Ohio Ballot Recount Will Happen....What Will it Reveal? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Yakk · 12-03-2004, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

2 Things

1) the article says "Katherine " Blackwell..... It's Kenneth and he is an asshole who dumped 1,000's of registrations for no reason.

2) Personally, I find it a sad day when our past 2 presidential elections are fraught with such controversy. I don't think this nation can withstand another questionable election and going to courts. I have lived through 9 of these babies and the last 2 have been the worst by far. The only way to keep the nation from having more partisanship and destructive politics is to just admit defeat, let the election stand and figure out a way to get Congress back in '06.

I think you misunderstand the situation. Appeasing aggressors only encourages them.

The Radical Right isn't interested in politics as usual -- they are interested in winning. Don't underestimate their desire to reach their goals. They want a bible-based American empire of croney capitalism with two castes: those that earn money from ownership, who live tax-free, and those who work for their money, who carry the tax burden.

One-sided comprimising is otherwise known as surrender. Your political opponents are on a holy quest to destroy and refashon in their own image the economic, moral and social systems that have kept the USA strong. They'll accept your comprimise as an easy victory.

While you are fighting a civilized game -- making the best of a bad situation, they are fighting a dirty war. And I'm not talking about Iraq.
edit: fixed link

Lebell · 12-03-2004, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

The Radical Right isn't interested in politics as usual -- they are interested in winning. Don't underestimate their desire to reach their goals. They want a bible-based American empire of croney capitalism with two castes: those that earn money from ownership, who live tax-free, and those who work for their money, who carry the tax burden.

I believe they also want to annex Canada, rape all it's natural resources, deport all the French speakers to France, and turn your hot women into Hooters Girls.

Or so I read on a web-page somewhere...

Ustwo · 12-03-2004, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I believe they also want to annex Canada, rape all it's natural resources, deport all the French speakers to France, and turn your hot women into Hooters Girls.

Or so I read on a web-page somewhere...

Ixnay the anadacay anplay alktay!

Shhh!

Don't make me take away your radical right ID card Lebell

Yakk · 12-03-2004, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I believe they also want to annex Canada, rape all it's natural resources, deport all the French speakers to France, and turn your hot women into Hooters Girls.

Or so I read on a web-page somewhere...

Did you bother visting that website, or did you just dismiss me without even thinking?

It isn't a tin foil hat conspiracy website.

It is a website run by neo-conservatives by neo-conservatives. Articles written by people who are quite high up in the Bush White House that detail reasons for, and means to achieve, unchallenged American military hegemony -- aka, an Empire. Papers from 1992 pushing for a war on Iraq for American "strategic interests" in the region, not because of WMD's, the Iraqi people, Al`Queda links, or any of the other wispy reasons put forward for the war.

You have heard about the Project for a New American Century?

I'm taking the stated agenda of the US right-wing at face value. Not the excuses they use to pass bills, but the policy papers they use to determine what bills to put forward.

Capital gains tax on investments are scheduled to expire. If you earn your money from owning things, you won't get taxed for it. If you earn your money by work, you will. This isn't some kind of projection, that is on the law books right now.

Inheritance taxes, which only hit 2% of estates, are going away. A family estate of less than 1 million $ isn't even touched by this tax These taxes hit large estates, and discouraging multi-generation economic dynasties. edit: Almost all of the tax revenue from this tax comes from multi-multi million dollar estates.

Know who DeLay is? Ask him what his position on the seperation of church and state is? How about Scalia?

How many liberal politicians have been called unpatriotic and traitors for daring to actually oppose right-wing politicians? How many judges where appointed by Bush without Senate oversight during the last 4 years, using the 'out of session' loophole? How many judges which the Senate refused to confirm got appointed this way?

I wish I was wearing a tin-foil hat. I'm not talking about vague trends, fears, or slippery slopes. I'm just reading the position papers of the policy makers, and the laws they have already passed.

I know most of this doesn't matter. Many people seem to select a political party, then decide on their morality and political opinions based off the party. The party they support can do no wrong, because that would mean they are wrong.

Ustwo · 12-03-2004, 12:49 PM

Quote:

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.

William Kristol, Chairman

Those horrible horrible neo-cons. I think the problem here isn't what the website says, but what conclusions you draw. Most of your facts are pretty easy to dispute like

Quote:

How many judges where appointed by Bush without Senate oversight during the last 4 years, using the 'out of session' loophole?

The reason for this was pretty obvious as the democrats own memo's had shown they will oppose any of Bush's candidates for the federal bench. Due to the voting rules in the senate you need 60 votes to get anything passed if people decide to filibuster.

smooth · 12-03-2004, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

I know most of this doesn't matter. Many people seem to select a political party, then decide on their morality and political opinions based off the party. The party they support can do no wrong, because that would mean they are wrong.

Yakk, at least in here, many people aren't basing their political decisions off the party. In fact, as you've just likely realized, it's unlikely they even pay attention to the ideas of the people who have control over their party's platform.

When people like this ("Empire Builders and Their Blueprint for US Power") speak on C-SPAN or major network show, they don't bother to hide their position. I have no idea how people on this board either miss that and blame "lefties" for being off the hook or ignore them. But whatever the rationale, it becomes obvious fairly quickly that they aren't in sync with the movements behind their own party.

Ustwo · 12-03-2004, 01:24 PM

Quote:

The Monitor asked a leading US foreign policy expert, Walter Russell Mead, to place neoconservative beliefs in historical context.

Which leaders in US history would be neocons today?

It's possible that Teddy Roosevelt would be a neocon. I think it's almost certain he would have supported the war in Iraq. And he wouldn't have cared about the lack of a UN resolution. I'm not sure who else would be a neocon in foreign policy. In some ways [neocons] are very original.

Hehe thats from Smooth's link, and I have to say I'm pleased.

Perhaps some people on these boards even agree with the policies of the 'leaders'

pan6467 · 12-03-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

I think you misunderstand the situation. Appeasing aggressors only encourages them.

