with. I do not know for sure. There is plenty of evidence that shows that the results we obtained are impossible coincidences. We need more information, we need to investigate.

 

[sgtmac_46]

How is anything that I say on this internet forum going to make any difference in the real world? This is just a discussion...and not even a serious one in the sense that if will have any affect on reality.

However, if you are wrong, that will have FAR more meaning then my little rantings...

Again, the evidence you seek is in the congressional report. One of the problems here is that I have done a lot of work and so far, you've done zilch to my knowledge. I've read the congressional report. I've read the GAO report. I've read ANOVA statistical analysis done by caltech, havard and MIT that analyze the data from this election.

Here is an example of the type of question that I'm prepared to ask and answer, but of which you have no idea..."please tell me why you reject the results of the independent ANOVA analysis done by Caltech, Harvard, and MIT?"

These studies were cited in in the report and in several court cases. You could read these and attempt to find out where I'm coming from if you are actually curious and sincere about paticipating in this discussion.

Thus far your wit has been amusing, but we aren't going anywhere and we won't go anywhere until you take a step.

The bottom line, just to set the record straight, is that I suspect that the election results were tampered with. I do not know for sure. There is plenty of evidence that shows that the results we obtained are impossible coincidences. We need more information, we need to investigate.

And what were the results of those court cases? Was anyone indicted (Election tampering is a crime) or did the courts ask the same hard questions as I am, and come to the same conclusions...There is no evidence to support the claim? If all those "MIT, Caltech and Harvard" statistical studies are so persuasive and unbiased, why have they not stood up to the standards of evidence necessary in court? Why are they only given serious merit in the kooky realm of internet conspiracy talk and the minds of those who "suspect" that (since they didn't win) they "was robbed"?

Again, you "suspect" but you have not provided one shred of evidence. Am I merely to assume that your suspicions are a reliable source, and simply put faith in them?

Again, as per your request that we need "investigations", what has the left been doing for the last (nearly) two years? They've spent MILLIONS 'investigating'...and haven't come up with a single shred of evidence that stands up to the test of reason. With the sheer number of bloggers and interest groups investing time, money and man power, you'd assume that we would have something by now. Are we to assume that massive voter fraud resulted in a coup on the highest levels of government, but the left can't find ONE shred of evidence to PROVE it?

Surely you give too much credit to Bush and Co. They can't even out a CIA agent without getting caught. They've got to be the worst liars in the history of the Republic, and yet, you claim that they pulled off a massive COUP?! I find the whole idea absurd.

It's easy to make unsubstantiated allegations, anyone can do it. It's hard to answer the tough questions and support those allegations, in detail. In the details is the truth. Vague, broad, nebulous claims NEVER stand up to the light of close examination...That's why they prefer to remain vague, broad and nebulous.

 

[Tgace]

Thus far your wit has been amusing, but we aren't going anywhere and we won't go anywhere until you take a step.

So you are the bearer of "truth" and we all just fail to see the light? This statement seems pretty pompous to me.

 

[Makalakumu]

Have either one of you read the congressional report or the GAO report? I thought not. Perhaps that will answer some of your questions as to the evidence. If this wasn't serious, it wouldn't have made it into congress and it wouldn't have drawn the attention of the GAO.

 

[Makalakumu]

So you are the bearer of "truth" and we all just fail to see the light? This statement seems pretty pompous to me.

That's not what I'm saying. You have to take this statement in context with the rest.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Guys, take a step back for a moment and do some calming breathing k?

I think UpNorth is pointing at documents that will back up what he's saying about there having been something verified as fishy in the last presidential election.
I think SgtMac is saying that a large scale compromise is unikely, and that there is evidence to support his position.

Am I right so far?

I think you've both made some excellent points, and to a certain extent are both right.

Now, UpN is pointing towards various documents that he indicates validate his point. Are there documents at the same level that would refute them?

 

[Makalakumu]

And what were the results of those court cases? Was anyone indicted (Election tampering is a crime) or did the courts ask the same hard questions as I am, and come to the same conclusions...There is no evidence to support the claim?

No. Overall, the cases were about counting votes and interpreting the laws. There has yet to be an actual criminal case and multiple FIOAs have been filed. However, certain Republican officials, Ohio Secratary of State Blackwell for one, have been very efficient at stonewalling, and "losing" pertinant peices of information. Blackwell may very well find himself up for obstruction of justice charges soon.

If all those "MIT, Caltech and Harvard" statistical studies are so persuasive and unbiased, why have they not stood up to the standards of evidence necessary in court? Why are they only given serious merit in the kooky realm of internet conspiracy talk and the minds of those who "suspect" that (since they didn't win) they "was robbed"?

They are cited in the congressional report and in two cases to the Ohio Supreme Court. These numbers have also been cited by the GAO. These studies do not point the finger at a particular person. However, they do illustrate the improbability of certain events. They strongly suggest that the only explanation for the anomolous findings is election rigging.

Again, you "suspect" but you have not provided one shred of evidence. Am I merely to assume that your suspicions are a reliable source, and simply put faith in them?

No. However, you could attempt to read some of the posted material and double check things cited in it for yourself.

Again, as per your request that we need "investigations", what has the left been doing for the last (nearly) two years?

Working.

They've spent MILLIONS 'investigating'

Oh really, and you know this because...

...and haven't come up with a single shred of evidence that stands up to the test of reason.

Except for the stuff that led to the congressional report, the GAO report, and that led to the endorsement of major DNC leaders including Harry Ried.

Are we to assume that massive voter fraud resulted in a coup on the highest levels of government, but the left can't find ONE shred of evidence to PROVE it?

It will take serious action by the Justice Dept and the Attorney General of the United States before anyone is actually accused of a crime in this case. Serious action. Until then, we are left dovetailing these two government reports and waiting for stonewalling officials to fill our FIOAs. This won't happen until the dems take back one of the houses and force it to happen.

Surely you give too much credit to Bush and Co. They can't even out a CIA agent without getting caught. They've got to be the worst liars in the history of the Republic, and yet, you claim that they pulled off a massive COUP?! I find the whole idea absurd.

As absurd as it sounds, it just might be true and if you look at both of these reports and study the numbers there is a good chance that it is true. What will you do then?

It's easy to make unsubstantiated allegations, anyone can do it. It's hard to answer the tough questions and support those allegations, in detail. In the details is the truth. Vague, broad, nebulous claims NEVER stand up to the light of close examination...That's why they prefer to remain vague, broad and nebulous.

There is nothing vague, broad or nebulous about people witnessing the vote they just tallied for Kerry on an e-voting maching, suddenly switch to Bush.

So, does anyone want to attempt to explain why every county in the country that had e-voting had anomolous vote totals that differed wildly from the exit polls, demographics, and party registration totals?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Have either one of you read the congressional report or the GAO report? I thought not. Perhaps that will answer some of your questions as to the evidence. If this wasn't serious, it wouldn't have made it into congress and it wouldn't have drawn the attention of the GAO.

HAHA. Wouldn't have made it congress if it wasn't serious? Those clowns use the congressional floor all the time to make any inane point they want. Democrats in the Congress asked the GAO to "investigate". They didn't have any evidence, they just wanted to see if the GAO could find anything. Now, you're pointing at the fact that the GAO investigated in the first place as evidence that this conspiracy happened? The Democrats are fishing, and now their using the fact that their are fishing as evidence that it's all true? That's some distorted logic.

 

[sgtmac_46]

No. Overall, the cases were about counting votes and interpreting the laws. There has yet to be an actual criminal case and multiple FIOAs have been filed. However, certain Republican officials, Ohio Secratary of State Blackwell for one, have been very efficient at stonewalling, and "losing" pertinant peices of information. Blackwell may very well find himself up for obstruction of justice charges soon.

Counting votes and interpreting the law? I thought you stated there was a vast illegal conspiracy to rig the election? Now we've whittled down the charges to local disagreements on vote counting and legal intepretations? lol. Actually, there are a couple criminal cases. A representative of the NAACP was charged with trading crack cocaine for voter registration. So, if you want to use that as evidence that a wide-spread effort to defraud the American voter was conducted, go ahead.

They are cited in the congressional report and in two cases to the Ohio Supreme Court. These numbers have also been cited by the GAO. These studies do not point the finger at a particular person. However, they do illustrate the improbability of certain events. They strongly suggest that the only explanation for the anomolous findings is election rigging.

Name one of those events? You keep using the nebulous "certain events". Specifics, please. Conspiracy theorists ALWAYS point to "improbability of certain events". Are we to assume that you are using the "magic bullet" argument? lol. By the way, how did those court cases turn out again?

No. However, you could attempt to read some of the posted material and double check things cited in it for yourself.

Actually, north, the fact that I posted a direct link to GAO research findings WOULD suggest i've read the material. I prefer direct evidence (GAO articles themselves) to biased and misleading "interepretations" of souces such as several you provided.

It will take serious action by the Justice Dept and the Attorney General of the United States before anyone is actually accused of a crime in this case. Serious action. Until then, we are left dovetailing these two government reports and waiting for stonewalling officials to fill our FIOAs. This won't happen until the dems take back one of the houses and force it to happen.

