Has the case for election fraud been refuted?

[HomerRamone]

http://www.SmirkingChimp.com/article.php?sid=19634

'Has the case for election fraud been refuted?'
Date: Tuesday, January 25 @ 10:05:25 EST

By Ernest Partridge, The Crisis Papers

The "establishment" response to critics of the election results (a.k.a. "conspiracy nuts") has been, for the most part - no response. The issue is virtually absent from the commercial media, despite persistent investigation and passionate debate in the internet. When the concerns of the critics do provoke replies from defenders of election outcome, these replies usually take the form of ridicule and insult, or a plea that the critics "get over it" and that "we all move on." Nonetheless, a few defender of the fairness and accuracy of the election, respond responsibly to the critics. Even so, these rebuttals fail, as I will attempt to demonstrate below. Good reasons remain to suspect that the Presidential election of 2004 was in fact stolen.

The Florida registration discrepancy.

<...>

The CalTech/MIT Study.

<...>

Farhad Manjoo at Salon.com

<...>

Russ Baker

<...>

Mitofsky's Cop-Out.

<...>

Freeman and Baiman Revisited.

<...>

In Conclusion: Despite the firm empirical and statistical foundations of the critics' case, the conventional spin-meisters have decisively won the early rounds of this contest, as even such progressive stalwarts as Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Paul Begala, and most of all, John Kerry, "concede" that Bush won the election "fair and square." Once again, the Repubs, with the invaluable assistance of the corporate media, have succeeded in "framing" the issue to their advantage, as the critics have been effectively banished from polite political society and discourse. And so, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional and Senate Campaign Committees proceed, firm on the assumption that they've got a "good shot" at retaking the Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Implicit in these assumptions, is the belief that these will be fair elections. But if they are not, then the Democrats will be wasting their time and their contributors' money. The results of these "elections" will be pre-ordained.

But facts are persistent things, and "truth crushed to earth will rise again," unless, of course, the critics surrender and abandon the contest. Crimes engender cover-ups and conspiracies have a tendency to unravel, especially when they are doggedly investigated. Such investigations on the Federal level are, of course, out of the question. However, federal elections are administered by the states, thus opportunities are available for investigation by state, county and municipal prosecutors.

Meanwhile, we are left with a residue of unanswered, and perhaps unanswerable, questions about this election - questions which probe into the heart of the issue. These are questions which, if persistently thrown against the barricades of "conventional wisdom," may erode the foundations of the malignant Bush regime and eventually bring it down.

In my next essay, I will list some of these questions, examine their implications, and suggest how they might be employed as weapons again the emerging theocratic-corporate oligarchy that is the current United States government.

Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" (www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers" (www.crisispapers.org).

MORE:
http://www.SmirkingChimp.com/article.php?sid=19634

[NationalEnquirer]

1. All the "questions" are enough, IMHO.

We dont need to prove it 100% at this time.
If we get fixated on that, we will NEVER get anything done, because we will never get over that first step.
Sure, we need to keep at the fraud angle, but just raising the valid questions will be enough to get election reform going.

[Goldeneye]

2. Why aren't groups like

alliance for democracy setting up hand recounts? If they need money, all they have to do is ask. There are a lot of people who would chip in. I think that should be one of our top priorities. If we really believe the exit polls were correct, thand recounts needs to be done.

great article btw. They call us names, but if we're just a bunch of stupid conspiracy theorists, our questions should be easy enough for them to answer.

[qwghlmian]

3. I can see why no one wants to do private recounts.

There are people who are 100% sure that there was fraud in counting the votes. Just like Ida Briggs was 100% sure that there was fraud in counting the votes in New Hampshire. Ida did something about it, she convinced Nader to go and recount some of the most problematic precincts. Result - huge disappointment for Ida Briggs, the recounts turned up nothing. It is probably very painful to have your 100% belief shattered. You can't blame people for not wanting to recount because they don't want this to happen to them.

That is why you see endless "numerical analyses" of exit polls, and the "Kerry won the popular vote" posts. I mean, come on, if there was fraud on the scale of MILLIONS of votes, you can go, wherever you are, and recount your own precinct and find fraud, it would have to be everywhere. People who have actually gone and done the recounts of precincts nearby (see http://tinyurl.com/4ns59) found nothing.

[NationalEnquirer]

4. I wouldnt be so sure there was NO fraud.

I'm not 100% convinced either, but something sure does smell.
Thats why we need Election Reform.

[qwghlmian]

5. I am sure there was fraud -

every election has fraud. What I am also pretty sure about is that there was no massive vote-counting fraud. The lack of enthusiasm about the personal recounts of ballots that are possible right now says that either very few people think there was massive vote-counting fraud or that they are way too lazy to put some effort where their mouths are.

