Laura PourMeADrink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:07 PM
Original message |
It's the 3+ million vote padding, Stupid! |
|
The most diabolical twist to their plan was the master stroke -- throw in the extra $3+ million. It would shut Kerry up. It would quiet the public. It would quiet the press. It would deem any minor infraction (i.e. mysteriously adding 3,000 + Bush votes in Ohio) insignificant in the big scheme of things.
And it is virtually unprovable, right?. Without a nationwide revote? Has anyone compiled evidence -- I suppose votes > registrants en masse? I've seen some isolated cases......
Evil incarnate. I say, let's hire some of them in 2008. Playing fair is not all its cracked up to be.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:11 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
Laura PourMeADrink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Exactly. We know it happened. Perfect proof -- b* 's approval |
|
today at 49%. Hello ! We just have to prove. And trust me, we definitely will !!!
|
dlaliberte
(168 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. Better than speculation, we have statistics |
|
Edited on Thu Dec-16-04 08:30 PM by dlaliberte
The exit polls nationwide showed that Kerry should have won the popular vote. That is evidence that Bush probably (with a high degree of certainty) stole the election.
A statistical study is not, by itself, hard evidence, although in some cases, impossible odds make the outcome just as certain as hard evidence. With a weaker statistical result is should be enough to warrent further investigation to get the hard evidence. That is what Arnebeck is trying to do in Ohio, but given enough lawyers, we could do it in almost every state.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the legal standing of statistics in courts. But as a scientist (of the CS variety) statistics are at the foundation of most of our scientific knowledge, and you can't break the laws of nature.
|
FogerRox
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:13 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I estimate a minimum of 5.2 million votes in at lest 16 states |
|
Proly more though 10 to 12 million votes in up to 23 states
|
Laura PourMeADrink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. WOW! I woke up this am thinking about PA. Do you think |
|
that just let that one fall? Tell me how you came up with your estimate!
|
Quakerfriend
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. Yes, would love to hear how you came up with these #s |
FogerRox
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
9. weeks ago I looked the exit polls and the states results |
|
SOmeone here @ DU posted up a chart Showing a ---MArgin Of Error--
ANd how the odds that those 16 states could go for Bush were like astronomical---plus 23 states had a discrepancy of 2% or more--and there were about 112 million votes cast --Thats what they said at least
|
theboss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
14. Do I hear 25 Million? |
|
Sold to the conspiracy theorist in the third row!
|
bemis12
(594 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
15. My spreadsheet says 45 million votes stolen |
|
in 64 states. It's PROOF I tell ya!!!
|
newscott
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:29 PM
Response to Original message |
|
He was hoping for about 4 million evangelicals to turn out for Bush. Hmmmm..........
|
Laura PourMeADrink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. Hmm. Interesting. Is that 4 million more than the regular voting |
|
evangelicals? Interesting....
|
New Earth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. i think he meant ANGELS |
|
Edited on Thu Dec-16-04 08:37 PM by Faye
who would come down from heaven and cast invisible, magical, angelical votes
|
Laura PourMeADrink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. Oh ya, I know they didn't REALLY vote. I just find the 4mill |
|
number interesting. Like evil criminals have to leak something out - the number of true evangelicals plus the pad maybe equals 4 mill. They had to have thought about what they would say if they were asked about the big difference.
|
FogerRox
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. LOL Funny ---but you may b VERY right |
texpatriot2004
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
13. Uh angels from Lucifer maybe |
Maine-i-acs
(989 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 10:14 PM
Response to Original message |
16. Here's how Turd Blossom engineered Chimpy's mandate: |
Patsy Stone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-16-04 11:15 PM
Response to Original message |
17. You would only need half. |
|
If you took half (say 1.7 million) and gave them to Kerry, we'd be tied. It had to be definitive -- so whatever Kerry was supposed to have been ahead, just add that many to *. If it was going to be as close as everybody thought -- like the polls said -- you wouldn't have to do that much fudging because no one EVER would have believed that * won by 10 million votes. 3 million, yes. He didn't, but you get what I'm saying.
Also, there's NO FRIGGIN' MANDATE!
|
Laura PourMeADrink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-17-04 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #17 |
19. duh - you only need half!! You're right! I think we should put |
|
something together on this and blast it.
|
seaclyr
(182 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-17-04 06:35 AM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat Apr 20th 2024, 08:50 AM
Response to Original message |