The argument against a Senator standing up without absolute proof

[Walt Starr]

of fraud.

It sets a precedent that we can never retreat from. Imagine the following scenario:

The Democrats run a good race with a good candidate in 2008 and squeak out a win and pick up a couple of seats in the Senate, but are still the minority in the Senate. It comes time to count the electoral votes and Republicans, still pissed off about a Senator contesting Ohio's electoral votes, put the fix in place. They contest electoral votes from enough states to guarantee a victory for their guy. With a majority of the Senate being Republicans who have proven in the past they vote in lockstep, enough electoral votes are thrown out, thus insuring the republican wins.

The ramifications of this precedent is chilling to say the least.

If a Democratic Senator stands up, they had damn well better have evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was fraud, or this maneuver will be used against the Democrats so long as there is a Republican majority in the Senate.

Are you willing to gamble this big? Push all the chips into the cneter of the table on a single turn of the cards and you just might lose it all.

[Darkhawk32]

1. Again, you're failing to remember that....

THEY are going to make that decision, not us. We've presented them with enough evidence of irregularities, suppression and wrongdoing to choke a horse. If they feel it's enough to stand up, then they will. If they don't feel it's enough, then they won't.

We're doing OUR part in this and bring it to their attention. Nothing more, nothing less. It's THEIR decision.

[forgethell]

5. So you're not

threatening never to vote for anyone who doesn't stand up? Sure it's their decision, but people are putting a lot on pressure, not just information, on the Senators.

[Darkhawk32]

18. Sure, but doesn't every lobby group do the same?

Plus, aren't we just some crackpot loonies. Why in the world would they listen to us crazies, right????

[forgethell]

133. Yes, they probably

think that way.

[Darkhawk32]

136. And the main goal in this is to get major overhaul in the election system.

At least it is for me... getting * out of office would be the whipped cream and cherry on top for me.

[berniew1]

150. There is strong evidence of fraud and systematic suppression; proper to in

investigate before approving.

EIRS hotline reports document widespread touchscreen fraud in most swing states including Florida, Ohio, New Mexico where they thought there was no paper trail. This time there was.
(but other types of fraud and systematic suppression of minority voters have also been documented in this election)

(mostly default from Kerry to Bush but some other races also)(big EIRS paper trail of all systems)

Vote machine fraud documented in

Florida and New Mexico http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla.html

http://www.flcv.com/bernalil.html

Ohio http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm Mahoning

and http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

Orange Co. Calif http://www.flcv.com/orangets.html

Mercer Co. Pennsylvania www.voteprotect.org maps Penn Mercer

Travis co. Texas www.voteprotect.org maps Texas Travis

Snohomish Co. Washington www.voteprotect.org maps Wash Snohomish

and etc.

(these aren't hyperlinked here)

[Darkhawk32]

165. Trust me, I know there is........

You're not getting any argument from me on this issue whatsoever.

[Peace Patriot]

173. Yup, you got that right. It's do or die for the Democrats.

because

1. Mountain of evidence of black vote suppression (violation of Voting Rights Act and core Dem principles--civil rights, voting rights, inclusiveness), to not support means Dem abandonment of major and very loyal constituency, not to mention core principles.

2. The BLACK members of Congress have chosen the ground on which to fight for their voting rights--and ours. As with Selma, we must support them on the ground they've chosen.

3. Almost total non-transparency of the election. Secret source code. No paper trail. BushCons owning the secret source code. No, we don't have "absolute proof" that Kerry won. But we DO have "absolute proof" that the election was non-transparent in the extreme, and

4. Mountain of evidence--necessarily inferential--that the outcome was wrong. The situation calls for a re-vote, but no mechanism to do it.

5. American voters--especially Kerry voters--have a RIGHT to know what happened, that the Exit Polls showed a Kerry win (information withheld--and even fiddled, "adjusted," to show a Bush win--by the networks), that many votes were suppressed, especially black votes (such a history of grief and struggle), and that BushCons own the source code as secret, proprietary information (totally nontransparent--information that US media has also largely denied them).

Congress people will make their choices. And the citizens will make their choices.

Can we continue to support people who won't fight for our most fundamental rights, and who would acquiesce to this transparently fraudulent election without a fight?

Some will. Some won't. I think many will never vote for them again (for what it's worth).

[bowens43]

2. Yes, by all means let's roll over and play dead again.

sheesh....

some folks just don't get .

[Walt Starr]

4. I have seen no evidence of fraud

and going on supposition and innuendoi is a fool's game.

[Atman]

7. And I have seen NO evidence of a legitimate win by Bush

So there.

I thought we addressed this in Arnheim's post yesterday?

------



NotBannedYet.US

1st Amendment Shoppe

[sabra]

8. Well then can you tell us what you consider fraud? n/t

[Walt Starr]

25. Find about 100,000 uncounted Ohio ballaots

with John Kerry's name checked off.

[righteous1]

50. It's 93,000 and if Florida 2000 is any indication, ~ 7-10% will

have a discernable vote for president. 9300 x 60%K 40%B = a net p/u for Kerry of 1860 votes, not enough to put even a small dent in the 118,450 margin

[k8conant]

167. No---there are 200,000 phantom Ohio Bush ballots...

in those pesky tabulators.

You say not? Prove it.

[Darknyte7]

15. That's because you're in denial Walt...

"supposition and innuendoi" lol

You're a funny dude man.

[Walt Starr]

20. Actually, it's my considered opinion that the fraudists

are the ones in denial.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

127. It;'s a term out there in the blogosphere

I picked up on it from Kos.

[Jo March]

140. I like that, TIA. Card carrying fraudists.

I got an email a while back calling me a tree-hugging cocksucker. So, I think that "card-carrying fraudist" is a step up. LOL.

I love you, TIA! :)

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[fasttense]

68. It didn't seem to bother them in 1876. n/t

[luaptifer]

121. no evidence of fraud but developing largescale pattern of irregularity n/t

[saracat]

169. Why can't you agree to disagree instead of constantly looking for

to your position. It should be obvious that there are two schools of thought on this subject with one school taking precedence over the other on this Board. Why can't we agree to disagree. Minds are not being changed here. Time is being wasted in futile exchanges.

[Atman]

3. There IS proof

The astronomical -- impossible -- odds against every exit poll being wrong, and going in favor of Bush, while every voting "glitch" went in favor of Bush, is in and of itself enough evidence to convene a grand jury. Far more "circumstantial" evidence was used to convict Scott Peterson. There is no "beyone a reasonable doubt" clause in the constitution for contesting an election.

[Snivi Yllom]

14. exit polls are NOT proof of anything

In fact Mitofsky himself has been on the record several times since 1992 expressing the fact that exit polls are often wrong.

[Atman]

21. That is NOT what I said

The statistical odds are the proof, NOT the exit polls. This was discussed in print and on NPR not too long ago (although I have no link. Maybe you can Google it). The standards of "proof" to convene a grand jury have well been met, and then some.