[emcguffie]

10. You can't recount the "E" votes that defaulted to Bush. n/t

[libertypirate]

17. You can't recount the "E" votes period

[European Socialist]

7. something does smell....

And its death by many cuts-the repukes encourage fraud through a nod and wink to unethical go-getters.

[NationalEnquirer]

95. Thats what I'm afraid of.

I dotn know if the fraud is widescale or what, but by their lack of attention, they encourage it.

[FreepFryer]

8. That's patently untrue. A recount conducted unlawfully is invalid... (n/t)

[qwghlmian]

9. The New Hampshire recount was

counducted completely lawfully. Ida Briggs had no complaints about it whatsoever.

[FreepFryer]

19. I'm not talking about NH. Your premise is flawed for the reason I gave. NT

[qwghlmian]

20. I am talking about completely lawful, private

hand-recounts that can be conducted today, right now, by anyone.

[FreepFryer]

22. And I am saying that you cannot conduct a fair recount at this point. n/t

[qwghlmian]

24. .... because?

[FreepFryer]

30. You can't be serious. Did you just join this forum? Your questions are...

...either rhetorical, or you literally have missed the events and circumstances of the last 3 months, leading up to the OH recount.

[qwghlmian]

33. You don't understand what I am talking about -

see post #32.

[FreepFryer]

35. I understand perfectly - I also know you don't want answers... you just

want to spread disinfo.

Not working. Do some research.

[qwghlmian]

36. You would have to point out the "disinfo". n/t

[FreepFryer]

37. Um, no I don't. It's not my job to educate you when you seek no knowledge.

This thread and your posts amount to nothing but a waste of time - but I think you know that already.

You're allowed to not believe in 2004's fraud, of course - but your approach is to naysay anything proposed, NOT TO LEARN.

Until you actually want to learn and participate, words directed at you are a waste of bit packets.

[qwghlmian]

38. Whatever -

apparently you're not interested in hand-recounting suspect precincts either. Just proving my point.

[FreepFryer]

41. TrollTips - plaster a post w/incorrect naysays, and resort to "whatever".

works for quwqfnlasdfkl, or whatever his name is.

[New Earth]

44. LMAO

fry em up freepfryer. i reached that conclusion over a week ago.

[New Earth]

43. it's not that no one is interested

it would take coordinating effort and resources to do something like that. i personally do not have any money or way to get to Ohio to do anything, and i'm sure there are other people in the same situation.

as for those who do have the resources or live in Ohio, obviously they aren't posting here right now or they'd be replying to you and willing to do it.

if you are so set on someone doing this, why don't you go into the Ohio state forum and ask them? i think it would be much more effective.

[Helga Scow Stern]

11. Recounts aren't possible in most areas that need them the most.

New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, Ohio.....

obstruction after obstruction, breaking the law to keep something hidden.

Who knows what happened in New Hampshire. Ida Briggs wanted to count it partly because the powers that be there were cooperative, unlike in many other places.

[qwghlmian]

12. Not sure what you mean by

"aren't possible". Any citizen, at this very moment, can request to inspect the ballots in Ohio and can hand-recount them, at his leisure. All he has to pay for is the time of the county workers who would be handling the ballots.

[Der Blaue Engel]

89. Sure, and homeless people could all have homes at this very moment

All they have to do is buy them.

[Chi]

15. That link seems a little weak.

Heya qwghlmian
I just spent a little while looking through that site you posted, you might want to find a better link for people to read.
Between the lack of any names or any contact info, and the lack of traffic, there is no way to reasonably determine if they are non-partisan, partisan, or even a fake web site put up as propaganda.
(If I missed something, please let me know.)

In case you want examples of the no traffic comment..
First, the forums shows the most people ever on-line there at once was 3.
Second, The poll on whether there was fraud or not, got a whopping 4 votes total (all for 'there was fraud', BTW).
I would think the people actually involved in the recount would have countered 4 votes.

Heck, if I knew how, I would look into who actually registered the web address and when, it might be interesting.

[qwghlmian]

16. The guy who did the recount

posts here on DU. Don't remember who. Do a search for "recountflorida".

And my whole point is that there is absolutely no interest in that. That is why they have no traffic etc.

This is how you can find out who registered the web site:

http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/whois/index.jhtml

info on recountflorida.com:

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160
PMB353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com
Domain Name: RECOUNTFLORIDA.COM
Created on: 30-Nov-04
Expires on: 30-Nov-05
Last Updated on: 30-Nov-04

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration [e-mail]
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160
PMB353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
[phone] Fax --
Technical Contact:
Private, Registration [e-mail]
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160
PMB353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
[phone] Fax --

Domain servers in listed order:
NS.NEWDREAM.NET
NS2.NEWDREAM.NET


Doesnt tell you much.

