A Stolen Election in 2004?

Makalakumu · Jan 14, 2005

modarnis said:
Obviously your opinions are too strong to scrutinize the data and footnotes in all of the research you link us too. Many of the links are dead links(including the most recent one you left). Its not worth the effort spinning my wheels with you. You are unwilling to be critical of the sources you cite. Maybe in the end I will get proven wrong :asian: . At least when all of these court cases come to fruition, I will be able to easily access the published court opinions/decisions from verifiable sources that aren't websites dedicated to any particular agenda.

As to my previous connect the dots analogy, I was not refering to the discussion here as much as the leaps of faith, questionable, if not outright made up data in some of the cited studies, all painting a picture that is supposed to be a smoking gun of how the election was stolen. My good friend from Mississipi would say That Dog Don't Hunt.

I feel that the information is sound enough for me to form a strong opinion. I guess time will tell. Either way, GWB is our president and I don't think anything will change that. Still getting used to that fact...no matter how distasteful.

Makalakumu · Jan 14, 2005

Executive Summary of Congressional Report

Preserving Democracy:
What Went Wrong in Ohio
Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff

Wednesday 05 January 2005

Executive Summary

Representative John Conyers, Jr., the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked the Democratic staff to conduct an investigation into irregularities reported in the Ohio presidential election and to prepare a Status Report concerning the same prior to the Joint Meeting of Congress scheduled for January 6, 2005, to receive and consider the votes of the electoral college for president. The following Report includes a brief chronology of the events; summarizes the relevant background law; provides detailed findings (including factual findings and legal analysis); and describes various recommendations for acting on this Report going forward.

We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in the Ohio presidential election, which resulted in a significant disenfranchisement of voters. Cumulatively, these irregularities, which affected hundreds of thousand of votes and voters in Ohio, raise grave doubts regarding whether it can be said the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone federal requirements and constitutional standards.

This report, therefore, makes three recommendations: (1) consistent with the requirements of the United States Constitution concerning the counting of electoral votes by Congress and Federal law implementing these requirements, there are ample grounds for challenging the electors from the State of Ohio; (2) Congress should engage in further hearings into the widespread irregularities reported in Ohio; we believe the problems are serious enough to warrant the appointment of a joint select Committee of the House and Senate to investigate and report back to the Members; and (3) Congress needs to enact election reform to restore our people's trust in our democracy. These changes should include putting in place more specific federal protections for federal elections, particularly in the areas of audit capability for electronic voting machines and casting and counting of provisional ballots, as well as other needed changes to federal and state election laws.

With regards to our factual finding, in brief, we find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.

First, in the run up to election day, the following actions by Mr. Blackwell, the Republican Party and election officials disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens, predominantly minority and Democratic voters:

The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters. This was illustrated by the fact that the Washington Post reported that in Franklin County, "27 of the 30 wards with the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for Bush. At the other end of the spectrum, six of the seven wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins for Kerry." (See Powell and Slevin, supra). Among other things, the conscious failure to provide sufficient voting machinery violates the Ohio Revised Code which requires the Boards of Elections to "provide adequate facilities at each polling place for conducting the election."

Mr. Blackwell's decision to restrict provisional ballots resulted in the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters, again predominantly minority and Democratic voters. Mr. Blackwell's decision departed from past Ohio law on provisional ballots, and there is no evidence that a broader construction would have led to any significant disruption at the polling places, and did not do so in other states.

Mr. Blackwell's widely reviled decision to reject voter registration applications based on paper weight may have resulted in thousands of new voters not being registered in time for the 2004 election.

The Ohio Republican Party's decision to engage in preelection "caging" tactics, selectively targeting 35,000 predominantly minority voters for intimidation had a negative impact on voter turnout. The Third Circuit found these activities to be illegal and in direct violation of consent decrees barring the Republican Party from targeting minority voters for poll challenges.
The Ohio Republican Party's decision to utilize thousands of partisan challengers concentrated in minority and Democratic areas likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of legal voters, who were not only intimidated, but became discouraged by the long lines. Shockingly, these disruptions were publicly predicted and acknowledged by Republican officials: Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican Party, admitted the challenges "can't help but create chaos, longer lines and frustration."
Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent voters who requested absentee ballots but did not receive them on a timely basis from being able to receive provisional ballots 6 likely disenfranchised thousands, if not tens of thousands, of voters, particularly seniors. A federal court found Mr. Blackwell's order to be illegal and in violation of HAVA.