The Radical Right isn't interested in politics as usual -- they are interested in winning. Don't underestimate their desire to reach their goals. They want a bible-based American empire of croney capitalism with two castes: those that earn money from ownership, who live tax-free, and those who work for their money, who carry the tax burden.

One-sided comprimising is otherwise known as surrender. Your political opponents are on a holy quest to destroy and refashon in their own image the economic, moral and social systems that have kept the USA strong. They'll accept your comprimise as an easy victory.

While you are fighting a civilized game -- making the best of a bad situation, they are fighting a dirty war. And I'm not talking about Iraq.
edit: fixed link

I don't deny that the GOP want total control and that there are some very bad eggs in office.

However, what I see is a rising in people believing that the Dems. crying election fraud is either sore losing OR conspiratorial whackos and the majority will tune them out.

You are not going to change this election, if you want to work on things and make sure that '06 elections are run more fairer then I can agree with that and believe in that. If your doing recounts and calling fraud to try to upset the election it won't happen.

So what do Dems need to do? Find a platform not so liberal but still based on our principles which are a government responsive to the people's needs that helps those that help themselves achieve the highest potential they can.

We have 2 years to watch the GOP self destruct and they will. But we have to be ready and in being ready we have to let go of the past and focus on how to win the future.

smooth · 12-03-2004, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

So what do Dems need to do? Find a platform not so liberal

more liberal. Let's see if the other half of the electorate was staying home because the two candidates were too far to the right for them.

Ustwo · 12-03-2004, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

more liberal. Let's see if the other half of the electorate was staying home because the two candidates were too far to the right for them.

To quote the great Gary Larson "ohpleaseohpleaseohplease".

I could not be happier than to see the most liberal democrat get the 2008 nomination.

stevo · 12-03-2004, 06:28 PM

I believe the recount is complete and Bush won by less votes than expected. about 110,000 thats 20-something thousand less than first thought. -shudder- I mean fart.

Rekna · 12-03-2004, 07:18 PM

Actually there was no recount yet. That was just the difference in the votes after provisionals.

For those of you who are against a recount what is your argument for being against it? Tell me 1 good reason to not perform a vote audit in ohio. It probably won't change the election but it will at least reveal how accurate (to a point) our voting system was in ohio.

Ustwo · 12-03-2004, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Actually there was no recount yet. That was just the difference in the votes after provisionals.

For those of you who are against a recount what is your argument for being against it? Tell me 1 good reason to not perform a vote audit in ohio. It probably won't change the election but it will at least reveal how accurate (to a point) our voting system was in ohio.

Shouldn't a closer state with electronic voting make more sense to check, like say Pennsylvania? This isn’t about checking out the voting systems, this is about a last gasp of hope that MAYBE somehow magically Kerry won.

stevo · 12-03-2004, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Actually there was no recount yet. That was just the difference in the votes after provisionals.

Well thats as close to a recount as you're gonna get.

pan6467 · 12-03-2004, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

more liberal. Let's see if the other half of the electorate was staying home because the two candidates were too far to the right for them.

Was tried with Mondale and Dukakis won't work. Yes, you need to differentiate yourself but people look for 3 qualities in a President.... Charisma, can he speak to the common folk, and being centrist. That's how Clinton won he was liberal where he needed to be and moderate where needed, he had a down home appeal and he had charisma. Kerry had the moderate/liberal down but had little charisma and would shit his down home look away.

Rekna, obviously you haven't read my posts about a recount is fine but it won't change the results of this election, hopefully it could change elections so that there is no question like this again.

But in all seriousness the dems better look toward '06 and '08 if they plan to win anything and not harp on the past.

smooth · 12-03-2004, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Was tried with Mondale and Dukakis won't work. Yes, you need to differentiate yourself but people look for 3 qualities in a President.... Charisma, can he speak to the common folk, and being centrist. That's how Clinton won he was liberal where he needed to be and moderate where needed, he had a down home appeal and he had charisma. Kerry had the moderate/liberal down but had little charisma and would shit his down home look away.

Rekna, obviously you haven't read my posts about a recount is fine but it won't change the results of this election, hopefully it could change elections so that there is no question like this again.

But in all seriousness the dems better look toward '06 and '08 if they plan to win anything and not harp on the past.

pan, I'd be more worried whether the "down the middle" shot can work anymore. The failure of that move might be one of the residual products of these polarizing 8 years. Maybe driving a wedge down the middle was intentional, but it certainly seems to be the case now regardless.

Clinton won, yes, but I didn't see him as particularly liberal. He won a slice of the electorate. I'm suggesting that democrats may be losing the battle over fighting over a piece of the slice of population that traditionally votes. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the other half of the electorate has actually been sufficiently motivated to go to the polls yet.

It could be because both candidates have just been too far right for them. The "middle" could be the people voting democrat nowdays. Of course, the flip-side is that the "middle" could be people voting republican these days, but Rove aimed his sights on the crowd furthest to the right he could see. I would be surprised if there were large amounts of people even further along the spectrum to the right, because then even Rove and Bush wasn't able to net them.

But it could be the case that there are 40 million "liberals" (basically, people who just want to be left alone to live their lives, is what I suspect, actually--who actually knows what politicospeak they actually will respond to) out there to be called upon to vote with the right message (which doesn't so far seem to be to keep moving further to the right or perceived middle).

But hopefully democrats will realize these things that sociologists have been saying for a long time: we have a very pernicious myth in this nation--the one about personal responsibility.

It's not as though one shouldn't be personally responsible, but that it doesn't account for everything. The myth is employed to explain away structural reasons for: poverty, inequality, crime, education's results, and success. In this case, the inverse, that kerry failed due to personal deficiencies rather than an onslaught of carefully crafted (and otherwise filtered) messages via the media. He was running against a warped view of the current state of global affairs, as well as a misdirected domestic focus. I don't put too much stock the idea that he didn't have charisma or any other personal defeciencies. That isn't something one has inside them anyway, it's built up by the followers (and that connects to the conduit of the message and how it's framed and delivered).