[Chi]

18. I was just noting things about the web site..

I was Not trying to counter your point.

In retrospect, though, the link was not about a lack of interest...
"People who have actually gone and done the recounts of precincts nearby (see http://tinyurl.com/4ns59 ) found nothing."
It was that others have done it and come up with nothing.
You used the link to back it up, I was just pointing out it seemed weak, and suspect.

[qwghlmian]

21. See post #3. n/t

[Chi]

23. "Doesnt tell you much."

No offense
It would tell me this is not accurate...
"People who have actually gone and done the recounts of precincts nearby (see http://tinyurl.com/4ns59 ) found nothing."
Considering all the addresses are in AZ.


Thanks you very much for showing me how to find that out.

[qwghlmian]

25. The addresses in AZ are

for the domain registering company that they used. You cannot tell where they are by that.

[Chi]

39. Then how do you know they are.....

You use the link to back this statement.
"People who have actually gone and done the recounts of precincts nearby (see http://tinyurl.com/4ns59 ) found nothing."

How can you know, with any certainty, that this web site demonstrates local people recounting local precincts.

Being the case that the web owner chose to keep anonymous is neither proof of good intentions, or deceit.
It still could very well be a propaganda site.

[qwghlmian]

42. As I said, the guy who did the recount

is a DUer and posted in this forum about it. I had no reason to doubt him.

[Chi]

45. Since when..

Since when does registering at DU qualify as proof.
Seems kinda ironic from someone who constantly questions other peoples proof of Election Fraud.
But hey, to each his/her own.
<shrug>

[merh]

27. You are mistaken

If the recounts were done legally, in accordance with Ohio law, in Ohio, then the errors and fraud would have been found. Blackwell and his flunkies did not follow the law, thus, their is the presumption that they are hiding something. Their interference with the recount is "prima facie" evidence that there was election fraud, according to Ohio law. The problem is that the Ohio AG is a repuke! We can't seem to get anyone interested in pursuing the thieves.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[qwghlmian]

32. I am not talking about that recount

I am talking about right now, this moment, you can go and hand-recount the ballots in Ohio. You can do it at your own pace, you can pick which precincts, you are in control.

[merh]

46. Are you so sure? I don't believe that you can.

The matter is still being litigated.

[qwghlmian]

47. Yes I am sure, and it is not being litigated.

Public access to ballots after the counts are finished is law in Ohio.

[New Earth]

48. so is RANDOM selection of precincts in an official recount

and they sure as hell didn't follow that law, did they?

[qwghlmian]

49. No one (AFAIK) has tried to

do personal recounts in Ohio, so your "oh no, they will stop us" is unwarranted. BTW, the 3% random selection of precincts is not law in Ohio, it is part of SOS regulations regarding recounts. The public access to ballots after the "canvassing period" is, in fact, law.

Anyway, why this argument after argument after argument trying to justify NOT doing the recounts right now?

[RaulVB]

50. Why you repeat talking point after talking point? (n/t)

[New Earth]

52. why don't you go do it?

:shrug:

[qwghlmian]

53. Because I don't believe there was

massive vote-counting fraud and the personal recount would be an exercise in futility.

But you do believe in the massive vote-counting fraud. Why don't you do it?

[New Earth]

55. if you would actually read the repies to you above

near FreepFryer's replies, I AM POOR AS HELL AND I HAVE NO WAY TO GET TO OHIO, AND I'M SURE THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHERS IN THE SAME SITUATION.

WHY DON'T YOU GO INTO THE OHIO STATE FORUM AND ASK THEM? I THINK THAT MIGHT BE MORE EFFECTIVE.

[qwghlmian]

56. I am quite interested in election reform -

I was not aware that one had to believe in massive fraud conspiracies in order to be pro-election reform. Is that a new rule you're instituting?

[RaulVB]

59. That's a REALLY bad talking point (n/t)

[merh]

51. Go check the federal docket -- it is still in litigation and there is

an AG's opinion that the ballots have to be protected during the litigation. It is blackwell that prevents the recount and if he did it during the "official" recount, he will do it now!

He has violated state law over and over again.

[qwghlmian]

54. State law states that the ballots are out of public domain

during "canvassing period". The "canvassing period" included the recounts. This is now over.

[merh]

57. The matter is still being litigated!

n/t

[qwghlmian]

58. You're wrong.

Give the URL to the lawsuit that is litigating current public access to ballots in Ohio.