Second, on election day, there were numerous unexplained anomalies and irregularities involving hundreds of thousands of votes that have yet to be accounted for:

There were widespread instances of intimidation and misinformation in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Protection, Due Process and the Ohio right to vote. Mr. Blackwell's apparent failure to institute a single investigation into these many serious allegations represents a violation of his statutory duty under Ohio law to investigate election irregularities.

We learned of improper purging and other registration errors by election officials that likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters statewide. The Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition projects that in Cuyahoga County alone over 10,000 Ohio citizens lost their right to vote as a result of official registration errors.

There were 93,000 spoiled ballots where no vote was cast for president, the vast majority of which have yet to be inspected. The problem was particularly acute in two precincts in Montgomery County which had an undervote rate of over 25% each - accounting for nearly 6,000 voters who stood in line to vote, but purportedly declined to vote for president.
There were numerous, significant unexplained irregularities in other counties throughout the state: (i) in Mahoning county at least 25 electronic machines transferred an unknown number of Kerry votes to the Bush column; (ii) Warren County locked out public observers from vote counting citing an FBI warning about a potential terrorist threat, yet the FBI states that it issued no such warning; (iii) the voting records of Perry county show significantly more votes than voters in some precincts, significantly less ballots than voters in other precincts, and voters casting more than one ballot; (iv) in Butler county a down ballot and underfunded Democratic State Supreme Court candidate implausibly received more votes than the best funded Democratic Presidential candidate in history; (v) in Cuyahoga county, poll worker error may have led to little known thirdparty candidates receiving twenty times more votes than such candidates had ever received in otherwise reliably Democratic leaning areas; (vi) in Miami county, voter turnout was an improbable and highly suspect 98.55 percent, and after 100 percent of the precincts were reported, an additional 19,000 extra votes were recorded for President Bush.

Third, in the post-election period we learned of numerous irregularities in tallying provisional ballots and conducting and completing the recount that disenfanchised thousands of voters and call the entire recount procedure into question (as of this date the recount is still not complete):

Mr. Blackwell's failure to articulate clear and consistent standards for the counting of provisional ballots resulted in the loss of thousands of predominantly minority votes. In Cuyahoga County alone, the lack of guidance and the ultimate narrow and arbitrary review standards significantly contributed to the fact that 8,099 out of 24,472 provisional ballots were ruled invalid, the highest proportion in the state.

Mr. Blackwell's failure to issue specific standards for the recount contributed to a lack of uniformity in violation of both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clauses. We found innumerable irregularities in the recount in violation of Ohio law, including (i) counties which did not randomly select the precinct samples; (ii) counties which did not conduct a full hand court after the 3% hand and machine counts did not match; (iii) counties which allowed for irregular marking of ballots and failed to secure and store ballots and machinery; and (iv) counties which prevented witnesses for candidates from observing the various aspects of the recount.

The voting computer company Triad has essentially admitted that it engaged in a course of behavior during the recount in numerous counties to provide "cheat sheets" to those counting the ballots. The cheat sheets informed election officials how many votes they should find for each candidate, and how many over and under votes they should calculate to match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law.

Makalakumu · Jan 14, 2005

ghostdog2 · Jan 14, 2005

You're spending way too much time on this. Don't you know? The election's over. Your guy lost. Enjoy the next 4 years because the next guy will be Bush times two.

Tgace · Jan 14, 2005

Is that all you can find?

"If you cant dazzle them with dexterity........"

modarnis · Jan 15, 2005

Thanks for the reference to an actual court cases Moss V. Bush and Moss v. Moyer. Here is the link to the decisions in these cases. You will be surprised to find that the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed both of the cases:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-ohio-71.pdf

At least this evidence is published in an official format and verifiable by anyone who chooses to find it

Makalakumu · Jan 15, 2005

modarnis said:
Thanks for the reference to an actual court cases Moss V. Bush and Moss v. Moyer. Here is the link to the decisions in these cases. You will be surprised to find that the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed both of the cases:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-ohio-71.pdf

At least this evidence is published in an official format and verifiable by anyone who chooses to find it

I knew the cases would be dismissed. Mr. Moyer refuses to recuse himself in both decisions. He has said on the record that "both of these cases would get nowhere" without seeing the evidence. This and other things have revealed his bias. The second case, where he is the defendent, addresses this...but it, too was dismissed by him.

