What if the internet/indy media/ hard left is right???


PDA






reagansquad
November 18, 2004, 10:44 PM
What if the internet/indy media/ hard left is right and the Diebold machines really did count votes incorrectly in favor of George Bush? A UC Berkly study seems to think it's a strong possibility. So the the 3rd part candidates for the Constitution and Libertarian parties. Would you accept 'the other guy'? What if Bush was shown to have his hands all over rigging the election? What would your reaction be?

...Please, no "It's just not true" responses. That's not the point of this thread. This is purely a hypothetical mental excercise.

If you enjoyed reading about "What if the internet/indy media/ hard left is right???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 10:59 PM
lol
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhaaomg stop stop please
you mean what if john kerry really was the people choice?
would the republicans accept it
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahhahahahhahahahhahahaha
no of course they wouldnt
i wish people would stop trying to figure out who the republicans are running in 2008'
its going to be george bush
future president for life george
king george

Jim March
November 18, 2004, 11:08 PM
Yes, there's been some vote-hacking going on. The question is "how much"? Enough to overturn the results? I have no idea. Neither does Bev Harris or Ralph Nader or Badnarik or anybody else.

What we DO know: the Diebold machines suck. All of 'em, optical scan and touchscreen. They all use the GEMS tabulator - go here to download the video demo of that turkey:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=1363434

We also know that the same flawed Federal oversight process that "certified" Diebold also certified ES&S, Sequoia, Hart Intercivic and the rest. So not a one of 'em can be trusted without hand-checking paper votes and in the case of touchscreens those don't exist (except in Nevada - those guys KNOW how electronic systems can be rigged, they've dealt with that for decades).

What that leaves us with is a disaster: we cannot absolutely prove who won the election after the fact.

"Disaster" isn't too strong a word, folks. Enough years of such lack of certainty, the nation will come completely unglued.

So we have to do our best to sort out what the hell happened Nov. 2nd. My own lawyer, Lowell Finley, is on a plane for Florida right now at Bev Harris' request. Excrement has well and truly hit the rotary air movement device in Volusia County FL, as we knew it would because there was an attempted electronic vote hack there in 2000 using Diebold gear. It was a VERY crude attempt, too crude for Diebold (at that time, Global Election Systems) to have carried out. And the perps of 2000 weren't caught, and had inside access to the machines. Didn't take Einstein to guess they might try again.

Obviously, I'm torn between my hatred for Kerry and my hatred for junk voting machines. It's possible that my activism against the latter could put the former in office - not terribly likely but a possibility I have to live with.

I've had some rough nights over this, folks.

What I think is this: if we go election after election with a sizable chunk of the population on the losing side convinced that the election was a ripoff, we'll have civil war, and a much worse situation than a Kerry presidency could ever deliver.

:(

reagansquad
November 18, 2004, 11:19 PM
OMG Jim. Good post. :o

The Rabbi
November 18, 2004, 11:24 PM
Nonsense.

This thread deserves a quick death.

cslinger
November 18, 2004, 11:25 PM
If it is shown that the Republicans perpretrated massive voter fraud then they should be shown the door no matter who the other guy is.

Voting isn't voting if it is all about fraud.

Chris

Standing Wolf
November 18, 2004, 11:51 PM
A UC Berkly study seems to think it's a strong possibility.

I'm supposed to believe anything from that cesspool of leftist extremism? Might start snowing $5 bills later this evening, too.

If it is shown that the Republicans perpretrated massive voter fraud then they should be shown the door no matter who the other guy is.
Voting isn't voting if it is all about fraud.

Bingo.

Preacherman
November 19, 2004, 12:10 AM
I don't doubt that mistakes happened.

I don't doubt that certain individuals, in particular areas, would have hacked the vote if they could - although I don't know whether or not this happened.

I doubt very strongly that there was an electoral conspiracy by the Republican Party and/or its surrogates to tamper with electronic voting machines across many states, in many different jurisdictions. It's just too big to remain concealed: for certain, something would have leaked out before or during the process.

Jim March
November 19, 2004, 12:18 AM
I don't doubt that mistakes happened.

I don't doubt that certain individuals, in particular areas, would have hacked the vote if they could - although I don't know whether or not this happened.

I doubt very strongly that there was an electoral conspiracy by the Republican Party and/or its surrogates to tamper with electronic voting machines across many states, in many different jurisdictions. It's just too big to remain concealed: for certain, something would have leaked out before or during the process.

Yeah, let me back up the Preach here: ain't no way this is a conspiracy running up through the White House. No chance.

A conspiracy within Diebold? Yeah, it IS possible. Between two or more of the electronic voting companies? Less so, although there *are* family ties between the two biggest (the Urosevich brothers high up the food chain at both Diebold and ES&S).

But beyond that? No. Somebody would blab.