[merh]

61. You go check Pacer site

And put in the name John Kerry in Ohio Federal Courts. I won't do your work for you - I can just assure you that the Green/Libertarian lawsuit that was filed in the federal courts in Ohio is still active. The Kerry/Edwards campaign joined in this litigation and a filed a motion seeking an order of the court to allow an independent inspection of the voting equipment.

Since litigation is still pending, the SOS can readily deny access to the "evidence" until the litigation has come to an end, just as he violated state law by denying access to the poll books during the recount proceedings.

[qwghlmian]

63. That lawsuit is irrelevant -

access to voting equipment does not equal access to ballots.

[New Earth]

64. from what i remember

they wanted access to the ballots as well.
i could be wrong but i do remember that being part of the lawsuit.

[qwghlmian]

67. From the greens' press releases,

they asked "to preserve a wide range of evidence, including voting machines and election records" - I don't know if ballots are included in the "election records". Anyway, until the federal judge rules on this lawsuit, the ballots are available for public inspection under Ohio law.

[Chi]

75. please show us your reasoning.

"I don't know if ballots are included in the "election records"."

OK...'I don't know' is an honest response.

Now please explain how you got to here....
"until the federal judge rules on this lawsuit, the ballots are available for public inspection under Ohio law."

Please show me/us what evidence you have to get from "i don't know" to "the ballots are available"?

And please don't use anything as illogical as this...
"the guy who did the recount is a DUer and posted in this forum about it. I had no reason to doubt him."
which was your proof on post 42.

[qwghlmian]

76. It's simple - until the judge rules on the case,

there is nothing preventing the law that mandates public access to the ballots from being exercised. Once the judge rules, he may order that they be inaccessible. Until then, the law holds.

[Chi]

77. Thats not what I asked

We all know that the ballots are 'supposed' to be available by law. But the issue is whether they are, considering there is a court action in play right now.

So again (more precisely)...
Where is your evidence that ballots are not being withheld on account of the currently ongoing court action?

[qwghlmian]

79. So again - more precisely

what is your evidence that the ballots are being withheld on account of the currently ongoing court action?

You have this misapprehension that the law can be contravened just for the hell of it. That's wrong. The withholding of the ballots from public access at this point requires an explicit order of the judge. Lacking evidence of any such order, the ballots are available.

[Chi]

80. what is your evidence....

"what is your evidence that the ballots are being withheld on account of the currently ongoing court action?"

I didn't make any statements that they were, or were not available..
You did!

It isn't so, cause you say it is.
Nor is it so, cause someone else says it is.
You told people they were wrong.

Again, where's your proof?

[qwghlmian]

81. You're engaging in sophistry -

Where is your proof that you're allowed to get out of the room that you're in? None is needed - there is nothing that prevents you from leaving. Same thing here - there is nothing that prevents the law that mandates public access to ballots from being exercised.

[Chi]

82. Again

Give me the information you already have that makes you certain enough to tell others they are wrong?

You last posted proof as someone on DU said it, so it must be true.
Shall I quote you again from post 42?
How can I take your word on anything after that.

If your not defending a position, you made your mind up on evidence you have.
All you have to do is show me what you have.
Simple.

[FreepFryer]

83. Please don't feed the trolls.

Here's a little Kos-ism.


TROLL'S YOGURT FRUIT SALAD

Plain yogurt or vanilla
4 bananas
3 apples
2 oranges
2 kiwis
1/2 pineapple
12 strawberries
12 grapes
Walnuts (optional)

Wash and cut up fruit into bite size pieces. Cover with yogurt, blend all together. Chill until ready to serve.

NOTE: Can also use whipping cream (see recipe) instead of yogurt.

[New Earth]

84. do NOT feed them after midnight

[Chi]

97. Sorry

Hope I didn't annoy you. 8-/

PS Luv the picture though 8)

[Chi]

98. Sorry.

I feel like a moth being draw to a flame.
I just can't seem to stop.

Must be my year at F.R. coming back, the emotional scars are deep, heh.
8)

Sounds like a nice recipe though.

[qwghlmian]

85. The proof is lack of any orders that

prevent the law that mandates public access to ballots in Ohio from being carried out.

I also asked in Ohio forum for someone in Ohio to call their BOE and ask what the procedure is for requesting access to inspect ballots. Someone answered and will check on it.

I am frankly surprised at people being so incredibly hostile to the idea of personal recounts. What is it about the personal recounts that you don't like so you have to come up with excuses for why it cannot be done?

