I think I'm going to resign in this fraud game

[JohnnyCougar]

I just don't see any evidence popping up to support it. Even if the election was hacked, there will be little to no evidence, and if there is evidence, it will most likely lead to a patsy. Sure, some numbers look suspicious, but if you analyze the millions of figures that came out of any election, some figures are likely to look weird just by chance. And, of course nobody has any proof.

I was resting my hopes on this Jeff Fisher of Florida thing, but I read his story here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ElectionFraud2004/message/47

To me, that just does not sound credible. Maybe it is, and maybe something good will come of this, but I doubt it.

On the other hand, I think a recount in Ohio might give us better chances than any fraud accusations. I think with provisional and absentee ballots, Kerry can pull close enough there to maybe win in a recount. In fact, if there is fraud, it will be exposed in the recounts. I thnk the focus should be on the computer errors now, and not on fraud, because fraud is going to be nearly impossible to prove. We already have plenty of stories about machine malfunction, and those are concrete.

I think screaming fraud severely weakens our case. If you have PROOF of fraud, show me. Otherwise demand a recount. And talk about the lack of security on the voting machines and cenreal tabulators. Talk about the long lines at minority presincts.

I know some will want to flame me for this, but there just is no evidence of fraud right now. I had to speak my mind.

[aquart]

1. And your mind really impresses me. Night, night.

[DireStrike]

2. Yes, I think the focus has been shifting from "fraud" to "inaccuracies"

Either way, it's still a vitally important issue.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. I'm personally not really happy knowing that elections can be hacked

Whether it happened this time or not. This needs to be fixed. I recently told a Republican to consider that Al Qaeda operatives can infiltrate our voting systems and asked him how secure that made him feel. He had to admit he'd never thought of it that way.

[DireStrike]

10. That's a good argument. I'll be sure to use it with R's.

Thanks.

[JohnnyCougar]

14. That is a really good point.

The way to fix this system is to alert everyone to it's vulnerabilities. Not by calling out fraud when there is no proof. The fackt that our vote can be hacked is nuts, and everyone can relate to it.

[Renew Deal]

3. You've been "speaking your mind" for days

I think you want a flame war. You keep trying.

[JohnnyCougar]

8. I want to change the format of discourse here

to something that's not going to come back and hurt us.

You are the one talking about "flame war."

Believe me, that's not what I want.

[Renew Deal]

15. "I know some will want to flame me for this"

I didn't make that up.

[JohnnyCougar]

16. I said that to turn off flamers right away

as a way of neutralizing their desire to flame. Because I don't want a flame war. I just want people to think sensibly.

[burythehatchet]

62. what particular love do you have for Duers?

I'm sure that there are millions of people out there who wold welcome your leadership.

[DemCam]

69. I join you in Realland, Johnny.

I just can't see it. I'll be the first to step up with admissions of being wrong...but I think all of this is a good way to ward off depression.

It also increases ratings on talk radio.

[merh]

25. Please explain how continuing the investigation and discussion

into the irregularities and possible fraud will hurt us. You are so concerned about the harm it will cause us, what harm is that?

[JohnnyCougar]

28. Sigh...where did I say stop the investigation?

All I remember saying is stop accusing people of things without proof. That's not how the world works. You find proof first, and then point fingers. It's a far more effective way of dealing with things.

[Cadence]

39. Find proof first

you mean like first find the actual proof of WMD's and then start a war?
These people don't work like that. They call it first and then find evidence to back it up. And this being "above the fray" strategy isn't working.

If we don't yell fraud as hard and loud as we can when things obviously don't add up then we will have no voice whatsoever and what better time to have a voice then when it concerns our very system of democracy!
It's crumbling around you or hadn't you noticed?

[JohnnyCougar]

41. You just made a very good point that supports my argument.

In Iraq Bush's logic goes:
1. Point fingers
2. Take action
3. Find evidence
4. Find proof
5. Get fucked because you are wrong.

He only made it to stage 2 in the planning process, and skipped right to stage 5.

DU's logic on 2004 election:
1. Point fingers
2. Take action
3. Find evidence???
4. Find proof????
5. Get fucked because you are wrong???
____________________________________________________________________


John Kerry's plan on Iraq:
1. Find evidence
2. Find proof
3. Point fingers
4. Take action
5. Not get fucked

JohnnyCougar's plan on 2004 election:
1. Find evidence
2. Find proof
3. Point fingers
4. Take action
5. Not get fucked

You just pointed out the hypocricy on here better that I ever could.

