A Stolen Election in 2004?

[loki09789]

UpN,

Your correct, I am not using facts... but does the logic seem so far off base that it isn't plausible?

You are using 'facts' that are summaries of reports, presented interps of findings and, at times, loaded with inferrences that combine with hard numbers that lead to conclusions...is that reality? Not necessarily. It is a bunch of stacked data that is compiled and organized so that it points to what you want it to point to.

Now, you seem to be convinced of your stance, yet don't want to talk about productive alternatives.

In the first Bush vote it was the hanging chads, in this one it is manipulated paperless systems....at least in the next election there will be a new set of targets to rip up.

LOGICALLY speaking, the people most vested in exposing voter manipulation/vote tampering are not talking about this. If there was so much evidence that clearly indicated a Bush Support coordinated effort (conspiracy) then why aren't the major players (Kerry, Democratic party, Democratic voting officials, Department of Justice, ACLU....) all sifting through it? If it is so easy for you to 'prove' it here, why is Bush still in office, or at least the parties that coordinated to tamper with the voting being slammed?

Conspiracy...how am I using it in a 'loaded' way? I don't feel like I am the one with a load right now.

Answer at your own will, I am done with this. You have attempted to convince me/people that we have to see your problem as valid. I am saying your beating a dead horse but if you are going to pose a 'problem' that you believe to be true, offer solutions/alternatives to at least get something productive from it more than just the satisfaction of party/personal character bashing based on assumptions and partial information (partial because you don't have access to all that a Dept. of Justice investigation would)...gee sounds like the approach that Bush is accused of using to justify attacking Iraq.

 

[lvwhitebir]

I agree that it sounds like chest thumping rather than real facts. Most of the evidence I've seen is similar to the evidence pointing towards the existence of aliens on Earth or Bigfoot -- very anecdotal. I fail to see how the presence of the police or the ticketing of parking-violators sways the vote either way.

1) Ohio voted 75% using a paper-based system. Ohio required a paper trail for the electronic system that were used. Both the Republican and Democratic parties were involved in the recount and recertification. If there was a problem, why did everyone agree with the recertification? If they didn't agree, how did it get certified?

2) If election laws were broken, we'll find out in court where evidence will be presented and discussed, assuming someone has enough evidence to take it to court. Let me know when the trial date is and I'll give it some attention.

I would prefer for people to stop yelling fire and start providing solutions to put it out. I suppose your solution is to take all Republicans out of office and replace them with Democrats, but that doesn't fix the underlying problem.

Personally, I would give more credence to your arguments if you had just kept the discussion around voting problems, rather than pointing at a Republican conspiracy.

WhiteBirch

 

[Makalakumu]

Incidentally...

VOTE 2004: FAIR OR FRAUD?
Jan. 19, 2005

In this very partisan atmosphere, it may not surprise you to hear that there are some people out there who believe the winner of the 2004 U.S. presidential race was John Kerry -- that he should be the focus of the extravagant inaugural parade that will make its way up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House tomorrow. These very vocal critics believe that because of voting irregularities in Ohio on Election Day, George Bush actually lost the election. Some go even further to say that the Republicans conspired to steal it. Washington has been dressed up once again for the festivities, so it seems a little late, but tonight we'll listen to the arguments and see if they have any merit.



If there had been more voting machines and less partisan oversight of the voting in Ohio, John Kerry would have carried the state, and had the electoral votes to carry the election. That's what some people think. Many of these arguments need to be looked at in the context of the vote in 2000, which also had serious problems and where partisan politics did play a role. It ended up in the Supreme Court and there are still people who believe Al Gore won it fair and square. But do the irregularities in Ohio rise to the same level? Or are we being subjected to much more concentrated criticism because of that anonymous engine of information called the Internet?

Part of the problem surrounding the various arguments about what happened in Ohio (and other states) is that those exit polls threw people off once again. By early afternoon on Election Day the poll results were being leaked very early on, showing that John Kerry was in the winner's column. Those results were turned upside down later by the actual results. But those early results had a lot of people convinced. "Nightline" correspondent Chris Bury, who was in Ohio on Election Day, sorts through all of this to see if any of the arguments that George Bush lost have any merit.

And what about some of the political shenanigans in past presidential elections? There are many great stories about the way political machines used to operate and who got paid to make them run. Ted Koppel will chat with two entertaining Washington watchers who will gingerly remove those political skeletons from the closet, just for some perspective.

We hope you'll join us.

Gerry Holmes & The Nightline Staff
Senior Producer
Washington Bureau

For a large-print version of this e-mail, click here and choose the largest font size in the top right corner.