(Crookedness in some of the *county* election staff? Dead certainty. Two for sure are King County WA and Volusia FL. Cook County IL :D. And too many others...Riverside California has a horrendous stink to it, with San Bernardino almost as bad. Which is why they can't be allowed to have tamper-friendly crap like GEMS handy.)

reagansquad
November 19, 2004, 12:35 AM
I live in Washington. I've lived in Eastern, Central, and Western Washington. There is no way on earth that Dino Rossi could get elected here... or even be as close as he was. I consider myself to be neutral since I don't care for either of the candidates... but I just know this state.

hillbilly
November 19, 2004, 12:51 AM
It was HALLIBURTON!

HALLIBURTON, I tell you, HALLIBURTON!

And the Saudis who were in on the Afghanistan Oil Pipeline conspiracy so that Dubya's buddies could secretly pipe in their actual gay lovers for romps in big piles of Enron cash......They were the one who paid for it all!!!!!

You won't believe me, but of course you won't because THEY'VE ALREADY BRAINWASHED YOU!!!!!!!!

Or something like that......

hillbilly

RevDisk
November 19, 2004, 02:09 AM
I believe that voting is rather important. Either by stupidity or maliciousness, Diebold has screwed up many voting records. I rather doubt it's a conspiracy, but I believe something is amiss. To answer reagansquad's question (which few people are doing), if it can be proved that Diebold rigged the election, heads should roll.


By the way... Mr March, thank you for taking the high road when others here would and will not. Someone has to stand up for what's right even when it is not popular amoung his peers.

Rebar
November 19, 2004, 02:34 AM
I think a more important issue is the massive voter fraud in New Hampshire, some of it witnessed by THR members. It goes beyond a malfunctioning voter machine, into an well organized conspiracy to commit voter fraud by the democratic party.

Jim March
November 19, 2004, 03:27 AM
You bet there's more up than just machine-related issues.

OK, let's recap the various ways things can go wrong:

1) "Fake voters". No fraud within the county election process; people set themselves up to vote in to counties or even two states, or vote when they're not able (no citizenship, felony, etc). Thing is, it's legally risky and takes a huge number of individuals to pull off. About the only time you COULD swing things is in a situation like New Hampster: small slightly conservative state next to a big liberal one. Trust me, at some point we'll deal with that: we'll get computerized lists of voter reg data from New Hampster and Mass, and cross-ref. No rush on that. Lemme know which New Hampster counties to focus on for that.

2) Old fashioned paper fraud. As one example, Napa County California did a dirty in the primaries: took a local race and in cases where voters didn't pick either, somebody in the elections office "marked the correct one for them". At least 38 cases of this were detected with forensic ink analysis. When done right, electronic voting can actually protect against this. The Open Voting Consortium proposal for an open-source system involves an electronic station that prints a paper ballot which is readable in English plus has a bar code scan ability. You can take the paper to a bar code reader station and have the bar code read right there if you want. With the voter's intent recorded in three different places (plain text on the ballot, bar code on the ballot and serial number linked to an electronic record of the vote) tampering becomes damned difficult. See also www.openvotingconsortium.org - I'm not connected, just a fan.

3) Electronic tampering at the precinct level. Basically, rig the machine to do it's totals wrong or substitute a certain percentage. Not easy unless you're the manufacturer. In Diebold's case, we know that literally megabytes of custom code at the touchscreen terminals was installed without any certification at all, illegally.

4) Rig the central tabulator. Most electronic systems use one central PC to tally the vote; security on most is suspect, documented as downright hideous in Diebold's case.

5) "Disenfranchise via scrubbing the registry rolls". SOME of this was done in Florida just before 2000...but most was caught and fixed beforehand. Basically, people whose names were similar to a convicted felon were scrubbed.

6) There are allegations that in Ohio, predominantly minority precincts got fewer per-capita voting machines which led to long lines in the rain and people going home without voting. I don't know if these allegations are true - IF they are, it's disturbing stuff. The credibility of all that needs to be looked at. BBV.org is aware of the complaints but is assigning this a lower priority than doing checks that involve potential machine tampering.

------------

What's supposed to PREVENT all this is public oversight. The entire process is supposed to be open to public and press scrutiny.

Which is one reason proprietary "God knows what it really does" software is such a problem. It's also a problem when the public and press are barred from the tabulator rooms, as is happening in Volusia County FL and one entire elections building in Ohio under the guise of "homeland security precautions" :barf:. That sort of crap cannot be tolerated.

JohnBT
November 19, 2004, 10:16 AM
"What would your reaction be?"

I think I'd be outraged. Meanwhile, if all we have to go on is something out of UC Berkeley, I'm going to continue working to cure world hunger and trying to save the whales.

John

2nd Amendment
November 19, 2004, 10:54 AM
At this point, and somewhat based on the divisive Dem response to this election, I really don't care. And the fact remains that, despite the mutterings of some that sKerry couldn't have done too much damage, I will remain by my statement of fact, which is that sKerry would have gutted this nation in four years. And Hillary would have finished it off after 2008.

Considering both candidates are lying cheats anyway it hardly matters if one managed to lie and cheat better. Just so long as he does less damage in the long run and, hopefully, provides some people an opportunity to come up with a better alternative later.

secamp32
November 19, 2004, 11:01 AM
nothing they say can be believed. This is why the media is supposed to be unbiased. Once its been shown that you lie ie. GW's "Military records" or Jason Blair, everything you say is suspect.

I make my living with computers and I wouldn't trust a computer as a voting machine without a paper backup. The voting machines should also have a finger scanner to prevent voter fraud.

Sam Adams
November 19, 2004, 03:28 PM
"If it is shown that the Republicans perpretrated massive voter fraud then they should be shown the door no matter who the other guy is."

You betcha they should be shown the door - the inside of one with vertical steel bars. OTOH, there's an old Yiddish saying, which translates to: If your Grandmother had b@lls, she'd be your grandfather. IOW, I don't think that a meaningful amount of this kind of fraud took place. If the Republicans did commit fraud, it was orders of magnitude less significant than what the Dems did (and have been doing since Chicago was invented). Dawn of the Dead, FEH! The Dems have been reviving carcasses for well over a century.

I am really hopeful that there will be a full examination of ALL alleged voter fraud, and that everyone involved should be imprisoned. Emphasis there is on "hopeful", as opposed to "optimistic." I was born in the morning, just not yesterday morning.

cslinger
November 19, 2004, 03:34 PM
I don't think there was massive fraud driven by top levels of government on either side mostly because of something that an old friend of mine told me once that made a lot of sense.

"The problem with conspiracies is that people need to keep the secret for them to work and in my experience it seems that if three people expect to keep a secret, two of them better be dead."

Chris

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 08:52 PM
bush won
in 2000 he didnt and there was MASSIVE fraud in fla

im sure there is a certain amount of fraud voter intimidation and other things by both sides in this election but i feel that bush won

ravinraven
November 21, 2004, 07:27 AM
.....who said: "It's not about who votes but about who counts the votes." Or something like that.

I can't believe a computer vote system would not have a printed record on paper. What a basic screw up that is.

What is the matter with the old mechanical voting machines? We've been using these machines up here in the swamp since at least the early 40's. They seem to be tamper proof and have a printed record.

rr

GSB
November 21, 2004, 07:47 AM
Wow, people act like vote fraud is a product of the electronic age. I think some people forget how Kennedy got elected, or that this sort of thing has gone on since the concept of voting first entered human consciousness. That's no reason not to improve the process, but a little perspective is in order.

You know how you minimize fraud? Start throwing fraudsters of all political persuasions into a federal pen for several years by the busload -- that includes everyone from the vote-in-two-states peon to anyone caught ballot stuffing/hacking (yes, undermining our electoral process is THAT serious -- we are no better than a Third World banana republic if we can't keep control of our elections). But there appears to be about as much desire for that as there is to control our borders.

in 2000 he didnt and there was MASSIVE fraud in fla

Nonsense. I live here. There was no such thing except in the fevered brains of the media. Hanging chads indeed. What there was, however, was a concerted legal effort by the Democratic party to thow out votes they didn't like and come up with votes they did like, no matter how slim the pretext. It was all done within the letter of the law and court rulings, so you can hardly call it fraud, but it was distasteful.

CarlS
November 21, 2004, 10:26 AM
bush won
in 2000 he didnt and there was MASSIVE fraud in fla

There was not massive fraud in FL in 2000. There was fraud - and in every county in question, the Supervisor of Elections, an elected position, was a Democrat. Vote recounts by the Washington Post and the Miami Herald revealed that Bush won the state by a greater margin than the official, certified results. That did not make front page! Had it been the other way, it would have been headlines. Fl has 67 counties, the counties in question can be counted on two hands. That is hardly "massive voter fraud".

Greg L
November 21, 2004, 10:29 AM
[adding another layer to the tin foil beanie :D ]

What if the internet/indy media/ hard left is right and the Diebold machines really did count votes incorrectly in favor of George Bush?

It's a 'spiracy I tells ya. The lefties wanted W to win so he couldn't run again & Queen Hillary gets to be dictator for life starting in 08 (tragically however WJC had a "heart attack" 4 days before the election to pull in a huge amount of sympathy votes.... :scrutiny: ).

:uhoh:

jefnvk
November 21, 2004, 04:12 PM
If this is true, it will be Diebold going down for it. No way this went back to the president. I figure worst case, diebold goes out of business, and the counties that have those machines need to buy new ones.

Of course there will be grumbling about how Bush stole the election, when in reality the election would have been stolen for Bush. Then again, I still hear about how Bush stole the election 4 years ago.

JMHO

Jim March
November 21, 2004, 05:48 PM
Ok. It gets even wilder when we ask "is Diebold CORPORATE out of Canton Ohio at fault, or the old Global corp which became Diebold Election Systems out of Vacouver BC and McKinney TX at fault?"

I've written up three pages outlining a theory that the original plan here wasn't "elections fraud" in the conventional ideological sense, but rather stock fraud. Yes, that sounds bizarre. See attached for bios on the Global founders of 1988 and some of their employees, and an outline of what I suspect is going on here.

MeekandMild
November 21, 2004, 05:51 PM
I wouldn't worry about it. I recall what the FBI told my Repub friend when Dem voter fraud stole his one chance at elected office some years ago. "No, we're not going to investigate it unless you're Black. So forget about it."

ceetee
November 21, 2004, 11:56 PM
I'd like to know these two things:

1. How do we know, absolutely and positively, that any alleged voter fraud found is in no way linkable to The White House?

2. How do those who say that there was no fraud or disenfranchisement in 2000 view the various civil-rights lawsuits that arose and were subsequently settled out of court... Hushed up, in my opinion.

Jim March
November 22, 2004, 01:19 AM
Wearing my "black box voting hat" for a sec:

Step one is find the fraud.

Step two, catch the perps.

Step three, hope the authorities grill said perps hard enough to "go up the food chain". Wherever it leads.

That's basically what happened with Watergate. Mind you, I do NOT know where "up the food chain" will go, and I doubt it'll be the Bush White House. But if it DOES, this is where it goes.

The biggest problem here is that when we're talking about a Diebold system, everybody does everything at the central tabulator either as "user admin" (versus identification of actions on a per-human basis just like we do here on THR!) OR they back-door it and leave no audit log at all. :scrutiny:

Which is why even though the fraud in Volusia County 2000 was detected, the perps weren't.

Art Eatman
November 22, 2004, 08:45 AM
I lose track of exact years when stuff happened 50 years back, but this all sorta reminds me of the Senate race between LBJ and Coke Stevenson. 1948 or 1952, I disremember.

Anyhow, Lyndon won by 87 votes, which created his nickname of "Landslide Lyndon". Lotsa dead people voted, particularly down in Duval County, in those days the fiefdom of the "Duke of Duval", Archie Parr. There was to be a recount, but as a Texas Ranger arrived at the courthouse to collect the ballots, he discovered them in flames on the courthouse lawn.

Years later while I was having coffee with a legislator who'd worked on that campaign, he commented, "Well, both sides were votin' cemeteries, but Coke's people got scared and quit first."

Lotsa ways to mess with the count...

Oh: Back then, the ballots were numbered, and each had a little tear-off tab on a corner. You signed the tab and it went into a separate box. All ballots could thus be verified. However, the election folks could also find out who voted for whom if they took the time and trouble to shuffle through all that paper.

:), Art

The Rabbi
November 22, 2004, 10:55 AM
1. How do we know, absolutely and positively, that any alleged voter fraud found is in no way linkable to The White House?

How do we know the Chinese didnt orchestrate the whole outcome? How do we know that bin Laden isnt really Bush's half brother? How do we know you're not some terrorist cruising THR looking for suggestions on committing mayhem?
For people who are skeptical, no proof will suffice.

2. How do those who say that there was no fraud or disenfranchisement in 2000 view the various civil-rights lawsuits that arose and were subsequently settled out of court... Hushed up, in my opinion.

No one says there was no fraud. The question is whether any fraud or miscounting was significant enough. The presence of lawsuits does not equal wrong doing. It only occasionally equals even allegations of wrongdoing.

The whole thread is silly because people alleging this or that misconduct have not established what proof would consist of. Maybe the Diebold machines were secretly programmed to reverse the actual decision of the voter so that Kerry really won by the same margin. Is it possible? Sure. But no one has produced proof that anything like that actually happened.

CarlS
November 22, 2004, 01:39 PM
2. How do those who say that there was no fraud or disenfranchisement in 2000 view the various civil-rights lawsuits that arose and were subsequently settled out of court... Hushed up, in my opinion.

I did not say there was no voter fraud in 2000; I stated there was no massive voter fraud. Again, I point out that the handful of FL counties experiencing voter problems in 2000 were Democratic counties with a Dem Supervisor of Elections. That is not very complimentary of the Dem base.

How lawsuits are settled does not tell an observer anything about the validity or invalidity of the suit. Lawsuits are settled out of court all the time because it is cheaper to settle that way than to defend against it - even when the defendant is not in the wrong. It is interesting that the Dems attempts to have military absentee ballots in Florida discounted in the 2000 election does not seem to bother you; at least you didn't mention it.

Historically, the Dems are pros at voter fraud and at the local level, fraud exists on both sides and has since the US has held elections.

ceetee
November 24, 2004, 12:08 AM
Hey, Carl, if it's military votes not being counted that's bugging you, ask yourself how the military voted this time around. Don't know? Me either. I've looked, and I can't find any stories to tell how their votes went. I don't know if that's indicative of anything or not.

I asked the first question, about how we know the White House is not involved, because Jim made a blanket statement to that effect. "No way" he wrote. I just wanted to find out how he knows such a thing.

You made two statements in error in your earlier posts. First, by saying there was no "massive" voter fraud. Massive being a subjective thing, what's massive to me may be a drop in a bucket to you. All things being equal, I'm convnced that there was "massive" voter fraud.

I live in South Florida, and every day after the 2000 election I listened to, and read about (and in some cases heard and saw live) sories of:

- Police from numerous agencies in numerous counties setting up roadblocks on roads leading to polling places. Some officers gave false directions to alternate polling places. Some officers refused to let anybody through until they had had a complete warrants search performed.
- Ballot boxes in highly Democratic precincts that were put into closets at their respective polling places, not to be discovered until the weekend after the election.
- Thousands of legal voters being told that they were on the now infamous "felon's list" and not allowed to vote.
- Republican lawsuits upheld by Republican judiciary that actually violated both the letter and the spirit of the Florida Constitution, and Florida Election law.

I could go on.

For a pretty complete and unbiased record of the events surrounding that time, go here:

Florida 2000 election facts on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000)

The second mistake you made is a common one. You've referred to the: University of Chicago Florida Ballots Project (http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp)

If you actually look at the study, you'll find that the ballots were tallied up using eight different standards (hanging chads and all that). In four, Bush won. In four others, Gore won. I think the one that counts most (if you'll forgive the pun) is this: In the tally where they used the same standards as the local elections boards would have used, Gore would have won.

Was Gore cheated? I believe so. Would he have been a better President? I think so. Is that all water under the bridge? Maybe... maybe not. If you look at that time as a low point in American jurisprudence, you'll recognize that we must strive for far greater accountability in the way our votes get handled once they've left our hands. I, for one, feel that the person who gets elected is far less important than whether or not the will of the American people has been made known. I almost have no choice but to think "Remember 2000" should be a rallying cry for honesty, amongst both Democrats, and Republicans...

Perhaps we should add "Remember '04" to our songbook. Remember, if one party can steal a few votes this year, then either one can steal them all, another day...

CarlS
November 25, 2004, 08:09 PM
if it's military votes not being counted that's bugging you, ask yourself how the military voted this time around. Don't know? Me either. I've looked, and I can't find any stories to tell how their votes went. I don't know if that's indicative of anything or not.

It is the hypocrisy of the Dems that bothers me. All that noise about votes not being counted and at the same time the Dems tried to get absentee military ballots discounted. This time around there was little move to block military ballots except to scrutinize them to make sure they fulfilled the requirements of the law. As far as how the military vote went, I have seen it broken down by active duty and veterans. I don't remember the figures; but the vote was overwhelmingly for GW with a slightly lesser percentage among vets as compared to those currently serving.

You made two statements in error in your earlier posts. First, by saying there was no "massive" voter fraud. Massive being a subjective thing, what's massive to me may be a drop in a bucket to you. All things being equal, I'm convnced that there was "massive" voter fraud.

Your being convinced there was massive voter fraud does not make it a fact. True, massive is subjective. To me, "massive" would be fraud on the part of 20% of the voters or votes in the state as a whole. Most counties had very few problems. The problems all occurred in Democratic counties. I wonder if that says something about the constituency?

Show me solid evidence of the things you mentioned occurring is South Florida. Remember, those counties in Southeast Florida have Democratic supervisors of elections. Poll watchers from all parties are present at each polling place.

I'm sorry you can't get over the election of 2000 and I'm so glad Bush won. I'm glad he and not Kerry will be President during the next four years. I'm also glad it wasn't close in Florida this time.

HKUSP45C
November 25, 2004, 08:57 PM
A UC Berkly study

Two things came from Berkley: Linux and LSD, this is not a coincidence. (unknown)

ceetee
November 25, 2004, 11:42 PM
Carl, your remark about how these things happening in Democratic counties is interesting. Look at it this way: If you were going to monkey around with vote results, or voters' abilities to get to the polls to vote, would you do it in a county that's already in your pocket? If you were a Republican, would you jigger the vote in a Republican county? I thought not...

Here's a story about the "Felon's list." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A99749-2001May30)

Here's the transcript from a PBS story on how blacks and minorities were kept from the polls. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/voting_12-15.html)

Here's an interview that explains about how no matter what the Florida Supreme Court said, (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/session_11-30.html) the (Republican majority) Florida Congress was going to pass a bill ordering the state's electors to vote for Bush.

