What would constitute LEGITIMATE evidence for election fraud?

[femme.democratique]

What kind of evidence would make all the RABID (rabid to the point of being annoying and arrogant) doubters here believe? Seriously, some of you seem hell-bent on deriding and discouraging those of us who care about this issue and are willing to face scorn because of it. I wanna know, what would it take for you to understand? Would it take a confession? Seems like you could have Rove on truth serum and it wouldn't be enough!

[Jo March]

1. femme.democratique, I've wondered that myself

I think that we need to have the two groups on DU working on separate things:

One group will work on election fraud
One group will work on 2006/2008 elections

Whenever I run across someone from the second camp, I will thank them for their hard work for our 06/08 candidates and keep moving forward.

We need DUers to work on getting good candidates that can win in 06/08 and beyond.

We also need DUers to work on getting the massive evidence of fraud and disenfranchisement out in the open and get reforms underway.

It's a win-win but it's somehow turned into an us vs. them battle.

[femme.democratique]

4. Yes, sorry to say some here on DU sound just as closed-minded

as those on another message board that shall not be named...fascist apologists come to mind, but I won't yet go that far.

Why is there such a refusal to see this for what it is? A fight against an entrenched power structure that has abused and lied to the American people for DECADES. Personally, I don't give a shit what they think, but it is quite intriguing that SO MANY spend so much time trying to discourage others. Do they think they are doing us a favor? I see the argument that we are "hurting" the Democratic party and the cause to defeat the monster in the WH. Please. Go out and find some more zombies because this gal isn't going to look the other way. Fuck the Democratic party if they refuse to fight!

[Jo March]

14. Well, lock arms with me, my dear

and we shall continue to fight.

I believe that we do need to look for good, solid, electable candidates for 06/08. I do. I just don't spit on those who are working, really working, to find those candidates.

In fact, if I see a thread that says, "Hey, what about Dean/Clark/Spongebob in 06?", I don't go into that thread and start saying, "Don't do it! You'll never be successful because of fraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddd!"

No, I stay away from those threads and work on my stuff: election fraud and getting a Senator for the 6th.

I do say something to those who come to a thread about election fraud and start trying to say I should give up, though. :) That is just rude.

Some people are working for the future candidates and that's great. The rest of these "give up now" folks are just obstacles in my path.

[femme.democratique]

30. Its almost like...when you tell someone there is a cancer growing..

...inside them and they choose not to treat it. Its crazy!

[Jo March]

33. lalalalalalaalalalalalalala...I can't hear you

There is no fraud.
There is no fraud.
There is no fraud.

It's a bit silly, isn't it?

Bottom line: It will take all of us to get out of this mess. Every single one of us. This us vs. them shit is so old! Grrr

[goclark]

2. Good question!

Nothing would convince the Republicans because they want power.
Many Democrats are so afraid of being laughed at that they are afraid to fight.

Hello? Anybody home?

We have already lost the election!
They are constantly laughing at us and ignoring us.

Hello?

I say let's rumble and make history for trying.
Then when and if a Democrat ever gets elected President in the next Century we can proudly tell our children that we fought to make this a better world. We did not wimp out.

[Walt Starr]

3. How 'bout a few thousand ballots with Kerry marked

pulled out of Lake Erie?

[femme.democratique]

5. Is that it? What else?

[Walt Starr]

8. That would constitute hard evidence of fraud, yes

statistical manipulation is nothing without that sort of hard evidence.

[Clark2008]

41. How 'bout the code in the machines that flipped

ever so many votes for Kerry over to Bush.

Would that do?

[liam97]

10. I think its safer

to have Bush confess, the we can all start fighting for our democracy. Short of that....
PS. I am sick of this "there is no evidence" refrain

[femme.democratique]

6. How many thousand? 5, 10, 20? But that would just be ONE incident...

...see where this is going?

[Walt Starr]

12. Oh, about 130,000 should be enough

See where I'm going?