In short, unless we see someone in person, and even questionably then, we don't really know the personality of someone given that the images presented to us go through a variety of scripts and filters before we even get to receive them. Then, they go through a series of filters in our minds (also built up within a social context, and subject to be shaped by social structures, not autonomously in our minds) before we decide to view someone a certain way.

Manx · 12-04-2004, 12:25 AM

I echo smooth's comments. And pan, I point you to this thread which discusses the misguided concept of Democrats and liberals moving to the "center" to appeal to more voters.

Ultimately, I do not believe there is a new method of speaking that will compel these people, who simply focus on dealing with the myriad of issues that encompass their day-to-day lives, to turn out to vote. I think the best way of getting their attention and getting them to act is probably going to be to negatively affect their life - and that can be accomplished most readily with the constricting pressures of conservative policy.

Vote Republican. Read and regurgitate Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Instapundit. Decry the oppression of the Tom DeLay's. Bask in awe at the machismo of Rumsfeld. Defend Halliburton. Go back in the closet if you are gay or mock gay people if you are not. Buy a gun or two or three. Get angry when the media shows the horrors of war - but only if the perpetrators are American. Remind everyone about 9-11, constantly, lest they begin to say: 9-11? What's that? Use the words "freedom" and "democracy" as if you own them. Protest abortion clinics. Convert to Christianity or if you're already Christian, use the Bible as the foundation of logic. Lie to yourself in order to tell the "truth" to everyone else.

The best thing for this country will be a Republican victory in 2006. The backlash the Republican's will create is the best hope at mobilizing the people that do not want to force their will on everyone else but have only been focusing on their own life. Take away their accepted life and they will have no choice but to fight back.

It will probably take longer though. So vote Republican in 2008 as well. Sometimes you need to slap someone to wake them from a stupor.

pan6467 · 12-04-2004, 02:04 AM

The biggest problem we Dems have facing us and that needs to be addressed first is the local and state political scheme.

I maybe wrong because I am going by just Ohio, I believe it is the case in many states. I will research it.

In 2000, the census came back and redistricting was forced. States like Ohio were then sliced up again to foster a definitive GOP advantage (since the statehouses are responsible for districting and therefore the party in charge can gerrymander districts).

1994's GOP "revolution" wasn't really about the US offices, they won those but what their focus was on was the states, and they took quite a few. This allowed them to prepare and by the time redistricting came about they were able to reinforce their powerbase. (The Dems. have done this it's part of the game.)

Now the Dems. are faced to do something similar if they plan to have any power. They need to win these states back. In doing so, they will be able to in 2010's redistricting be able to regain what they've lost.

People think this "revolution" happened all at once, it didn't the GOP did the best possible thing in 1992 whether they realized it or lucked into it and that was lose the Federal offices but strengthen their base support in the states.

What the Dems. have to do (and I am not saying go right and become pseudo conservatives) is find what the base wants now, recruit great minds and start winning ground floor state elections, and hopefully, get strong enough to take the US House back in '06. (Which with 2 years of GOP in total control I think is highly possible.)

The presidency, US senate and governors are strange animals though, they do not rely on the districting but the state as a whole. They absolutely have to appeal to the masses and not just districts. That means they should be more centrist.

The Dems. need to fight the NRA's and Bible thumpers much the way those 2 powerhouse groups fight the Dems. Instead of giving them (pardon the pun) ammo, the Dems need to secure a position that is acceptable (in their district) while the Pres., Sen., and Gov. focus on the states as a whole regarding the issues.

If you're a Dem. running in a very religious district you need to make it clear that while you are very supportive of other issues in the party, you do not approve of gay marriage, or gun control in NRA districts. You need to get across that you REPRESENT the people of that district and you believe that you do it better than the GOP. I don't see the Dems doing that right now. The locals focus on national "headline issues" and are aboard for all party issues and they can't be.

Just my 2 cents.

beofotch5 · 12-05-2004, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Those horrible horrible neo-cons. I think the problem here isn't what the website says, but what conclusions you draw. Most of your facts are pretty easy to dispute like

The reason for this was pretty obvious as the democrats own memo's had shown they will oppose any of Bush's candidates for the federal bench. Due to the voting rules in the senate you need 60 votes to get anything passed if people decide to filibuster.

Bush won the election.. FAIR and SQUARE.

Tarl Cabot · 12-05-2004, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Actually there was no recount yet. That was just the difference in the votes after provisionals.

For those of you who are against a recount what is your argument for being against it? Tell me 1 good reason to not perform a vote audit in ohio. It probably won't change the election but it will at least reveal how accurate (to a point) our voting system was in ohio.

Because it reinforces the idea that recounts should happen whenever someone doesn't like the results of an election.

And because it puts election results in the hands of lawyers, instead of voters.

Manx · 12-06-2004, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarl Cabot

Because it reinforces the idea that recounts should happen whenever someone doesn't like the results of an election.

And because it puts election results in the hands of lawyers, instead of voters.

Those are the best reasons you could come up with?

host · 12-07-2004, 10:30 AM

A post Ohio vote certification update...............

Quote:

December 6, 2004 | 7:25 p.m. ET
<h3>Certified and/or certifiable (Keith Olbermann)</h3>

SECAUCUS - Exactly one month to the day before Congress will open the votes of the Electoral College, the Secretary of State of Ohio certified the state’s vote this afternoon, that moment in time which separates the Re-Count Exhibition Season from the Re-Count Regular Season.

Exactly per his legally-supported schedule, Kenneth Blackwell this afternoon made the November 2 vote official. With provisionals, absentees, and corrections, it turned out to be not a 136,000 vote margin for President Bush, but rather one of 119,000. The certification was almost immediately greeted by two protests, the prospect of a third, and the details of a fourth.

Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb today scheduled a news conference for Tuesday afternoon in Columbus at which the re-count request from he and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik will be formalized.

Still delayed, a long, long, long-shot bid - spearheaded by attorney Cliff Arnebeck - to have an Ohio Supreme Court Justice contest the actual election — holding off making the first count official until voting irregularities are reviewed. Mr. Arnebeck told us this afternoon that it now may be Wednesday before his suit is filed.

But the protests are not just from the fringes any more. Citing the long lines, shortages of ballots, voting machine meltdowns, and spoiled ballots, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe announced his party would spend "whatever it takes" to conduct what it calls "a comprehensive investigative study" of the vote in Ohio, one to be completed some time next year.

But just as McAuliffe insisted that the study was not intended "to contest the results of the 2004 election,” a slightly different message was coming from what remains of the Kerry-Edwards campaign in Ohio. Kerry's lead electoral attorney there, Daniel Hoffheimer, echoed the McAuliffe tone, noting "neither the pending Ohio recount nor this investigation is designed to challenge the popular vote in Ohio.”

But in another moment of perplexing tantalization from the Kerry camp, Hoffheimer also said, “while the election of the Bush-Cheney ticket by the Electoral College is all but certain..."

Well that’s enough to drive the remaining Kerry faithful right out of their capsules. File it next to “regardless of the outcome of this election,” and the debate over whether the campaign in Ohio should “join” or “participate in” the Glibs’ recount.

Meantime, what happens when the losing party in the election wants to investigate the election, but has no standing nor political capital to conduct actual hearings in, say, the House of Representatives? It hosts a "forum" — a friendly little informal gathering of members of the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn Office Building, Wednesday morning.

John Conyers and as many as dozen of the other 15 Democrats on Judiciary, who say they want to "discuss any issues and concerns regarding the numerous voting irregularities that have been reported in Ohio during the 2004 election."
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6533008/#041124a">
Conyers has invited a special guest </a>— none other than Warren Mitofsky, the head of Mitofsky International, one of the two companies that conducted exit polling for the television networks. Conyers has written to Mitofsky, asking him to release any of the so-called "raw data" from November 2, the materials constituting the exit polls that fired such controversy, particularly on the internet, and show up to Wednesday's little gathering.

Conyers' office told us Mr. Mitofsky has yet to R.S.V.P.

Interestingly, in the letter to Mitofsky, Conyers is not at all informal. He says Mitofsky can best serve truth right now “by testifying at a hearing we will be holding…”

If you’d like somebody to testify on behalf of the proposition that you’re not nuts for reading about, nor asking, questions, try the <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/public_editor/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1102165523269170.xml">Public Editor’s column </a> in Sunday’s edition of the Portland paper, The Oregonian. There, Mike Arrietta-Walden says the foremost complaint received from readers, is about his newspaper’s spotty coverage of voting irregularities. It’s very possible that a lot of the reader feedback was encouraged by websites, but that’s par for the course, as Mediaweek’s piece on the number of Brent Bozell-generated form letters received by the Federal Communications Commission..........
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/</a>

host · 12-15-2004, 12:37 AM

The bottom of the first quote box describes the security at the Greene County Ohio elections offices on the eve of a vote recount that could determine the legitmacy of Bush's 2004 election. Nothing to see here......move along now....

Quote:

• December 13, 2004 | 7:37 p.m. ET
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/</a>
<h3>Xenia-phobia (Keith Olbermann)</h3>

SECAUCUS - If the subject weren’t so serious, the clunky maneuverings of John Kerry and Kenneth Blackwell would make for a nice modernized version of the Keystone Kops, or maybe Gilbert & Sullivan.

It’s hard to tell which of them is doing the worse job convincing anybody that there’s nothing to see here — keep moving — pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Here is Kerry, insisting he is not invested in the outcome of an Ohio recount, asking through his lawyers to inspect the 92,000 ballots that contain no vote for president. And, through his interactions with Jesse Jackson and John Conyers, connecting into the Alliance for Democracy lawsuit to overturn or freeze the Ohio Electoral count, and into the assessment that Blackwell’s behavior “appears to violate Ohio law.”

And here is Blackwell, having insisted on 'Countdown' that there would be a re-count and his office would take no steps to prevent it, stepping on his own feet in Xenia, Ohio. Last Friday, Greene County election officials there tossed out two Green Party observers who had been given access to the examine the voting records there, attributing their actions to Blackwell’s directives that the so-called ‘canvassing period’ which follows every election be extended from ten days to more than a month because of the fact of the recount. Those county records, Blackwell’s people reasoned, needed to be sealed and handled with the “utmost care” until the recount was completed.

Just to round out the absurdity, those same two Greens returned to the Election Board building in Greene County (and what script editor would’ve permitted that coincidence?) on Saturday morning to find, they say, the facility unlocked, and all those ‘sealed’ voting machines and records out in the open where any passing vandal or political memorabilia junkie could’ve walked off with them (heck, I own two Broward County 2000 Voting Machines, if anybody would like to do a private recount). Greene County responded by insisting that while it was true that someone appears to have left the building unlocked, overnight, on Friday, and that nobody locked it up until Saturday afternoon, the other stuff — about the machines and records being unprotected — wasn’t true; they were inside locked rooms.

Well, that’s all right, then. .............

Quote:

Excerpt from today's Washington Post article: <h4>Several Factors Contributed to 'Lost' Voters in Ohio</h4> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64737-2004Dec14?language=printer">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64737-2004Dec14?language=printer</a>
In Cleveland, poorly trained poll workers apparently gave faulty instructions to voters that led to the disqualification of thousands of provisional ballots and misdirected several hundred votes to third-party candidates. <h3>In Youngstown, 25 electronic machines transferred an unknown number of votes for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to the Bush column.</h3>

In Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo, and on college campuses, election officials allocated far too few voting machines to busy precincts, with the result that voters stood on line as long as 10 hours -- many leaving without voting. Some longtime voters discovered their registrations had been purged.

WTF.....people ????? Bush's lead dropped from 136,000+ to 118,000+ by the
time Ohio Sec'ty of State Blackwell "certified" the state's vote on Dec. 6.
How many votes is an "unknown number" that were transferred to Bush from
Kerry by 25 electronic voting machines? A "reversed vote" narrows or increases the margin by 2 votes. Here is some more food for thought from
today's NY Times:

Quote:

<a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Lawmaker+Seeks+Inquiry+Into+Ohio+Vote&btnG=Search+News">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/politics/15ohio.html</a>
"Lawmaker Seeks Inquiry Into Ohio Vote"
By TOM ZELLER Jr.

Published: December 15, 2004

The ranking Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, plans to ask the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a county prosecutor in Ohio today to explore "inappropriate and likely illegal election tampering" in at least one and perhaps several Ohio counties.

The request for an investigation, made in a letter that was also provided to The New York Times, includes accounts from at least two county employees, but is based largely on a sworn affidavit provided by the Hocking County deputy director of elections, Sherole Eaton.

Among other things, Ms. Eaton says in her affidavit that a representative of Triad Governmental Systems, the Ohio firm that created and maintains the vote-counting software in dozens of Ohio counties, made several adjustments to the Hocking County tabulator last Friday, in advance of the state's recount, which is taking place this week.............

Web source for above articles contains much more information about Conyer's
investigation here: <a href="http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/">http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/</a>

<h3>Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything."
</h3> <a href="http://www.votefraud.org/josef_stalin_vote_fraud_page.htm">http://www.votefraud.org/josef_stalin_vote_fraud_page.htm</a>

host · 12-15-2004, 12:57 AM

The post before this one should be worth the time it will take to read
the first three quote boxes contained therein because:

1.) All three were written by reporters working for mainstream news
organizations who also employ editors who saw fit to publish them on
their news websites. (They are not opinion pieces or editorials.)

2.) They contain news coverage of the Ohio presidential election and it's
aftermath that are outrageous, and should outrage all Americans.

host · 12-16-2004, 12:48 PM

Does anyone have a sense of outrage.......anyone ?????

Quote:

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/</a>
• December 15, 2004 | 4:06 p.m. ET

Conyers: "Maintenance" violates state and federal laws (Keith Olbermann)

SECAUCUS— Congressman John Conyers' request that the FBI investigates the actions of a voting equipment manufacturer in Hocking County, Ohio last week, includes the assertion that those actions may have violated two federal laws, and as many as four state statutes.

Conyers, who will appear live on tonight's edition of "Countdown," notes in his letter to the FBI (and the Hocking County Prosecutor), that "for a period of 22 months from the date of a federal election... it (is) a felony for any person to 'willfully steal, destroy, conceal, mutilate, or alter' any such record."

The Michigan representative also wrote that under Ohio law, "during a period of official canvassing, all interaction with ballots must be 'in the presence of all of the members of the board and any other persons who are entitled to witness the official canvass'." Conyers notes that just last week, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell had declared that the so-called "canvassing period," which usually expires ten days after an election, had been extended to cover the period of the Ohio recount.

Conyers' office indicated there had not yet been a response from the FBI field office in Cincinnati, nor from the Hocking County Prosecutor's Office.

<h3>
Zzzzzz,,,,,,Zzzzzzz.....um.....oh.....am I awake ???? Am I posting in the
right place ????? (I thought that this was the political thread.....)</h3>

Quote:

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/</a>
• December 15, 2004 | 11:07 p.m. ET

Conyers "prepared" to contest Ohio Electoral Vote (Keith Olbermann)

NEW YORK - The ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee told us tonight on Countdown that he and others in Congress are considering formally challenging the slate of electors who cast Ohio’s votes, when those votes are opened and counted before a joint session of Congress on January 6th.

“We’re prepared to do that,” Conyers said. “And we understand the law as well as you.” After the on-air interview ended, the Michigan representative added that he and his colleagues had not yet decided whether or not to take the extraordinary constitutional step, and he had not sought the support of a Senator who would have to co-sign the challenge.

The constitution provides the challenge process for the eventuality that a given state’s popular vote is determined to have been compromised after that state has certified the vote, and its members of the Electoral College have cast their ballots for a presidential candidate. Such a challenge needs to be in written form, signed by one member of the Senate, and one member of the House. Upon its presentation, the joint vote-counting session would be adjourned, and the Senate and House separately vote, by simple majority, whether to accept the challenge, or let that state’s electoral votes stand as cast.............

<h3>Thank God, for you.....Keith Olbermann....your a journalist/patriot,
employed by a major U.S. news network.....where are the others ??????</h3>

host · 01-06-2005, 09:38 AM

The signifigance is that a partisan majority will be forced to display their
indifference to fair and honest elections when they vote to stop the
debate that will now be required today in both houses of congress. If crimes
were committed to illegitimately manipulate the vote in Ohio to obtain a
Bush majority, everyone who votes to stop an investigation will join those
involved in disenfranchising the American people from voting via methods
where ballots can be physically examined and accounted for. The Ohio and
Florida votes are tainted with a stench similiar to the first Ukraine vote.
Perhaps because the voting is a much newer right now enjoyed in the Ukraine, they refused to put up with exit poll inconsistancy, while the majority
of American sheeple react to similar circumstances by barely raising an
eyebrow.

Quote:

Ohio's Election Day Vote To Be Challeged

POSTED: 10:54 am EST January 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A group of Democrats will force the House and Senate to debate Election Day problems at Ohio polls before certifying President George W. Bush's win on Nov. 2.

Each state has held its Electoral College vote and Thursday is the day Congress is supposed to certify the results.

But, U.S. Dem. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D – Calif., has signed a challenge led by House Democrats to Ohio's 20 electoral votes. In a letter, she said the debate is the only way to "let the American people know the facts" about Ohio's vote.

By law, any such challenge that's signed by members of both houses compels each chamber to meet for up to two hours to consider the complaint.

The move is unlikely to alter the outcome as Republicans outnumber Democrats in both the House and the Senate. Both houses would have to uphold the challenge for Ohio's votes to be invalidated.

This is the second time such a complaint will have to be considered since 1877. <a href="http://www.whiotv.com/politics/4054615/detail.html">http://www.whiotv.com/politics/4054615/detail.html
</a>

roachboy · 01-06-2005, 11:06 AM

http://www.freepress.org/departments...y/19/2005/1065

a quite detailed article summarizing various types of what we might call at least irregularities in the voting procedures, focussed on ohio.

tellumFS · 01-07-2005, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beofotch5

Bush won the election.. FAIR and SQUARE.

I don't know if I'd say that. Sure, he won. Fairly? Nope. But then again I'm not sure if any electioin is "fair". People always cheat. They always do dirty, underhanded things. If anything, Karl Rove is a throwback to underhanded politics of earlier elections.

Doesn't mean I like it, though.

host · 06-03-2006, 12:34 AM

Why do you suppose that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. authored the following article?
He has made his reputation outside of national politics. What motivates him to do this, since he has reached middle age without selling out.....no sign that he sought personal wealth or national political office. Will the attention that his name brings to this controversy drag major American media into delayed coverage of this 19 month old controversy. As I documented in the months immediately after the Nov., 2004 presidential election....the posts covering this are still available on this thread.....the only MSM reporter to seriously cover this "story", was Keith Olbermann on his sparsely viewed, "Countdown" news program on MSNBC TV.....

Quote:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...lection_stolen
Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
<b>Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.</b> BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

Page <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/2">2</a> <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/3">3</a> <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/4">4</a>
The complete article, with Web-only citations, follows. Talk about it in our National Affairs blog, or <a href="http://rollingstone.com/news/story/10463875">see exclusive documents, sources, charts and commentary.</a>

Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)

Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America's voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. ''We didn't have one election for president in 2004,'' says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. ''We didn't have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities.''

But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004(12) -- more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.(13) (See <a href="http://rollingstone.com/news/story/10463875">Ohio's Missing Votes</a>) In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots.(14) And that doesn?t even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.(15)......

Seaver · 06-03-2006, 07:30 PM

I would like to see hard evidence.

I would like to see the shredded papers, it's much too easy for someone to make it up.

I would like to see the people who were barred from voting, I would like to know if they were barred because of felonies, being an illegal resident, or because of duplicated forms.

I would like to see their logic about how 98% voting in a Church is impossible, how easy it is (especially for Evangelicles) to be convinced by their pastor how important the election is.

I would like to see the voting records of the inner city region where 7% is impossible. If it follows all other elections of rediculously poor turnout it's not very impossible is it?

You posted a very long article throwing mud in every direction without anyone actually looking for facts.

jimbob · 06-04-2006, 07:34 AM

There are facts and references (208 of them) all through the article.

Surely the discrepancy between exit poll and actual figures looks a bit odd to you? What about the numbers of voting machines in Bush areas compared with Kerry areas? Or maybe the "rural Bush voters" who appear to have "backed a gay-friendly black judge"?

I'll agree that the word "impossible" was not the most suitable one in connection with the 98 and 7% turnouts, but it does sound a bit like Saddam Hussein's poll results, doesn't it? "Highly unlikely" is probably better.

If you're still not convinced, why don't you go to Toledo and look up Brandi and Brittany Stenson? ;-)

Seaver · 06-04-2006, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Or maybe the "rural Bush voters" who appear to have "backed a gay-friendly black judge"?

Because the only people who could possibly vote for Bush are racist homophobes?

Quote:

I'll agree that the word "impossible" was not the most suitable one in connection with the 98 and 7% turnouts, but it does sound a bit like Saddam Hussein's poll results, doesn't it? "Highly unlikely" is probably better.

The only way to know is to look at the past voting records of the regions. If 7% turnout is not uncommon than it does not show anything other than a huge number of that voting region simply do not care.

98% could sound like a rediculously large number, but as I said they were all members of the same evangelical churge as stated in the post. If the pastor managed to convince the church of the importance of voting in the election, it could very well be reasonable. Churches very often convince people to give up entire weekends for charity purposes, you think it's so difficult to convince the people to give up 10min of their time to vote for a president?

jimbob · 06-04-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Because the only people who could possibly vote for Bush are racist homophobes?

No, because the least likely people to vote for a gay-friendly black woman for judge are rural republicans. The point about the votes cast for the judge is that you would expect her votes and Kerry's to be similar in proportion across the state. For her to gain ground so spectacularly in areas where people traditionally don't vote for policies similar to hers should raise suspicions.

So you still want to knock the article because of the 98 and 7% thing. You're happy to dodge the judge issue, ignore the exit polls issue (as the article says, exit poll/vote discrepancies expose fraud in places like Ukraine, so why in the US do people assume the poll is wrong?), ignore the skewed voting machine distribution and then not show any evidence for your assertion that 7% turnout might be common, despite wanting more evidence for the facts in this citation-heavily article. Bush must love you!

People intimidated while trying to vote:
http://www.metroblogging.com/videoth...timidation.mp4

There's plenty more out there. For example, Keith Olbermann did a piece about how some Florida counties with large proportions of voters registered as Democrats turned out for Bush, but only in areas where the count was done by electronic counting machines (and nowhere else). This has been disputed because apparently the people there register at birth and never change, even if their politics do, but I don't know why there should be a correlation with the method of counting in use!?! Thefreespeechzone has a summary of the piece (search for "Keith Oberman takes a stand" - their spelling!), and a link to some turnouts with truly are impossible.