[FreepFryer]

86. We're not hostile to the idea of recounts, nor unaware of your intent here

you are shouting in the wind. Attempt your conversation in a constructive way, and you might find a different response.

For example, what if your approach was "how can we prove fraud"?

Pfffft.

[Chi]

87. No need to prove a negative

"they asked "to preserve a wide range of evidence, including voting machines and election records" - I don't know if ballots are included in the "election records"."

No need to prove a negative, just show me how you concluded that the ballots are not included in this preservation order.

[qwghlmian]

92. they asked it - they did not

receive a response. This means that whatever they asked is not enforced, there is no order to enforce it. There is no "preservation order" in existence, so it doesn't matter if the ballots are included in it or not.

[Chi]

96. Sorry for the belated response

First off, In post 67 I read it that you were agreeing with the existence of a preservation order. That is why I asked you to take me from 'i don't know' to 'the ballots are available'.
In retrospect, that seems to be my misread, sorry.

As for your reasoning that since a law exists, it inherently becomes proof of compliance, that doesn't really match the reality of our world.

Here's an example...
======================C&P=========================
"Colorado Secretary of State Donetta Davidson just weeks ago removed several thousand voters from the state's voter rolls. She tagged felons as barred from voting. What makes this particularly noteworthy is that, unlike like Florida and a handful of other Deep South states, Colorado does not bar ex-cons from voting. Only those actually serving their sentence lose their rights.

There's no known, verified case of a Colorado convict voting illegally from the big house. Because previous purges have wiped away the rights of innocents, federal law now bars purges within 90 days of a presidential election to allow a voter to challenge their loss of civil rights."
==================================================
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/an_election_spoiled_rotten.php

By your reasoning, since federal law does not allow purges within 90 of an election, the purge never happened.
Does that make sense to you?

How bout since Colorado law does not permit purging ex-cons, that didn't happen either.

Here's a good one....
Victoria Parks was reviewing Ohio poll book in Pickaway County, while she was in the middle of her task, the local election official walked up and confiscated the book. She asked why, and the official told her it was as per Blackwell's order (the official was just on the phone with him).
Since Ohio law states poll books are open to the public, and no court order was issued, by your reasoning...it never happened.
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/886

We can talk about NM Sos, Catherine Harris (in 2000), and the Warren county lockdown. Again, all of which went outside their authority given to them by the law (Warren county was the county that barred observers from the counting area, in direct conflict with Ohio law).

I could go into many of the other immoral but not quite illegal things Blackwell did as well (80lb paper, requiring birthdates when the Prov. ballot instructions said otherwise, etc.), which also illustrates that Blackwell, has no problems breaking rules to act in a partisan manner.

Why would I expect him to respect the law with a record like that?

Since a law exists, it does not inherently become proof of compliance.

[Chi]

88. Self deleted

[merh]

66. The lawsuit is not irrelevant. It is very relevant.

Shame you don't understand the issues.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. I think their lame retort was along the lines, yes there were

irregularities, but not enough to turn the election.

Which is, of course, bogus.

[Stevepol]

13. Either the election was a fraud or the science of statistics is bogus

Of course, the exit polls could be invalid, but that seems highly unlikely, far more unlikely than that counting of the votes done by unaudited or un-auditable machines (owned and programmed by rabid partisans without any kind of check or auditing process) was fraudulent. Only 11 precincts in NH were recounted, not the whole state, where the swing from the exit polls was way out of line. It's almost a certainty based on statistical analysis that there was considerable fraud in NH, even if the 11 precincts recounted were supposedly not miscounted.

The alleged "recount" in OH involved only 3% of the vote and that 3% was cherry-picked by the authorities in the state. Even then, a 300 vote swing to Kerry was found, which would have added 10,000 to his total and/or removed a considerable number from Bush's). The choice of places to recount in OH was not done randomly and none of the places recounted had highly suspicious results. In other wds, the
"recount," such as it was, was completely controlled and managed using relatively "safe" precincts.

As far as I know, no place else has been recounted. Certainly no statewide hand recount has been done. Maybe I have been mis-informed.

[qwghlmian]

14. Seriously, if anyone thinks that there

was massive vote-counting fraud, it is so easy to prove it. Get together some money, go to New Hampshire, for example, and recount it all. It is a small state, it won't take long and the costs would be less than in OH or FL. You can do it today. There are laws in New Hampshire, just like in Florida and in Ohio and in other states, that allow public access to the ballots after the counting is done. Anyone can go and recount. If you go to NH, or Florida, and find even 1,000 miscounted votes, much less hundreds of thousands that it would take to match the exit polls, you would "blow the case wide open". No one will be able to say there was no massive organized fraud.