For Bush to have won via fraud, an unprecedented event of coordinated efforts all across the state of Ohio would have had to happen.

[Dr.Phool]

7. Well there was the disappeared ballot box

In Cincinatti.

[Walt Starr]

11. Oh yeah? Where's the proof?

I've seen no evidence of a disappearing ballot box anywhere.

[Walt Starr]

94. Link please

Thanks. You don't mind if I don't believe your assertion without proof, do you?

[bemis12]

9. Since you aksed

1. A legitimate person who was involved. It would have taken so many that SOMEBODY would know it.

2. A recount that showed something different than Bush winning. I'm not buying that the recount got the same results through additional manipulation.

3. Results that were different that the polling done pre-election. But they had it a toss-up, and it was.

4. Proof of intentionally discarded ballots.

5. Ballots that had been demonstrably altered.


I guess I'm with Kerry in thinking he lost. He has access to most anything, and he thinks he lost.

[eomer]

18. How about touchscreen machines that demonstrably switched

Kerry votes to Bush votes? Would that be on your list?

And, by the way, how do you know what Kerry is thinking? Did you use a secret brain scanner machine when he took his tinfoil off for the night?

[Walt Starr]

20. Why don't you call Olberman and get that machine on his show?

Oh, you heard it from a friend who read it on a blog or some other such?

:eyes:

[eomer]

28. It was a DUer who posted somewhere in a thread I read today and said

that he was a member of a team who tested touchscreen machines pre-election. He said that there were a number of machines that switched Kerry votes to Bush votes but never the other way around.

What's your point - that we don't have the machine in custody? An eyewitness report from someone whose duty was to test and report is not enough? It seems to me that no matter what evidence we find, you're going to keep raising the bar a bit higher.

My position is that the standard shouldn't be proof at this point, it should be evidence that casts a significant doubt or raises significant suspicion.

Is that where we differ? Is it that you think we should have to prove fraud at this stage and I think we should only have to show a reasonable suspicion of it?

If the standard is that proof has to be shown before you get to investigate then you can forget about verifiability in any election. Is that what you seek?

[seriousstan]

34. Where is the report, the name of the person and the official position

and job description?

Oh, I forgot....."It was a DUer who posted somewhere in a thread I read today and said".

I have read sooo many stories of "HUGE events getting ready to take place" or "people coming forward Monday" and yet nothing is ever presented.

Who is the person, what was his official job description, who employed him and where is the report??

[eomer]

43. There are at least dozens of reports from voters of this happening

and the names, precinct, etc. are all documented.

You're not seriously claiming that there were no touchscreen machines that switched Kerry votes to Bush are you?

I don't see the other post that I described above and don't have time to look further right now - but I don't think any reasonable person could doubt that this occurred based on the large number of witnesses that have come forward.

[seriousstan]

49. I guess I have to ask again...Where is the report, the name of the person

Who is the person, what was his official job description, who employed him and where is the report??


Being that there are "at least dozens" you shouldn't have any problem producing a link for only one of these people.

Who did they produce this evidence to and when? Where were they at the hearings? Where were they when they were supposed to be doing their job of testing the machines? Where are their reports?

You say dozens, yet I have yet to see one truly substantiated story. Why are these people, who are obviously motivated, not stepping forth?

[mgr]

79. Link

https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapCounty&tab=ALL&state=Ohio&cat=02&start_time=&start_date=&end_time=&end_date=&search=&county=Mahoning

Mahoning County, Youngstown, machine problems, 33 reports, several note touchscreen problems.

voteprotect.org is the clearing house record of any voting irregularities that folk found to complain about. If I remember, you can also look up some counties in Florida with similar complaints.

Does this meet your evidentary requirement? If not, what else might you need?

Mike

[Walt Starr]

67. So this DUer saw this machine and posted the info here?

THAT'S RELIABLE!

[eomer]

68. Apparently you misunderstood what I meant.

The touchscreen machines would switch the vote from Kerry to Bush in front of the voter's eyes. The voter would select Kerry but the vote would switch to Bush when the summary screen was presented.

You guys are not seriously disputing that this occurred are you? Documented cases of this are all over the place so I assume you must have thought I was describing something different.

You do agree that there are many documented cases of this, don't you?

[Walt Starr]

71. I definitely dispute it

Until verified, it is anecdotal.

Trot out the machines.

[eomer]

74. So eyewitness testimony is not evidence to you?

It is evidence in a court of law, right? Your standard at this point is a higher bar than what is admissible in any civil or criminal court?

Wow!

[Walt Starr]

76. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously incorrect

Especially when the only reports of this that were validated were reported immediately to election oifficials who took the affected machines offline.

[eomer]

77. Wrong again...

Many of the reports indicate that the machines were not taken offline. In many cases, the election workers said "That's been happening all day."

And while eyewitness testimony may be notoriously incorrect, the universal solution to that problem is corroboration. In this case the corroboration is overwhelming.

[Walt Starr]

78. Links please

I need to see this evidence for myself.

Trotting out one of the alleged machines would be helpful, too.

[eomer]

81. Here are a couple of examples. Many more are out there if you only look.

<snip>
Ohio Voter Suppression Hearing
Franklin County Court House
373 S. High St.
Columbus
meeting room A
11/15/04 6:00pm-10:00pm

notes by Joe Knapp [e-mail]


Panel largely from non-partisan political action groups that avoided
discussions of Bush vs. Kerry.

New county commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy was in attendance.

Fitrakis: asked that all testimony should be personal experiences
and not hearsay.
<snip>
Janeane Smith-White

- pushed Kerry button on her ballot and the light went on for Bush
- poll worker said it had been happening all day

<snip>
Tom Pinatello

- first experience voting in Columbus
- polling place was Livingston School
- observed that after he pushed the button for Kerry, went through
the complicated ballot, and did a double check at the end before
pressing the vote button, the vote for Kerry was gone (light
blinking again)
<unsnip>

Link:
http://www.recountohio.org/blog/

As far as trotting out the machines, I've advocated repeatedly that the machines should be impounded, tested and examined forensically. Do you support that approach?

[Walt Starr]

83. Sorruy, can't find the text at the link you cited

and a blog is hardly evidence.

[eomer]

86. About half way down, try using "edit search"

And, no, the blog is not evidence. The testimony of the person is evidence.

Why did you ask me for links? If your answer is then that a blog is not evidence then I guess no link would ever be of any use to you.

[Walt Starr]

89. Thanks

Still not buying it, though.

[bemis12]

21. I know what he's saying.

He's said it a number of times. You've heard it, right?

[eomer]

24. That's right, we know what he's saying...

We don't know what he's thinking.

[bemis12]

26. I stand corrected.

I have no idea what he's thinking, only what he's saying.

"We lost".
"Bush got more votes".
"There was no significant fraud".

[NGU]

13. RAPID Doubters?

I don't consider myself to be a "RAPID Doubter". I am trying to look at what is being considered evidence and I'm not sure it holds. Don't get me wrong. I believe that mistakes (planned or not) were made on both sides and I find it hard to believe that a wide spread fraud occurred over the entire nation. Where are the whistle blowers? I am new here, but I see people asking where the evidence is in a polite manner. Some people answer then rudely by asking what will it take to believe and search the old threads. I am new to this and want to make an informed decision instead of just believing people who say they just know. I don't feel that my desire for more information makes me annoying or arrogant.

[femme.democratique]

27. Um, nowhere in my post does it say "RAPID".

It is not your desire for more information that makes you arrogant. It is your (?) attempt to deride those THAT ARE TRYING to get that evidence, some calling us certain names in the process. See the problem there?