-----------
If you have questions or comments regarding this message or a recent "Nightline" broadcast, please do not hit reply;
simply click on this link to send your message directly to the "Nightline" staff:
Or log on to the new "Nightline" Message Board: http://forums.go.com/abcnews/forum?forumID=15&byThread=true

Chat with "Nightline" guests and find articles, transcripts and video excerpts on our Web site at: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/

So, how long did it take for Watergate to break?

 

[Makalakumu]

Your correct, I am not using facts... but does the logic seem so far off base that it isn't plausible?.

Yes. You are trying to attribute this a shoddy system that naturally allows for this kind of error. Political scientists have already calculated the error and its z-score and the error of the 2004 election is well above what could be called systematic. In fact, for all of the "errors" to report exactly like they did, the chances for this occurence are 250,000,000 to one.

Sorry to be C3PO to your Han Solo... :jedi1:

You are using 'facts' that are summaries of reports, presented interps of findings and, at times, loaded with inferrences that combine with hard numbers that lead to conclusions...is that reality? Not necessarily. It is a bunch of stacked data that is compiled and organized so that it points to what you want it to point to.

Where else can it point? What you postulate as an alternative doesn't take into account all of the data. Any theoretical explanation is only as good as the data it fits. If you can find a better theory (or anyone else for that matter) by all means attempt to do so.

Also, any theory will have bias and in statistical analysis, there are many ways to take this into account. This bias does not mean that one can ignore data, though. Thus far, the best explanation for the data indicates deliberate tampering with the real results of the election.

Now, you seem to be convinced of your stance, yet don't want to talk about productive alternatives.

I am convinced of my position thus far. I am convinced because of the information that I have researched. I would be more willing to discuss alternatives if some pertinent research was presented that clearly fell outside the predictions of the proposed hypothesis.

In the first Bush vote it was the hanging chads, in this one it is manipulated paperless systems....at least in the next election there will be a new set of targets to rip up.

LOGICALLY speaking, the people most vested in exposing voter manipulation/vote tampering are not talking about this. If there was so much evidence that clearly indicated a Bush Support coordinated effort (conspiracy) then why aren't the major players (Kerry, Democratic party, Democratic voting officials, Department of Justice, ACLU....) all sifting through it? If it is so easy for you to 'prove' it here, why is Bush still in office, or at least the parties that coordinated to tamper with the voting being slammed?

Actually, they are, but I don't think that anyone is listening. Sen. Harry Ried the new senate minority leader one one of the senators that backed the congression challenge. Other prominent democrats have followed suit. Sen. John Kerry has stated that he plans on introducing legislation that will accomplish two things: one is that it will force the Justice Dept. fully investigate all allegations of voter fraud (the key word here is force), two make changes so these kinds of things can never happen again. Also, in Ohio and at a Federal level, possible criminal charges are being examined for their Secratary of State. The system is slow and ponderous, but it is moving, make no mistake.

Incidentally, every step of the way, this movement has been opposed by Republicans. White House press secratary Scott McClellen stated, "this administration will not entertain the foolish allegations of conspiracy theorists." Senate Majority leader Bill Frist referred to this movement as "the tin-hatter brigade" among Democrats (I guess John Kerry and Harry Ried, two of the most powerful Dems in the country are now part of this brigade ). Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage et al are decrying this as just another sore loser attempt to subvert democracy (Oh Please!!!!).

These people are doing everything in their power to obfuscate the evidence and bar investigation. Time will tell.

Conspiracy...how am I using it in a 'loaded' way? I don't feel like I am the one with a load right now.

Two people deciding to bake an apple pie have formed a "conspiracy". I believe that you are using it in the very Rush Limbaugh sort of sense...in order to cast doubt without dealing with the evidence directly.

Answer at your own will, I am done with this. You have attempted to convince me/people that we have to see your problem as valid. I am saying your beating a dead horse but if you are going to pose a 'problem' that you believe to be true, offer solutions/alternatives to at least get something productive from it more than just the satisfaction of party/personal character bashing based on assumptions and partial information (partial because you don't have access to all that a Dept. of Justice investigation would)...gee sounds like the approach that Bush is accused of using to justify attacking Iraq.

In a way, the Dept of Justice may be the very last people to pick this up information/investigation. They will be forced to by patriots banding together and using the internet to preserve democracy in the US. In this way, the internet is becoming another check on governmental malfesance by allowing information to spread freely.

Votergate will become the next Watergate in my opinion.