If you had absolute proof of everything before you had trials or investigations there'd be no need for trials or investigations!

[Snivi Yllom]

23. the odds and exit polls are not proof

since they were wrong

[Atman]

32. Hello, is this thing on?

If you had absolute proof of everything before you had trials or investigations there'd be no need for trials or investigations!

You aren't listening. The anamolies, the "odds," the exit polls, the "glitches." These are not "proof" of anything. They are evidence of something. Period. Now, read that italicized paragraph again. You seem to want a conviction FIRST, then you'll investigate. Sheesh.

[Walt Starr]

36. This option in the Senate is not a trial or investigation

it is an immediate execution order. It's pushing the red panic button sending nuclear missiles off that can never be recalled!

[Darkhawk32]

39. Plus keep in mind....

We don't know all the evidence Conyers has at his disposal.

We only have what we know.

[Walt Starr]

46. That's why I qualified my original statement

I do hold out the possibility of incontrovertible evidence of fraud being in the hands of the Senators, but I don't hold out much hope for it.

[Darkhawk32]

53. Well Conyers isn't a fool, he wouldn't ask Senators to stand unless..

he felt he had enough evidence to do so.

[Walt Starr]

55. I'm not convinced of that

Conyers has always struck me as an oppurtunist.

[goclark]

171. And he would risk his life for an opportunity

to step out ahead of this mess?

I don't think so.
Conyers doesn't need this to get elected or to be loved by the people that he has represented for all these years.

He is at an age where he can go home and rest on his Laurels from the civil rights struggles over 30 years.

Why can't you just believe that he is doing it because he is a drum major for justice?

[forgethell]

181. Of course he is

he's a politician.

[Snivi Yllom]

72. sure he would

He had reason to do so in 2000.

I believe he is taking advantage of the situation to promote his own standing.

[cookies7]

123. ask me anything

I live in Michigan. I know Conyers.

[righteous1]

158. That's called demagoguery, hey cookie have you found J Conyers to

be a demagog?

[k8conant]

168. Duh...that button is on *'s desk n/t

[goclark]

157. Tell um Atman!

Everyday the Bush crooks set off missiles in OUR heads that cause tremendous pain.

EVERYDAY our soldiers are dying in a war that WE HAVE NO PROOF needed to be waged. NO PROOF!!!!!!

I don't want to hear the word "PROOF" because the entire regime of BushCROOKS is not based on one ounce of PROOF OF TRUTH!!

The BushCROOKS laugh at the TRUTH and PROOF when it comes to them and we believe that they must set the standard for TRUTH. LOL

Everytime I remember the image of those phony charts and photos from Colin Powell and his little wimpy "I'm sorry,let's move on," a piece of me dies!

I know honesty when I see it and anyone that would LIE to the American people about this war is not my yard stick for determining TRUTH from FICTION.

I know there is PROOF that African Americans had their votes SUPPRESSED and that is PROOF enough for me!

Senators, No Guts No Glory!
It's glue off your butts on January 6th or there will be glue on my credit card for the Democratic Party and any senator that is not standing up for the voting RIGHTS of my people.

For them to not stand UP means that they want to dismiss the loyalty and support of not only minorities but of those that gave 90% of their support to the Democratic Party!!

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Atman]

42. Tell that to the Ukranians...and the US who backed them

based upon Exit Polls.

You still entirely miss the point. Exit Polls are historically accurate enough for there to be a serious question when they happen to go so horribly wrong in such a contentious election. Again, I agree they are PROOF of nothing. They are EVIDENCE of something very wrong. Maybe it is the exit polls that are very wrong.

So...let an investigation into the RAW DATA take place...oops, the MSM won't release it. THAT is more EVIDENCE right there. But not PROOF.

[Walt Starr]

49. Based upon exit polls and eyewitness testimony from international poll

watchers who were intimidated at the polls!

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[righteous1]

69. Yes, the Ukraine anology is a specious argument

[fasttense]

76. What about the people who admitted to voting twice in Ohio and FL?

[Atman]

82. Shh....don't mention the discrepencies in registered voters/votes, either!

It's not proof, only evidence. We need proof before we go looking for evidence. Or something like that.

[righteous1]

96. There are over 6000 of those in WA right now, Who knows how many in other

states. It's not at all uncommon and is generally squared after they dig into it. Most definately proof of nothing

[righteous1]

92. I guess I missed that, the only press I have seen on that specific

item was the older couple who were from our party

[SicTransit]

153. US backed Ukraine because of hard proof of

outrageous fraud. See

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/28/wukra28.xml

the exit polls were a small corroborating portion of the evidence - there was hard proof of fraud, including videos of the events described in the article etc.

[righteous1]

58. If there was proof, you wouldn't have to worry about 1 or 2 Senators

contesting, all the Dems and a third of the Rs would contest. It would be a slam dunk

[rockedthevoteinMA]

6. Here we go again...

:eyes:

[Atman]

10. Lock this puppy

nt

[Walt Starr]

33. Sorry you feel that way

I guess now that Democrats who don't fall for the fraudist crap are no longer Democrats.

[Snivi Yllom]

9. I have not considered the long term ramifications as of yet

This is a 'nuclear option' and opens the door to all kinds of future congressional hijinks.

I still think the damage done to potential election reform will be far worse than the minimal effect contesting the election in congress will achieve. In fact it will provide ammuntion for Republicans to use agaainst Democrats for the next four years as 'obstructionist'.

[Walt Starr]

13. Yep, it's definitely a "nuclear option"

and once the bell is rung, it can never be unrung. All future presidential elections will be decided by the congress if one Senator is so foolish.

If one does stand up, that Senator had better have a hell of a lot more than what Conyers had in those hearings, because a case built on that house of cards would fall down so fast in a court it could never come back!

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

38. And if there was conclusive evidence

every last Democratic Senator would be standing up!

Well, maybe Lieberman wouldn't. But you get my drift. ;)

[Atman]

45. Walt, if the was CONCLUSIVE evidence, we wouldn't be here

having this discussion. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Walt Starr]

59. Then no Senator should contest!

That's an option that must be held out for a PROVABLE case, not for suspicion!

[Atman]

74. I-N-V-E-S-T-I-G-A-T-I-O-N

If you have the incontrovertible proof, you don't need to investigate.

Are you taking any of this down, Walt? You seem to be missing what this is about. But then, I'm not sure why I am bothering. Yesterday Arnheim offered you props for your work in trying to find a strong candidate as a parallel and necessary agenda to those who believe there was vote fraud, and you even slapped her for her compliment.

There just is no pleasing you, apparently, unless we all just declare you right and go home.

[Walt Starr]

79. Nope, contesting the election is C-O-N-V-I-C-T-I-O-N

Investigate by all means, but don't ask for a conviction prior to assembling a compelling case. Asking a Senator to contest the electoral votes is to ask for a conviction of fraud.

