Evidence of machine theft of votes

[BeFree]

Back to square one....

Of course the crimes were carefully committed so that tracks of the crime are very hard to follow. Too, every court case so far has been denied by judges, so solid evidence gathering has been hard to come by.

Still the body of evidence of machine alterations of cast ballots is large.

* There were many cases of voters punching the Kerry button and the machine giving that vote to bush.

* There is evidence that thousands of votes were added to the bush numbers by machines. A few additions of this nature were discovered. How many went uncovered?

* There are many known cases of machines taking votes cast for one candidate and either vaporizing those votes, or given to the opposition.

What more evidence does anyone need to see that machines can, and did, alter the numbers from the 2004 election?

[Boredtodeath]

1. None of this is "evidence"

And won't stand up in a court of law.

These are anecedotal pieces of information.

[Stevepol]

3. There is a vast amount of statistical evidence as well.

To me, this is the most persuasive of all.

And remember since the votes are either incapable of being audited (touchscreens) or are never audited even tho the paper is there(optiscans). That means the only possible evidence is anecdotal, statistical, and insider's information.

There are also a number of whistleblowers testifying to illegalities: Clint Curtis as well as Bradblog's Dieb Throat who testifies to the continuing inaction by Diebold to close back doors pointed out by experts.

If it is possible to have any more evidence than there is right now, I'd like to know what it is.

About the only evidence we don't have is recount evidence that the machines miscounted. The only audits tried were in NH and OH. The OH recount was thwarted by Blackwell who refused to do a "random" audit, and carefully avoided all the suspicious precincts. In NH, I still think there was fraud, but in the rathher small recount tried it turned up nothing. NH is the only state where what has been alleged to have been a real audit was tried.

We have hundreds of examples of computer miscounting (covered in Bev Harris's BBV and in other places as well), but that is always blamed on "glitches."

We have almost every computer scientist in the country willing to testify that the machines can be easily hacked or mis-programmed in ways that are "undetectable."

I personally don't see what other evidence is needed (or possible).

[Boredtodeath]

6. There's just as much stastical evidence to the contrary

As for Brad's "Dieb Throat" it's Chris Hood. A man who knows nothing more than what he read online.

He was a 3rd Party vendor hired to do PR in Georgia and Maryland.

Brad's "Dieb Throat" is a complete and utter joke.

on edit:
I did the Google search for you http://www.google.com/search?q=Chris+Hood+%2BDiebold&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[anoraksia53]

39. so how do you know

who Brad's source is????

And if its true why the hell do you put his name here? What has he done to you? Or did this person say it was okay with them for you to put this out there???

Forget it, it seems like integrity was never your strong point hahaha.......Some people have figured that out anyways.

[Boredtodeath]

46. AHA! You might want to talk to Bev about that behavior

It's OK for her but not for others, is that it? I thought Bev was opposed to "hiding behing anonymous screen names?"

You REALLY don't want to bring "integrity" into this conversation while also touting Bev Harris' great work.

Bwahahahahahahaahhahaa!

[anoraksia53]

50. I sure do

my friend you lose your right to privacy when you libel other people.......Patriothackd who's a lawyer explained that nice and clear for you before being mysteriosly tombstoned for politely spelling out the law.....

now when did Dieb Throat libel you??????

[Boredtodeath]

55. Yeah........

the mods sure do act mysteriosly (sic) when they ban people on your side, right?

ROFL, you're quite the conspiracy theorist.........

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I love this entertainment.

[glitch]

8. "Eye witness testimony" is anecdotal as well, and quite compelling

in a court of law.

[Boredtodeath]

9. Not without a sworn statement taken AT THE TIME

of the incident.

Film would be better.

My cellphone takes short video clips. It should be very easy to get the real evidence.

[glitch]

10. Sworn yes, but it can be any time. nt

[Boredtodeath]

11. You're wrong. Been there. Done that.

After the fact affidavits are not evidence.

We TRIED to bring a lawsuit based on after the fact affidavits. No attorney would touch it, because it would be tossed on Summary Judgment.

[BeFree]

17. Well

We are not in a court of law, here. But a summary judgement, were it to be applied here, would throw your argument right out the window.

Being that we are not in a court room, the evidence found posted here, in a common sense application, imo, stands to be very indicting of the machines.

If one thinks the machines are hunky-dory (you don't, do you?) or are of no consequence in elections, then this thread is for you.

If one thinks the machines stole votes, or one doesn't have a clue, or one thinks the use of machines caused no alteration of the final numbers, put forward that case.

We'd all like to hear what everyone thinks. The doors are open. There is no lockdown; it's a good time and place to air out the differences about what we, as common sense people, think.

[Boredtodeath]

18. The title of the thread says "EVIDENCE"

I have yet to see you produce any.

[BeFree]

21. I haven't produced any

I just pass along what thousands of others have collected.

Can I disinvite you from this thread? Use the ignore button, maybe? Please?

[Boredtodeath]

28. Sorry, you don't have that authority

If you can't handle the truth, I suggest you use the ignore button.

[anoraksia53]

40. dont waste your time talking to

that person. boredtodeath thinks its ok to post crap about other people that is a figment of her imagination. Thats a crime but I guess that doesn't stop her if what I read is true.

[diva77]

22. I think that the signed books from parallel elections function as

affadavits. Perhaps do more parallel elections where the machines are. If discrepancies are found between the p.e. and the precinct count, an attorney could work with that.

[MissWaverly]

24. what about the facts

the official vote count at my precinct was 944 for the whole day, I waited 2 hours to vote,
they have the poll book, they know how many people signed the books, my best guess is that
the states were left driving the get away car for this stolen election, they didn't want
to admit that it was a total fiasco because they would have had to hold a re-election
and that would have cost them, so they did it on the cheap, because the local elections
turned out the way they wanted and that's what they care about, DC was not their problem.
I can just hear them, well we lost a lot of votes, but we'll do it real swell next time,
we'll have everybody well trained and ready to go next time, next time we'll check for
bad batteries for the memory cards and the computers, we'll make sure the software is
certified next time. Next time, it will be right....

(I estimated that there were at least 500 voters while I was there, I saw my machine
default to Bush 5 times, so they either vote switched or voided votes through over votes.)
I estimated (from my neighbors testimony, everybody said my polling place was packed all day)
that 2100 people voted, so I estimated we had a loss of roughly 1100 votes just at my
polling place-don't tell me it wasn't stolen.)

[MissWaverly]

26. If this election was not stolen

any state that had more votes than registered voters, should have had an automatic recount,
any county that had a massive amount of votes lost due to "glitches" should have had a chance
to have a revote. In Maryland, the Democratic candidate for Senator was not on the ballot
in 3 counties. Those counties should have had the opportunity to have a revote. Whoops,
sorry, you lost your opportunity to vote, please pay all applicable taxes and try again in
4 years.

[Boredtodeath]

27. I didn't say it wasn't stolen

I said there's no courtroom ready "evidence" as alleged in the OP.

Get some affidavits. Get some video of the machines switching votes. Get some REAL EVIDENCE and you can walk into a courtroom and prove it.

So far, no one has bothered to gather evidence that can be used in a courtroom.

[anoraksia53]

42. not true

BlackBoxVoting.org did get evidence in several places and turned it over to the Law. If the Law decides to do nothing that doesn't mean there was no evidence.........or do you think the Law is all above board in all things???

[Boredtodeath]

44. So let me get this straight......

You're saying that BBV.org is alleging that the authorities are also in collusion with Diebold and refuse to bring changes even when PROOF is presented?

I'd like to see the proof of any such thing. BBV.org should have a letter declining to prosecute from the DA. PLEASE post it.

[anoraksia53]

47. aren't you a clever girl

no I said BBV presented evidence of fraud to Law authorities who just sat on it and did nothing.........Period.

[BeFree]

48. anoraksia, take your advice, eh?

anoraksia53 (148 posts) Fri May-19-06 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #21
40. dont waste your time talking to

that person. boredtodeath thinks its ok to post crap about other people that is a figment of her imagination. Thats a crime but I guess that doesn't stop her if what I read is true.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[BeFree]

52. Yeah

I am just having to ignore her. After all, I did ask that she leave this thread alone, so it's only fair for me to ignore her.

But you have every right to challenge her, and I do support your efforts.

[anoraksia53]

53. Good topic by the way

Some people keep spreading the idea there's 'no evidence' when that isn't true. You can lead a horse to water etc etc.

I asked Febble about that and we'll see if she replies.......Bev Harris did turn over evidence in 3 separate elections but was anything done with it??? No but that's out of her hands.

[BeFree]

54. What else does the party need?...

I wished they'd let us in on their little secret about what else they need to take up the cause.

Thousands of people who voted for Dems had their votes scratched and it led to Reps getting elected. So, what does the party do? About what BTD does: Obfuscate, deny, and bury their heads in the sand.

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. well, Febble is at a conference

I was at the same conference yesterday, but rushed back for graduation. She is still there, and I don't think she has Internet access. She is flying back to England tomorrow.

There is considerable evidence of machines doing strange things in particular precincts. There is pretty good statistical evidence that pushbutton DREs cost Kerry votes in New Mexico -- of course, the statistics don't say why. It's hard to find statistical evidence that DREs (or op-scans) cost Kerry lots of votes overall.

[Febble]

61. Perhaps you could repeat your question

I would agree that there is evidence that some machines flipped votes, as well as plenty of evidence that machines failed to function properly, or were inadequately supplied to Democratic precincts (in Franklin County Ohio).

The exit poll evidence, for what it's worth, suggests that in the NEP precincts serving small or rural places, there was no greater exit poll discrepancy between precincts using any one voting technology and precincts using any other (including paper). In the NEP precincts serving larger places (50,000 and above), the exit poll discrepancy was generally greater than in precincts serving smaller places; however, the discrepancy tended to be less where DREs and optical scanners were used than were older technologies were used. This seems to run counter to the hypothesis that the exit poll discrepancy reflects fraud perpetrated on newer voting technology, although it is consistent with evidence that high residual vote rates associated with older technology tend to selectively disenfranchise Democratic voter (and indeed cost Gore the 2000 election).

http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/mebane.pop2004.pdf

In addition, the precinct-level exit poll data indicate that there is no overall correlation between the degree to which the vote-count was "redder" than the exit poll, and the degree to which the vote count was "redder" than the vote-count in 2004. In other words the degree of "swing" in the counted vote towards Bush in 2000 relative to 2004 is not correlated with the degree of "shift" towards Bush in the exit poll. More details are in a post I wrote a while back, and now in my DU journal here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Febble/3

But to summarize what I think are the implications of this non-correlation:

it is hard to see any way in which fraud perpetrated on a particular type of technology, whether it be county tabulators or DREs or something else, would not show up as a correlation betwee "swing and shift" unless one postulates that someone, somewhere had complete online or local control over the vote count in the vast majority of precincts nationwide, including those in states in which the exit poll was either accurate or was "blue shifted" (Kerry doing better in the count than the poll), and including precinct level control (not county level control) in the majority of precincts.

Which leads me to conclude that while DREs, especially paperless DREs, are a major problem for all sorts of reasons, it is unlikely that the popular vote was stolen using DREs in 2004, and if the electoral vote was stolen in 2004 (Ohio, or Florida, plus maybe NM for good measure), the evidence is more consistent with patchy corruption of all kinds, including voter suppression in Ohio, and maybe electronic fraud - certainly problems disproportionately affecting Kerry votes - in New Mexico. There are some things I don't like about Florida as well, but that's not from looking at the exit poll.

[eomer]

63. Your last paragraph is a good summary of where I stand:

"Which leads me to conclude that while DREs, especially paperless DREs, are a major problem for all sorts of reasons, it is unlikely that the popular vote was stolen using DREs in 2004, and if the electoral vote was stolen in 2004 (Ohio, or Florida, plus maybe NM for good measure), the evidence is more consistent with patchy corruption of all kinds, including voter suppression in Ohio, and maybe electronic fraud - certainly problems disproportionately affecting Kerry votes - in New Mexico. There are some things I don't like about Florida as well, but that's not from looking at the exit poll."