Why do you think no one is doing that?

[loudsue]

26. This board has, of late, had a lot of conservatives, like yourself, trying

to convince the rest of us that recounts aren't being done because there's not enough fraud to warrant all the "conspiracy theories." The attempts at trying to look at tiny, safe, pieces of the republican puzzle are like trying to say the forest hasn't been cleared because....well, here's a tree left standing; lookie, everyone, here's a tree, and so it refutes the claim that the forest has been razed.

Those of us who have been researching and looking at the larger puzzle (the forest) for several years now, know that the one tree left standing is a red herring.

The forest has been levelled....except, of course, for a few puny trees left standing.

The truth is, Democracy has been hijacked. Trying to push that under the rug is NOT going to deter patriots from fighting for their Democracy, nor should it.

:kick::kick::kick::kick:

[qwghlmian]

28. This is all fine and dandy

but when you get to specifics, that is where things grind to a halt.

Question: has there been vote-counting fraud? Yes or no?

If you think there is, it should be possible to detect that by hand-recount of the ballots. That is exactly what I pointed out. I am not sure why you think that this is pushing anything under the rug. If you're interested in proving vote-counting fraud, you should be interested in such recounts, right?

[New Earth]

29. does the person who requests the recount have to live in Ohio?

[qwghlmian]

34. I wouldn't think so - but would have to read the

exact laws. In any case, I am sure it would be possible to find an Ohio DUer who would request the recount, if you could find people who would be willing to go and sit and count the ballots. Florida recounts cost about $50 and they counted two precincts (3000 votes or so).

[Der Blaue Engel]

91. You've stated the reason yourself, repeatedly: MONEY

The right uses this sort of logic all the time.

[qwghlmian]

93. Money cannot be the reason - it just doesn't cost that

much to recount a few precincts. The people in Florida say that they counted two precincts with the final bill coming in at $50. I am sure that if you uncover any serious discrepancies in your initial few precincts, there will be huge interest in continuing the counts and money will pour in.

[RaulVB]

31. No, they haven't "won" anything

Their weakness has been exposed, luckily!

Wrong lecture there.

[Fly by night]

40. The Russ Baker paper in TomPaine has been refuted convincingly

by Dr. Steven Freeman in a letter printed in the Nashua Advocate. Here's the link (you may have to scroll down a bit to find it):

http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com

I also wrote TomPaine to criticize them for publishing the very slipshod piece by Baker. Any one of us who has followed the accumulation of evidence for election theft could have done a better job than Baker. Dr. Freeman's letter is well worth reading.

I think the evidence for election fraud and theft is weighty, multi-faceted and convincing to even hard-core Republicans, when you have a chance to discuss it with them one-on-one. Why, I bet even Internet(s)-challenged Ted Koppel and Kookie Roberts could understand the evidence, if an informed DUer could cut through their layers of production assistants and senior producers to present the evidence to them face-to-face. If any of their staff are reading this, how about PMing me -- we'll put together an "election theft" posse and be at ABC within 24 hours to show all of you what truth looks like.

Of course, there are some (like the person(s) who thankfully appear as "ignored" on my version of this thread) who will never get it. Because they're not here to get it. If enough of us put them to sleep, they can go back to talking to themselves or to each other -- they know who "they" are. Try the "snooze" button on them, folks, you'll like it.

[loudsue]

60. Thank you, Fly by night....

I'm afraid that, these days, if I put all the DU detractors on "snooze", there would be very few posts to read. I'm just astonished at the efforts by the dark side....very effective! They are managing to "stay within the rules" enough that they seem to have almost taken over. I'd say we're at about 40% conservatives, and 30% progressives here.... the other 30% are sort of fence-sitting.

It feels like we're trying to drag a locomotive up a steep hill by hand, as we're having to defend and re-defend and fight again to keep the already well-researched information out there for real Democrats. It seems like every thread is having to retrace our steps, instead of moving ahead.

:shrug: Maybe it's just me, but I have been getting pretty tired of it all, of late. And EVERY time Truth Is All gets his research on another thread, the same gang-bangers come in and throw everything into a distraction.

:kick::kick::kick:

[FreepFryer]

62. I disagree. I think we've got 10% freeps and the rest progressives.

It's just that the same 10% keep getting new login ID's.

Have hope!

[Fly by night]

72. I think you're right. There aren't that many of them, but they ...

have no manners, don't really engage in any information exchange, are incapable of absorbing anything and are here to disrupt -- pure and simple. I take it as a good sign that someone is spending the resources necessary to keep these numb-nuts attacking TIA's work relentlessly, because it's clear that well-documented, factually correct and clearly articulated evidence scares the plu-perfect shit out of these guys.

