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

[Jim March]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Art Eatman]

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]

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]

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]

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

The second mistake you made is a common one. You've referred to the: University of Chicago Florida Ballots Project

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]

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]

A UC Berkly study

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

 

[ceetee]

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."

Here's the transcript from a PBS story on how blacks and minorities were kept from the polls.

Here's an interview that explains about how no matter what the Florida Supreme Court said, 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 . 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.

A story about the police checkpoints that were "not normal procedure"

A Time Magazine story about Republican "brownshirt tactics" interfering with the Miami-Dade Canvassing Board as the main goal.

Dept of Justice report stating reports of "voting irregularities" in 2000 "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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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.