[Cadence]

43. But he isn't fucked that's the point

He's not being held accountable for a single thing. He's in office again and the world is going on like it was a good decision. What I'm saying is that they operate under different rules and we keep trying to play the intelligent mans game and we are losing big!

It's not hypocricy it's realizing the rules have changed and coming to terms with it.

[JohnnyCougar]

48. He will get fucked eventually. Unfortunately it will be too late.

We don't have the power to play by his rules. We have to protest, both in the streets and with our pocketbooks.

This is sickening, it really is. And it's frustrating that no one had the balls to stop it. Even Powell was skeptical of the war at first. He should have stepped up and said "No!" instead of falling into line like a wimp. The Democrats were too wimpy to do anything, either.

But I guess they were afraid of being Wellstoned.

If you ask me, though, I'd rather die than allow a war like this. 48 Dems in the senate all can't die in plane crashes at once.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

64. There IS proof of FRAUD.

There is ample proof of Fraud. The problem is how much of it is there.

SO FAR the proof doesn't make up for the margin of victory.

SO FAR !!!!!

But if you had been following this story you would know that Greg Pallast and others have documented Fraud since 2000 and continue to today.

Election Officials in many counties approved voting machines for use with out critical safety checks having been done on them. Either its more incompetence or its willful, but both add up to negligence.

What you are saying is False.

You should restate your position as....

There is no direct evidence YET that implicates GWB in massive fraud involving Electronic voting.

There is however voter intimidation, reduced number of voting machines in Dem areas causing huge lines, and dubious purge lists.

You want to avoid looking foolish? Fine.

How about you stand on the tallest building in your area and shout......

Why do we have 8 hour long line-ups to vote in America ?!?!?!?!

[JohnnyCougar]

65. Actually, that's what I've been doing.

And I advocate that in my original post. But you don't bother to read my original post. Instead, you fly off the handle based on your own internalized assumptions about my argument. I don't have to restate my original position, because my original position is exactily as you have stated (in your statement asking for my restatement).

So I guess we're on the same page then. Great! There's no proof of fraud, but there IS proof of voter supression, there is proof the machines are hackable, there is proof of machine errors, all of which demand a recount. And we're getting recounts! No one can refute the facts in this paragraph.

The word "fraud" is now being used as a red herring by the media to distract attention away from the real problems, like voter supression, the hackability of machines, and the machine errors. Don't feed them anymore with the word "fruad."

[SomthingsGotaGive]

67. try this

Election Fraud

Noun 1. election fraud - misrepresentation or alteration of the true results of an election
fraud - intentional deception resulting in injury to another person


FRAUD !

Why should I keep quite ?

[Ducks In A Row]

4. Take a couple of days off, clear your mind, come back to it later

[Eloriel]

44. No, make that Take a couple of days off...

and stay there.

I think we can do just fine without you, JohnnyCougar. No need to worry your pretty little head about it. We'll sink or swim on our own.

[tuvor]

5. So you're suggesting bush just won a lottery?

The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy -- 250 Million to One Odds for the Exit Poll Statistical Anomalies in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, According to Dr. Steven Freeman, Univ. of Penn.

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/ale04090.html

[JohnnyCougar]

11. I doubt it

but even so, it doesn't help our case to yell fraud if there's no proof. Donate to recount efforts. If there is a discrepancy, the recount will find it, and THEN we can claim fraud.

[tuvor]

20. No, no, no. Waitaminnit.

You started off saying you saw no evidence appearing that would support that fraud has taken place. The link I gave you contains such evidence.

Now you're saying you're wanting proof.

So what'll it be?

[JohnnyCougar]

23. That evidence wouldn't hold up in court.

It looks suspicious at best. It is worth looking into. That's what the recounts are doing. You can help the recount effort without saying the word "fraud."

Help America Recount
http://www.helpamericarecount.org/

[tuvor]

37. You're the one who used the word 'fraud' in the first place!

I thought I was helping you in what appeared to be a search for evidence supporting that fraud may have taken place. You were going to "resign" from the whole thing because you didn't see evidence, remember? So there you go, I thought. He wants evidence, here's some evidence.

You mentioned the word 'fraud' first, so what's a person supposed to reply with????

:shrug:

[JohnnyCougar]

38. What, are we playing games here?

I used the word fraud to talk about how irrelivant it is. How can I say it's irrelevant without bringing it up?

As far as evidence goes, I don't think that qualifies. Even if you call it evicence, by no means does it merit a fraud chage. If that is your only argument, no one outside of DU is going to believe you.

Let the FBI and GAO do their job. The proceedure goes:

1. Find evidence
2. Find proof
3. Point fingers

People have gotten it backwards.

[tuvor]

49. Not playing games. Like I said, trying to help.

The link I gave you was undoubtedly evidence of fraud. Just evidence. Evidence that you said you hadn't seen anywhere. Hold-up-in-a-court-of-law evidence? I don't know. That's not what you started out asking for. And I never said anything about it being 'proof' and I don't know where you get the idea that I think it merits any charge.

No matter. I won't bother you again by doing my best to engage in any sort of meaningful discussions with you. Obviously you think I'm not sincere, and I frankly don't feel like trying to convince you otherwise.

Let's just chalk it up to oil 'n' water not mixing, shall we?

Cheers.

[Jimmy D]

13. You can go to jail for fraud we wounldn't want that

Hell yes we would.


Jimmy D

[Kathy in Cambridge]

6. Whatever

:boring:

:eyes:

[RyomaSakamoto]

7. the serious SECURITY FLAWS of this system AND the POLITICAL connections

of the leaders of these companies need to be made into a FEDERAL CASE.

the EXIT POLLS are reason enough to start an investigation.

the dems need to make this an ISSUE, now. it is PLAINLY OBVIOUS a BIPARTISAN issue.

there MUST BE a PAPER BALLOT.

this is not about image this is about our PRECIOUS and SACRED RIGHT to VOTE.

psst... pass the word :bounce:

[JohnnyCougar]

55. Yay!!!!! That's the spirit!!

[seabeyond]

12. i believe there was a nation wide fraud, but hwen talking to repug

i shme them with the 10 hour wait to vote in cold and rain. just start them off small to see my disgust, my disgust that not a republican has stood up and said this was wrong

[m berst]

17. it is almost like mind control

I keep hearing people say "screaming fraud all the time is getting us nowhere" and "show me some evidence of fraud."

These are almost like hypnotic suggestions that have been planted into people's minds or something. Very weird.

Johnny-

1. No one is screaming fraud. The Republicans are claiming that people are doing this.

2. "Proving" fraud is a red herring and is not relevant to what is happening. The burden is not on any of us to prove anything. This is another Republican talking point.

Here are some excerpts from Do We Still Have a Democracy? by Ernest Partridge. Please read the entire article before you throw around these RNC talking points again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/11/10_democracy.html
or here...
http://www.CrisisPapers.org/essays/democracy.htm
or here...
http://www.thegeneralconversation.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=3088

We are under no Obligation to "Prove" Anything

The citizen has no obligation to prove that his ballot is secure; the citizen has a right to be confident that his vote will be counted, as he cast it. And it is the solemn obligation of the government to secure that right.

The right of the citizen to a secure ballot is the foundation of a democratic society and the guarantee that the government rules with the consent of the governed. If that right has been violated by supporters and/or agents of the government, that government has no legitimacy.

We do not know if Election 2004 was fraudulent. But equally important, the paperless machines have made it impossible to verify that it was not fraudulent. And it is the inalienable right of a free people that their franchise be fair, accurate, transparent, and verifiable.

We Know That We Don't Know - That is Sufficient

This, at least, we can affirm: there are disquieting indications that this presidential election, like the previous, was a fraud and that in a fair election, John Kerry would now be the president-elect.

It is unlikely that the media will raise the issue and that there will be a thorough investigation of this election. Not unless an outraged public demands such an investigation. And so, if John Kerry was fraudulently deprived of his office, and a possible majority of American voters denied the election victory that they had earned, then that crime can not be rectified after December 12, when the Electoral College finalizes the election. If the case is to be made, and if Kerry and Edwards are to assume their fairly-won offices, this must be accomplished in a mere five weeks. It is in the hands of the people.

Even Kerry supporters should hope that the election was fair, for if it was not, American Democracy is dead today, even though few Americans are willing even to contemplate that possibility. If in fact the election was rigged, and if nothing is to be done to restore the integrity of the ballot, then the Democrats might just as well save their time and money and not bother to contest the next mid-term election in 2006 and the presidential election of 2008.