Really. The Democrats had ZERO problem calling a special prosecutor for the outing of a CIA agent (An act that has still, by itself, not been determined to have been a crime), along with indictments for perjury. Yet, you don't have enough evidence to get a special prosecutor on a VAST conspiracy to attack the democratic process in America? They've also had no problem investigating campaign finance irregularities that no one is sure are illegal either. Yet they can't investigate an obvious attempt to take over the government? Curiouser and curiouser.

As absurd as it sounds, it just might be true and if you look at both of these reports and study the numbers there is a good chance that it is true. What will you do then?

Might be true? Now that's a real argument. It also might be true that the left is trying to overthrow the government through bogus charges. Also, the secret martian government might be pulling all the strings. The best you have is "Well, it might be true"? Study the numbers? The most accurate thing in this paragraph was "As absurd as it sounds". It sounds absurd because it is absurd. If you hand-pick only the statistics that seem to support your position, and take them out of context, you can pretty much make them say what you want.

There is nothing vague, broad or nebulous about people witnessing the vote they just tallied for Kerry on an e-voting maching, suddenly switch to Bush.

And you know this happened how? Because they said so? Is it possible they are lying? Is it possible they feel their political cause is so righteous, that they are embellishing a bit? Could they simply be thinking "I know Bush really did cheat, so i'm not really lying"? Has that thought ever occurred to you? That's the problem with "anecdotal evidence"....It's often flawed and distorted, especially on an extremely hot and divisive issue. What's more, it's never hard to find disgruntled citizens willing to "embellish" for the cause.

I've had criminal cases where family members and friends showed up to testify about what the suspect did or didn't do that weren't even PRESENT at the time of the incident (we call that 'perjury', but they think it's for a good cause).

So, does anyone want to attempt to explain why every county in the country that had e-voting had anomolous vote totals that differed wildly from the exit polls, demographics, and party registration totals?

Really, and your evidence that this occurred, other than "anecdotal evidence" proposed on your biased websites? Just saying it, doesn't make it so. In 2000 it was hanging chads that were "anomolous"...Now it's the e-voting machines that are the problem?

Isn't the real problem that you lost? Go on, admit it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

But issues and problems with the electronic systems have in fact been found. Found, argued over, and new rules and laws implimented to safeguard and error check things. This while companies building these systems continue to ignore documented problems.

===== Diebold Insider Comments on Voting System Flaw

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Sep 19, '05 03:01 PM
from the how-many-chances-will-they-get dept.
Call Me Black Cloud writes "A Diebold insider is blowing the whistle on the company's continued lack of concern about security holes in its voting software. The insider wrote to Brad Friedman, a somewhat shrill political blogger, claiming the company is instructing technicians to keep quiet about the security flaws. This is despite the vulnerability being listed on the US-CERT website for the last year. A Diebold company rep admits the software can be remotely accessed via modem, but states, "it's up to a jurisdiction whether they wish to use it or not...I don't know of any jurisdiction that does that." The insider disputes that, claiming several counties in Maryland made use of the feature in 2004." This in addition to the fact that Blackboxvoting already hacked the system using a chimp last year.

==========
WI Bill Would Require E-Voting Paper Trail, Source

Posted by timothy on Mon Aug 01, '05 02:27 PM
from the small-step-for-cheeseheads dept.http://yro.slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=126
AdamBLang writes "Three Wisconsin legislators announced today that they began circulating a memo for cosponsors to a bill that would require electronic voting machines to produce a paper ballot. Additionally, the new bill includes a provision that the source code must be publicly accessible. After the November 2004 elections, there were numerous reports of problems with the new paperless touch voting screens. Problems include machines subtracting or adding votes, freezing up, shutting down and skipping past races."

========


NYT Says Paperless Voting A Serious Problem

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jun 10, '05 03:53 PM
from the no-see-ums dept.
joshdick writes "In an editorial today, the NYTimes comes out strongly in favor of a paper trail for all elections, supporting a recent lobbying effort by Common Cause and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to pass H.R. 550. 'Electronic voting has been rolled out nationwide without necessary safeguards. The machines' computers can be programmed to steal votes from one candidate and give them to another. There are also many ways hackers can break in to tamper with the count. Polls show that many Americans do not trust electronic voting in its current form; such doubts are a serious problem in a democracy.'"

