Connect the dots - is obstructionism toward Obama's plan linked to stolen elections?

[diva77]

I can't help but be reminded of the strong evidence suggesting that congress consists of several "illegitimate" members as the obstructionism toward Obama's Stimulus Plan proceeds...what can be done about these illegitimate members?

I'll never forget this disturbing article:

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/landslide_denied_exit_polls_vs_vote_count_2006

Landslide Denied: Exit Polls vs. Vote Count 2006

Demographic Validity of the National Exit Poll
and the Corruption of the Official Vote Count
Jonathan Simon, JD, and Bruce O’Dell1
Election Defense Alliance

Introduction: Pre-Election Concern, Election Day Relief, Alarming Reality

There was an unprecedented level of concern approaching the 2006 Election (“E2006”) about the vulnerability of the vote counting process to manipulation. With questions about the integrity of the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections remaining unresolved, with e-voting having proliferated nationwide, and with incidents occurring with regularity through 2005 and 2006, the alarm spread from computer experts to the media and the public at large. It would be fair to say that America approached E2006 with held breath.

For many observers, the results on Election Day permitted a great sigh of relief—not because control of Congress shifted from Republicans to Democrats, but because it appeared that the public will had been translated more or less accurately into electoral results, not thwarted as some had feared. There was a relieved rush to conclude that the vote counting process had been fair and the concerns of election integrity proponents overblown.

Unfortunately the evidence forces us to a very different and disturbing conclusion: there was gross vote count manipulation and it had a great impact on the results of E2006, significantly decreasing the magnitude of what would have been, accurately tabulated, a landslide of epic proportions. Because much of this manipulation appears to have been computer-based, and therefore invisible to the legions of at-the-poll observers, the public was informed of the usual “isolated incidents and glitches” but remains unaware of the far greater story: The electoral machinery and vote counting systems of the United States did not honestly and accurately translate the public will and certainly can not be counted on to do so in the future.

snip

[BlooInBloo]

1. (facepalm)

[LeftAlone]

2. If we control both houses of congress and the oval office...

...exactly who stole what?

[Diane R]

3. They stole the magnitude of the victory. We should have far greater numbers in congress.

[LeftAlone]

5. fiddle faddle

I understand your concerns but MadHound is correct: the GOP is so numerically marginalized the only victory they can achieve are the ones handed to them by the dems wrapped up real pretty with a big bow on top.

[diva77]

6. I believe that there are many dems who are illegitimate officeholders as well.

That would explain their errant behavior. If they want to hold office, they have to be accountable to those who are in charge of electing them -- i.e. those who control the computerized voting process, not necessarily the "people."

[RC]

11. Not true at all. We managed to swamp out the election frauds the Republicans were involved in

nation wide. The criminals had to manipulate the vote count to within the margin of error to make it look good. Rove got fired from his White House job because he did not anticipate the ground swell against bu$h.
Since the early 1950 when the exit polls were first started, they followed the vote count fairly closely. Starting with the 2000 election, the elections went to the Republicans while the exit polls went to the Liberals. The 2002 and 2004 elections allowed the criminals to fine tune the results with the touch screen electronic voting machines. By the 2006 elections though, enough people were waking up to what was going on in this country to partly swamp out the election fraud, hence the Liberal gains in Congress. There would have been even more gains if the elections were honest.

The criminals didn't even try very hard in the 2008 elections. But they are still are out there and will be back in full force 2012. We had better have our election procedures straightened out by then or this country is lost. We have 4 years to clean the corruption out of our government or the bu$h administration will seem benign by comparison.

[MadHound]

4. The obstructionism is due to one simple fact

We've got a bunch of spineless, gutless wonders for our so called Democratic representatives and the 'Pugs know this. Knowing this, they're encouraged to obstruct and block at every turn because they know that these Dems won't fight back, but rather will give away the farm instead of actually getting down and dirty fighting back, even though the Dems are in the majority.

Thus, anything at this point that goes through Congress is going to be weak, watered down and ineffective due to the Dems unwillingness to fight, and we the people are going to get screwed time and again. Meanwhile, the Dems will wail and moan that the reason they can't do anything is because they don't have sixty senators, completely ignoring the historical fact that the 'Pugs were able to ram home their agenda without sixty votes.

That's what this obstructionism is about, and we can look forward to an increased amount of this until the Dems finally say enough is enough and actually fight. I hope that comes sooner rather than later, but somehow I doubt it will happen at all.

[Stevepol]

7. Everything is related to stolen elections:

Both 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, and in 2004, electronic voting machines were almost certainly heavily implicated in the theft.

The 2002 elections saw the seating of many officials who almost certainly did not win their elections: Saxby Chambliss (GA) for one (who allegedly beat Max Cleland on Diebold touchscreens that were almost certainly patched to achieve the result).

And in 2006 I'm sure there were others who in reality did not win their elections.

The problem is when you don't have a democracy (when the results are counted in total secrecy without verification), there's no way to know one way or the other. You have a totally faith-based political system, which is what we have still in the US.

There's no reason to have the slightest confidence in most of the elections in the US since the vote is counted by machines in secret where there's no audit and thus no verification of the result.

This remains the most important issue in the country. On this issue, hangs our very democracy. Obama is in for now and there are many Dems in, but there are many others who should be in and aren't, and there are two candidates for president who in actuality won the election but were not allowed to serve in the office they won: Gore and Kerry.

[diva77]

9. Well said, Stevepol!

[Peace Patriot]

8. Yes. nt

[GeorgeGist]

10. Indirectly perhaps ...

but the over-riding nonsense is theft-by-profit.

[Life Long Dem]

12. I see 6 replies

for LeftAlone. Hey, I left them alone so it wasn't me! :rofl: