I'M SOOO SICK OF HEARING THIS

[garybeck]

"there were some irrgularities and some problems but nothing to indicate enough of a problem to question the results"

Fact:
The recount in Ohio was clearly fraudulent, and it broke Ohio state law.

Fact:
If the recount was fraudulent, it means the original count and the recount are not valid

Fact: If they are not valid, we have NO IDEA what the real results are. We have nothing to indicate who won in any way.

That is why there IS PLENTY to to question the results. The fact the the recount was illegal means the Ohio electors should not have been accepted. Period.

All those senators who gave lip service to the problems and voted NAY should be ashamed. And the next time I hear a Democrat say:

"there were some irrgularities and some problems but nothing to indicate enough of a problem to question the results"

I can only question their integrity and they will not get my vote in the future.

[SariesNightly]

1. Our 300 year old democracy..

.. is devolving fast.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. RE: recount... correct me if I'm wrong

1. The "recount" was 3% of precincts, handpicked by Blackwell & Co.

2. Many votes were never cast (scrubbing/long lines/other disenfranchisement) or were cast on BBV machines or were at some point manipulated inside a computer (tabulator?) and cannot be accurately "recounted".

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[seriousstan]

5. The 3% is picked by the county board of elections which consist

of 2 Dem and 2 Rep. The precincts picked should be random but the final decision is in the hands of the county BOE. There are rules but no real penalties. The final decision is left in the hands of the county BOE.

[garybeck]

6. answer

From what i've read, over 80% of the ballots in Ohio were on paper

the recount was fraudulent because the handcounted precincts were not picked randomly. And we have video evidence that Triad employee told BOE officials to use cheat sheets instead of recording the actual vote tally. And, in at least one instance, when the recount didn't match the original count, they replaced the machine when the law calls for doing a full hand recount of that entire county. The recount blatantly broke Ohio state law.

[hootinholler]

42. Close, but not quite...

The recount was a machine recount of 100% of the vote.

3% of the precincts were selected to be hand counted, then machine counted. The rest of the precinct was then machine counted.

From memory, the problems with the recount are many most blatant are:

The 3% were not selected randomly in the vast majority of precincts.

The chain of custody of voting materials before and after the election was violated in a number of precincts.

The SoS office was obstructionist, and issued instructions to precincts that were at a minimum questionable, and likely illegal, violating both State and Federal law, before during and after the election.

Triad employees were allowed to conduct the recount is at least one precinct. The State law is explicit that ballots will not be handled by non BoE personnel.

It's not yet clear if BBV was a factor, or a red herring to complicate investigation.

-Hoot

[euler]

44. This is incorrect

A county was recounted 100% if the 3% hand count/machine coubt was different.

[hootinholler]

47. No a county was 100% recounted by hand on difference.

Otherwise, when the 3% matches, the entire county is recounted by machine.

That is why the cheat sheets are significant.

I think there weere one or two counties that did it correctly.

-Hoot

[IndyOp]

4. Garybeck - I am also sick of hearing Dems and media

and even lefties (like Michael Moore) talking about 'irregularities' -- so we need to keep tugging them in our direction until they talk about broken laws!

I think that so many of these people are lawyers and have been judges (Tubbs Jones; Conyers) that they are super careful to refer to 'irregularities' until they have evidence so solid that a conviction will result. Here is Byrd's statement (from another thread):

There are several groups and organizations that are investigating the reported irregularities in the Ohio election. That is important work and it should and will continue. When the investigations conclude, should there be solid evidence of criminal activity, those responsible should be prosecuted, no matter how high that responsibility may reach. But the Senate should not prejudge the results of those investigations.

Our job is to make sure the investigations continue until there is solid evidence of criminal activity and everyone is free to use the 'c' word: CROOKS.

:kick:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. You're missing the point.

The point of saying that is to not sound like a lunatic. If there was any chance, any chance AT ALL that we could get the election overturned it would be done. But we don't have strong enough evidence to push it through a system run by the people we're trying to take out of power.

