Who are the people that the Democrats are afraid of offending

[saracat]

when they say that the Kerry /Edwards ticket would be looked at as "sore Loserman" if they question the election? Who are the people that will think the issue of election fraud makes us look like "nuts' ? Who are these people we are so afraid of ? Who?

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. I guess they think Gore

made a fool of himself when he objected in 2000.

Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Vincardog]

4. We just need one senator to stand up this time. Can you think of one?

[noclonyofthechimp]

15. Did you go to the Senator Blastor on the 04 election discussion board

I have blasted a few all over the country along with my two senators here in FL Everyone should. A lot of the email addresses are wrong and direct you to the senator's website to do a "form post" but you can cut and paste. :kick:

[WI_DEM]

doesn't make sense to me after all Gore won the popular vote

and the vote in Florida was close enough that a recount of every single vote (which the Supreme Court put a stop to) might have changed the outcome in the electoral vote as well.

[mbee]

2. Hey, what could be worse than winning an election and acting like

you lost? The Dems are very good at winning, but not at all good at claiming their prize.

[Cha]

56. Good point!

It was the media that made Gore seem like a sore loser..Gore was fine!

[sandnsea]

3. Evidence

Because there's NO EVIDENCE. Show some evidence of FRAUD, not glitches, FRAUD, and this will look like Ukraine in an hour. There is NO EVIDENCE.

[Vincardog]

8. Because they knew they were going to steal it They refused to generate

the evidence. They were in charge they had control, they have to prove it was valid. I refuse to acceopt this fraud as valid until someone proves to me it is valid.

[fugue]

10. And glitches are OK?

I'm sorry, but I don't want the machines glitching either. I want the vote to be accurate. I'll be more upset if the inaccuracy is deliberate, true, but I'll be no more tolerant of its existence.

We should push the investigation to the limit. The reasons for it are important in fixing the problem, but there's still a problem, regardless.

[sandnsea]

22. I agree

And we would have gotten alot farther if we'd focused on that from the beginning instead of screaming fraud when we had not one shred of evidence fraud had been committed.

[saracat]

11. Again , I asked who are these people that will be offended?

Dems, Republicans , fundies? Who? Who is this directed to?

[sandnsea]

18. 90% of the country

That isn't going to believe fraud was committed unless there is proof. Fraud, that means a conspiracy, names, dates, places, actions. Not machine glitches. I said more times than I can count "Glitchgate". Draw attention to the mountain of glitches so that everybody becomes concerned and so we can start to get these machines out altogether. But fraud? Nobody is ever going to pay attention to a tiny minority of the country screaming fraud. That tiny minority ends up being the face of the entire Democratic Party and that's the face Republicans use to smear us, election after election.

[saracat]

24. Good point. But do you really believe that 90% of the

country thinks this was a fair election? And that if most people heard about the various voting oddities they might not listen? Or would they be interested? Just wondering.

[sandnsea]

33. Yes

I think 90% of the country thinks this election was fair. I think a good portion of them will always think this election was fair, unless you had a video of Bush & Rove talking about writing code for machine A in precint 47 in X county in X state. And even then, I wouldn't count on a landslide majority of people believing it!

The best we can hope for is to draw attention to the true machine glitches AND the voter disenfranchisement, separately. Some of the most unusual machine glitches, people would get concerned if that were the only thing reported. Voter disenfranchisement, not likely, but we have to fix that anyway.

And focus on the solution, which in my estimation is mail-in voting and registrations with carbon copy receipts. Signed by the person doing the registering with the organization keeping a list of names and signatures on file.

I'm more worried about voting problems not getting fixed at all than proving fraud in this election.

[saracat]

42. If what you are saying is true. then it would appear that there isn't

Even if the election system were fixed ,the legitimate vote would go to Bush. If this is the type of government the majority of Americans want, what are we fighting for? Why bother fixing anything?

[noiretextatique]

13. what is a glitch anyway?

isn't it a term to minimizes the number of problems with a election? the evidence of fraud was 2000...too bad that was dimissed as a glitch.