People thought the world was round once, too. I don't expect to be able to convince you that fraud isn't just likely, its probable. Some people are just "believers" in the integrity of the current system. I am not one of those believers. I, for one, believe that most EVERY facet of our government is corrupt and can be bought for a price. Elections are at the crux of maintaining corrupt control. Frankly, you'd have to PROVE to me that the election WASN'T manipulated! I am a scientist, and I believe in using available data to come to a reasoned conclusion. All the data I've seen taken in the aggregate, in the proper context, is very disturbing and leads me to believe that systemic fraud was executed in Ohio and probably Florida as well. Remember the goal in that case would be to tip the numbers JUST ENOUGH....the margins are really so slim...though it is made out in the MSM to be the opposite

"Where are the whistle blowers?"

How scared shitless would YOU be in that situation, knowing what would happen to you. Think about it. Also, there is the possibility that there is a whistleblower - and the lid is being kept on it for reasons of national interest as evidence is gathered. You just don't know....you just don't know.

[euler]

63. He's just re-framing your question

RABID, RAPID. Give him a break. he hasn't finished the book yet.

[AmerDem]

15. The MSM requires

actual video tape of Rove, Jeb, shrub, Blackwell and all their cronies at a dinner discussing and diagramming state per state precincts to be rigged and audio tape of the shits they take after dinner. Only then could any credibility be given to the tin hatters of this country.:tinfoilhat:

[pleiku52cab]

16. Don't know that we here at DU have to be convinced of the FRAUD

Its the other folksies out in Americalandthat need the hard proof. All the statistics, probabilities, comparisons, impossible odds, etc etc etc. That is not going to convince the masses. To them its all smoke and 'sore loser' bull shit. Not just the smoking gun, we need one of the top SOBs that helped pull the trigger to confess.
We all know Blackwell is guilty as sin, but that is not resonating across the country as a whole. I think it would take a whistle blower high up in the black box companies. Telling and showing the people how the machines, and more importantly the tabulators, were rigged. Then you've got your gun and the hit man who pulled the trigger.

[meisje]

17. Something that would stand up in court would be nice

Tapes, confessions, cracked source code... solid evidence

I live in downtown Columbus, Ohio and we had one less voting machine at our precinct. Was it a conspiracy? Don't know... I do know our board of elections is half Dems and half Repukes, It is run by a Dem. Why would a Dem or a group of Dem's let that happen? I see no real proof!

The question you should be asking yourself is: What would it take to prove to you it was not mass fraud? and would you even believe it?

Kerry should have won by a landslide, but he didn't! Why is that?

Ahh whatever, I'm talking to a brick wall

[femme.democratique]

36. Brick Wall? No, Brick House.

"The question you should be asking yourself is: What would it take to prove to you it was not mass fraud? and would you even believe it? "

I would have to believe that the rest of the government isn't corrupt. I would have to believe that *Co wasn't involved in 9/11. I'd have to believe that *Co wouldn't pull out all the stops to maintain power. I'd have to believe many things which sadly are not true.

"Kerry should have won by a landslide, but he didn't! Why is that?"

Election Fraud. And because approx 49% of this country falls into two categories:

-selfish rich people
-gun-loving moralist conservatives

I have no delusions that this was not a very close race. But, the principle here regarding election fraud and its persecution has nothing to do with that.

[DieboldMustDie]

45. Members of Ohio's election boards, Democrats as well as Republicans,

serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of State.   Anyone who didn't play ball with Blackwell could simply be dismissed and replaced.

[bemis12]

48. Election boards don't pay much

These Dems wouldn't trade a fair election for the position. Some of them are county Democratic chairmen. They'd come forth in DROVES. But they haven't done so.

[roseBudd]

92. Might that be because tabulation fraud is invisible?

Because programs that fraudulently assign votes to the wrong candidate can pass pre election testing? Because only a programmer poring over thousands of lines of code might be able to discover tabulation fraud?

It is assumed that punch cards deter tabulation fraud because punch cards are evidence. The chances of punch cards being hand counted is infinitesimally small, so not much deterrence.