It's with that in mind that we make this statement, not for ourselves, but for the casual observer out there who might otherwise think we were just screaming and yelling because we lost. If we want future elections to be fair, we have to inform the public there's a problem, which will hopefully push people to reform the system.

Short of armed rebellion, I'm not sure another effective method to change the system exists.

However, the only person's integrity I question is yours for not being able to see the truth in the matter and not taking the time to understand why our representatives are doing what they are doing.

[garybeck]

12. I disagree

for the casual observer, it's even more important to tell them what's really going on. it's the only way to get the truth out, is to speak the truth.

it wasn't just irregularities. It was blatant criminal activity. Blackwell broke the law. Enough with the window dressing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. To most people that are spoon-fed MSNBC and Fox News

saying there was criminal activity sounds ridiculous. Sorry, but that's the truth. Americans do not want to believe that there is major corruption in our system. They've got the blinders on. And if you rip them off all at once, do you know what happens? The eyes can't adjust to the strength of the light, and they still will not be able to see it. You have to remove the blinders a little at a time, unless you really have an indisputable smoking gun.

[EFerrari]

17. This sounds incredibly paternalistic to me. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. It's Plato's allegory of the cave.

If you can't deal with that, too bad.

[EFerrari]

43. I've dealt with Plato quite easily for some time. And rest my case.

[jmannatl]

Push people?

>If we want future elections to be fair, we have to inform the public there's a problem, which will hopefully push people to reform the system.

We saw how effective "people" were in stopping the war. Should we aim for that? The "powers that be" care nothing for the voice of the people- if they did, they wouldn't have to rig elections.

Seems clear to me, but YMMV.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. If you really feel that way

start a rebellion.

I don't see how else you're going to get the change you want.

[newyawker99]

52. Hi jmannatl!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[SueZhope]

14. the truth in the matter

is subjective , we all see it differently.

Many of us felt yesterday was a very good thing , however felt that our representatives should have gone further with this.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. You're right - truth is subjective.

It's VERY subjective. And because of that, we cannot expect the rest of our country to see the truth the way that the 5% or so of the Democratic Party here at DU see it. In fact, most do not. We'd do well to remember that.

[garybeck]

25. no, truth is not subjective

what are you saying, that everything in the universe is subjective?

The Ohio state law says that a recount must include a 3% hand count done in randomly picked precincts for each county. We know they were not picked randomly. This invalidates the recount.

How is that subjective?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. How do you know they were not picked randomly?

How do you define what is random enough?

Listen, I know what you're saying here. But you have to understand that people are going to find reasons not to see it your way. What you're offering isn't enough to force people out of denial.

On edit: That is why the truth is subjective. Perception IS reality. It doesn't matter, for our purposes, what really is true. It only matters what most people BELIEVE really is true.

[SueZhope]

32. truth is truth I agree 100%

what i mean is that people see what is TRUTH differently.
I agree with what you have been saying about yesterday .

I was commenting on what Vash the Stampede
said in post 7. This part:

"However, the only person's integrity I question is yours for not being able to see the truth in the matter and not taking the time to understand why our representatives are doing what they are doing."
 

[euler]

48. But you can't call this fraud without knowing more...

...about why they did not pick the 3% randomly. As you said, whether it's fraud or not, the recount is not valid if the precincts were not chosen randomly. But it does not mean fraud occurred unless you can show intent to select precincts in a non-random fashion.

Case in point: In one county, a democrat picked a precinct, then a republican picked a precinct, and it went back and forth like this until the picked precincts totaled 3% of the county. Now, I know this isn't random and you know it's not random, but did the pickers know it's not random ? If you asked a hundred people if the way the precincts were picked is random, a significant number would say 'yes' because the way it was done sounds fair. Afer all, many peopole here on DU don't know what random means either. This isn't fraud, it's a mistake.

Granted, the recount is still invalid. However, what happened is not a crime. Somehow there needs to be a better way to catch these errors at the time they happen, and there needs to be a better way to make sure the problem is fixed before the recount is declared 'done.'

[garybeck]

21. I'm not saying yesterday was "all bad"

it was definitely an accomplishment. I'm not getting down on the entire day.

What I'm saying is that one of the major disappointments of this whole thing is that the Democrats are downplaying the facts.

I disagree 100% that it's subjective.

The Ohio state law requires that the 3% hand recounts be picked randomly. they weren't. that's just one example of blatant truth that makes the recount invalid. It is not subjective, and there are many more examples of blatant actions that invalidate the recount.

[SueZhope]

34. I agree with you and see it the same way!

what is subjective is the way people see what happened
yesterday
(not the actual facts about the election)

Sorry if I was not clear on the point i was trying to make.

[garybeck]

37. ok, then take it one step further

if the facts are not subjective, and it's only the "way people see it" that is subjective, then it is possible to change the way people see it by showing them the facts.

agree?

that's why I think it's imperative to speak the truth at this time, and when they say "there's nothing to suggest enough to question the results" it is very troubling to me because it's not true.

[SueZhope]

39. I'm with you!!

I think that those people who took the oath of office owe it to
the people to share the facts even if it could shack up the masses.:)

I felt ILL when i heard them say that BS about
"there's nothing to suggest enough to question the results"

they are:scared:

[EFerrari]

15. Nope. Disagree with both your argument and with the gratuitous

personal attack.

Our "representatives" have no incentive to investigate this election. They are risk adverse and will not use the opportunities that present themselves nor the evidence.

[unpossibles]

18. lack of evidence does not keep us from....

locking up suspected terrorists for life without trial or legal council.

[EFerrari]

19. That's right. The new oxymoron: permanent detention n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Good point. Except WE are not doing that either.

That is the Republicans, the people who run the system, who are doing that. They rule as it suits their personal needs and change the rules as they wish.

The only way we win such a case is to have hard enough evidence to convince over 58 million Americans that not only was there illegitimacy in the 2004 election, but also that it occurred because of the direct hands of someone very high up in the Bush administration. If that weren't the case, the 2000 election probably would've been overturned. You would have to create an outrage so large that the government would have no choice but to take action.

And the evidence that I've seen so far, while damning in our eyes, is not enough to 58-60 million people.

Oh, and then there's that part about getting someone in the mainstream media to actually tell said 58-60 million people about it...

[SueZhope]

35. agree 100%

"lack of evidence" is not important when you are in the ruling party.
You can create your own rules , change the laws, break the laws.
and when we the PEOPLE question it that, they can say:
We are
" Hollywood conspiracy Micheal Moore nuts":crazy:

[SueZhope]

8. YUP....Gary your correct again!! n/t

[seabeyond]

9. we know better we have to change the story

"we" changed it yesterday., "we" changed it in the primary and 2004 campaign of kerry many times. we did this. factual if you need me to take the time, or think back

[Ganja Ninja]

10. Right on! If they can't be troubled to vote even a symbolic vote ...

when you ask them, why should you take the time and trouble to vote for them. The problem with unaccountable voting machines is only going to get worse with time. It needs to be addressed now not in two years or four years.
If the Democratic turnout for mid-term elections is less than expected they have no one to blame but themselves. I'm not going to knock myself out to go vote on a machine that might not record my vote properly.

[EFerrari]

22. About changing the story: do you notice that this time, we

accerlerated the process? Eventually, people understood what happened in 2000 - but it took months. This time, the process was much faster.

[Ganja Ninja]

29. This time it was expected.

Thats the real mind blower. It was expected! Something should have been done in the last four years.

[Botany]

11. I live in Columbus, Ohio

You are dead on sir!

The election here was dirty. Nobody knows about "The Texas Strike Force."
they were put up in the Holiday INN across the street by the Ohio Republican
Party.