Go to page 32 of this PDF (http://www.advancementproject.org/reports/master.pdf) . It's a very detailed report that outlines just how people in Florida were disenfranchised.

A copy of the lawsuit against several Florida counties that was settled before it went to trial. (http://www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/harris/NAACP-v-Harris_Complaint.pdf)

A story about the police checkpoints that were "not normal procedure" (http://news.findlaw.com/apbnews/s/20001108/apbintimidation.html)

A Time Magazine story about Republican "brownshirt tactics" (http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2000/1204/cover_riot.html) interfering with the Miami-Dade Canvassing Board as the main goal.

Dept of Justice report stating reports of "voting irregularities" in 2000 (http://www.gao.gov/atext/d041041r.txt) "far exceeded the number received in past elections"

Regarding the 2000 election: It's in the past. I've long since been "over it". It galls me, however, to read posts by folks who weren't here, and just don't know what happened here. These are things I saw happening live. These are things that I saw replayed on the six o'clock and eleven o'clock news. These are just a few examples of the news stories I lived with for months.

I'm glad you're happy that Bush won. I just wish that he had done so honestly.

On the subject of the military vote... you seem to be a law'n'order kinda guy, and that's great. You've claimed that in 2000, the Democrats worked hard to disenfranchise the military. Got proof? It seems to me that the the only military votes that were not counted were the ones disqualified for the same reason as other absentee votes: Being late. You've already posted that votes that don't meet legal standards should be disqualified... so how about it?

F4GIB
November 26, 2004, 02:26 AM
As long as Richard Daly (IL) lives there will never be a "fraud free" election. The same can be said for Ed Rindell (PA). Since the days of Tammany Hall, the big city Democrat machines have had voter fraud down to a science.

RevDisk
November 26, 2004, 03:17 AM
A UC Berkly study

Two things came from Berkley: Linux and LSD, this is not a coincidence. (unknown)

Amusing.

LSD was discovered by Dr Albert Hofmann. He was the Director of Research, Department of Natural Products, Sandoz Ltd., Basel, Switzerland. The linux kernel was created by Linus Torvald, when he was living in Finland. U.C. Berkeley is famous for BSD, not linux.

CarlS
November 26, 2004, 08:49 AM
Look at it this way: If you were going to monkey around with vote results, or voters' abilities to get to the polls to vote, would you do it in a county that's already in your pocket? If you were a Republican, would you jigger the vote in a Republican county? I thought not...

If I were going to try to mess with election results to boost Dems chances, I would pick counties that were likely to be sympathetic, have large populations, and have good Dem turnout. It would be pointless to try and mess with the results in a conservative, rural county. In a large metro county that leans Dem, one would be safer to increase the Dem numbers there rather than in a Repub controlled county. If I were going to try and rig for the Repubs, I would pick large Repub counties and increase the percentages there. I wouldn't try to turn Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties into Republican counties. That would stick out like a sore thumb.

You refer to PBS. I trust PBS to about the same degree as I trust Democratic Underground to present a fair, unbiased account of anything. If you have ever seen PBS's slanderous "reporting" on 2A issues, you will know from where I write. PBS is definitely very left wing. The Washington Post is not exactly known for fair and unbiased reporting either. They have a decided Dem bias. Earlier, I referred to a page 6 story in the Miami Herald - not exactly a Bush loving, conservative paper. That story concluded that Bush had won the election in Florida based on recounting commissioned by them and the New York Times. Had either of these two papers, bastions of fair reporting that they are, had the remotest way to tout a Dem victory as a result of the recounts, they would definitely had done so.

Yes, I do have proof of Dems trying to get military votes discounted in Duval, Orange, Volusia, and Brevard Counties as well as Escambia, Santa Rosa and Walton Counties in the panhandle. In most cases the ballots were not rejected; they met the letter of the law. Yes, I believe in applying the same standards to military absentee ballots as are applied to any other absentee ballot. I also believe that those participating in voting registration drives that attempted to register non-citizens and convicted felons ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

As far as me being an outsider, I was born and raised in Central Florida, as were my parents. Though I have lived all over the globe, my residence has always been Florida. And I have lived in Southwest Florida while working in Southeast Florida. I am 60 years old and not a "Johnny come lately" to the Sunshine, err, make that Hurricane State. :D

For the record, until 2002, I was a registered Dem. As Zell Miller stated, "I didn't abandon the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party abandoned me" with their leftist and anti-gun agendas.

ceetee
November 26, 2004, 08:40 PM
You're theory on the whys and wherefores of messing with election results isn't just thin... it's anorexic! Got proof?