Computers count votes so no one can see
They claim Bush won, I say prove it to me

[consciousobjector]

46. Hmmm...what would make a Dem election official let

that happen? Ah, let's see...incompetence? toadying? cronyism? fear of being fired? old age? apathy? Face it, just because someone registers as a Democrat doesn't necessarily make them one, and just because someone managed to get a job as an election official, it doesn't make them a conscientious employee. Local election officials = small town/small office mentality...do what you're told, don't ask questions. Even if you don't like your job, or the people you work with, it's still your job...it's where you have to go every day...you do what you must and tell yourself it's ok....oh, and if you think finding a new job in Ohio is easy, then you don't live in Ohio

[slackmaster]

19. How about a confession; a whistle-blower?

Sworn testimony or a deposition or a signed confession would be prima fascia evidence.

Why hasn't one come forward to blow the lid on the whole big Conspiracy yet?

:shrug:

[Pithy Cherub]

22. The first is an open and fair investigation

that legitimizes the evidence collected.

[Der Blaue Engel]

23. While I share your frustration

This is the sort of post that they salivate over. (I'm just guessing, since I can't see bad people anymore.) :D

They want to be difficult. They have a reason to wish to discourage. Just start giggling, it's fun. :)

[cali]

25. It's clear from the way that you formulated your

question, that you're not asking a question at all. You're simply taking the opportunity to call those of us who don't believe that Kerry was cheated out of the presidency, vile name. Congratulations. You're taking the discourse to a new low. Many of us have explained patiently, lucidly and repeatedly what we believe and why. I've done so multiple times on multiple threads.

Oh, and you forgot to call us fascist freepers. Not to worry. Someone will.

[femme.democratique]

29. Please don't put words in my mouth, thanks. EOM

[cali]

37. You used the word rabid

and a couple of other not too kind words to describe people who disagreed with you. I pointed out that your question was formulated in such an insulting way as to be unlikely to elicit thoughtful responses. I assumed you were aware that calling folks rabid is generally regarded as an insult. If, perchance, you aren't aware of it, consider yourself duly informed.

[femme.democratique]

39. Well, I believe rabid was the accurate adjective...

..sorry you find my honesty offensive.

[cali]

54. Nah, I find you far more amusing than offensive

Your own words are an admission that you weren't really asking a question. Classic use of rhetoric.

[femme.democratique]

55. Is that why you're still trying to engage me? Because I amuse you?

I think I piss you off...self-righteous you.

[cali]

56. OK, let me be honest here.

Not very nice of me, but I enjoy toying with people I don't think are terribly bright. As I said, it's not very nice, and it doesn't say much for my state of enlightenment, but there it is.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

58. LOL

Who's lashing out? I prefer snarky. Goodnight, femme. Don't take this all so seriously. It's just a message board. We just disagree.

[mgr]

91. No it was not.

Because you are willing to presume fraud you are sticking your neck out, and it is the 'rabid' dissenters that are causing you harm. Well, if you can't get your fellow Democrats to agree, or come to consensus, then you really are not sticking your neck out in a manner that involves much risk. But you are definitely painting us dissenters as irrational and emotional, and yourself as the opposite, when I think it is the opposite case. If I believe that knowledge and reason will extinguish error, I am dogged in my efforts to address this until I think it Quixotic.

I am glad that the community is not yet at consensus, because many of the fraud threads do not make a cogent case. In many of these cases, exit polls and recounts, the methods and presumptions do not follow from the original rational for why the practice is there in the first place. If DU was in agreement, I would have opted out since the level of thought would not be that of what I consider 'intellectual elites', but of the hoi polloi.

Mike

[KittyWampus]

42. Actually, You've Only Managed To Recite Faulty, Half Baked Info

and refuse to acknowledge the actual evidence.

[meisje]

50. What is the evidence? Would it stand up in court?

I know of rumors and accusations, but that means nothing unless it can hold up in court.

[KittyWampus]

61. You Haven't Been Reading Then. Cause There's Ample Evidence.

And BEFORE YOU GET TO COURT... YOU GET SEARCH WARRANTS.