The outcome of these elections will be pre-determined, as was the election just completed. The rule of the Republican party will be permanent, and independent of the consent of the governed.

And that precisely defines a tyranny.


on edit - added alternative links to spread server load around

[AgadorSparticus]

19. spot on! all doubters need to read this post.

:yourock:

[JohnnyCougar]

21. I respect your opinions a lot on here, m berst

But the word "fraud" appears on every liberal site on the web right now, and there are more threads on fraud here than the search engine can count. Just in the last day. Olbermann got what, 6,000 e-mails in a day on this. I would wager a bet that over 90% of them mentioned fraud. So the fraud meme is definitely coming from us.

That said, I still think the burden is NOT on us to prove anything. We can bring up machine failures and ask for recounts without talkng about fraud. We can get people on news shows talking about the hackability of voting machines without appearing partisan. The important thing is that improvements are made. I think we have a better chance of making improvements if this is a non-partisan issue. Otherwise, nothing will work.

The recount process has started. It will expose any fraud that needs to be exposed. If it does, then we still accomplish our objective. If it doesn't, than we all look like a bunch of sore losers. And I'm sorry to focus on what we look like, but that is politics: like it or not.

If the burden is not on us, than the burden is not on us to call "fraud." The burden is on the GAO, FBI, and the recount process. I suggest donating to the recount efforts, and toning down the fraud rhetoric, as that will get the most accomplished.

[m berst]

27. don't know how to answer

Not sure what your worry or fear is here.

[JohnnyCougar]

29. My worry is that we will not uncover fraud

Even if it is there, we may never find it. And I do think it is there. Even so, we still might not find it, and if we don't, "bloggers" will be tagged as conspiracy theorists forever. I just feel like we are turning off reasonable people when there is no reason to be. If we find fraud, then we can point fingers. Pointing fingers before that, however, gets nothing done short of alienate an entire part of the population.

[m berst]

31. still coming across muddled

Let me try again, and hang in there with me 'til we get it straightened out, OK?

"Even if it is there, we may never find it."

OK, think that through. If we don't find it, it WILL find us. If it is there, we cannot avoid finding out, one way or another. No one would steal an election unless they had a pretty serious plan in store for us. The reason why people are trying to overturn this election is because it may be the last chance to stop totalitarianism.

"And I do think it is there. Even so, we still might not find it, and if we don't, "bloggers" will be tagged as conspiracy theorists forever."

If it is there, as you say, there will be no bloggers, except those with their toes tagged at the morgue.

"I just feel like we are turning off reasonable people when there is no reason to be."

No reasonable person could be opposed to knowing for sure whether or not we still own our goverment, or if it has been stolen by ruthless tyrants. If you mean "timid" people and are trying to protect them, there will be no protecting them until and unless they can be jarred out of their complacency and timidity. To protect them from the upsetting IDEA that we are in troulbe is to make them more vulnerable to the actual trouble itself when it inevitably arrives.

"If we find fraud, then we can point fingers. Pointing fingers before that, however, gets nothing done short of alienate an entire part of the population."

What do you mean about pointing fingers? At the adminstration? It is our duty as patriots to be suspicious of government, according to the men who created our government. Who are we worried about alienating? Every Republican to whom I have shown the evidence instantly says that we are in a desperate crisis and that we need to fight with everything we have to stop the adminstration. It is the Dems I talk to who are timid and holding back on this.

[JohnnyCougar]

35. I don't understand what's not clear

I'm not telling people to sit down and relax and think everyone's fine. I wan people to get up and chant "PAPER BALLOTS, NOT VAPOR BALLOTS" and I do think that if we don't change this, it is a threat to our democracy.

Chanting "FRAUD" is just not effective. Maybe it got people's attention, but as of right now, no one has proof. What we do have is proof that voters don't trust the outcome of the elections. And who can when there is no paper trail, and when Republican companies produce machines that count the vapor ballots?

[m berst]

46. get some rest maybe

I don't mean to be condescending. I am weary myself.

You keep repeating that there is no proof, and I keep showing you how that is a red herring, and explaining that proof is not needed at this point.

If ironclad proof were required BEFORE an investigation is begun, then no crime could ever be solved.

On edit - You aren't sitting on a jury, you aren't sitting on a grand jury, you aren't a prosecutor. If you WERE, then the call for proof would make sense. It is the responsibility of the officials - not us - to demonstrate that the elections are clean. See?

What if your house had been robbed. You call the police and they tell you "where is your proof??" and won't come out. How can you prove anything if they won't come out and investigate? What if you saw a crime being committed? Would you need to play detective and solve it before you could call the police? What if you heard noises in your neighbor's vacant house? You don't KNOW for sure that a crime is being committed. But should you not investigate? Should you not call the police until you have "proof?"

[JohnnyCougar]

50. aaaghhh!!

I'm not saying don't investigate!!! Why can't people make this distinction!!! I guess I am too nuanced for DU. Now I know why Rove said Kerry's message is unclear!!! Nobody understands that you can have an investigation of irregularities without making accusations right away!

[m berst]

51. ok

You see smoke coming from the neighbor's house. You yell "fire!!!" and call the fire department. You don't KNOW that there is fire yet, but you make the "accusation" any way to be on the safe side, yes? You don't wait for proof. The fire department doesn't demand proof.

People see smoke around this election and are yelling "fraud!!" and calling the GAO and the congress to "put out the fire" - if there is one.

[JohnnyCougar]

54. I see your point now

But the GAO is already on the case, as well as the FBI and numerous reporters.

Initial fraud accusations did get everyone's attention, I'll give you that. It's better now that we let the GAO and FBI do their thing. The best way to find fraud will be to recount the ballots, which I strongly advocate doing. Further accusations of fraud won't help us anymore at this point until we have more conclusive proof.

We can keep the pressure on by pushing the case against BBV. People across the board will listen to BBV concerns. It will lend more credit to our story if people know how easy it is to hack an election, thus a broader base will be more willing to accept the possibility of fraud. It works better if you build the case and imply fraud, but don't actually say it. Fraud is a trigger word that shuts off people's minds to the whole situation.

I really hope Bev Harris goes on Olbermann and explains the weakness of the voting system to people.

As for crying fraud, at this point I think it's counterproductive. We already have all the investigations we will get. We need to now make the case, rather than pointing fingers. Remeber, the case has already been made for us, but when dealing with the general public, they are starting with a fresh slate. They aren't as aware of the evils of the Bush administration, and don't think this is possible.

[m berst]

56. thanks for hanging in there

I am so tired and run down. :-) I appreciate you working through the issue with me. People should not be crying "wolf" and over doing it, you are right about that.

I am getting a very good response from Republicans on this. Here is what I say and what their reaction is -

"I have something very important to talk to you about. As you know, I am a Democrat, but I hope that you can see beyond that and believe that I am speaking to you today as an American. I believe that this recent election was stolen. Please look at the evidence."

So far, 10 out of 10 have looked at the evidence and come back with a strong statement that it must be stopped and that we need a full investigation.

They don't say "prove it" they don't say "let's move on" as so many Dems are doing. If the country is at risk, that takes precedent over everything else. If we think that the country MIGHT be at risk, we have a duty to never rest until we know for sure.

On edit - I don't tell Republicans that "Kerry won" or that "Bush stole it" or anything partisan. But I do say straight up what my belief is.

[RyomaSakamoto]

34. "conspiracy theorists forever"

welcome to the grassyKnollSociety :toast:

[m berst]

45. no crime could ever be solved

If proof were required before any investigation could begin,then no crime could ever be solved. We are not calling for indictments, let alone guilty verdicts, so the call for "proof" represents either a very poor understanding of how justice works or a willful attempt to discredit and insult people. We are calling for an investigation. That requires reasonable suspicion, and no more. That I believe we have established.

Beyond that, the government is not just any defendant. The government, according to all of our law and theory of government, is answerable to the people. We have a right to transparency in our government, and demanding it is not an "accusation" that requires "proof" in order to be valid.

It is not up to the citizens to prove that the government is acting in a tyrannical manner, it is up to the officials in government to gain our confidence by demonstrating that they are acting in our interests. The officials hold a public trust. We are the public. The trust is in question. That is enough to open a full investigation. Then, if there is no "proof" so be it.

But, of course law breakers will be prosecuted, and even if there was no large scale organized effort to tamper with this election, there are many, many local incidents of election tampering for which there is very strong evidence and proof. Should they all be allowed to go scott free because some here are "tired" of the subject, or are bothered by it in some way?

No one is talking about a grassy knoll, and I could just as easily label you as one of those "it was a third rate burgalry" theorists who defended Richard Nixon. Or perhaps you are a member of the Gulf of Tonkin society?

[dweller]

30. oops, your link broke!

try this one.

http://www.CrisisPapers.org/essays/democracy.htm

dp

[m berst]

32. thanks

I put it at my server to take some of the load off of other servers, but now MY server got overloaded. I guess there is some interest in the article!

[sandnsea]

36. "It's okay to use the "f'" word"

That is what Bev said.

Now you say nobody is screaming fraud. That is an absolute lie.

Don't make people feel wrong for saying exactly what you're saying, we need to focus on voting machine failures and irregularities. You owe JohnnyCougar an apology.

I can't believe this place sometimes.

[ibegurpard]

66. Absolutely EXCELLENT response!

:thumbsup:

[eleny]

18. This is the beginning battle of a war for paper ballots

Even if the election won't be overturned, we'll make such a stink that we'll get our paper ballots and control of the software that counts any machine. Get it?

[JohnnyCougar]

22. Yes, and we can raise that stink more effectively if we don't claim fraud

If we mention the system's hackability, and that Al-Queda can hack into these elections (like the poster above stated), we can create a bi-partisan effort to get paper ballots which will be far more effective than a blogger-only effort.

[eleny]

33. That sounds much like a Hallmark card

I trust those who are dealing with the data, like Bev Harris. If they're saying there may be fraud then I say use the word. "Mentioning the system's hackability" would be like mentioning that it snowed last night in Denver. It would only be met with glazed eyes because they already know all that. After all, their people devised the e-voting machines. Remember?

These are not the times for "mentioning". Bush is not interested in anything bi-partisan. He said as much in his press conference after the election. And this is not a blogger-only effort. The media is picking it up. As Trippi said tonight on Olbermann - the media can't ignore the bloggers. The net is what's driving this but it's not where we hope it stays. Get it?

Please take the last word. I'm finished in this thread. Thanks for your time.

[Zookeeper]

24. If nothing else...

our activism makes the point to the Rethugs that we care enough to spend the time, energy and cash to fight for honest elections.

[JohnnyCougar]

26. I know. I'm so glad to see everyone involved.

Things are going to change as more and more people use the internet. Activism will become a much larger power player in this country's politics because you can organize groups without even leaving your home. You can have think tanks without an office. You can raise millions of dollars with a simple website.

And you can get your message out without the media filter!

[Cadence]

40. Fear of being called conspiracy theorists

If everyone is always so afraid of being tagged a conspiracy theorist that nobody ever looks into anything then we're making it pretty easy for people to conspire aren't we?

And since when is people conspiring for money and their own vision of government such an odd out of the ordinary thing?

The thing is if this situation were reversed and Kerry was the incumbent and the numbers were off to the point that it's a 1 in 250 million anomaly the repug's would be screaming fraud. They wouldn't be afraid of the word or how it makes them "look". It would be scrolling 24x7 at the bottom of every news channel. FRAUD in 2004 election. This would be covered incessantly. Bloggers are the one thing they can't control. The one last refuge of truth and if truth is going to make a comeback we can't be afraid of how we look.

[JohnnyCougar]

42. Nobody would listen to them if they didn't provide proof.

And they would get nowhere.

Meanwhile, we would be laughing at them, saying "crazy freepers!"

[Cadence]

47. You mean like nobody listened to them

about going to war with Iraq to fight terrorism? Oh Yeah they're highly ineffective without proof. I laugh so hard sometimes I cry.

[JohnnyCougar]

53. Any moron (aka, Bush) can start a battle if they like,

but if you don't plan, you will lose the war.

Yes, we can start a battle over fraud. But if we don't plan, we will lose the war.

Planning includes making sure you attack the right country.

Our planning includes attacking the right issue. To me, calling out fraud is like attacking Iraq, whereas the real issue is to get recounts started and get paperless voting machines eliminated. If we can do this, the fraud will be 1. exposed, and 2. prevented in the future. And that's what we want, right?

[Clarkie1]

52. I agree, it's time to move on

There is real work to be done, including improving our voting systems.

Time to accept that we didn't win, regroup, and gain insight from this experience.

[m berst]

57. you again?