It looks to me like no matter what news stories I present, you'll just discount them as "liberal bias" influenced. Got any proof of this alleged "liberal bias"? If you look up the thread a ways, you'll find MY proof... the actual results of the "recount" commissioned by the media. (Actually, it's a bit more than a mere "recount.")

The university counted the votes by eight different standards. In four, Bush won. In the other four, Gore won.

When they counted using the vote tally standards that the county canvassing boards were using, Gore won. Bush did not win the Presidency, or earn it; he had it handed to him as a gift by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Where's your proof of the Democrats trying to get military votes discounted? The only military votes not counted (that I can verify) were because they did not meet the legal standard to be legal votes.

Not wanting to sound like a broken record, but I've given you my proof... where's yours? Stories from actual publications (like mainstream newspapers, magazines, and television news programs) will be acceptable. Just like all of my stories come from actual news sources, quotes from Republican-funded .org's are not acceptable.

CarlS
November 26, 2004, 09:41 PM
I did not say the Dems succeeded in having military votes discounted; I said they tried to have them discounted. I have first hand knowledge of this in Duval County and the word of poll watchers whom I know personally in four other counties. You are correct and I so stated that no military votes were discounted that met the requirements of the law. My point is there were no Republican hired lawyers singling out a group of voters and combing those votes as the Dems were doing with the military absentee ballots. I have no use for a bunch of parasites that would try to disenfranchise men and women in uniform who are putting their lives on the line for those sorry specimens of humanity.

Yes, every time you cite a liberal leaning news source, I will suspect bias; In my years of experience, and I have been involved in several major news stories, I have seen the press get one almost correct. Some of the reporting bore very little resemblance to the events I was part of. Yes, the bias in the mainstream news media is well documented. Do a Google search. In addition to organizations that monitor the news services and rate the number of positive stories vs. negative ones, the University of Maryland took a really unique look at news organizations. FoxNews, for example, was rated as not giving their audience much in-depth information leaving their viewers uninformed. I question some of the criteria and I realize that the University of Maryland is not a bastion of conservative studies; but it was a unique study.

If you want to read what the Miami Herald reported on the 2000 recount, search for it. I read it originally both in the paper and on line. It is not important enough to me to spend my time on a dialup modem (a whopping 26.6 kbs connection) searching.

Not wanting to sound like a broken record, but I've given you my proof... where's yours? Stories from actual publications (like mainstream newspapers, magazines, and television news programs) will be acceptable. Just like all of my stories come from actual news sources, quotes from Republican-funded .org's are not acceptable.

I don't even visit Republican funded websites. I do visit Dem websites. I don't trust the mainstream press at all. Just because something was reported in the NY Times, the Washington Post, or CBS news does not make the story fact, truthful, or accurate. Certainly the NY Times and CBS have a credibility problem. I do watch and visit FoxNews; I read the Jacksonville Times Union; and I visit the Drudge Report. I do follow the links on these sites and sometimes follow the links found on the second layer of sites. I also regularly visit two Libertarian sites. I am more interested in visiting Dem websites than Repub sites because I am not seeking to reinforce my views; I'm seeking to expand them. Finding fair and unbiased reporting is very difficult. A link to a CBS story or a NY Times story might as well be a link to DU or Moveon.

I will not change your mind and that is OK. I spent 34 years of my life ensuring that you have the right to your views and to publicly express them. I don't have to agree with your views and you don't have to agree with mine. I do respect your opinion as yours. I still think the “massive voter fraud” stuff is just a myth created by disgruntled Dems who cannot honestly ask themselves, “Could our policies and platform be a reason for our continuing political losses?” Again, all of the allegations occurred in Dem counties with Dem Supervisors of Elections.

ceetee
November 27, 2004, 01:21 AM
I will not change your mind and that is OK. I spent 34 years of my life ensuring that you have the right to your views and to publicly express them.

I respect that. That's an attitude with value, with substance. Thank you.

Regarding "Republican hired lawyers", please see the Wikipedia link I provided earlier in the thread, as well as the Time Magazine link. That'll possibly show you who is quickest to get the hired guns into the fray.

I agree that journalists seldom get all of the facts correct when reporting. I disagree, though, with the "Liberal" label. Until I see proof of any "liberal bias", I'll go on thinking that nearly all media outlets are run by crusty corporate executives that care more about sensationalizing the trivial. Selling advertising is the way they pay their bills, not selling a political platform; making the stories they print look more attention-grabbing is how they sell more papers, and the advertising revenue goes up.

No, I'm not going to go searching for the "liberal bias" myself. Either prove it to me, or it doesn't exist. In a similar fashion, either prove to me that the Democrats "tried" to have military votes thrown out, or it never happened.