========

WI Assembly OKs Voting Paper Trail
WI Assembly OKs Voting Paper Trail
Posted by Zonk on Friday November 11, @11:41PM
from the best-city-in-the-world dept.
AdamBLang writes "Madison Wisconsin's Capitol Times reports 'With only four dissenting votes, the state Assembly easily passed a bill that would require that electronic voting machines create a paper record. The goal of the legislation is to make sure that Wisconsin's soon-to-be-purchased touch screen machines create a paper ballot that can be audited to verify election results.' Slashdot has previously reported on this bill." More from the article: "Wisconsin cannot go down the path of states like Florida and Ohio in having elections that the public simply doesn't trust ... By requiring a paper record on every electronic voting machine, we will ensure that not only does your vote matter in Wisconsin, but it also counts."

 

[sgtmac_46]

But issues and problems with the electronic systems have in fact been found. Found, argued over, and new rules and laws implimented to safeguard and error check things. This while companies building these systems continue to ignore documented problems.

Implementing new laws to cover problems in new technologies (are there ever any new technologies without flaws) is FAR different than claiming a "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY". It's apples and bowling balls. You guys keep trying to prove that "it's theoretically possible to do it", that's a far cry from "It happened".

===== Diebold Insider Comments on Voting System Flaw

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Sep 19, '05 03:01 PM
from the how-many-chances-will-they-get dept.
Call Me Black Cloud writes "A Diebold insider is blowing the whistle on the company's continued lack of concern about security holes in its voting software. The insider wrote to Brad Friedman, a somewhat shrill political blogger, claiming the company is instructing technicians to keep quiet about the security flaws. This is despite the vulnerability being listed on the US-CERT website for the last year. A Diebold company rep admits the software can be remotely accessed via modem, but states, "it's up to a jurisdiction whether they wish to use it or not...I don't know of any jurisdiction that does that." The insider disputes that, claiming several counties in Maryland made use of the feature in 2004." This in addition to the fact that Blackboxvoting already hacked the system using a chimp last year.

Ok, i'm always concerned with "anonymous 'insiders'" contact political bloggers with 'inside information'. First of all, assuming he really DOES work for Diebold (and assuming he isn't a figment of 'Brad's' imagination), all he claims is that a problem exists with the system that makes it 'possible' that it can be tampered with.

==========
WI Bill Would Require E-Voting Paper Trail, Source

Posted by timothy on Mon Aug 01, '05 02:27 PM
from the small-step-for-cheeseheads dept.
AdamBLang writes "Three Wisconsin legislators announced today that they began circulating a memo for cosponsors to a bill that would require electronic voting machines to produce a paper ballot. Additionally, the new bill includes a provision that the source code must be publicly accessible. After the November 2004 elections, there were numerous reports of problems with the new paperless touch voting screens. Problems include machines subtracting or adding votes, freezing up, shutting down and skipping past races."

========

Ok, so our claim is that the machines' software and hardware doesn't work reliably? That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with a computer. "Problems with the 'new' paperless touch voting screens" is the same as "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE". Again, apples and mountain bikes.

NYT Says Paperless Voting A Serious Problem

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jun 10, '05 03:53 PM
from the no-see-ums dept.
joshdick writes "In an editorial today, the NYTimes comes out strongly in favor of a paper trail for all elections, supporting a recent lobbying effort by Common Cause and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to pass H.R. 550. 'Electronic voting has been rolled out nationwide without necessary safeguards. The machines' computers can be programmed to steal votes from one candidate and give them to another. There are also many ways hackers can break in to tamper with the count. Polls show that many Americans do not trust electronic voting in its current form; such doubts are a serious problem in a democracy.'"

========

Many people don't trust electronic voting because we all have cell phones and computers. I never liked the idea of electronic voting in the first place. That's a far cry from "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY".

Also, I find it interesting that Blackboxvoting.com claims to have hacked in to the system. Are they upset that they weren't able to defraud the election enough to win it? This certainly shows problems with the system, but it doesn't show a "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY".

WI Assembly OKs Voting Paper Trail
WI Assembly OKs Voting Paper Trail
Posted by Zonk on Friday November 11, @11:41PM
from the best-city-in-the-world dept.
AdamBLang writes "Madison Wisconsin's Capitol Times reports 'With only four dissenting votes, the state Assembly easily passed a bill that would require that electronic voting machines create a paper record. The goal of the legislation is to make sure that Wisconsin's soon-to-be-purchased touch screen machines create a paper ballot that can be audited to verify election results.' Slashdot has previously reported on this bill." More from the article: "Wisconsin cannot go down the path of states like Florida and Ohio in having elections that the public simply doesn't trust ... By requiring a paper record on every electronic voting machine, we will ensure that not only does your vote matter in Wisconsin, but it also counts."