This is very much like 2000, but the court in this case is more partisan.

Makalakumu · Jan 15, 2005

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1085

Blackwell refused to be deposed. He was the second consecutive Republican Secretary of State to simultaneously serve as a state's Bush-Cheney campaign chair in a state that decided a presidential election for Bush, following Florida's Katherine Harris. He is now running for governor of Ohio. Blackwell argued he did not have to testify because he was "a public official."

One key element of the case involved the Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice race, where the Democratic candidate received many more votes than Kerry in southern Ohio. That raised the possibility that computer tabulators may have assigned Kerry votes to her candidacy. The election challenge asked Ohio's Chief Justice Thomas Moyer to recuse himself from the case, which was refused. Thus, Moyer made it clear a fair verdict in Moss v. Bush at the Ohio Supreme Court level was unlikely. A second action -- Moss v. Moyer -- based on those same returns was also dropped by the 37 plaintiffs, who will now seek other legal routes to address that conflict of interest and the massive civil rights violations that defined the Ohio vote.

The contesters believe that the alleged constitutional and statutory rights violated on Election Day were racially motivated. The contesters assert that they "remain dedicated to the goal of ensuring through the legal system that in the future no other group of people, or indeed any individual voter, is deprived of the fundamental and basic right to elect our leaders freely and fairly in an election in which all votes are counted honestly."

The statement issued by the contesters contends that Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, Karl C. Rove, Richard B. Cheney and George W. Bush "were properly noticed for depositions" and "failed to appear for their depositions."

The contesters say they "look forward to the day" when they can place Blackwell, Rove, Cheney and Bush under oath in "an appropriate legal setting."

PeachMonkey · Jan 15, 2005

ghostdog2 said:
You're spending way too much time on this. Don't you know? The election's over. Your guy lost. Enjoy the next 4 years because the next guy will be Bush times two.

What if the next time it's the Democrats stealing votes?

The point is about guaranteeing fair elections, not who won or lost.

Makalakumu · Jan 15, 2005

We may never have a free election in this country again...

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

Dr. Fetzer was a professor of mine. He taught my philosophy of science classes. Read this carefully.

Incidentally, I did not know that Ed Gillespie, chairman of the RNC, called for the complete elimination of exit polling.

There goes the final safeguard to our democracy...

PeachMonkey · Jan 15, 2005

upnorthkyosa said:
Incidentally, I did not know that Ed Gillespie, chairman of the RNC, called for the complete elimination of exit polling.

There goes the final safeguard to our democracy...

The Ukraine elections were disputed internationally, and reheld, because of evidence from exit polling, which was actually less reliable and scientific than the exit polling in the Ohio elections, which demonstrated Kerry as the leader.

Exit polling has served as a standard by which international bodies have verified disputed election results for decades; however, in the United States, we're moving away from them?

As the Reverend Jesse Jackson said recently, if the Ohio election had been held in the Ukraine, it would not have been certified.

modarnis · Jan 15, 2005

>>>Exit polling has served as a standard by which international bodies have verified disputed election results for decades; however, in the United States, we're moving away from them?>>>

I've always been under the mistaken impression that our constitutional framework was the safeguard to democracy. Which Article, Section or Amendment to the Constitution covers exit polls? I must have missed that day in class

PeachMonkey · Jan 15, 2005

modarnis said:
I've always been under the mistaken impression that our constitutional framework was the safeguard to democracy. Which Article, Section or Amendment to the Constitution covers exit polls? I must have missed that day in class

Exit polling is a technique to help verify that those constitutional protections are actually provided.

My point was simply that we rely heavily on them to verify international elections, but apparently, believe they're unreliable for verifying disputed American elections, even if they're held in a more scientific fashion in the States than in those international disputes.

loki09789 · Jan 18, 2005

upnorthkyosa said:
hmmmmm

"Conspiracy" is a term that draws many connections. The connections that you have made in regards to this case do not describe what actually happened.

Disconnected? I don't think so. Ohio Secratary of State James Blackwell spearheaded a lot of what we saw. He is currently doing his best to dodge the law.

Perhaps republicans aren't complaining because democrats don't do stuff like this.

Poorly presented? Perhaps there is a fair bit of bias in that assessment...

Recognition of the problem needs to occur before one can suggest solutions.

hmmmm what? A few years ago there were allogations of "Whitewater Scandal" surrounding the Clinton's, now this stuff with Bush.... my point was about the firebombing, open shooting and threats to families (that could reasonably be believed because they had happened in the recent past...) that occur in 3rd world country elections at times. Look at Bosnia, Pre WWII Germany and Hitler's rise to power and even current Iraq.