The senators are spineless wimps.

http://www.thousandreasons.org/opinion/010505.html

my story

[EFerrari]

23. Botany, I haven't heard this story. Can you say more? n/t

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Botany]

31. The Texas Strike Force

From what I know "they" came from Texas and were put up in the Holiday Inn across
the street from the Ohio Republican Party headquarters. Conyers has testimony that
they used pay phones to call black voters and tell them that they would be put back
in jail if they voted.

They also might have been involved in phone hacking of democratic lines. Many
democratic lines and computers were hacked into and were crashed in the weeks
before and right after the election.

All that is really known about them is that the Ohio Republican party paid their hotel
bill and that they had a "law enforcement" air about them.

[On Par]

30. I Feel Your Pain...

I worked for John Kerry's election. I believe we won. I still do. Our internal polls couldn't have been that wrong. But unfortunately, when the party who did "win" controls all the branches of Gov't, those who scream "fraud" are considered kooks who listen to conspiracy theories.

It's how the Republican's painted us in Congress yesterday. Making fun and trivializing democrats by saying half the country are nut cases. Fraud? What fraud? We didn't see any regularities. Hell, I stood in long lines too! They continued to ignore the facts and promote their own agenda ad nausea.

Republican congressman after Republican congressman continued to paint the same picture and rap that no election is perfect, no election ever will be.

As I listened, I could only be reminded of Robert Kennedy....
"Some men see things as they are and ask 'Why?' I dream things that
never were and ask, 'Why not?'"

OP

[garybeck]

33. i expected the repubs to attack just like they did

what surprised me was how many democratic senators got up and spoke about the problems with the election and then voted NAY. that is very troubling to me. you can't have it both ways. If they wanted to vote Nay, they should have said nothing or spoken about how the election was fine.

[SueZhope]

40. YES it was doublespeak n/t

[Snivi Yllom]

36. "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it"

"there were some irrgularities and some problems but nothing to indicate enough of a problem to question the results"

Anyone detecting a pattern yet?

[garybeck]

38. the $87 billion quote actually makes sense...

it was just worded very poorly. they were two separate votes, not on the same thing, and there were good reasons for both votes.

[On Par]

46. Obviously, You Didn't Know What The Two Votes ....

...on the $87 billion were about. This lack of education goes to the core of what negative advertising does in duping unknowing individuals.

While they're kids are without health care, a lack of good paying jobs, social security going from trillions in surplus to deficit, a needless war, lack of prescription drugs that should be universal, the idea that pulling people up raises all standards in all communities, all went by the wayside as dodo birds parroting $87 billion without knowing what the bills were about and blindly followed negative advertising that had little semblance in truth.

When Michael Moore said American's are dumb, this individual is a prime example.

OP

[pauldp]

41. The Repugs will always try to bully and belittle...

It's the responsibility of the Dems to not play the timid victim. Unfortunately they are very bad at standing up for themselves. I agree that the truth is the truth. I've pointed many people to the facts of this election debacle, if I had been timid about telling the truth they would not have joined the effort. There is a mountain of evidence, the Democrats have to stop being like the abused wife who lies to the cops about her abusive husband.

[buddysmellgood]

45. kick

[wiggs]

49. This is a HUGE point that gets forgotten.

Conyers' report was not disputed. Not being disputed means that his questions are unanswered, meaning that the Ohio outcome is unclear, meaning that the national election outcome is unclear.

Many people try very hard not to say this.

We just had an election and we don't have faith in the reported outcome. This would be the greatest motivation for vote reform of all, but we stay away from it. Bush is the declared winner....fine. But why minimize the consequences of an election process that is clearly flawed?

Once again, we see those in power trying not to rock the boat and ask tough questions.

[garybeck]

50. and they had 4 years to fix it and it just got worse

why should we believe they're going to fix it this time?

[intheflow]

51. GB, I am SO with you on this!

Cried all last night after watching national newscast after national newscast a) bury the story in the newscast, and b) only talk about voting "irregularities" without talking about any specifics. Each newscast said it was the first time in 171 (or so) years that debate had to occur over electoral votes, but nothing about the severity of the events that compelled the debate. :grr: