Page 1 of 1
I'm not ordinarily given to conspiracy theories, but . . .
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:45 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Looks like maybe, just maybe, the 2004 election was tainted after all.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/ ... ion_stolen
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:53 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:57 pm
by Y2K
I hear ya Terry
No way a plane hit the Pentagon.
We need to pay much more attention to all the astute political Journalisim that goes on at Rolling Stone, The Star and The Globe magazines.
No way anyone could debate Teddy Kennedy was abducted by aliens and the framed for Chappaquiddik by J Edgar Hoover's limo driver.
People need to get real.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:59 pm
by Tom In VA
The article is replete with some circumstantial "events".
The bottom line is the Dems need to "Get Out the Vote" and if their constituents aren't willing to put up with the lines, and LEGAL administrative obstacles the Republicans MIGHT put in their way ......
They don't deserve to win anyway ....
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/99d1f/99d1ffcd436e8dfc800a9b8c92c0d1bf3f377acb" alt="Laughing :lol:"
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:02 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Y2K wrote:I hear ya Terry
No way a plane hit the Pentagon.
You have me confused with someone else.
We need to pay much more attention to all the astute political Journalisim that goes on at Rolling Stone, The Star and The Globe magazines.
Rolling Stone in the same breath as the supermarket rags?
No way anyone could debate Teddy Kennedy was abducted by aliens and the framed for Chappaquiddik by J Edgar Hoover's limo driver.
People need to get real.
Keep believing that.
And btw, if you want to talk about conspiracy theories, your side does a real good job with them. Vince Foster was murdered and dinosaurs didn't really exist. Oh, and evolution is a Satanic plot designed to undermine Christianity.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:11 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Tom In VA wrote:The article is replete with some circumstantial "events".
Here is where I use my legal training and fall back, in this particular case, on "reasonable doubt."
If you've ever sat on a criminal jury, or even attended jury instructions in a criminal trial, you know that finding something beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean the absence of
all doubt. But a few snippets from the article:
But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)
The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)
Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America's voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. ''We didn't have one election for president in 2004,'' says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. ''We didn't have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities.''
But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004(12) -- more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.(13) (See Ohio's Missing Votes) In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots.(14) And that doesn?t even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.(15)
''It was terrible,'' says Sen. Christopher Dodd, who helped craft reforms in 2002 that were supposed to prevent such electoral abuses. ''People waiting in line for twelve hours to cast their ballots, people not being allowed to vote because they were in the wrong precinct -- it was an outrage. In Ohio, you had a secretary of state who was determined to guarantee a Republican outcome. I'm terribly disheartened.''
Indeed, the extent of the GOP's effort to rig the vote shocked even the most experienced observers of American elections. ''Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen,'' Lou Harris, the father of modern political polling, told me. ''You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.''
The bottom line is the Dems need to "Get Out the Vote"
No disagreement there.
and if their constituents aren't willing to put up with the lines, and LEGAL administrative obstacles the Republicans MIGHT put in their way ......
They don't deserve to win anyway ....
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/99d1f/99d1ffcd436e8dfc800a9b8c92c0d1bf3f377acb" alt="Laughing :lol:"
Nor there. But the administrative obstacles need to be LEGAL. Therein lies the key.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:30 pm
by Cicero
Using Rolling Stone to back up your paranoia? Come on Terry, you're smarter than that.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:32 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Cicero wrote:Using Rolling Stone to back up your paranoia? Come on Terry, you're smarter than that.
Read the article (including footnotes), then get back to me.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:34 pm
by Tom In VA
Terry, assuming you have read more in depth about this than me, has there been an attempt to compare administrative cluster-fucks in this election with administrative cluster-fucks in other elections ?
In otherwords, when it comes to elections ... SNAFU is status quo at some level ?
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:42 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Tom, I'm certainly not saying that Presidential elections were entirely SNAFU-free prior to 2000. These sorts of problems will appear in any election, to be sure.
The reason there's been some attention paid to them more recently is the closeness of the last two Presidential elections. Without question, 2000 was the closest Presidential election in history. And 2004, while not as close as 2000, was still among the closest Presidential elections in history as well.
Many elections have not been close enough that errors in voter registration, vote counts, etc. were enough to influence the outcome. When the election is close, it becomes that much more important to get it right.
But in any event, voting is a constitutional right, so for that right to mean anything, we have to do the best job possible of registering eligible voters who want to register, and counting the votes that are cast by people who actually turn out.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:53 pm
by Tom In VA
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Tom, I'm certainly not saying that Presidential elections were entirely SNAFU-free prior to 2000. These sorts of problems will appear in any election, to be sure.
Don't you think any sincere attempt to find deliberate tampering, should compare and contrast elections, and state whether or not the administrative and logistical miscues are isolated or ..... normal.
That's all I'd like to see.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:11 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Tom In VA wrote:Terry in Crapchester wrote:Tom, I'm certainly not saying that Presidential elections were entirely SNAFU-free prior to 2000. These sorts of problems will appear in any election, to be sure.
Don't you think any sincere attempt to find deliberate tampering, should compare and contrast elections, and state whether or not the administrative and logistical miscues are isolated or ..... normal.
That's all I'd like to see.
Tom, if you're looking for a comparison to other years of all facets of the election, you'll have a hard time finding one. And for good reason: in recent U.S. history, the last two Presidential elections have been the closest. No other elections are even comparable in that regard.
As for comparing certain points of data for which comparisons are available, see Lou Harris' comments that I put in bold.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:21 pm
by Tom In VA
Duly noted.