Sty · 06-08-2006, 06:59 PM

Forum necromancy is bad, please let the old threads rest in peace (you can start a new thread).

stevo · 06-09-2006, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

In short.....we as in "WE, the People", are fucked.....Bev Harris is a true patriot in taking on Diebold et al and uncovering the largest threat to "homeland security" ever perpetrated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Bev Harris initiated a suit against Diebold that has resulted in the company agreeing to pay $2.6 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that it lied about its faulty equipment before the March primary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbelt

Though there is a laundry list of things that are wrong with Diebold's electronic voting systems, these three take the cake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Guess again....Diebold made sure that their voting machines were not tested for "security"

Quote:

Originally Posted by D rice

I thought diebold rigged it. The recount won't show anything. What a joke

Diebold was mentioned 10 times in this thread. Above are quotes from members posting in this thread. The funny thing is, NOT ONE Ohio county used diebold machines during the 2004 election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio Democratic Website

No Ohio County used Diebold Electronic Voting Machines (See Press Release Below)

Ohio did not use modern electronic voting machines in this election. Six counties use an older form of electronic voting, which has a means of verifying the accuracy of the vote. In 69 Ohio Counties, punch card ballots were used.

http://www.ohiodems.org/index.php?di...ails&id=191201

host · 06-09-2006, 10:22 AM

Diebold is headquarterd in Ohio. They are the one of the largest manufacturers and vendors of electronic voting machines in the U.S. No discussion of voting fraud controversy is complete without dicsussion of news reporting about Diebold.
Bev Harris conducted a nationwide investigation of voting fraud and challenged voting results in several parts of the country....

.....and this is certainly relevant....the CEO of one of the largest U.S. EV machine vendor....an Ohio based corp....publicly committed to:

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in632436.shtml
E-Voting: Is The Fix In?
Aug.8, 2004

......."The concern that I have is not that somebody will tamper with the machine on Election Day and change the outcome. The concern I have is that those machines will be programmed from the start to favor one candidate over another and not to actually record and count the votes," says Rubin.

A Diebold plot to rig the elections? Where did that idea come from? The rumors began with this letter from Diebold's CEO, Wally Odell, who was moonlighting as a Republican fundraiser. In his invitation to a benefit for Bush last August, he wrote, <b>"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."</b>

After a public outcry, Odell announced in May that he was getting out of politics. ...........

Given Diebold's business position, and it's sh*tty reputation as far as corporate ethics, and the poor security of it's software, and the lack of paper receipts as an obvious and standard system feature, Odell's comments sounded rabidly partisan, and a threat to the integrity of the vote in Ohio, and everywhere else.

Quote:

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html
Con Job at Diebold Subsidiary
10:05 AM Dec, 17, 2003
SAN FRANCISCO -- At least five convicted felons secured management positions at a manufacturer of electronic voting machines, according to critics demanding more stringent background checks for people responsible for voting machine software....

Quote:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf
(PDF page 20....)

By now, Diebold Inc., the owner of what is now arguably the largest
voting-machine company in the U.S., has become famous for its vested
interests and an idiotic written statement made by its CEO.
Diebold director W. H. Timken has raised over $100,000 for the
2004 campaign of George W. Bush, earning the designation “Pioneer.”
Bush supporters qualify as Pioneers if they raise at least
$100,000, and Rangers if they raise $200,000. 51
On June 30, 2003, Diebold CEO Walton O’Dell organized a fundraising
party for Vice President Dick Cheney, raising $600,000 and
many of our antennas. 52

Julie Carr-Smyth, of The Plain Dealer, discovered in August 2003
that O’Dell had traveled to Crawford, Texas, for a Pioneers and Rangers
meeting attended by George W. Bush. Then Smyth learned of a
letter, written by O’Dell shortly after returning from the Bush ranch
and sent to 100 of his wealthy and politically inclined friends, which
said:
“I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the
president next year.’’ 53
Admitting that such candor was a mistake, O’Dell later told Smyth,
“I don’t have a political adviser or a screener or a letter reviewer or
any of that stuff.” 54

stevo · 06-13-2006, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

a threat to the integrity of the vote in Ohio

. You are missing the point. where they are headquartered has nothing to do with anything. Odell's statements mean nothing as far as Ohio is concerned. The fact of the matter is no Ohio county used diebold electronic voting machines in 2004. none. not one.

Explain to me how pre-rigged diebold machines can influence the outcome of the Ohio vote in a state where not one county used a diebold machine.

Seaver · 06-13-2006, 08:56 AM

Quote:

. You are missing the point. where they are headquartered has nothing to do with anything. Odell's statements mean nothing as far as Ohio is concerned. The fact of the matter is no Ohio county used diebold electronic voting machines in 2004. none. not one.

Explain to me how pre-rigged diebold machines can influence the outcome of the Ohio vote in a state where not one county used a diebold machine.

Who knows what lies in the hearts of those clinging to the belief that Bush stole the election? Only Dibold knows.

djtestudo · 06-13-2006, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

. You are missing the point. where they are headquartered has nothing to do with anything. Odell's statements mean nothing as far as Ohio is concerned. The fact of the matter is no Ohio county used diebold electronic voting machines in 2004. none. not one.

Explain to me how pre-rigged diebold machines can influence the outcome of the Ohio vote in a state where not one county used a diebold machine.

That's where the conspiracy comes in...

Ustwo · 06-13-2006, 06:25 PM

I see this board is still paranoia.

Wake me when it gets back to politics.