Disconnected in the sense that there is no proven link, master mind, coordinating agent that is linking these occurances under one plan.

No..."Democrats" are good and "Republicans" are baddddd, what if we changed this to "Catholic" and "Protestent" or "Blacks" and "Whites"....come on. Such generalizations/bigotous comments reveal a bias spin on this whole thread IMO.

Yup, admittedly, because I don't feel like making a difficult and frustating issue worse by mislabelling it as "conspiracy" when all it is in reality is "convoluted/de-centralized."

You seem to recognize a problem, so pitch a solution/alternative. Write your party support to your lobby group of choice, vote for folks you don't think will do this (like all those saintly Democrats...How did the Kennedy family make their millions? Oh yeah, rum running and becoming city bosses. Clinton....let's not go there), and/or run for office yourself so that you can make those changes that you think need to be made. Do it with no intention of a long term career.

I didn't say there was NO problem, just not the problem that you are trying to postulate.

Makalakumu · Jan 18, 2005

loki09789 said:
hmmmm what? A few years ago there were allogations of "Whitewater Scandal" surrounding the Clinton's, now this stuff with Bush.... my point was about the firebombing, open shooting and threats to families (that could reasonably be believed because they had happened in the recent past...) that occur in 3rd world country elections at times. Look at Bosnia, Pre WWII Germany and Hitler's rise to power and even current Iraq.

Again, you point to extreme examples in order to illustrate your point. Not all third world examples are so extreme. Some third world elections are even peaceful...and in all of those elections the UN monitors them with exit polling. When the polls are off by as much as they were on Nov. 2nd, the election the election is considered fraudulent.

loki09789 said:
Disconnected in the sense that there is no proven link, master mind, coordinating agent that is linking these occurances under one plan.

More Dr. Evil fantasy land stuff. This does not have to be a requirement for the all of the things that have been presented on this thread to have occured. The closest thing to this would be the Ohio Secratary of State, who congressional officials are now pressing criminal investigations.

loki09789 said:
No..."Democrats" are good and "Republicans" are baddddd, what if we changed this to "Catholic" and "Protestent" or "Blacks" and "Whites"....come on. Such generalizations/bigotous comments reveal a bias spin on this whole thread IMO.

These comparisons are NOT analgous. Nor is the situation easily simplified to "good" vs "bad". My bias is obvious, but it does not change the facts.

loki09789 said:
Yup, admittedly, because I don't feel like making a difficult and frustating issue worse by mislabelling it as "conspiracy" when all it is in reality is "convoluted/de-centralized."

It sure would be nice if you would attempt to back this claim up. So far, you assertion is completely baseless and it flies in the face of all the evidence presented.

loki09789 said:
You seem to recognize a problem, so pitch a solution/alternative. Write your party support to your lobby group of choice, vote for folks you don't think will do this (like all those saintly Democrats...How did the Kennedy family make their millions? Oh yeah, rum running and becoming city bosses. Clinton....let's not go there), and/or run for office yourself so that you can make those changes that you think need to be made. Do it with no intention of a long term career.

There are great ideas out there, but I think this is more appropriate for another thread.

loki09789 said:
I didn't say there was NO problem, just not the problem that you are trying to postulate.

Again, why do you think that this is NOT the problem postulated? What evidence leads you to believe that?

loki09789 · Jan 18, 2005

upnorthkyosa said:
1. More Dr. Evil fantasy land stuff. This does not have to be a requirement for the all of the things that have been presented on this thread to have occured. The closest thing to this would be the Ohio Secratary of State, who congressional officials are now pressing criminal investigations.

2. These comparisons are NOT analgous. Nor is the situation easily simplified to "good" vs "bad". My bias is obvious, but it does not change the facts.

3. It sure would be nice if you would attempt to back this claim up. So far, you assertion is completely baseless and it flies in the face of all the evidence presented.

4. There are great ideas out there, but I think this is more appropriate for another thread.

5. Again, why do you think that this is NOT the problem postulated? What evidence leads you to believe that?

1. Yes, and the UN has been seen as SUCH an effective monitor of the worlds corruption issues in nations....who was it that blocked them from inspection for over 10 years? Again, on one hand, the UN is a large paper tiger but when it is for your purpose it is the source of veracity. How were 'exit polls' conducted in these nations that you are using as valid comparison? If they were not run as scientifically, validly, how can you trust the results - expect when they seem to support your position?

2. Your bias is obvious and that does change the facts because of what and how you present it.

3. I am not carrying the burden of proof in this discussion. You made the postulation, either dispute my statements or prove your point. So far the 'evidence' only shows a problem, not a plan.

4. I would think that taking an issue/problem from introduction to resolution would be healthier and more productive than continuing a thread that only screams doom and gloom.

5. I don't think that this is the problem YOU are postulating because of earier posts. You have stated outright that this is all a coordinated effort, a 'stolen election' that was contrived by someone/some group....not me. I am saying that the sour grapes response during the stress of a war time election will polarize people and THAT is as much a contributor to all of this complaining as anything else. It is/could be changing people's perception of the 'evidence' from simply 'messed up' to 'scheme/conspiracy'.....because of that stress.

By the way, the Hitler example, the Bosnia example, the Iraq example.....follow the trail of bodies and then tell me it is fantasy land.

loki09789 · Jan 18, 2005

PeachMonkey said:
Exit polling is a technique to help verify that those constitutional protections are actually provided.

My point was simply that we rely heavily on them to verify international elections, but apparently, believe they're unreliable for verifying disputed American elections, even if they're held in a more scientific fashion in the States than in those international disputes.

I've already commented on the 'veracity' of exit polling (who is running it, who is tabulating responses, who is presenting the findings....) in the international community.

But to comment on the either/or comment about validity:

Along those same lines, it is interesting that on one hand the LEO that 'serve and protect' are the hero of the day when people choose to see them that way, but in these cases they become 'police state' enforcers by either not responded to certain problems or bullying certain types....when every county, state, local, federal department runs in cooperation/coordination but generally independently of each other.

By now, some officer, department that was really feeling guilty would have come forward about cooperation in voter bullying or anything to the like.

Makalakumu · Jan 18, 2005

loki09789 said:
1. Yes, and the UN has been seen as SUCH an effective monitor of the worlds corruption issues in nations....who was it that blocked them from inspection for over 10 years? Again, on one hand, the UN is a large paper tiger but when it is for your purpose it is the source of veracity. How were 'exit polls' conducted in these nations that you are using as valid comparison? If they were not run as scientifically, validly, how can you trust the results - expect when they seem to support your position?.

That has already been posted. Dr. Freeman's analysis cites the UN's own criteria.

loki09789 said:
2. Your bias is obvious and that does change the facts because of what and how you present it.

Bias cannot change facts. Fortunately, for me, the facts are playing in "my" direction. By the way, do you think that bias may be involved in the way you interpret the facts.

loki09789 said:
3. I am not carrying the burden of proof in this discussion. You made the postulation, either dispute my statements or prove your point. So far the 'evidence' only shows a problem, not a plan.

You are free to disagree without having to justify yourself, but you take it a step further by postulating an alternative. Show me the money? This would be a great discussiondueling viewpoints anyone?

By the way, for all reasonable purposes, I have shown more then enough evidence for my position.

loki09789 said:
4. I would think that taking an issue/problem from introduction to resolution would be healthier and more productive than continuing a thread that only screams doom and gloom.

Dont you think we need to decide on a problem first? Maybe we dont. There could be a solution that tackles both viewpointsthe TruVote system is pretty good.

loki09789 said:
5. I don't think that this is the problem YOU are postulating because of earlier posts. You have stated outright that this is all a coordinated effort, a 'stolen election' that was contrived by someone/some group....not me.

Coordinated, yes, but not on the scale that you are taking this too despite my numerous clarifications. The organization is local, but the ideologic goal is the same.

loki09789 said:
I am saying that the sour grapes response during the stress of a wartime election will polarize people and THAT is as much a contributor to all of this complaining as anything else. It is/could be changing people's perception of the 'evidence' from simply 'messed up' to 'scheme/conspiracy'.....because of that stress.

Again, this is the viewpoint that you postulate. I would like to see the basis for this argument, otherwise it seems baseless.

loki09789 said:
By the way, the Hitler example, the Bosnia example, the Iraq example.....follow the trail of bodies and then tell me it is fantasy land.

The original comment dealt with the idea that there is some top down evil conspiracy lead by a single person (or a small group of people) and extends across the country. This is fantasy island movie stuff and does not take into account the nature of the politics in question. The election fraud I have described were most likely the product of multiple independent local efforts between groups that share ideology and/or common goal.

loki09789 · Jan 18, 2005

upnorthkyosa said:
1. That has already been posted. Dr. Freeman's analysis cites the UN's own criteria.

2. Bias cannot change facts.

3. You are free to disagree without having to justify yourself, but you take it a step further by postulating an alternative.

4. By the way, for all reasonable purposes, I have shown more then enough evidence for my position.

5. Dont you think we need to decide on a problem first? Maybe we dont. There could be a solution that tackles both viewpointsthe TruVote system is pretty good.

6.Coordinated, yes, but not on the scale that you are taking this too despite my numerous clarifications. The organization is local, but the ideologic goal is the same.

7. Again, this is the viewpoint that you postulate. I would like to see the basis for this argument, otherwise it seems baseless.

8. The original comment dealt with the idea that there is some top down evil conspiracy lead by a single person (or a small group of people) and extends across the country. This is fantasy island movie stuff and does not take into account the nature of the politics in question. The election fraud I have described were most likely the product of multiple independent local efforts between groups that share ideology and/or common goal.

1. Criteria and actual application will vary because of circumstance...where the rubber meets the road, reality.

2. Bias can have a huge influence on 'facts.'
Ex. 27 out of 50 people approve of diapers.

Fact 1: "The majority of people approve of diapers"

Fact 2: "Diapers barely slid in as acceptable.

Fact 3: "The alleged diapers are approved by the majority of people"

Fact 4: "When 50 people, chosen from a pool of Western New York residence, chosen by computer generated random phone number selection, responded to the question 'Do you approve of diapers?' by personal interview, 27 responed with approval and 20 responded with disapproval and 3 responed with a no comment."

All responses based on the 'facts' (though the last included details just to emphasis the differences) but leaving different impressions from each statement...thus bias.

3. Again, your point, your proof. I am justified, just not using details - good old simple logic and context/rational thought to consider other views.

4. What position? That elections don't go smoothy? So what. I can complain about salt in my food but that doesn't mean that because someone says they are launching an investigation about it that it is true. The results of an investigation count. People pushing for that investigation only indicates suspicion - or it could also indicate that they want to look like they are supporting their party after losing an election..... Innocent until proven guilty....or something like that.

5. You have decided on the problem. If you feel that strongly about it, regardless of whether we agree on the 'why' of the problems, the solutions to solve the situations that you describe would be constructive. When you focus on 'fixing the blame' instead of the problem (establishing standards and practices that would eliminate the potential for unfair practices by anyone and everyone) you improve the quality for everyone. As it stands, it looks like finger pointing instead of reform....again.

6. So is it a local thing or not? THese guys meet and greet at conventions, assemblies, regular correspondence to reinforce your stated 'ideological goal' they share in common. What are you saying: Republicans are corrupt and use voter obstruction and intimidation and Democrats don't? You did come right out and say it that simply btw.

7. Yes it is 'baseless' because I don't throw up links and studies, but if I trust my ability to think logically, I can treat the nation as a single body - just as a person is a single body - and say that if an individual entity experiences negative reactions to stress (either because they are 'there' or because they are worried about loved ones that are there) and tend to have adverse stress reactions (irritability, loss of perspective, physical illness....) and recognize that these things can be paralleled in that 'national body' then it is not so 'baseless' but could be considered 'reasonable' as an observation. But, let me guess, you won't like my analogy so that won't work for you.

8. If it is a shared goal and is a common ideology across a broad part of the nation.....your implying that it is national/conspiratorial in nature.

Makalakumu · Jan 18, 2005

loki09789 said:
1. Criteria and actual application will vary because of circumstance...where the rubber meets the road, reality.

Actually, no they do not. These results have got to be repeatable or they are thrown away. This is part of the process of independent verification. Look, the veracity of exit poll data has been tested again and again and again. Exit polls are scientific tools that are used to measure election results. When there is a difference, then something tampered with the actual results.

loki09789 said:
2. Bias can have a huge influence on 'facts.'
Ex. 27 out of 50 people approve of diapers.

Fact 1: "The majority of people approve of diapers"

Fact 2: "Diapers barely slid in as acceptable.

Fact 3: "The alleged diapers are approved by the majority of people"

Fact 4: "When 50 people, chosen from a pool of Western New York residence, chosen by computer generated random phone number selection, responded to the question 'Do you approve of diapers?' by personal interview, 27 responed with approval and 20 responded with disapproval and 3 responed with a no comment."