I also don't need to search for what the Herald reported, as I've already given you the links to follow back to the original research. It shows that what I'm saying is true. I don't visit DU, (When I first saw that here, I thought the poster was talking about "Ducks, Unlimited"). Nor do I visit any overtly partisan on a regular basis. I do my darndest to find unbiased opinions. If I can't find an unbiased one, then I do my best to check the facts, before I decide what I believe.

I believe that it shouldn't take an error factor of 20% before you decide that something hinky went on with the voting...

Quick trivia question: What national broadcaster said, "You don't have to know the facts, I'll tell you what to believe. You don't have to do any homework, I've already done it. You don't even have to think... I'll tell you what to think!

CarlS
November 27, 2004, 09:16 AM
ceetee,

Here are two links to media watchdog organizations that look for liberal bias in the press. Right up front, these are obviously conservative organizations. You will be hard pressed to find a liberal group reporting on liberal bias.

I really find it difficult to believe that you don’t believe liberal bias exists in the mainstream media. The CBS forged documents thing is pretty blatant. When have you seen the NY Times do a positive article regarding gun ownership? Have you ever seen or heard a positive gun documentary on public radio or TV? Thusly, I put no stock in the links to news organizations with liberal bias. They make no attempt to report the other side and, in fact, attempt to hide the other side.

Another prime example is the negative reporting on Iraq. Talk with soldiers who are/have been there. Their accounts are nothing like what you see and hear on CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC. One would have to be jaded or have his/her head in the sand to believe that most of the national media is fair, balanced, and unbiased. Compare the Jacksonville Times Union to the Miami Herald for a week. The tilt of both papers is very obvious – Jax is conservative and the Herald is ultra liberal.

Yes, the news media does print stories designed to increase their market share. They also use the news stories they select and the content of those stories to advance their political agendas. Count the number of stories in the Miami Herald this year that are pro gun vs. anti gun. Are there really no pro gun stories out there? Several years ago a sniper on a Va college campus shot several people. He, in turn, was shot by someone with a concealed weapon permit. Only two major newspapers in this country bother to mention that little tidbit in their reporting of the event. Heavens, they couldn’t endorse concealed carry; that would blow their “blood flowing in the streets” anti gun editorials out of the water. Worse, it would show that maybe gun ownership and concealed carry is really a good thing. The liberal press couldn’t have that!

If you don't chose to research liberal bias and the other side of election reporting, that is your choice. If you don't chose to read the Miami Herald story on the recounts, that is also your choice. If you choce not to believe liberal bias exists in the media, that is your choice. Doesn't make it true; but it is your choice.

I never stated there was no fraud in 2000. I also stated there was fraud on both sides. The national media failed to report the illegal registration folks ineligible to vote in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties (other counties). Only this year, did the media mention those folks who voted in both Florida and New York (and New Jersey). Guess what, these voters were registered as Dems. My position was and is that there was not massive voter fraud. My position is that voter fraud has always existed and 2000 was no better nor any worse than previous years. Voter fraud is certainly not limited to Florida. Research the history of Dem voting in Chicago. Reasearch the circumstances when LBJ won his first election to the US Senate.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/campaign/04/worst/welcome.asp

http://www.timeswatch.org/

ceetee
November 27, 2004, 08:18 PM
Carl, why can't you prove anything? I mean, c'mon... you cite sources that you admit are biased towards conservatives. If anything, you're proving that if any bias does exist, that it's slanted in favor of conservatives!

Did CBS forge documents? If so, I haven't heard of it. What I heard was that they let themselves get conned. By a Republican, too... Just goes to show which party does NOT run an honest campaign. The bottom line is the almighty dollar. That, and any broadcasting company that goes against the government majority soon runs afoul of the FCC. Look at what happened to Stern. His show was no worse than most I've seen on primetime TV, but since he's an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, his show earned whopping fines.

Back to the broken record thing... refute my points, using facts, or I'll soon start dancing around my chair, singing "I win! I win! I win!"

P.S. The national broadcaster urging his listeners to NOT think for themselves was His Almightyness, Rush Limbaugh.

The Rabbi
November 27, 2004, 08:25 PM
Ceetee,
What would constitute sufficient proof for you to admit Carl is right? Congressional report? News story by CBS? Admission by Al Gore?
I think until you answer that question this thread will go around and around.

ceetee
November 27, 2004, 08:29 PM
Rabbi... which is the point that I'm supposed to concede? Nobody has answered any of mine. All kinds of allegations have been made, without any shred of proof behind them.

Read up the thread a bit, and you'll see just what I'm looking for. Until then...




*singing and dancing*



I win! I win! I win!

The Rabbi
November 27, 2004, 08:46 PM
*singing and dancing*
I win! I win! I win!

Enjoy it, kid.

I dont see any benefit to continuing the discussion and unless someone has something to add I am going to unsubscribe from the thread.

If you enjoyed reading about "What if the internet/indy media/ hard left is right???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!