[sandnsea]

21. Machine glitches

Which is different than denying voters the right to vote. I wish those two issues would get separated too, so the facts on both of them can gain some media attention. Right now it's just a big confusing mess. Situations that have been resolved or proven as wrong keep getting repeated as fact and thrown into the mix with everything else. Much easier to deny there's any problem at all that way. The whole thing has been handled horribly, it's a big fat mess, and it's a damned shame.

[noiretextatique]

26. i agree with you about the big, fat mess

however, the media isn't interested anyway...they have their orders.

[Meritaten1]

17. Please explain to me what a "glitch" is?

Is a glitch an accident?

Like something inadvertent?

If a glitch is an accident, is the glitch ever forseeable?

Or is a "glitch" just what happens when some force of nature or act of God prevents the accurate tabulation of votes in certain precints?

Is a "glitch" limited to certain mechanisms of voting (e.g. on touch screens)? Or can it refer to a failure to provide an adequate number of voting machines? Or the wrong instrument for voters whose votes are tabulated using optical scanners?

Do voters expect glitches, anyway? Should they?

I am serious about this question. With the extensive number of "glitches" we hear about in the MSM, the term deserves more consideration.

[Cheswick2.0]

70. glitches that all went in favor of bush?

That is as much evidence as there was in the Ukraine.
We aren't hitting the streets because we have no leader.

[Nikepallas]

5. Unfortunately it is our neighbors and even family...IF it was being covere

or the knowledge was more widespread I don't think it would be a matter of fear...just laziness

[noiretextatique]

6. that would be bush voters...the ones democrats keep fantasizing

about attracting.
who else would be "offended" by investigating election fraud?

[sangh0]

7. Nice straw man

but if you have evidence of fraud, why aren't YOU doing something about it?

Or are you powerless unless some Democrat does it for you?

[saracat]

9. That is not the question.

I want to know who are these people afraid of offending.

[sangh0]

12. Who are you afraid of offending?

What makes you think someone has some secret info about this election?

You want someone to stand up, so why not you?

Who are you waiting for, Godot?

And the answer is "They're not worried about offending anyone. They just don't have the evidence. The only ones saying they are afraid of offending someone are posters on the Internet, as if they were believable"

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

[saracat]

20. Again this is not about me. And this is hypothetical. I have heard the

statement made countless times,"We don't want to appear sour grapes, cospiracy nuts, bitter" You fill in the blanks. Evidence or lack of it is not the point. That is another conversation. I am asking a simple question. Who is everyone concerned that we will look wacko to because of asking questions about the election?

[sangh0]

23. You heard that "countless times" on the Internet

I suggest you pay no attention to anonymous posts on the Internet that haven't been corroborated. "What someone said on the Internet" is not a major concern.

And I don't blame you for wanting to leave aside the fact that there is no solid evidence of fraud. You want someone to complain about the fraud but you don't know of any evidence of fraud.

[saracat]

35. For someone who "doesn't like words put in his mouth"

as you stated on a previous post, you sure are placing words in mine and jumping to conclusions. I was NOT referring to the Internet" I did not mention the internet.And none of what you mention is the subject of my original post. My post was hypothetical and I specifiacly asked who would be offended by those who question. That is all I said.

[sangh0]

45. Where did you hear it then?

On that other "reliable" source of news, cable TV? I notice you don't give ANY source for these mythical people who are so easily offended.

My post was hypothetical and I specifiacly asked who would be offended by those who question. That is all I said.

And the answer, again, is "no one". It's a fiction. Why do you believe such people exist?

[saracat]

50. You are twisting my words.

I don't think the "offended people" exist. Terry Mcauliffe does . So does Al From, and Bill Clinton, do. Look upany of their most recent interviews. The DNC Leadership does. It is their philosophy to be centrist and non offensive.And I don't owe you any specifics for my merely asking a question . You are deliberatly inciting discord.

[sangh0]

52. Now you're just making stuff up

McAuliffe, From and Clinton never said such things about election fraud.

[saracat]

55. And what things did I say they said?

I don't see where I quoted anyone? I talked about an inherent philosophy. And this is another attack.

[sangh0]

58. Did you even read your own OP?

Who are the people that the Democrats are afraid of offending when they say that the Kerry /Edwards ticket would be looked at as "sore Loserman" if they question the election? Who are the people that will think the issue of election fraud makes us look like "nuts' ? Who are these people we are so afraid of ? Who?

You claimed that unnamed Dems are afraid of offending people by questioning the election. I asked who was saying this, and you answered by naming McAuliffe, From and Clinton, even though they never said it.

So who said Dems are afraid of offending people if they question the election? Someone on the Internet? Someone on cable? Where?

[leftchick]

14. I am convinced the DNC/DLC/RNC are inseperable....

I refuse to believe that the Democratic reps are so clueless about election theft. It is collusion plain and simple and yet hard for many to accept.

[sangh0]

16. collusion plain and simple??

If it's so plain and simple, stop waiting for some politician to be a hero and go to court yourself and explain it to a judge. You'll be a national hero

Everyone is saying it so simple to do, yet none of these people are doing it

[leftchick]

19. collusion of the Dem and Rep leaders would be hard to prove...

I feel it is simply easy to see after their lack of leadership on the obvious vote taking Nov. 2,2004. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Ladyhawk]

25. The scary thing is I'm starting to agree with you. :(

First I was angry. Then I stopped to listen to the "under the radar" folks. I decided they were wishful thinkers. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the two-party system is designed to make us think we have a choice.

Maybe I'm fucking going crazy. I don't know. But when in the last four years have the Democrats done anything for us? Except for a few strong voices, they've done nothing. I don't trust any of them anymore.

Regardless, I don't see a lot of hope for anybody. I almost wish there was a hell for the members of Bu$hCo to burn in forever and ever.

[leftchick]

32. scary indeed...

I came to recognise the lack of Democratic leadership in regard to vote fraud in the 2002 election. Back then Elorial and Demactivist had very long threads about the theft of the GA vote and how Cathy Cox,(Dem.) SOS and others did NOTHING to help. In fact they did the exact opposite by siding with Diebold throughout the controversy. I am convinced the Democrats (leaders not the volunteers) are indeed no different than the repukes now. It sucks not having leadership. :(

[sangh0]

28. "obvious vote taking"???

If you have evidence, why aren't YOU presenting it in court? Why are you waiting for DNC that YOU think is colluding with the RNC?

If you ahd evidence of "obvious vote taking", then you would present the evidence that makes it "obvious" to a judge. You haven't, therefore I assume you claim it's "obvious" but you have nothing to back that up with.

So prove me wrong; Show us the evidence that shows "obvious vote taking"

[leftchick]

29. time to put you on ignore...

denial ain't just a river in Africa! :eyes:

[sangh0]

30. That's a good idea but I will continue to point out you have no evidence

Just accusations.

And now that I'm on ignore, you won't get to rebut my refutations.

[LittleClarkie]

71. It's sort of the "lalalala...I can't here you" defense, isn't it

Circumstantial evidence is only good for pointing one in the right direction. To take it to court we will need hard evidence.

Meanwhile I'm really getting sick of the "skull and bones," the "RNC and DNC are in cahoots," and other such conspiracy theories. There's a certain reality disconnect in such theories if there is no hard evidence -- just a feeling and a hunch, a certain aversion to politics and a prejudice against the rich to go by. Well, we all have feelings and hunches, and we can't take any of them to court either.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[leftchick]

43. weird is a kind term...

welcome to DU freedom for all!

:toast:

[sangh0]

48. What's really weird

is how my saying "there's not enough evidence" was misinterpreted by you to mean "we shouldn't investigate"

Did you ever think that maybe we should investigate first BEFORE we make accusations?

Or do you find accusing others of being liars easier than using logic?

on edit: I did a search, and I see that every single one of your posts today was negative. You have contributed nothing but anger and criticism, none of it for bush*

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

68. Is that why your post was deleted by the mods?

Because it didn't attack anyone?

Try again.

[freedom for all]

75. i guess so..

one of your friends..hmm..
its weird how some people attach people and nothing happens but if others say something back it gets deleted.. i wonder who really is in control on this board.. maybe the repubs.. they control it all..
but i agree you must have some power on a forum controlled by who knows..hmm

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[freedom for all]

76. you can delete them all

just proofs my point

[pig.]

63. hate to say it but

at this point - i agree - you almost have to be blind to miss it.

they all on the same side after all...


"Turkey Lurkey, Turkey Lurkey! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

:hi:

[The Flaming Red Head]

79. I agree if they don't fight back.

what else could you conclude?

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. The 'evidence' of fraud is spotty, at best.

Sure, there are examples of problems with the equipment, but there is NO credible evidence of actual fraud. What evidence there is of equipment malfunctions are widespread, but no one can provide a logical, legally-sufficient and PROVEABLE demonstration that the outcome of the election would have been different but for those malfunctions. THAT is the point so many here are DEEPLY in denial about.

[noiretextatique]

31. solid evidence here: the coup of 2000

only in america would the coup of 2004 be dismissed as "lacking evidence" considering what happened in 2000.

[Cuban_Liberal]

34. Yeah, let's forget logic and proof.

Little things like that can be dismissed, as long as we're pure in spirit.

:eyes:

[noiretextatique]

38. yeah....let's just pretend republicans decided to "play fair"

this time. THAT is very LOGICAL, and requires NO PROOF. ostrich america has a very short-term memory anyway.

[Cuban_Liberal]

41. The Republicans have NEVER played fair in my lifetime.

The fact remains that there is no legally-sufficient proof of vote fraud to make a court case. I hate to tell you this, but short of armed insurrection, the courts are our only recourse, and there isn't a 'case' that won't get laughed out of court, at this point.

[noiretextatique]

47. the NAACP sucessfully sued the state of florida

re: the 2000 faux voter purge. the case was not laughed out of court, but it was settled. people are suing in florida and ohio NOW, i am not sure if those cases will be thrown out either. but i do think if the party doesn't start connecting the "glitches," we can continue to pretend they aren't connected.

[Cuban_Liberal]

49. Come on!

"Fraud" is a specific legal term. In Florida, they LOST, in case you missed that. The state was going to use the same sort of list THIS year, until Jebbie threw in the towel because of public outcry. The 2000 lawsuit, ergo, did NOT 'win' on the issue.

:eyes:

[noiretextatique]

53. the case was settled...is that a "loss?" fraud...

isn't the only point of attack. civil rights violations...that was the basis of the florida suits the NAACP WON.

[Cuban_Liberal]

59. Missing the point.

And I'm too tired to make it--- again.

[Cheswick2.0]

72. it's not logical to think this election was fair

You don't need to prove it in a court of law before you take action. Thinking like yours is why we are in such trouble in this country.

[noiretextatique]

78. no...it's completely illogical, in fact

but it seems that's not what they are saying. they are talking about legal proof, not common sense.
:hi: 2.0...is this the "new and improved" Cheswick? LOL...i think it may be time for that women's party.

[Cheswick2.0]

91. well it seems like 2.0 is a lot like the original

And I still think we need a woman's party.

:hi:

[sangh0]

36. Actually, the laws of most modern civilizations

do not view evidence of past convictions as evidence of current crimes.

[noiretextatique]

39. great...that will make it even easier for 2008

no proof, glitches, etc...all they have to do is rinse, lather and repeat. the gullible fools of america will buy it every time.

[sangh0]

44. The laws require proof

It's been that way for many, many years.

If someone had proof, they would be in court. I don't know why some people assume that someone else has proof. You knew about 2000 but you don't have proof for 2004, so why should anyone else?

You know about computer voting. You know it can't be proven after the fact. Why would you think someone else can prove it after the fact?

BBV has been going through the public records, and Bev hasn't been able to find proof either. Why assume that someone else has proof?

[Cuban_Liberal]

46. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[noiretextatique]

51. 2000 set a precedent for LAWLESSNESS

with the supreme court coming in to back it all up. the NAACP managed to find evidence the democrats somehow couldn't in the florida voter purge. i wonder if THAT purge happened AGAIN? no need to wonder...it worked so well the last time.

that the republicans have the ability to break the law, then hide behind it, is something i understand. it has nothing to do with THE LAW, and everything to do with POWER.

[sangh0]

54. If it's "lawlessness"

then why do you mention the possession of "evidence"?

If there is no law, then what good would the evidence do? Evidence is for a courtroom.

I just don't get it. Are you mad at Dems for not making a case of this, even though you know they don't have the evidence, and even id they did, the case can't be made due to "lawlessness"?

[noiretextatique]

60. i am not "mad"

however, i do think 2000 was a precedent for 2004, and i don't think democrats took it seriously enough.
i don't think any amount of evidence will change the outcome, yet i think there is already enough evidence to do so...if this was a remotely sane country, which it is not.

[sangh0]

62. Well, you should be

If you think no amount of evidence would change the outcome, then you should be mad.

[noiretextatique]

64. i am resigned

but still hopeful that the behind the scenes manuvering will produce some results.

[sangh0]

65. In that case

misery loves company. Welcome aboard!!

:-)

[noiretextatique]

67. LOL...we are still on the same page

just bitching today...but i know it take more than evidence to stop these folks. it will take a deep throat with a smoking gun, and some backroom arm-twisiting. still keeping my fingers crossed...it's too quiet to lose hope completely :thumbsup:

[m berst]

80. intuition vs. proof and fraud versus suspicion

I think that people mix conjecture in with fact and make accusations a little carelessly sometimes. Of course there is no proof of fraud at this point. But people, myself included, suspect it. Suspecting is not the same as proving, but suspecting is reason enough often to investigate and look for proof of wrongdoing. Law enforcement investigators don't wait until they have a case completely solved before they begin questioning suspects, and they may go on a hunch to decide whom to question.

Proof comes at the end of the process, not the beginning. Suspicion comes at the beginning.

So maybe we can agree on "unexplained irregularities that consistently favored one of the candidates and raise a suspicion of something fishy" and "various questionable activities that apparently resulted in selective voter suppression to one degree or another."

I think there is a reasonable suspicion that the election was tampered with, perhaps enough to change the outcome.

Isn't it OK for people to say that their intuition tells them that the election was stolen? That doesn't require the same burden of proof that a court of law does. Many good investigators in law enforcement go on hunches and intuition. Sometimes those are right, sometimes not.

People should not say that because they have an intuition about something that it is therefore a fact, but the intuition - as an intuition - is valid.

I say that there is enough circumstantial evidence in the varying accuracy of the exit polls alone to warrant a deeper look. Only a deeper look would ferret out evidence - or not - that would hold up in court.

I would guess that most people who are saying "fraud" fear that wrongdoing could be swept under the rug or not followed up on, and so over state the case beyond what can currently be proved. That fear, while not provable, is reasonable too, I think.

[sangh0]

82. It isn't reasonable

to claim fraud and criticize people for doing nothing about it when there's no proof of fraud, and the people doing the criticizing are as inactive as those they criticize.

[m berst]

83. yes

Good points. I would rather not see the word used at all, myself. I think people use it for impact, but it can backfire. It does beg the question - can you prove that?

As Lincoln said when the Republicans were accused of inciting and abetting John Brown in illegal activities - "If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need to be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander."

Cooper Union Address
New York, New York
February 27, 1860
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

(always looking for an excuse to sneak Abe in)

[noiretextatique]

86. if not for 2000

i could understand all the caution. however, given what happened in 2000, proving the fact seems redundant. how on earth can a thief claim property as his that he stole in the first place? :D
what needs to be proven are the mechanisms by which the theft was accomplished, not that the theft actually took place...that is a no brainer. and of course, given the political and judicial climate in the country, that is no small feat. as i mentioned in another post, there is already enough circumstantial evidence that, in a sane country, would call the results of this election into question and demand investigation. but as we all know: that ain't US, so i understand why proving what is already a known, and in a way that can't be denied, explained away, or dimissed is necessary.
if not for 2000...i might consider lincoln's advice relevant to the current situation. as it stands now, it seems more descriptive of the bush campaign's slander of kerry, particularly his military service.
there is no honor among thieves...i'm not sure who said that, but i'm sure lincoln would agree :D

[m berst]

87. yes

I lean toward erring on the side of making racket rather than being cautious.

The issue of election tampering is so vital that I would like to see as many of us as possible on the same page, so I was looking for common ground and trying to see the issue from Sangh0's view point.

[noiretextatique]

84. it is perfectly resonable to criticize a political party

you lend your support to (time, money, votes, etc) for not investigating what everyone in the world has a very resonable and logical reason to be suspicious of...the results of this election. the official party line is that the election is over, isn't it? of course that isn't entirely true, but kerry's early concession made some lose hope. i know it was a smart move, but others see that as capitulation.
as to what private citizens like bew and andy and others are doing...they don't deserve anyone's criticism.

[LittleClarkie]

74. My mom died of a heart attack suddenly in 1996

My dad proceeded to prepare his will, life insurance, and other bits of business as if he would go the same way. Then in 2000, he had a stroke. Suddenly the will was semi-useless, I needed to get rid of the money in the life insurance policy, and find out what was entailed in getting him on Medicaid.

Sometimes we prepare for what we think will happen, and then something else happens instead.

I think they were prepared for recounts, not Deibold air votes.

[noiretextatique]

85. impossible, unless only people in the internet know about Diebold

i think, perhaps, kerry & company were prepared for Diebold, and quite possibly are working on that now :tinfoilhat:

[AuntPatsy]

88. From what I have read concering Bev, it was not that she

didn't have the proof, it was that time had run out for her to gather her evidence together enough to make a more solid case. I honestly doubt she and company would have gone to so much trouble and use so much of their time if they did not have at least a viable amount of proof that fraud was definately a factor in this election..

And take into account the way she was sidetracked at every turn, the throwing out of paper etc from the preceints she was tracking...

It is not so cut and dry as you seem to be thinking, we have to take into consideration that whomever orcherstrated this vast voting mishap had some presence of mind to have at least a semi safe guard plan in effect to be able erase their tracks as time has gone by..

[The Flaming Red Head]

40. Their buddies over at Accenture for one (IMOFHO)

I hear there's regular revolving door between employees at the DNC and Anderson company headquarters these days.

[forgethell]

57. That would be

th voters, including many who voted for us Democrats this time.

[robbedvoter]

61. Name came from the freepers - so that'd be your answer

They are now playong to the knuckledraggers - since they have the blowhorn, they are considered the "majority"
been doing that even in the campaign - the "strategists", poll watchers" and other idiots deciding how to act by the reaction they may raise in the thugs... LOSERS.
And once again, my respect to Gore who didn't hesitate to put himself out for something bigger than himself.
A notion completely lost on "the party of the middle class"

[The Flaming Red Head]

69. They thought it was Ok to throw this election

but I’ve got news for them. This was not a party and nobody is whining because their team didn’t win. This was a national consensus on the Iraq invasion and the direction our country is headed. There is no one in my life that isn’t facing dire consequences due to the theft of this election. I won’t forgive the Republicans for the misery they are about to cause everyone (especially the working class), but I will always remember that the Democratic Party did not have my back.

[rasbobbo]

73. i don't know

but i'm guessing national guardsmen will start getting pulled out of iraq when the number of people on blackwell's front yard gets to be a thousand or more.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Padraig18]

89. It violates DU rules to accuse Moderators of bias. n/t

[Padraig18]

90. The electorate, basically.

Most of the American electorate doesn't even begin to understand the problems about BBV, and we'd be seen as whining brats...