[cali]

52. I've offered opinion, not facts or "info"

And you may well think my opinion is half-baked or not baked at all, but I'm not submitting faulty information or facts. I'd love to see the fraud situation as you do, but I just can't reconcile it with my own perspective. I'm sorry that offends some people.

[euler]

64. Actual evidence ?

Where. Where ?

[meisje]

69. There ! !! Did you see it? It's gone now:(

[corbett]

31. Tapes, Confessions, Cracked Source code

Supposedly, Mr. Conyers has a smoking gun which no one has leaked. I haven't heard specifics but have inferred that it's major. As for the proof, check out:

http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevote.htm

and

http://www.kerrygrassroots.org/article/264/video-footage-of-african-american-voter-suppression-in-ohio

and

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/vote_rigging_concept_1207.htm

[Zeebo]

32. How about an actual hand recount in one suspect Ohio County?

I agree that many believe we have mountains of legitimate evidence, while others see nothing.

I'm in the middle: there is very troubling information from all over, not just Ohio. But there is nothing like a "smoking gun". This type of contention needs something concrete, something clear and convincing. Many people who are passionate about election reform can also be very rational and cautious. We should not stop investigating and being concerned.

I can only hope there is a possibility that through the FOIA, we can coordinate an honest hand recount of a single suspect Ohio county. I think barring a whistle blower or E-mail from Rove, that is our best shot to send the fraud into the stratosphere, or realize Bush won.

[femme.democratique]

38. The Glibs are trying to get a hand recount, Blackwell stonewalls

[many a good man]

47. Once it becomes public record ...

anyone should be able to go in and count. You'll find EVERY county cheated for ** by about the same percentage...

[FreepFryer]

35. Those who relentlessly drive forward without an awareness of the present

Are doomed to repeat the past.

Naysayers and tinfoilers - this means all of you (of us).

Believe in your beliefs. Make change real with your convictions! Great things are possible when intelligence and compassion meet.

[stillcool]

40. Maybe they need the same

kind of proof that they got to take us to war. Would that do it? Colin Powell saying it is so?

[EndElectoral]

44. It appears nothing is acceptable...and that is what's so scary....

Short of photographic evidence of tampering (and they'd claim that was doctored), or programming malfeasance (and they'll blame that on a disgruntled employee), or throwing polling data away (and that is just crazy partisan talk), or the developers of the machines will guarantee a state for Bush(and of course no one would buy into that).

So I guess we have finally lost our quality assurance on democracy, quietly, without real indignation, without resistance...with just trusting that all will go well....

[crispini]

51. Well, I'm one of those who is still in the middle, so I'll bite.

1) The easiest-to-prove possibility would be to show voter disenfranchisement in Ohio. Is there any way to demonstrate that traditionally Dem, minority precincts were deprived of voting machines -- INTENTIONALLY. Memos or a witness to a conversation would do nicely. IMO, this really did happen and probably deprived Kerry of Ohio.

2) Going beyond that to the whole BBV, I'd like a reputable witness, or a copy of the source code, or something like that. Impound the voting machines and decompile the code that ran on it and see what's really there. That'd be good.

Although, reading your original post, I don't think I'm all that rabid, so :shrug: I'd take Rove on truth serum too. :D

[femme.democratique]

53. I'd love to see Pilsbury Dough Boy KKKarl spill it all...hehehe

Thanks for the rational response
a two :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: salute to you!

[mzmolly]

60. I'm in the "middle" too. I want MORE information is all. We do have

irregularities that deserve attention. But, I'm not quite ready to bet on all out "fraud."

[mzmolly]

59. I don't consider myself a rabid doubter, just a defender of those who do

doubt.

I will say I think evidence of fraud would have to be as simple as hand recounts that do not match the totals submitted by any given state.

We need to have a TOTAL state hand recount of Ohio for example.

[euler]

62. The Webster dictionary definition...

...of fraud is:

DECEIT, TRICKERY; intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.