[FreepFryer]

93. That is the singularly most asinine observation from Walt yet.

Asking the Senators to consider Conyers' report, and challenge the OH EV for a debate, is obviously not asking for a conviction of fraud. Unbelievable the stuff you say with what I assume is a straight face.

[Atman]

107. Walt is afraid of what people will think of him

Period. That is what his "conviction" thing means, when you read between the lines of his posts. He isn't worried about the encroachment of fascism...he is worried about being called a "left wing loony." Oh, heavens! So, in his mind, just QUESTIONING the BFEE is tantamount to a "conviction."

Sure, it is absurd, but it's his head space...who knows what demons lead him to demand such overwhelming approval from the very people who shit on him.

[unpossibles]

118. first of all, it is not a conviction

contesting the electoral votes is merely an opening - the Senate still has to rule on it.

If what you worry about it setting a precedent, what makes you think the Repubs would even consider not contesting if this were reversed?

If we win the pop vote in 2006 or 2008, they will contest it regardless of whether we contest it now or not. have you not been paying attention to their game? They will scream it from the highest mountain.

Finally, to not do the right thing because it sets a precedent is to be an accomplice. To willfully ignore a crime is a crime.

[k8conant]

170. Hardly:...

"Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof"

Where does that say "conviction of fraud"?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[SueZhope]

11. the time is Now to stand

There is enough evidence to show that we cannot trust the results of the election in
Ohio (and other places) .

Every thing the Democrats do is used against them..even things they don't do ,
so what else is new.

If they don't stand now for fair elections , they might become extinct. How many elections should they watch get stolen before they stand?

[KittyWampus]

12. Do Investigators Have Absolute Proof When Asking For Search Warrants

you are out of touch and refuse repeatedly to read the evidence.

[Walt Starr]

16. This isn't asking for a search warrant

This is more of a request for immediate execution. This is the "nuclear option" of presidential elections.

[SueZhope]

30. lack of evidence

does not stop the administration

"The Bush Administration is currently contemplating holding certain suspected terrorists in custody for their entire lives, despite a lack of evidence against them, according to the Washington Post."

[Darkhawk32]

34. Isn't that disgusting? And WE'RE the crazy lunatics???? n/t

[SueZhope]

48. How dare we want to stand up for democracy and human rights

Who needs to worry about evidence.
So what we would lock people up for life,
without any proof they are guilty .
Isn't this is the American way?
Contesting the election is Childs play

[RevCheesehead]

40. Lack of evidence didn't stop them from invading Iraq, either. n/t

[SueZhope]

67. unjust wars thats a different story

they had the MSM support who would need any evidence.

We should just trust the good judgment of our leaders.
Remember we got in big trouble when we questioned them.

We would be bad boys and girls to insist on a transparent
fair election.

[RevCheesehead]

83. Yeah, good ol' government lookin' out for us.

We elect them to be "Mom and Dad," who will make fair and excellent decisions on our behalf.

...and you know what the Bible says about honoring your father and mother...

I swear, I have less and less faith each day. Maybe, just maybe, tomorrow will change that.

[mzmolly]

17. You've got a point, but ...

Conyers has framed this in such a way that "fraud" need not be THE issue.

The mistake were ALL making is to approach this from such an angle.

Conyers asked for a contest to 'debate and discuss' what went on in Ohio, and possibly other states. He want's to 'highlite' the issue for discussion is all, right. ;)

Any Senator who stands how is simply utilizing his/her constitutional right to do so. Now, what that means to one's political career remains to be seen. But, I do hope someone will stand.

Remember all ... it's in the consitution that only 2 people are needed to contest an election. Why?

As I see this situation today, a contest of this nature has the blessing of our fore-fathers.

So Viva le' contest, says me!

I respect your opinion on the matter though Walt. I'm glad your still speaking up and keeping it interesting around here.

:hi:

[Snivi Yllom]

22. the time to '' 'debate and discuss' what went on in Ohio"

is not during a limited 2 hour hearing where only 5 minutes is to be granted per speaker. Let's be realistic. Conyers unofficial hearings did not present any facts and had multiple speakers, and lasted 2 hours. There will be even less time to present arguments and address problems.

I don't understand why those whom seem to really want to have a congressional discussion of voting problems can be so short sighted.

[grumpy old fart]

37. It will bring the issue to a head, and lead to reform.....

That's the real point. Two hours of debate will not, of course, solve anything. But it will bring to the national stage the need for reform of our very broken system. Unfortunately, it will apparently take something this dramatic for this slug of a nation to wake up to the problem!

[Walt Starr]

41. It will defnitely bring something to a head

but not the issue of election reform. Democratic Whacko Conspiracy theories will be the story of the day should the nuclear option for presidential elections be used!

[grumpy old fart]

51. It's not nuclear....

cause it's not going to change the election outcome. All this is, is a warning shot across the bow. A Warning that the system needs fixing. That democracy is in trouble.

[Darkhawk32]

56. Aye, it's a "You know that we know that you know we know" warning...n/t

[Walt Starr]

64. It's nuclear because it WILL change how these things are done in the futur

EVERY LAST ELECTION FROM THIS POINT FORWARD WILL BE CONTESTED!

There will never again be any chance or hope of a Democrat becoming president. The Republicans will ALWAYS contest it and throw out eneough electoral votes to insure their guy wins. ALWAYS!

[Snivi Yllom]

94. EVERY LAST ELECTION FROM THIS POINT FORWARD WILL BE CONTESTED!

That was important enough to repost so it sinks in.

And contesting it based on flimsy pathetic evidence opens up the door for it's use again in almost any presidential election.

[Walt Starr]

98. Exactly, the Republicans can build the same case in Illinois if they chose

Or New york, or California. It wouldn't matter. Same flimsy case can be built for any election in any state at any time.

[Atman]

122. Fine. LET THEM.

If the EVIDENCE supports them, and if there is a crime and WE did it, the WE should pay, too. But to ignore THEM doing it because you're afraid they might say we did it...fuckin' A, man...this is nutty!

[earthside]

106. The Rigged Game

There it is, right there: "There will never again be any chance or hope of a Democrat becoming president."

If the Democrats in the U.S. Senate do not show some boldness, some ability to take risk, to LEAD ... then the radical Republicans will know that their rigging of the electoral system has succeeded. They will know that Democrats are too timid, too compromised, and too comfortable to ever effectively fight back.

There is clear evidence of voter suppression ... and that, in and of itself, is sufficient reason for the House Democrats and at least one U.S. Senator to question and challenge Ohio's electoral votes.

We all know that the "election" in Iraq will be a charade because the Sunnis are refusing to participate. Likewise, our elections are already a farce if an organized effort has been made to keep voters from exercising the franchise -- we have seen enough evidence of that in Ohio to warrant an electoral college challenge. Whether voters by forced choice or by intimidation are not included in the process, democracy - representative government - collapses.