Your post is self-contradictory. Your motives are suspect IMHO. If you want to talk about "we" I think you need to establish a little credibility.

On edit - if there is nothing to investigate, why is there such a concerted effort to persuade people to move on?

[Vidar]

58. no surrender

Ridicule has been the principal propaganda ploy of the Right for a century. Agreed that recount is the best recourse and vote fraud is harder to prove. But "vote fraud" is the rallying cry. When we win, "conspiracy theorist" becomes a badge of honor and a tinfoil tricorner hat the symbol of a revolution for truth.

[Bridget Burke]

59. Investigations will continue whether or not you participate.

Research on BBV began years ago, done by some bright & dedicated people. This election is our best, last chance to get some publicity for the process & really look at the numbers.

I haven't heard any public figure screaming "fraud." There's been lots of muttering here in the peanut gallery, but Kerry's folks just keep saying they're investigating.

[CatWoman]

60. you're like a broken fucking record

[Kathy in Cambridge]

61. No shit

it's getting old real fast...

[JohnnyCougar]

63. I'm sorry you think so.

You have no idea if there is fraud or not. No idea whatsoever. Have you ever considered that you're a victim of wishful thinking?

I'm sick and tired of people on this forum having one-track minds, and not even considering their own fallibility. It's the same problem George Bush has...he doesn't think before he acts, he just acts, and hopes things work out in the end. Well, things are not working out for him. He may have gotten reelected, but none of his "plans" have worked, because they haven't been thought through. I see the same kind of thing happening here.

All I fucking try to do is to bring some sensibility into the discussion, and I get attacked by narrow minded brownshirts who cling to an idea as if it was their last hope for life.

I am probably one of the youngest 10% on here, but sometimes that is hard for me to believe. Getting snarky with me because I offer sound, logical advice is ridiculous. Some of you simply need to grow up.

[desi826]

68. IF.....

These machines that messed up to the tune of giving one opponant thousands of votes from out of nowhere, gave both Kerry AND Bush those extra votes, you'd have a point.
But they didn't.
They gave them ONLY to Bush.

IF those malfuntioning machines were equally planted in both heavily Repub districts and Democratic districts, You'd have a point.
But they weren't.
They were in the most heavily Democratic ones.

If the vote tabulations matched the exit polls in the suspect 6 states, then you'd have a point.
They didn't.

If it wasn't a statistical anomaly for it to happen in just one state after working for decades, no matter who the winner was, Dem or Repub, much less 6 states(a 250 million to 1 oddity) you'd have a point.
But it was.

If Jeb Bush didn't use the same damn felon list that he used in 2000 but added twice as many blacks and latinos to it, and if the Secretary of State of Colorado (whose state election law does not allow felon lists) all of a sudden decided to use a felon list for the first time because of an "emergency" not defined to this day, you'd have a point.
But they did.

Bottom line: all of these and many more actions allude to fraud or vote tampering as I like to call it.

These people should be in jail.

It's a felony.

In a court of law, you can convict someone of muder in the first degree based on circumstantial evidence.

There is a hell of alot of circumstantial evidence that points to fraud being committed in this election.

There is absolutely no reason why someone can't go down for it, Bush cannot be seen as just as illegitimate as in 2000, and why we cannot get rid of those machines forever.
Des

[KnowerOfLogic]

70. It seems to me that we have a turtle on a fence-post;

Yes, we may never have definitive proof of who did what, where, when, and how, but i don't think that it is a wacked-out conspiracy theory to take the position that fraud probably occurred, and that people should be made aware of this.

[JohnnyCougar]

71. Neither do I.

But it's time to start shaping our message so the MSM is not so recalcitrant of the story. Election "irregularities" are much easier to report on than "fraud." Notice John Conyers' position on this? He has never said "fraud" once. He has said there will be an investigation into "irregularities." I am convinced that fraud happened, but it would behoove all of us not to use that word until the evidence is more conclusive.

[IdaBriggs]

72. I'm tired. Go here --

www.invisibleida.com -- and read the New Hampshire data. Wait until after the recount happens. If everything is hunky-dory, then sleep easy knowing democracy is safe. If its not, then we move from there. Good night. Best, Ida

[JohnnyCougar]

73. Thank you SO much for your work, Ida.

I hope you can see that I'm not discrediting your work here. I just want people to shape this message in a more media-friendly way.