Most 'fraud' claims I see on DU fail to show 'intent' to commit fraud.

For example, some voters claimed that they used a touch screen to vote for Kerry but their vote was switched to Bush. The mere fact that this happened is not enough to classify the event as fraud. Maybe the touch screen was not calibrated properly (this is a mistake, not fraud); Maybe there was a glitch in the software or hardware (this is a software bug or hardware failure, not fraud). Have you ever had a problem with your computer hardware or software that baffled you ? Well, these voting machines are computers too and they are subject to the same types of problems.

you might reply that that would make sense if this only happened on one machine, but this happened a lot of machines. Well, if one machine at a precinct is not calibrated properly and the same person or instrument was used to calibrate all machines at the precinct, then they could all be calibrated incorrectly (this is a big mistake, but it's not fraud.) In addition, if there is a software bug in one machine, then you would expect to see the same bug on every machine running the same software (not fraud.)

All the above can be broadly characterized as unintentional disenfranchisement, but that isn't fraud.

There is another possibility. maybe someone did intentionally cause these machines to vote Bush when Kerry was selected. If so, that is fraud. Sure there was disenfranchisement, but was it intentional ? I've seen no proof of that.

What about all the long lines ? In Ohio, a formula was used to determine the number of voting machines would be assigned to each precinct (12/24/2004 New York Times.) the formula was flawed because it assumed that the 2004 turnout at each precinct would be the same as the 2000 turnout. This is a bad decision, but not fraud.

What about all the statistics stuff. Well, I think you will agree that TruthIsAll has been the most prolific in this area. The problem is that he has said at least twice in his posts that he isn't a exit poll expert and, although he has math degrees, he is not a expert statisticion. That's great and I'm glad he says that up front. But, if he is not a expert, I'm going to get my information from someone who is (this seems like a no brainier.) And real exit poll and statistics experts say that there may or may not be fraud - it's impossible to say because the exit poll was not designed to expose fraud.

I could go on and on...

[radio4progressives]

65. a CIA generated protest based on exit poll as evidence of voter fraud. n/t

on edit: the only evidence required for the Bush crime family/administration AND the U.S. state sponosred media (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox etc)was based entirely on exit polling.

period.

end of story.

that was enough for them, but for some reason, all the video and testiony and documentation in the world isn't enough for our case.

No. we're required to provide actual confesssions, practically written in blood, from Blackwell, Andrew Card, Karl Rove and the Bush Crime family before this election could possibly be considered as stolen.

[The Judged]

88. Yet, the Re-uglicans merely allege crime and courts decide in their favor!

Their stand-alone allegations bear more weight and legal standing in a court than any Democratic allegations with supporting evidence of those allegations!

[berniew1]

66. There already is legitimate evidence of vote machine fraud in 3 states

Documentation of vote machine fraud in Florida, Ohio, and New Mexico
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
Its documented down to the precinct and machine level

[mgr]

84. Does not constitute documentation, not first hand. n/t

[meisje]

70. Colin Powell had better evidence than we do!!!!!!!!!

He had photos! Sure it was all wrong or fake, but that's just a uuuuuuhhh minor technicality. At least it was something... we've really got nothing.

Sure we have rumors, accusations, countless blogs and websites claiming fraud, but none of it will hold up in court. Where's BBV and all of her evidence?

[mattclearing]

72. Any half-assed allegation from a Republican politician/pundit would do.

eom

[tx_dem41]

73. Direct and specific evidence of vote tampering....

not exit polls.

[Postmanx]

75. And here I was

thinking that I was alone in not believing this fraud nonsense.

It is good to know that tin-foil hats are not a required part of the dress code in the Democrat Party.

[The Judged]

80. Considering that to them Nixon and his cronies broke no laws, NOTHING!

[The Judged]

87. Naysayers intentionally deny reality in order to advance Democracy?

Intentional obstructionists demand proof, but offer none of their own!

They seem compelled to attack any notions that are not conservative and "Moderate," using the new Republican Lexicon as their point of reference.

They consider their personal opinions to be legal evidence, as well, but dismiss statements of fact as "leftist," "looney," or "tin-foil hat" material.

They offer, as further evidence of their opinions being facts, links to highly biased opinion articles that lack actual quotes in context or verifiable facts.

Lastly, these are persons who consider the act of truth finding to be anti-democratic, that support judicial activism that rules on the letter of the law while dismissing the spirit of the law and centuries of legal precedence, and who, finally, arrive at a point that a law that prevents justice is more valid and righteous than justice itself.

These are the ones we shall call patriots?

Could this mentality have evolved from the age of the caveman by implementing a justice system and Democracy as this country knew until recently in history?

May I suggest that the Republican Revolutionaries have enlisted their dominions of Reactionaries to set upon us to keep us too busy to respond to their radical activism?

[mgr]

82. I would like a little more specificity in your post

This is kind of like the question "when did you stop beating your wife."

The language issue here is that DUers are not making distinctions between voting irregularities and fraud. There are many reports that amount to irregularities in the manner that the vote was tallied or distorted. But do they amount to fraud? Fraud is a legal concept, and is not open to popularity contests.

What makes me rabid, is that not all voting irregularity issues are that at all, the perfect example is the exit polling threads. A poster borrows the analytical procedure of trained researcher, without considering the caveats (constraints, limitations) of his analytical procedure, and applies it willy nilly to the nationwide exit polling.

All of my past posts have addressed what would be legally defensible to argue fraud or civil rights violations that may amount to fraud. This groundwork would require affidavits from affected individuals in numbers impossible to refute. In other words, go to Cleveland, Youngstown, Columbus, etc. and interview democrats from strong democratic registered precincts, and document their experience, and their intent, with notarized affidavits. Nail it down at the precinct level, so that the polling books can be shown to be forged or altered. There is where the case is made or broken. You cannot do it any other way that would not be persuasive.

[Not a Sheep]

85. Interesting and thoughtful post.....

"...DUers are not making distinctions between voting irregularities and fraud."

Good point. Some are also quick to scream that we have a "smoking gun" and "proof".

I appreciate your post mgr because you try to get specific and deal the facts and how fraud could be argued legally.

[bush_is_wacko]

90. The evidence is already there

Now it's up to our Senators to realize this is their LAST chance. giving these radicals 4 more years to find another way to fix another election is suicide times 100 for the Democratic party and the Constitution. It has to stop NOW!

[The Judged]

93. To those of you who claim to have proof that election fraud didn't occur.

In doing so, many you purport to have direct knowledge of facts that deny multiple first person accounts of election fraud.

Perhaps you should go directly to the judges presiding over each and every existing case related to these events and offer your evidence!

You seem to be wasting your time here arguing with members that truly believe that illegal things occurred before, on, and following Election Day 2004 and that have had and continue to have supporters of their legal positions filing lawsuits seeking to prove that such illegal things happened, when you CLAIM to have direct knowledge that such claims of illegal things are UNTRUE!

Hurry, hurry, go see the judges!

Otherwise, please classify your OPINIONS AS OPINIONS and stop burdening so many members and threads with providing the real facts for you and responding to your questions and suggestions that clearly demonstrate callous disregard for the volumes of information that reside both inside of and outside of this forum, to which you disregard, disagree with, or choose to not avail yourself of.

If you don't agree, then fine.

When you disguise your disbelief and denial under the cloak of truth and evidence, that are false, and forward your opinions as facts, when they are opinions, you are merely acting as an obstructionist.

Enlighten yourself.

To constantly question intellectual honesty and validity and argue against ideas, when supporting facts exist and you close your eyes to them, is to be both rude and demeaning.

Just because your specific words are not ALWAYS of an insulting variety of vocabulary, doesn't mean that you aren't crossing the threshold of being rude and disagreeable to members of this forum and baiting them to respond to your intentional intellectual negligence.