All responses based on the 'facts' (though the last included details just to emphasis the differences) but leaving different impressions from each statement...thus bias.

You are talking about spin, not facts. Facts, like mass or exit poll data do not change. Do you think that your interpretations are affected by your bias?

loki09789 said:
3. Again, your point, your proof. I am justified, just not using details - good old simple logic and context/rational thought to consider other views.

If you disagree and I ask you for details and you do not give them, then the disagreement is baseless. If you present an alternative point of view and you do not spend the time grounding that POV with some sort of observational facts, then that POV is baseless.

I could try to fit your POV to the facts that I have found...which I have and I have shown again and again how it does not fit a large portion of them. So unless you have something else to add, there is no reason for ANYONE to logically accept your argument...

Your argument is faith-based.

loki09789 said:
4. What position? That elections don't go smoothy? So what. I can complain about salt in my food but that doesn't mean that because someone says they are launching an investigation about it that it is true. The results of an investigation count. People pushing for that investigation only indicates suspicion - or it could also indicate that they want to look like they are supporting their party after losing an election..... Innocent until proven guilty....or something like that.

So, lets see...

1. There is a 250,000,000 to 1 chance that the election results could end up the way they did by random chance.
2. Every single state with electronic voting that left no paper trail had a significant difference between the exit poll data and the actual results. And EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE gave Bush more votes.
3. EVERY SINGE INSTANCE of known and reported electronic voting mis-tallies put votes in the Bush column.
4. The Ohio Secratary of State violated at least five election laws according to the public record of the decisions he made. These violations not only suppressed the democratic vote in that state, but allowed him to throw away thousands of legal votes.
5. Ect...

Look, that is just a sampling of the evidence that I have been using to support my opinion. What have you shown?

Zero.

loki09789 said:
5. You have decided on the problem. If you feel that strongly about it, regardless of whether we agree on the 'why' of the problems, the solutions to solve the situations that you describe would be constructive. When you focus on 'fixing the blame' instead of the problem (establishing standards and practices that would eliminate the potential for unfair practices by anyone and everyone) you improve the quality for everyone. As it stands, it looks like finger pointing instead of reform....again..

This isn't so much about "fixing the blame" as showing the "correct problem." Also, there is a certain aspect of accountability that you are missing. People who broke the law need to be held accountable. Election results that are in question need to be questioned. Then we can decided what to do.

loki09789 said:
6. So is it a local thing or not? THese guys meet and greet at conventions, assemblies, regular correspondence to reinforce your stated 'ideological goal' they share in common. What are you saying: Republicans are corrupt and use voter obstruction and intimidation and Democrats don't? You did come right out and say it that simply btw...

There is a faction of the Republican party that is corrupt and is willing to subvert democracy in order to "win at all costs". Democrats have probably done similar things in the past. In 2004? Not according the evidence that I have seen.

loki09789 said:
7. Yes it is 'baseless' because I don't throw up links and studies, but if I trust my ability to think logically, I can treat the nation as a single body - just as a person is a single body - and say that if an individual entity experiences negative reactions to stress (either because they are 'there' or because they are worried about loved ones that are there) and tend to have adverse stress reactions (irritability, loss of perspective, physical illness....) and recognize that these things can be paralleled in that 'national body' then it is not so 'baseless' but could be considered 'reasonable' as an observation. But, let me guess, you won't like my analogy so that won't work for you....

Your argument is, by definition, faith based. There is no way to tell if what you are saying actually describes reality. If you want to describe reality, then you must ground what you are saying with some facts. This is the difference between creationism and evolution...now that is an analogy that works...

loki09789 said:
8. If it is a shared goal and is a common ideology across a broad part of the nation.....your implying that it is national/conspiratorial in nature.

For certain groups of people across the country, it certainly is conspiratorial in the sense that they are willing to break the laws and subvert democracy in order to "win at all costs".

Your usage of the word "conspiratorial" is very loaded by the way...

A Stolen Election in 2004?

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse

ghostdog2

Guest

Grandmaster

Purple Belt

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse

PeachMonkey

Guest

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse

PeachMonkey

Guest

Purple Belt

PeachMonkey

Guest

Senior Master

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse

Senior Master

Senior Master

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse

Senior Master

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse

Greenhouse Gasses...

Should Scott Peterson be executed?