 

[Makalakumu]

I agree that it sounds like chest thumping rather than real facts. Most of the evidence I've seen is similar to the evidence pointing towards the existence of aliens on Earth or Bigfoot -- very anecdotal. I fail to see how the presence of the police or the ticketing of parking-violators sways the vote either way.

Most is a gross mischaracterization. Some is "anecdotal" in the sense that it comes in "eye witness" form.

1) Ohio voted 75% using a paper-based system. Ohio required a paper trail for the electronic system that were used. Both the Republican and Democratic parties were involved in the recount and recertification. If there was a problem, why did everyone agree with the recertification? If they didn't agree, how did it get certified?

There are a number of problems with the above. First of all, "the paper trail" in Ohio has been sealed by Kenneth Blackwell and is unavailable for public scrutiny until after the final certification. Secondly, it has been shown that not all of Ohio's electronic voting machines left a paper trail. Thirdly, Democratic involvement in the recount and certification was quite limited. Mr. Blackwell made most of the decisions and he rushed the checks and balances process before it could pick up any of the things we are seeing now...and then has proceeded to block any further attempt to investigate "public" records. This has left many Ohio Democrats incensed.

2) If election laws were broken, we'll find out in court where evidence will be presented and discussed, assuming someone has enough evidence to take it to court. Let me know when the trial date is and I'll give it some attention.

I'll do my best. Time will tell. The system is moving though.

I would prefer for people to stop yelling fire and start providing solutions to put it out. I suppose your solution is to take all Republicans out of office and replace them with Democrats, but that doesn't fix the underlying problem.

I agree, but that would be a solution I would propose. In fact, proposing solutions may be hazardess to your health...

http://www.assassinationscience.com/The_Death_of_a_Patriot.pdf

Personally, I would give more credence to your arguments if you had just kept the discussion around voting problems, rather than pointing at a Republican conspiracy.

Sure, but once you begin to look at the voting problems and the bulk of the evidence begins to surface, the conclusion that the election was tampered with is unavoidalbe.

 

[loki09789]

Sen. John Kerry has stated that he plans on introducing legislation that will accomplish two things: one is that it will force the Justice Dept. fully investigate all allegations of voter fraud (the key word here is force), two make changes so these kinds of things can never happen again. Also, in Ohio and at a Federal level, possible criminal charges are being examined for their Secratary of State. The system is slow and ponderous, but it is moving, make no mistake.

In a way, the Dept of Justice may be the very last people to pick this up information/investigation. They will be forced to by patriots banding together and using the internet to preserve democracy in the US. In this way, the internet is becoming another check on governmental malfesance by allowing information to spread freely.

Votergate will become the next Watergate in my opinion.

I know I said I was done, but riding the pigtails of Kerry's use of one word "forced" is so clearly a case of bias and loaded commentary it isn't even funny.

Now the implication is that a sworn public servent (not just politicians anymore but Law Enforcement agents - most of whom are law grads or even barred lawyers) are in need of "forcing" to do their job about something this large and blatantly wrong if it is supportable....

But I am the one using terms like conspiracy in a Rush-like implicative way....

Again, there have been numerous cases where comments about the reliability, motives and actions of politicians have been questionable at best, but when politicians start making statements about this...suddenly they are being noble and justice minded....inconsistency in your presentation of the same source/people between topics doesn't garner much credibility IMO.

Now, really, honest.............I'm done, arguing this.

You can be right, I will be wrong....can I start reading 'solutions' now that you have made your point?

 

[Makalakumu]

Now the implication is that a sworn public servent (not just politicians anymore but Law Enforcement agents - most of whom are law grads or even barred lawyers) are in need of "forcing" to do their job about something this large and blatantly wrong if it is supportable....

Just stop and think about this for a moment...Just because someone has sworn an oath to serve the public does not mean that they will do so in a manner that is just or even lawfull. Historically, there have been many cases where the Justice Dept had to be forced to investigate something. From the 60's onto today, there have been dozens of concrete examples. I seem to recall something about a burglary...

Again, there have been numerous cases where comments about the reliability, motives and actions of politicians have been questionable at best, but when politicians start making statements about this...suddenly they are being noble and justice minded....inconsistency in your presentation of the same source/people between topics doesn't garner much credibility IMO.

Can one be critical of a person, but then when they do something you like, be appreciative? Or is there no middle ground? If not, does this mean that when President Bush does something I like, I can't give him credit for that?

You can be right, I will be wrong....can I start reading 'solutions' now that you have made your point?

Yes. TruVote is a good system from what I have seen. Doing a little research...