12-04-2004, 02:04 AM	#58 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	The biggest problem we Dems have facing us and that needs to be addressed first is the local and state political scheme. I maybe wrong because I am going by just Ohio, I believe it is the case in many states. I will research it. In 2000, the census came back and redistricting was forced. States like Ohio were then sliced up again to foster a definitive GOP advantage (since the statehouses are responsible for districting and therefore the party in charge can gerrymander districts). 1994's GOP "revolution" wasn't really about the US offices, they won those but what their focus was on was the states, and they took quite a few. This allowed them to prepare and by the time redistricting came about they were able to reinforce their powerbase. (The Dems. have done this it's part of the game.) Now the Dems. are faced to do something similar if they plan to have any power. They need to win these states back. In doing so, they will be able to in 2010's redistricting be able to regain what they've lost. People think this "revolution" happened all at once, it didn't the GOP did the best possible thing in 1992 whether they realized it or lucked into it and that was lose the Federal offices but strengthen their base support in the states. What the Dems. have to do (and I am not saying go right and become pseudo conservatives) is find what the base wants now, recruit great minds and start winning ground floor state elections, and hopefully, get strong enough to take the US House back in '06. (Which with 2 years of GOP in total control I think is highly possible.) The presidency, US senate and governors are strange animals though, they do not rely on the districting but the state as a whole. They absolutely have to appeal to the masses and not just districts. That means they should be more centrist. The Dems. need to fight the NRA's and Bible thumpers much the way those 2 powerhouse groups fight the Dems. Instead of giving them (pardon the pun) ammo, the Dems need to secure a position that is acceptable (in their district) while the Pres., Sen., and Gov. focus on the states as a whole regarding the issues. If you're a Dem. running in a very religious district you need to make it clear that while you are very supportive of other issues in the party, you do not approve of gay marriage, or gun control in NRA districts. You need to get across that you REPRESENT the people of that district and you believe that you do it better than the GOP. I don't see the Dems doing that right now. The locals focus on national "headline issues" and are aboard for all party issues and they can't be. Just my 2 cents. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

12-15-2004, 12:57 AM	#64 (permalink)
host Banned	The post before this one should be worth the time it will take to read the first three quote boxes contained therein because: 1.) All three were written by reporters working for mainstream news organizations who also employ editors who saw fit to publish them on their news websites. (They are not opinion pieces or editorials.) 2.) They contain news coverage of the Ohio presidential election and it's aftermath that are outrageous, and should outrage all Americans. Last edited by host; 12-15-2004 at 01:00 AM..

01-06-2005, 11:06 AM	#67 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	http://www.freepress.org/departments...y/19/2005/1065 a quite detailed article summarizing various types of what we might call at least irregularities in the voting procedures, focussed on ohio. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-08-2006, 06:59 PM	#74 (permalink)
Sty Patron Administrator Location: Tôkyô, Japan	Forum necromancy is bad, please let the old threads rest in peace (you can start a new thread). __________________ br, Sty I route, therefore you exist

06-13-2006, 06:25 PM	#80 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I see this board is still paranoia. Wake me when it gets back to politics. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-03-2004, 06:28 PM	#51 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I believe the recount is complete and Bush won by less votes than expected. about 110,000 thats 20-something thousand less than first thought. -shudder- I mean fart.

12-03-2004, 07:18 PM	#52 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Actually there was no recount yet. That was just the difference in the votes after provisionals. For those of you who are against a recount what is your argument for being against it? Tell me 1 good reason to not perform a vote audit in ohio. It probably won't change the election but it will at least reveal how accurate (to a point) our voting system was in ohio.

12-04-2004, 12:25 AM	#57 (permalink)
Manx Loser	I echo smooth's comments. And pan, I point you to this thread which discusses the misguided concept of Democrats and liberals moving to the "center" to appeal to more voters. Ultimately, I do not believe there is a new method of speaking that will compel these people, who simply focus on dealing with the myriad of issues that encompass their day-to-day lives, to turn out to vote. I think the best way of getting their attention and getting them to act is probably going to be to negatively affect their life - and that can be accomplished most readily with the constricting pressures of conservative policy. Vote Republican. Read and regurgitate Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Instapundit. Decry the oppression of the Tom DeLay's. Bask in awe at the machismo of Rumsfeld. Defend Halliburton. Go back in the closet if you are gay or mock gay people if you are not. Buy a gun or two or three. Get angry when the media shows the horrors of war - but only if the perpetrators are American. Remind everyone about 9-11, constantly, lest they begin to say: 9-11? What's that? Use the words "freedom" and "democracy" as if you own them. Protest abortion clinics. Convert to Christianity or if you're already Christian, use the Bible as the foundation of logic. Lie to yourself in order to tell the "truth" to everyone else. The best thing for this country will be a Republican victory in 2006. The backlash the Republican's will create is the best hope at mobilizing the people that do not want to force their will on everyone else but have only been focusing on their own life. Take away their accepted life and they will have no choice but to fight back. It will probably take longer though. So vote Republican in 2008 as well. Sometimes you need to slap someone to wake them from a stupor.

06-03-2006, 07:30 PM	#70 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I would like to see hard evidence. I would like to see the shredded papers, it's much too easy for someone to make it up. I would like to see the people who were barred from voting, I would like to know if they were barred because of felonies, being an illegal resident, or because of duplicated forms. I would like to see their logic about how 98% voting in a Church is impossible, how easy it is (especially for Evangelicles) to be convinced by their pastor how important the election is. I would like to see the voting records of the inner city region where 7% is impossible. If it follows all other elections of rediculously poor turnout it's not very impossible is it? You posted a very long article throwing mud in every direction without anyone actually looking for facts.

06-04-2006, 07:34 AM	#71 (permalink)
jimbob Crazy Location: Liverpool UK	There are facts and references (208 of them) all through the article. Surely the discrepancy between exit poll and actual figures looks a bit odd to you? What about the numbers of voting machines in Bush areas compared with Kerry areas? Or maybe the "rural Bush voters" who appear to have "backed a gay-friendly black judge"? I'll agree that the word "impossible" was not the most suitable one in connection with the 98 and 7% turnouts, but it does sound a bit like Saddam Hussein's poll results, doesn't it? "Highly unlikely" is probably better. If you're still not convinced, why don't you go to Toledo and look up Brandi and Brittany Stenson? ;-)