The 'nuclear' option, has already been used by the radical Republicans and the Bush family criminal enterprise ... they did it in Florida in 2000, they did it in Georgia in 2002, and they did it in Ohio, Florida, and new Mexico in 2004. A Democratic challenge would only be a self-defense measure on January 6, 2005.

Indeed, "There will never again be any chance or hope of a Democrat becoming president" if the not even one Democrat U.S. Senator gives the Black Congressional Caucus the respect it deserves. People will see the Democrats for what it appears they are fast becoming ... simply enablers of the Washington elite establishment.

You cannot win a rigged game ... so the only option the Democrats (and indeed the genuine patriots that believe in our republic) have is to stand up and call the cheaters "Cheaters!" We need a game played by the rules, fair and honest. The Democrats may have their last chance tomorrow to get back into an honest game. If they don't, the potential for a Democrat president in the future will be a moot point.

[Atman]

120. Didn't BUSH already do this when he whined to the courts in 2000?

Come on Walt...history wasn't that long ago. Don't blame us for walking through the door Bush already opened.

[forgethell]

180. Wait,

if the case Hadn't gone to court, Bush STILL would have won, as he had the most counted votes in Florida.

[Snivi Yllom]

90. you dont think it could not change the outcome?

Imagine in the next election a Democrat wins but the GOP still has the congressional majority. They then contest the results with the same type of dubious evidence advocates are suggesting they base the contest on regarding the 2004 election.

They throw out the votes of one or two states, and because they have a majority are able to throw enough electoral votes to put the Republican candidate over the top. Preogressives go absolutely bugfuck, but you know what, there isn't a god damn thing they can do about it because in 2004 they felt it was more important to push a point than not fuck with the electoral process. You think the Supreme Court decision in 2000 was bad? This would be far far worse, and there would be NOTHING anyone could do about it.

[Walt Starr]

95. And all the while the republicans would cite the contesting of the 2004

election smiling their dumbass smirks.

And to top it off, no Democrat will be able to counter the citation.

[grumpy old fart]

144. Nothing will be overturned, unless smoking guns are found......

and in that case, it SHOULD be overturned. Nothing is getting overturned, this time around or in the future, without solid evidence. The point is reform. Silence is just assent to the continuing, and growing, problem with our "system".

[mzmolly]

60. I agree with you on the media, sadly. And I hope who ever does contest

is prepared to seek another line of work because we don't know how this will play out in the main stream when all is said and done.

[Snivi Yllom]

62. people are forgetting how unpleasant 2000, 2002 and 2004 were

on 3 particular November nights.

If this goes down, 2006 and 2008 will be bloodbaths for the Democrats that make us nostalgic for 2000, 2002, and 2004. Think about a filibuster 60-40 proof GOP Senate and 260-175 majority in the GOP dominated House.

I suppose the one good thing that will come out of this is that the Green party or other third party may gain power as the Democrats continue to render themselves irrelevant.

[Atman]

65. Especially with dems like you helping them frame us that way

Walt, they can call us anything they damned well please. And they DO, and they will continue to do so. Commies. Surrender monkeys. Saddam lovers. Traitors. Every name in the book to frame us as something we're not.

Stop allowing the right wing kooks to scare you by calling you names. Fuck them. They're power hungry nut jobs with a proven track record of lying.

Oh, but they wouldn't cheat or lie to win control of the country. Nah. They wouldn't do that. They're honest about this at least, even if they lie about everything else.

[Snivi Yllom]

100. you want to give the GOP another tool to fuck over Democrats

Contesting the election greenlights future contests against a Democratic Presidential win. Imagine what would happen with the current majorities? And there would not be a damn thing anyone could do about it because precedent had been set.

You think the GOP would not take advantage of that tool?

[TruthIsAll]

110. LET THE REPUKES INVESTIGATE US, ALSO. WE WANT PAPER BALLOTS!

ARE YOU SO DAMNED CLOSE-MINDED THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THAT THE DEMS FOUGHT FOR PAPER BALLOTS AND THE REPUKES SAID NO WAY?

THAT IS THE ISSUE!

YOU IGNORE THAT BASIC FACT.

THE POINT IS THIS:
THE REPUKES MUST PROVE THEY WON!
THE ONUS IS ON THEM, NOT US.

THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO PROVE IT.

BUT THEY CAN'T, BECAUSE...
THERE ARE NO DAMN PAPER BALLOTS TO PROVE THE TOUCHSCREEN VOTES.
IN FACT, WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THEY SWITCHED THE VOTES FROM KERRY TO BUSH. LOTS OF EVIDENCE.

DOES THAT MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?
CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
MUST WE SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU AGAIN?

THEY KNEW THEY COULD NOT ALLOW PAPER BALLOTS,
BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WOULD HAVE TO CHEAT TO WIN.

IS THAT SO GODDAMN DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?

WE WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVE IT WHEN WE WIN.
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TO CHEAT TO WIN.

THERE ARE MORE OF US THAN THERE ARE OF THEM.

NOW STOP THE INSANITY AND GET WITH THE PROGRAM!

[Snivi Yllom]

149. I know you have a lot invested in this fight

But you are going to have to let it go at some point soon.

[fasttense]

172. And in 1876 it set such a precedent that

we forgot all about it. Oh yeah nuclear, that's right.

[mzmolly]

54. E.X.A.C.T.L.Y!

:hi:

Though I will respect our Senators regardless because arguments can be respectfully made for both sides of the contest or not issue.

[mzmolly]

47. You are correct, it's only a part of the process that must take place.

I'd simply rather contest than not personally.

[smartvoter]

19. If 86 of 88 counties breaking recount laws in Ohio isn't enough to

contest, what is?

This is a serious question, not sarcastic. We have those laws in place to ensure election integrity. If the time to object isn't when they are broken, why bother to vote?

[Darkhawk32]

27. Exactly! If I were a County Clerk in charge of elections....

I'd be absolutely overjoyed at the chance to show how well I run my elections!

I'd be polite, fair and open about the procedures and follow the letter of the law as best I could.

One has to wonder why they were as I described above.

[KatieB]

24. Another scenario - Presidency to Dems leads to sweeping change N vote law

Another scenario - a landslide effect which guarantees a legitimate vote.Shock of Congressional objection forces media to cover the issue and Americans find out they have no vote - huge critical mass of American disgust pushes through sweeping changes in voting system - civil rights bill that includes the right to a vote that is counted and paper receipts submitted to voter after he/she votes. No private sector control over voting machines. Real democracy. We have no vote right now. In 2006/2008 Dems will not be elected if change does not happen RIGHT NOW.

[Walt Starr]

29. I think you're dreaming

If it gains any widespread coverage at all, the Democratic Senator wwho stands up will be painted as a whacko conspiracy theorist and no election reform will ever be possible again. Not to mention every presidential election from now on being decided in a (Republican controlled) Congressional vote.

[eomer]

43. You must be the one dreaming...

because you're able to hold two totally contradictory ideas at once.

If the senator that stands up is discredited as a conspiracy theorist then how can standing up become the status quo for future elections? Both of these results can't happen together because they preclude each other.

[Walt Starr]

70. Because the Republicans will be able to alter the outcome

while the Democrats cannot alter the outcome. Hence, the Democrats contest and are painted as conspiracy theorists while the Republicans will be free to contest and alter the outcome.

The outcome of the contesting will determine the spin the media uses.

[grumpy old fart]

44. Not if he/she frames it as a call for reform.....

It doesn't have to be about conspiracy theories

[pgh_dem]

160. That would be the election reform...

we got by the dems playing dead in 2000?
Those Dem Senators who refused to stand with Conyers then did exactly what you're suggesting now.
How'd that work out? OOO there was the Help America Vote Act!
Think HAVA helped or hurt election reform?
Think election reform could possibly have been more ineffective had a single Dem Senator stood with Conyers 4 years ago?

[TimmyBoy]

161. As opposed to the black boxes that decide it now?

Not to mention every presidential election from now on being decided in a (Republican controlled) Congressional vote.

The difference is that then the Republicans have to actually come out in front of us in order to steal the election. I would argue that that would be a little more difficult than to use the machine that is already in place. Maybe not much, but at least it would have to be a little more transparent.

[Darkhawk32]

31. If nothing else, this super-pushes the issue of election reform, yes... n/

[rucky]

57. Scardey Cat

no important change will ever happen with this kind of thinking

[FreepFryer]

61. I'm looking forward to seeing how much discouragement you give DU today.

Put down the megaphone and take a shower.

[fasttense]

66. It sets a precedent?

You need to look at your history book. 1876. Electoral votes were challenged because of voter intimidation and fraud by Democrats, and the congress appointed a committee of 5 democrats, 5 senators, and 5 supreme court justices. They attempted to balance the committee between the 2 parties. Eventually, the committee did decide for the Republican, Hayes, and he was inaugurated in early March.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

73. Ad hominems are indicative of a lack of counter argument

Sorry, address the issue I've presented.

[grumpy old fart]

78. Now that I can agree with you on.....n/t

[grumpy old fart]

81. On that I can agree with you......n/t

[FreepFryer]

85. Sorry, most posters here aren't stupid enough to think you're listening.

[eomer]

75. Walt,

Yesterday in another thread I learned that you refuse to believe there were voting machines that switched a Kerry vote to a Bush vote when the voter went to the summary screen. To that I can only say, Golly!

Let's try a different section of the evidence. Do you admit smartvoter's point in post #19 that 86 out of 88 counties in Ohio broke the recount laws? Or do you see no evidence of that occurence as well?

[Walt Starr]

84. Not wihtout an accurate citation of Ohio election law

Sorruy, yesterday somebody else made that claim and cited Ohio law from a blog that bore no resemblance to the actual Ohio statute.

[eomer]

88. Double golly!

The Ohio recount rules say to randomly select precincts to recount, right? Do you dispute that?

[Walt Starr]

128. Actually, yes I do

That was the wording I specifically recall from the blog version of the law.

But please, get an accurate citation of Ohio election law supporting the accusation and I'll consider the possibility. specific wording, please.

[righteous1]

132. I believe"randomly" is specified but it's not a statute it's an SOS

directive. The point of contention it seems to me would be what excatly constitutes "random" It's the old depends on what "is" means

[mod mom]

77. Equal Protection was deliberately denied: Proof Election Fraud!

[Walt Starr]

86. Who deliberately denied equal access

where is the proof it was deliberate.

Who will testify under oath to the denial of equal access.

Who had equal access denied.

Accusations are not proof.

[FreepFryer]

89. Once again Walt asks you to do his own work for him. Sorry, read up. n/t

[Karmadillo]

80. If the Republicans engage in the treason you predict, it's up to us

to take the appropriate actions to restore democracy. The 2000 election was stolen and it's possible the same happened in 2004. There's no better time to start the process of electoral reform than tomorrow.

[righteous1]

87. It's all about the desperate hope of overturning the election

results for most of the people. That ain't gonna happen reagardless of how "hopeful" they are. But don't try and tell the true believers that because they'll just cover their ears and go LAAAA LLA LLLAAA LLLAAA, I can't hear you

[Walt Starr]

91. Exactly

and a lot of people are in for a worse letdown than most of us felt on November 3rd when it was evident the whole thing was over.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

114. Actually, it would be closer to insanity

to hold out jhope that the impossible would actually happen.

:(

[Atman]

97. NOT "exactly" at all

You and Walt actually don't have much business in this discussion if you really think that is what this is about.

I am a 100% "fraudster" as Walt like to call us in between posts about not using ad hominen attacks against him.

BUT, I hold 0% hope that the election will be overturned, as does Conyers. Righteous1 and Walt seem to think that is what this is all about...they're the guys discussing cricket rules at a baseball game....they might look similar, but they have little in common except for a ball and some running.

If you don't want to educate yourself on the issue, or at least attempt to understand what the issue is, why not just step aside and let us loony fraudsters do our bit to fight for fair and honest elections while you go find the perfect candidate for 2008.

We'll see you at the polls. If we've done our job and you've done yours, we'll have no problem handily defeating Jeb Bush.

[Walt Starr]

101. "I Believe"

That thread demonstrates that this is what it's all about, at least for a large number of those engaged in this.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[righteous1]

This is an open forum and I sure appreciate all views especially

the ones that are in disagreement with my positions because it challenges me to think. If you do not believe that people who disagree with your position should be allowed to express themselves, Perhaps you are the one that should find a different venue

[Snivi Yllom]

146. I see you have nothing substantial to offer

[righteous1]

102. I did not say all, I said most., and i fervently believe that is the case

If it wasn't they would also be aggressively pursuing alleged "irregularities" in MI, WI, and PA

[Walt Starr]

103. Not to mention irregularities in Washington

OOPS, we won that one so we won't contest it. :eyes:

[PinkPantherChick]

105. It wasn't won--it was earned through a contested election and

then a recount.

[Atman]

112. Walt, we WON it because we DID contest it!

On edit...I should be more clear...we didn't "contest" it. We demanded the law be followed instead of conceding, something Kerry didn't do. And now look where we are. Thanks, John.

---


And demanded the LAW be followed...the LAW which called for the recounts.

The LAW in Ohio calls for RANDOM recounts, but we didn't get them. Oh, okay. Well, roll over, butt in the air.

You're a piece of work, dude! Don't strain your eyes with all the rolling.

[FreepFryer]

145. And the freep goes on (n/t)

[insane_cratic_gal]

115. Agree

You've made your point, your entitled to it.

Honestly the last few days all you have done is try to bash people for believing that free elections in this country DO NOT exist.

We have pointed out suppression. The speculation of fraud happening in this country has been ongoing since the release of a report by Saltman in 1988. MIT, written for US Commerce. That includes:

Ballot stuffing to computer manipulations,pre scored cards, voter fraud all the way to election fraud.


I don't think alot of people believe this will over turn the results. I believe to just stand up for it, and prove your a lover of democracy is what we are preaching.
We are hoping for election reform on a national level. We are hoping that perhaps the Constitution will be amended for protecting your right to vote!
Hell if you can try and amend it for gay marriage to NOT be recognized you think they could amend it for Your right to vote to be protected.

I appreciate your healthy skepticism, I'm perfectly fine with your right to speak your opinion. You in turn should allow for different perspectives.

I humbly request that you put your high horse aside for the remaining 24 hours, and allow for what ever happens to happen. You may resume riding in Friday should you be correct, on that same horse.

Regards,
Carmen

[moggie12]

108. I hope Walt keeps spewing

I don't see Walt Starr's point of view as "negative", but as geared towards the future. I can't imagine anything more counterproductive that a Democratic Senator challenging the Ohio vote without ironclad proof, particularly in light of Bush getting nearly 4 million more votes nationwide. To me it's like handing the Republicans a tailor-made issue to further inflame their base. I think it would alienate Independent voters and a lot of Democratic voters, too.

I want Dems to make an issue of electoral reform, but I want them to do it in manner that makes Americans pay attention to the issue, not just write it off as a conspiracy theory.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

117. There was no evidence to support contesting the election

in January of 1973.

The same holds true here. Build your case! If you can tie Bush to it, he can be impeached. A Republican Senate was set to convict Nixon.

[TruthIsAll]

126. YOUR LACK OF FACTS IS SHOWING, WALT. THE DEMS CONTROLLED THE SENATE

GO BACK TO YOUR HISTORY BOOKS.

[Walt Starr]

134. PArdon me, I erred

You are correct, the Democrats controlled the Senate in 1973.

[LoZoccolo]

139. NOW WHO SAYS ALL CAPS DOESN'T WORK

YOU RESPONDED DIDNT YOU

THOUGHT SO

THOUGHT SO

[moggie12]

125. Ah, Watergate, there was a conspiracy you could love!

I hope Watergate serves as a model for the investigation of electoral wrongs during the 2004 election. All you who firmly believe that the election was "stolen" will be the Woodward and Bernsteins (sp?) of the story, bravely pursuing the story when no one seems to be listening. Relentlessly encouraging Democratic politicians and the media to investigate what happened, you will eventually force hearings and a massive investigation which will, I hope, expose vast flaws in the voting process and bring about much needed change (no more paperless voting machines, no more people standing for 3 hours in line to vote, etc). I think you're heroic for not letting go of this issue. I don't think, however, that we yet have the "goods" and I think it would be enormously damaging to the Party's credibility for a Senator to stand up and shout "fraud" before we do.

[grumpy old fart]

129. No one is going to pay attention unless someone makes a BIG noise....

And contesting the electors would be a BIG noise.

[eomer]

109. You are avoiding the Ohio recount issue

Here are a couple of facts:
1) Ohio recount rules say to select the precincts to be recounted randomly
2) Most counties did not select the precincts randomly

These facts show that the recount rules were violated in Ohio.

Do you dispute these facts?

[bread_and_roses]

113. Minority and low-income voter suppression

is sufficient to contest the election. That Democratic Senators - and much of the electorate - are willing to let the election stand in the face of well-documented disenfranchisement of minority and low-income voters speaks to the "norm" of racism and $$ privilege in US.

Imagine if equal evidence of the deliberate disenfranchisement of rich white people was documented?

[righteous1]

124. I waited 3 1/2 hours to vote, dissuade me, no way

Voting was up 25% in our precinct and it is about as "whitebread" as it comes. Our BOE had seen nothing like it in their life and some of these folks have been working the polls for 40 years

[bread_and_roses]

164. The courage and tenacity of individuals

though exemplary and inspiring, does not in any way exonerate the State for the documented inequities and obstacles of access to voting in minority and low-income districts.

Had so many white voters "of means" - even "middle-class" means - been systematically obstructed the outcry would have been immediate.

For our Senators to again ignore and dismiss such blatant racism and income-based impediments to exercising the right to vote is tacit acceptance and collusion.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

130. Thank you kenzee 13, you just expressed what I believe happened

on November 2nd.

Yep, "disenfranchisement" that's what it's all about.

Well, who's next on the list? You, me, my next door neighbor? Where does it stop? Walt, perhaps you can tell me?

Pardon me if I misquote Lincoln from the Gettysburg address, but whatever happened to government "of the people, by the people and for the people".

I never thought I'd say this, but right now, I am ashamed to say I'm an American citizen and if not one Senator, whether Democratic or Republican, has the balls tomorrow to stand up and says what needs to be said, God help the USA.

[grumpy old fart]

141. If nothing else, Senators could make impassioned speeches.....

on the issue of voter rights, disenfranchisement, democracy, fraud, paperless ballots, etc. and demand hearings on the issue. At least claim that they care, and that they seriously considered standing up with Conyers. Praise the Representative for his efforts and offer encouragement. Make a real show of it, short of actually contesting the electors, and then go on and actually fight for reform.

[Carni]

116. Yeah, better to do nothing

It worked so well in 2000 didn't it?

Gamble this big? LOL--I hate to break it to you buddy but we've got nothing left to lose.

[grumpy old fart]

135. Unfortunately the individual Senator would have a lot to lose......

being a Senator is a big $$$$$ and power. Almost no one who becomes a Senator wants to give up those perks.

[flyarm]

152. what would they have to loose??

did you see the opening of congress yesterday?? whats to loose..they already lost...or had it stolen ...the dems have no power..none zero zip..they have no voice, they will have everything in the world shoved down their throats for the next 40 yrs...what makes any of you think after the next 4 yrs of this cabal... having the time and technology and the corporate thuggery behind them..whats to stop the theft of democracy..whats to stop fascism...heck they couldnt even wait until the electorial votes were read to tell us they are going to arrest people and put them away for life with no representation..they couldn't wait to tell us they are gping to chop up and destroy social security..and the beat goes on...there will never be a democratic majority in either party nor a democratic president for the next 40 years when these guys get done..get that...please understand that...there is no there there.;not for 2008 not for 2012..not for anything..not for the next 40 years...

they will change and twist every law to their benefit...count on it..and next time the machines will be better with no chance of even finding disenfranchment!!

fly

[grumpy old fart]

177. note; I said "Individually".....

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Carni]

175. In short none of them have enough integrity

NT

[flyarm]

131. maybe you can say that and feel good about it until...

you loose your vote...try loosing your vote to fraud or schmaud..whatever you want to call it..but 3 times losing our votes here in fla in 3 elections is 3 times too many..what makes you think the next time your secenerio wont be the case even "if" no senators stand up to challange??
this is part of my letter to barbara boxer..i posted it yesterday and changed it for a poster who said a senator standing would make a circus out of the electrial count..read and then put yourself in some black or hispanic persons place...fly

whoa...circus??


Hey wait a second..is expecting a senator or congressmen to stand up for democracy a circus?? Is standing up for peoples votes a circus? Is standing up for our constitution a circus??..I'll tell you whats a circus and no ones gripping about that..the fact that Bush knows he is illegitimate and yet acts like he is the newly annointed king...and Cheney and all of the thugs acting like they are legitimate...what was a circus was Kerry having all the people working for him get people to donate to the Gelac fund, and begging on door steps, when he knew exactly what the Bushes were doing to steal votes..thats a circus...a circus is having thousands upon thousands of americans busting their butts to make sure we had a legitimate president and election..and then having this crap of an election thrown in our faces...
I could have dealt with Bush winning fair and square, and i would have been estatic if Kerry won fair and square..but that is not what happened ..i saw a circus at the election..thats where the circus was..the election on nov 2nd..

I saw a circus at the convention...but do i see a circus now....no , now..i see Americans fighting for the very right to call themselves Americans...


I keep hearing ringing in my ears.."we the people"..."we the people"..it is our responsibility to our constitution to fight for our nation, for our values, for truth, for the right of all of us to vote and have our votes counted...and if that is a circus..then i am leaving this country..because it is no longer a place i believe in or want to be part of!

I was a delegate to the convention, I was a so called super volunteer, I worked my ass off...not for me..but for my country...


I have 2 homes..one in N.J. and one in Florida..I transfered my vote to fla so i could help and make sure we had a legitimate election this time...


I worked hard..each and everyday for almost 2 years for that goal..I worked daily many times 15-18 hours a day on Kerrys campaign..
I spend god only knows how much money..because I could not ask others to put money up ( that many didnt have) without digging deeper into my pockets...

I bought the giant kerry signs before the campaign kicked stuff in for our Democratic offices here..I bought all the t-shirts and buttons..long before Kerrys campaign kicked stuff in...no one made me do it..I did it for a legitimate election..I did it for the blacks who are disenfrancized...


I am not a minority but my husband and son are..I did it for them..so they would no longer have their vote not counted..in 2000 my sons vote didnt count as an absentee ballot because he got a notice the day before the election that his signature didnt match the card in the Supervisor of elections office..it was his signature..it was his signature...but his obviously hispanic name made it easy for them to discount his vote...
Since I am not a minority..it was difficult for me to ever understand discrimination...until i had a son who has experienced it his entire life...which broke this mothers heart....


If fighting for my sons vote or those of other minoritys vote is a circus..well let the show begin..because this constitution of ours doesn't say we the whites, or we the anglos...it says " We the people "..and if we can not expect and demand our representitives to stand up for this democracy...well we have no democracy then!


God blessed my family, and we are of very comfortable means...but that does not mean that we can sit back on our laurels and let others have their rights abused or taken for granted , and that does not mean my vote is more important than the person on the street with nothing..or the child who is poor with no health insurance..or barely enough food to survive..when we have the means we must fight harder..

The people in a getto deserve the same vote as me in my austatious homes...thats what our forefathers meant by "we the people" and i will be darned if i will accept any representative of the people to sit back and let any Americans vote be pissed in the wind!


If it takes a circus to expose this fraud and abuse of our democracy..well bring in the clowns..and let the show begin!


I would never consider fighting for the very grain of my democracy a circus...


My inlaws both served this nation to preserve our democracy..my father in law on the beaches of france and my mother inlaw was in the WACS she was one of the top soldiers in Boston during WW2 , she was a Command Sarget Major...


Does her son or grand son not deserve their votes?? Because it might make some uncomfortable that their votes are fought for??
My grand father left his eye on the USS Arizona in WW1 and my dad fought in the South Pacific in WW2, does his grand son not deserve a vote??

There are kids dying daily in our names , dying for that vote, let us not forget that!


A circus??..the only place i see a circus is with the illegitimate regime in this White House , that has no regard for the laws or constitution of my nation...
and if it takes a fight to expose them or the illegitmacy of this or any other election..again i will say..let the show begin!

From a delegate for the state of Florida to the Democratic National Convention


A super volunteer for kerry


A poll watcher at large ( primaries, 2 wks early vote, general election) ...we did not get paid!

A Woman for kerry

A member of the oldest democratic womens club in america

A just retired american airlines flight attendant 33 yrs who worked this campaign for her fallen co-workers and for truth of 9/11

A speaker for the kerry campaign( volunteer)


From a family who housed the Kerry head field rep for my area of Fla

And most of all........from a proud wife and mother of two wonderful hispanic men!

[Darkhawk32]

138. Big hugs to you!

:hug:

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

151. Flyarm, you've hit the nail right on the head.

I didn't and don't expect the election to be overturned.

But what is absolutely vital is that EVERY American citizen's right to vote be federally guaranteed and that vote be honestly and fairly counted.

My grandfather was gassed twice in World War I and won two Purple Hearts, my father enlisted in the Army in 1942, even though he had a job with US Steel that would have protected him from ever being drafted, and my eldest brother was drafted in March of 1967 and served in Viet Nam from October 1967 through November 1968.

They are all dead and gone now but by God, they didn't make the sacrifices that they did, just to see it all go down the drain because of some GUTLESS WONDERS that work for "we the people" in the US Senate.

I am a white 51 year old woman and every time I think of the people in Flordia in 2000 and the people in Ohio in 2004 that were not given the right to vote or perhaps did vote and saw their votes thrown in garbage, it makes me so furious I want to slap someone.

Thank you for all you did in trying to get John Kerry to the White House. It is deeply appreciated.

[bearfan454]

137. The repuke wins anyway with Triad and Diebold Walt Starr

We have to stop this vote fraud NOW or we will never win again.

[Jo March]

142. Walt, why do you do this? Why don't you just work on getting

good candidates for 2006/2008 and stop trying to ridicule and stop those of us who believe in fraud from doing what we believe it the right thing to do?

I just don't understand you, Walt. It's like you are looking for a fight or something. Your posts no longer add to the discussion. They distract and take away from the discussion. Your posts cause distrust and anger.

In a word, your posts are disruptive.

I do not know why you are so bitter against those of us who are fighting for what we believe in. You will not dissuade us from doing what we believe is right.

So why all of these posts? Why stir the pot up like you do? Wouldn't your time be better spent working towards something besides posting these devisive posts?

What are you doing to help the Dems win in 06?

Why don't you come up with a SOLUTION instead of being part of the PROBLEM?

[Snivi Yllom]

147. Walt is trying to prevent a titanic amount of damage from being released

Walt is thinking long term, strategically, and with a clear mind. He very rationally has accepted that the election of 2004 is over and clearly articulated that to continue to insist that Kerry won the election will in fact hurt prospects for Democrats and progressives in 2006 and 2008.