Ok, Wisconsin passed a bill to requiring a paper trail. Seems sensible, and just like everything else, practices evolve over time. The fact that they did this, however, is a far cry from claiming that the last election got defrauded.


Now, lets summerize the arguments....There seem to be two arguments here...we'll call them

Argument A

New electronic voting systems are flawed and have quite a lot of bugs and design problems (Because they're new technology). Many people have spent and awful lot of time critiquing them and trying to figure out how it is "possible" to tamper with them, resulting in some reasonable steps being taken by legislatures to fix problems to avoid ANY possibility of fraud....Fine. There have always been problems with voting. Remember, we went to electronic voting because paper ballots were causing problems. Sometimes progress is bumpy.

Argument B

Now, back to the original issue, which it seems as though everyone has been side-stepping in an attempt to make the case that electronic voting devices need to be improved. That argument is the accusation that the "election was rigged". You've all spent page after page, website after website, attempting to prove argument A, while you've made no effort to prove argument B. Argument A isn't even the same thing as argument B.

Yet, every time I ask for ONE single shred of evidence in support of argument B, I get nothing but evidence supporting argument A. Can I assume that is because there is not evidence for argument B? If not, lets see it. With all the time, energy, money and man-power that has been spent researching this topic, I find it telling that I haven't seen ONE shred of evidence supporting B. Not one memo, not one direct witness, not one "Whistle Blower" who says "Yeah, my boss rigged the election, he did it like this _________."

Rigging a national election is not a secret that stays kept. If it happened, there'd be evidence. If there was evidence, you'd be telling me.

Nothing, guys, not one single thing.

 

[Makalakumu]

Nothing, guys, not one single thing.

This is incorrect. I've pointed to thousands of people's testimony, however, you think they all simultaneously purjured themselves...and that what they claim is false.

 

[Phoenix44]

I like an interesting discussion involving opinion and fact as much as the next guy, but I've found that there is a certain type of person for whom fact and science has absolutely no meaning, because they're not interested in fact or science.

Look at President Bush. No matter how bad the war is going, no matter how many Americans die, no matter how deep into chaos Iraq falls, no matter how many Americans at home protest, and no matter how much the rest of the world disgrees with him, as far as he's concerned, everything is going great. Freedom is on the march. And he freely admits he doesn't even read the paper. So he must be REALLY shocked when he travels around the world and finds protesters everywhere.

Additionally, there is a certain type of Bush supporter for whom fact has no meaning either. Every statistic is "manipulated," every report is "fraud," every media article is "liberal bias." They never address fact or science...they simply attack the messenger. In fact, they'd really rather cover their ears and yell "Blablablablabla...I'M NOT LISTENING!!!"

Fortunately, they only represent about 37% of the American public. (And falling...)

 

[Makalakumu]

We all have our biases and suspicions. My particular suspicion is that a small group of right wing activists rigged the 2004 election. I don't think this suspicion is unfounded. I've read a lot of things that have a high degree of veracity that point me in this direction.

sgtmac46 and other are suspicious of the motives of people who testified under oath when they put forward their allegations. He has gone so far to say that they are "probably" lying. I'm not sure why he thinks this. The thing is that when a person makes a statement under oath, unless some specific information comes out that indicates that this person has lied (ie committed a crime purjury) its assumed that the statement is true.

So I guess we both may be a little guilty of letting our assumptions cloud our judgment...

It's not always easy to cast these suspicions aside, but for the sake of discussion, at least, I think it is neccessary. I can accept the fact that I may be wrong. Heck, I've lived with results for three years. If I'm wrong, life continues and I find something else to complain about...

Similarly, can you accept the fact that these people just may be telling the truth about what they experienced, what they saw. Even if we just take it as a thought experiment and assume that the allegations are true...for a little while. If you put those allegations up against the report given by the GAO, it raises some very disturbing questions.

For one, did somebody take advantage of the very loopholes that the GAO identified? This is the question that I feel needs to be investigated. It's like finding an open door and then discovering that your wallet is missing. It could just be misplaced, or someone very well could have stolen it.

A poll was taken after shortly after the January 5th 2005 report was released to congress. The poll stated that 1 in 5 americans believe that the election of 2004 was rigged. That is a lot of people, myself included, that have very disturbed by the events of 2004. A lot of people who are questioning the democratic values in which our country stands. An investigation could go a long way in settling this matter.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

There doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy. Just enough people acting independantly to cause a problem.

We have verified problems with the election (machine malfunctions, miscommunications, disinformation, etc) ccombined with various inquiries and studies, as well as Diebold bragging they will be proud to ddeliver the vote to Bush, to cause a concern.

Was it rigged? Who knows.
But, we should all care.