It might be worthwhile to suggest some statistical tests to the moderators also. If someone posts over and over (and over and over) again, makes no effort to acknowledge the opinions or respond to the questions of the many others who rise in opposition to them AND follows TIA all over the place in order to disrupt, maybe they are a duck (as in Mallard Fillmore). And those ducks are always in season in DU-land.

As far as the irritation factor, my Arapaho friends tell me that if you are doing the right thing and fighting the good fight, the devil will always rise to throw obstacles in your path. So if your path is too smooth, you're probably on the wrong path. TIA (and the rest of us) should feel good that we have drawn such manic distractors. It says we're moving in the right direction -- faster, harder and progressively madder at the Nazis now in power.

But once again, it's pretty easy to skip over the "ignored" obstacles in any thread. You still get to enjoy the retorts -- you just don't have to put up with the inanity that prompts them. (Speaking of which, "ignored" seems to have been silent for a while. Maybe calling them what they are -- ignorable -- is the best way to shut them up.) I know that I should perhaps let the sleeping pests lie, but then it's probably just shift-change in Repuke-land anyway.

[anaxarchos]

90. I think it is one in one hundred...

...each with three or more screen names. They give the REAL conservative DUers a bad name.

There was a computer program at one of the Universities a few years ago that claimed to detect common authorship through the regularities of grammar. Hmmm... I wonder if it worked.

[RaulVB]

65. Well, THAT'S THEIR GOAL!

If they make you "feel" thay way, better for them

That's exactly what they want. They use pretty basic propaganda and information manipulation techniques.

[pgh_dem]

68. my two favorite basic propaganda techniques

go something like:

I thought we as (dems/liberals/progressives) were supposed to have open minds...I didn't realize I had to agree with every single thing you've ever said. (followed by authentic *sniffles*)

and

I believe (long series of caveats -eg probably, possibly, maybe, some sort of) (extremely general topic -eg fraud, vote suppression, 'shenanigans') happened, but *it hurts our cause to keep talking about it*, it makes us look CRAZY!

Those two always make me smile...Maybe someday these internet(s) PR campaigns will be regulated like drug ads: Warning, author doesn't actually believe this, side effects of biting this troll-bait include vomiting, diarrhea, and colossal wasting of time)

[New Earth]

69. LMAO!!

[pgh_dem]

70. for Faye

[New Earth]

71. LOL

that emoticon is cute, where did you find it?!?!

[tommcintyre]

73. It's the "deep trolls" that are more insidious

It's those that are in "deep cover" (build alliances/loyalties with "innocents" - even "opinion makers" can be "sucked in") that potentially, can oh-so-subtly do the most damage. I say, potentially, because I think they have not succeeded in the nearly two months since this was (substantially) brought to my attention. (Proof of their failure was the perceived necessity of the thinly veiled Nightline anti-election fraud (anti-internet bloggers) "infomercial" last week.)

I think these "surface" (obvious) attempts (like here) are mixed in value. They certainly use up time, but they also "sharpen our swords". I always learn new facts/arguments/approaches, etc. from the retorts of the sincere DUers. Also, I think they serve to bring the (sincere) newbies up to speed on the main arguments (specifics) on what they already intuitively know to be true - BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION. A good compromise would be for each of us to make a copy and paste response of our best info and slap 'em in when we see a thread like this being "diverted"?


One suggestion loudsue. I suggest expanding "for real Democrats" to expand even past "progressives" (used in the first reply to you) to include ANYONE sincerely interested in potential election "irregularities". Ideally, this will include moderate Republicans, Independents, etc. We need all the help we can get.

[Fly by night]

78. I agree. Combating election fraud is a very uniting issue.

I totally agree with your statement that we should "... include ANYONE sincerely interested in potential election 'irregularities'. Ideally, this will include moderate Republicans, Independents, etc. We need all the help we can get...."

The Repugs have handed us this pivotal issue on a silver platter (something they are never short of), and so far none of them seem to realize what they have done. With the embarrassingly over-the-top performance by the Delay "de-dumbasses" on 1/6/05, with Katherine Blackwell's and the rest of the Ohio Blackwell-guard's continual stone-walling, with the continued Repug foot-dragging in the House Judiciary Committee -- in short, with everything they've done so far -- they allow us to claim free, fair and verifiable elections and the prosecution of election fraud/theft as issues that transcend party identification but that the Democrats are happily taking the lead on.