His voice and concerns are no less important or valid than anyone elses. I am happy his post may be causing some anger and distrust amon the fraudists who in mine and Walt's opinion have pushed a goal ahead of the facts.

There is no reason election cant be a major focus before 2006 and 2008. But hitching it to an elecion contest based on flimsy speculation will prevent those reforms from happening.

If you wish to replicate the same 2004 election problems in 2006 and 2008, by all means, badger members of Congress to contest the election and I guarantee nothing will change.

[righteous1]

155. I cannot speak for Walt, but i personally see a great deal of danger

if we are to contest this election without significantly more clear and convincing evidence than is presently out there. First exit polls are not always right and putting much faith in those is misguided. They generally favor Dems by 1-4% and have since the 60s. The lack of voting machines is regrettable but by no means a concerted nor nefarious effort to suppress minority vote. The local BOE officials are reponsible for ordering and allocating voting machines (Rep and Dems) and it could be argued that they should have known better but again it's debatable. Ohio overall was up 20% in voter % from 2000 and long lines happened all over the country. All the Ohio vote was recounted but only 3% were handcounted. A significant number of "experts" actually believe that machine counting is more accurate than hand counting because it takes away the subjectiveness of the "human" element, again debatable. If machine "rigging" was perpetrated, it certainly has not been illustrated to even the most lenient standards of proof. Most certainly not even close to the degree required to overturn an election. Folks theres a temendous amount of conjecture, a fair amount of noteworthy suspicians, but at this point nothing I believe is clear and compelling evidence of election fraud or voter suppression

[berniew1]

143. EIRS hotline reports document widespread touchscreen fraud in most swing

states including Florida, Ohio, New Mexico where they thought there was no paper trail. This time there was.
(but other types of fraud and systematic suppression of minority voters have also been documented in this election)

(mostly default from Kerry to Bush but some other races also)(big EIRS paper trail of all systems)

Vote machine fraud documented in

Florida and New Mexico http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla.html

http://www.flcv.com/bernalil.html

Ohio http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm Mahoning

and http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

Orange Co. Calif http://www.flcv.com/orangets.html

Mercer Co. Pennsylvania www.voteprotect.org maps Penn Mercer

Travis co. Texas www.voteprotect.org maps Texas Travis

Snohomish Co. Washington www.voteprotect.org maps Wash Snohomish

and etc.

(these aren't hyperlinked here)

[berniew1]

148. The proper course is to investigate before approving; sets good precedent

And can do no harm; as long as you have a responsible, democratic system; if not then whats the point.

[Doremus]

162. "Anti-fraudists" are advocating status quo

There will be no investigations or election reform without a challenge. HAVA (such as it is) only happened because of the intense spotlight focused on the 2000 atrocity.

Deluding yourself into thinking there will be any kind of significant investigation and/or reforms WITHOUT intense media attention serves no purpose, except perhaps to make you feel better.

Congress has already shown us how it intends to "investigate" election irregularities -- we have half a committee with no subpoena or other powers.

Repugs will NOT voluntarily investigate unless their feet are held to the flames. Those flames will be lit when Americans learn the extent to which their votes did not count Nov. 2.

What the "anti-fraudists" are advocating is status quo.

Status quo is unacceptable.

[merh]

154. Read this!

http://www.pdamerica.org/field/final%20status%20report.pdf

[nmoliver]

156. The Republicans will do it anyway

The Republicans will do anything, legal or otherwise, to gain and keep power. If the Democrats meekly fail to contest, this will NOT keep the Republicans from contesting future elections. Look at Washington state - the loser is calling for a REVOTE, even though the Democrats have NEVER called for a revote.

The idea that we should play nice so that the Republicans will play nice is an idea that has been disproved thoroughly by the events of the last four years.

This was Gore's strategy. I'll capitulate to the Supreme Court decision so that we all stay within the rule of "law", he said. Bush responded by governing outside the law for the next four years. As a result, Gore regrets his decision. He says he "never imagined" that Bush would have behaved so lawlessly, so recklessly, as a response to Democratic conciliation.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

163. This is exactly the point

thanks

TWL

[Blue State Blues]

159. Never underestimate the power of a politician ...

... to retreat. ;) Whether from a precedent or principle. That is truly a non-partisan characteristic.

Indeed, I can see your scenario happening if a Democrat is elected in 2008. Absolutely, it could happen.

However, I don't think that they will set their standard as "absolute proof." And if a group of pissed of Republicans wouldn't be stopped from contesting by a lack of "absolute proof," I don't think that they would say, "Oh, we can't do this because the Democrats didn't set a precedent in 2004." For them, the attempted challenge in 2000 would be precedent enough.

If we were talking about reasoned politicians, I might have a different view. If we were talking about the Republican party of the 60s up through the 80s, I might agree with you.

But we're talking about the same group of ideologues that threatens to change the senate rules to prevent the other party from daring to filibuster radical right wing judicial appointments. We're talking about a group who believes "compromise" is a dirty word rather than a critical aspect of diplomacy and politics.

With this group of ideologues, concession will get us nowhere. The old rules of playing politics do not apply because they will not play by the same rules.

I understand your argument, but I respectfully disagree. It's not such a big gamble -- we don't have that much left to lose.

Peace.

[saracat]

166. Excuse me? What does it matter? If democracy is dead? If the vote wasn't

counted? If the vote was surpressed? Bispartisanship is DEAD. The repukes have destroyed everyone who has tried to work with them.You are endorsing "business as usual". There is no "business as usual." The country might actually have some respect for the Dems if they stood for something.This is their last chance to prove they do. They don't need any stinking "proof" to stand for democracy! There is enough evidence to warrent and investigation. This isn't going to change the outcome but by God if they can't at least protest electoral irregularities and possible fraud, we don't need them. If they are that concerned with what the repukes think and the phoney bipartisanship, remember NCLB and now the Perscription Drug Bill? , we already have a one party system! If that be the case, vote these bastards out as well. Half a loaf isn't even a quarter of a loaf anymore.

[Imagevision]

174. Piece of cake --Fraud evidence? Bush wants the case thrown out

[Imagevision]

176. We have absolute proof! - lets get to court, do discovery!

[Debbie13]

178. There is too much pointing toward fraud. It has to be investigated

or a lot of Americans will feel GW* is in illegally.

I'm sure he doesn't want that.
(Sarcasm, of course. I'm sure he doesn't want an investigation. Matter of fact, he's trying to block it in Ohio.)

[Snivi Yllom]

179. kick

[bettyellen]

182. NOW WHO"S WITH THE CRAZY THEORIES????? HA HA WALT !!!

IF YOU'RE SO CHILLED PUT ON A SWEATER.............LOL!!

[Carolab]

183. That's crap

They can stand up for a LACK OF CONFIDENCE in the INTEGRITY of our elections. That is INDISPUTABLE.