Here in Tennessee, we have had Republicans, Greens, Constitutionalists, Libertarians and Independents (as well as Democrats) show up at every one of our election theft rallies and, whenever possible, they all have been asked to speak and express their support for election reform. That is the way it should be. For the sake of the country, we need to help our moderate GOP brethren remove the Nazi cancer from their midst and help them reclaim a pro-American perspective for the GOP, albeit one that is to our near right.

It is still our most important task to engage everyone we know in a conversation about the parameters of free, fair and verifiable elections (using John Conyers' list of legislative priorities as a common framework). Once we get our non-Democratic friends to agree that those legislative initiatives make sense, it will be easier to point out the disconnect between our commonly accepted beliefs and the Republi-Nazis' actions. This is the best wedge issue, and much more defensible, moral, inclusive and patriotic than raping the Bill of Rights and queer-bashing. Once the wedge is in place, it will be easier to chip the Republi-Nazi calcified cancer away from the body politic entirely.

So keep dissembling, all ye "ignored" of little sense, less intellectual skill and no patriotism. Rest assured that some are still watching you (though not me), our newbies are developing their own combat skills by playing with your barely breathing carcasses and your insolence is matched only by your irrelevance.

[tommcintyre]

94. Yes, I have found even moderate Repubs very open to election "questions"

Recently, I was put in a position where I "broke bread" with over 100 mostly conservative people for three meals a day, for seven days (about 40 meals). <I was on a river cruise in Europe.> I purposely sat with as many different groups as I could, since I wanted to find out more "what made them tick" (politically - esp regarding election issues). I mostly listened, until someone would ask me the inevitable question: "what do you do?" I would tell them: "I run a web site that mainly deals with the many unresolved election "questions" from the 2004 Presidential election."

Their response was overwhelmingly positive. They listened attentively and asked many questions. Many seemed to be genuinely concerned that something "wasn't right" in the election results. And they seemed to be concerned about the "voting future".

Animosity was almost non-existent (Just one idiot finance atty, (who engaged me in the lounge) who strongly implied I hated repubs. BIG MISTAKE. I coolly told him I would just be glad to have a REAL repub to choose from again. ALL the other repubs within earshot were saying "yes", nodding their heads in approval, etc. That guy seemed to avoid me after that. ;) <I think he had it "in" for me since I "gored his ox" the day before at dinner. He said all us "liberals" wanted was welfare for everybody. I answered: "no, I just regret they have added so much CORPORATE WELFARE (Haliburton, etc.) which is ruining our economy (got a lot of support again from the "mods"). btw: Guess how a finance atty make a living. Yep, corp welfare (no wonder he was pissed!)

One other interesting observation. No one, not one person admitted (volunteered) that they voted for Bush (I'm sure a lot did, but they didn't want to admit it.) Many did complain about the "choice" though.

My conclusion (with my admittedly limited "experiment"): You are right. There is a huge, as yet mostly untapped reservoir of bipartisan support just waiting to be reached.

[Yupster]

100. Agree Tomm

Most people will support election reform including Republicans because they think they're the ones who get defrauded.

But, for the issue to pass, it will have to be detached from any conspiracy stuff about the last election.

You won't get Republican support if the premise is "how can we get your side to stop stealing elections?" That will just turn into a partisan shouting match.

[tommcintyre]

101. Yep.. moderation, facts and mutual self-interest rule this issue

Moderation: I used non-inflammatory language like Election "questions", not fraud.

Facts: 30% of the ballots cast were electronic (mostly) WITH NO PAPER TRAIL (proof); and by 2006, 100% will be.

relatable/understandable examples/comparisons: No paper trail is like you putting $1000 in the bank WITH NO RECEIPT. Then when you go to withdraw your money, they say "SORRY, THERE'S NO RECORD!"

Mutual self-interest: Once we can no longer verify who got the most votes, the group in power won't need to worry about what we want anymore. <If you are talking to a true moderate repub, ask them if they think the group in power really represents them now. I invariably got the answer of "no". They then realize this situation will only get worse with unverifiable voting. The more "rightish" will often agree that the neocons will be even less likely to deliver on their promises to the social conservatives then they do now. So they want an "honest vote", so they can hold them accountable.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES TRY TO PROVE KERRY WON (or that he was the better candidate). It is totally self-defeating, and will only cause alienation. The goal here is to increase/expand support in election reform. We (the progressive base) can work on the fraud issue separately.

[tommcintyre]

74. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer"

I agree with you. I finally started implementing the ignore button a couple of days ago; and it is a nice break. ;) My only suggestion is to turn it off occasionally (at least with certain posters) to make sure that they aren't up to "no good", and need to be countered.
<See post #73.>

[Yupster]

99. You can never refute a conspiracy

It's just not possible.