A point that you make and I would like to emphasize is that even if the popular and/or electoral vote weren't stolen using DREs alone, it is still possible that the popular and/or electoral vote were stolen through a large variety of tricks and fraud, one of which was DREs. Just think of the plethora of techniques that are known or alleged to have been used in recent elections (a few are Florida-centric since that's where I live):

1. voter registration purge fraud
   
2. voter registration collection that is portrayed as non-partisan but actually discards Democratic voters
   
3. voter registration requirements being applied by local BOEs even though such requirements are not actually present in statute or regulation and are in violation of NVRA that have the effect of disenfranchising ex-felons who are legally entitled to vote (in some states)
   
4. discriminatory challenges and demands for ID at polling place
   
5. phone jamming of opponents phone bank efforts
   
6. dissemination of misinformation about polling place and time and other dirty tricks of the "don't get out the vote" type
   
7. non-counting and disappearance of provisional ballots
   
8. good old-fashioned S. Florida absentee ballot fraud (ballot brokers) not known to have occurred in national elections -- it's more of a local phenomenon -- but one would have to guess that it has happened sometime, someplace for a presidential election since it has been so prevalent locally.
   
9. brand new S. Florida absentee ballot trick consisting of not mailing absentee ballots that were requested by voters to the extent of thousands of disenfranchisements
   
10. police car parked at the polling place trick
    
11. parking tickets to people trying to park to vote trick
    
12. road block on the highway trick
    
13. central tabulator fraud
    
14. opscan memory card disappearance fraud
    
15. opscan memory card swap fraud
    
16. opscan ballot stuffing
    
17. stickers on opscan ballots that modify how they are counted by machines
    
18. punch card ballot stuffing
    
19. punch card precinct swap
    
20. DRE allocation fraud
    
21. phantom votes of unknown origin
    
22. failure to comply with recount laws and illegal manipulation and rigging of recounts
    
23. use of legalistic actions that are geared toward seizing power rather than toward accurately counting all the legally legitimate votes
    

I'm sure there are more that I don't recall off the top of my head but that is a pretty good start.

I just don't understand why any time at all is spent discussing whether DRE fraud by itself stole the popular vote or stole the electoral vote. This is like a physics problem that begins by saying "assume you have an elephant whose mass is zero".

[Febble]

65. LOL

I just don't understand why any time at all is spent discussing whether DRE fraud by itself stole the popular vote or stole the electoral vote. This is like a physics problem that begins by saying "assume you have an elephant whose mass is zero".

Coffee on keyboard moment there.

Yes. You may well be right. And given that these all these things may have happened, and most of them certainly did, and all are manifestly unjust, I'm not even sure the magnitude of the elephant matters. What matters is that these injustices are eradicated, and that a culture in which the right of every citizen to vote and have that vote counted, irrespective whether their vote will in fact make a difference to the result, is re-asserted. Good luck!

I suppose my only real point is that the magnitude of the injustice is not, I believe, indexed by the exit poll discrepancy, so if you want to calculate the magnitude, the exit polls are not the place to start. Which wouldn't matter, perhaps, except that I fear that the exit poll argument is in danger a) of diverting attention from a lot of what you list, much of which has extremely good evidence to support it (and would not show up in exit polls anyway), in favor of issues that, possibly, have less (and indeed may be counterindicated by the exit polls), and b) leading to a state of pessimism in which people don't think it's worth voting. Voter suppression remains a huge problem, AFAIK, and every few months I find my self wondering whether the whole electronic fraud issue was a deliberately planted meme designed to suppress the Democratic vote. Whether that is the case or not (not, almost certainly) it would be a tragedy of real proportions if it had that effect.

[eridani]

73. DREs are inherent vote suppressors, by the nature of their design

Voting is the slow step and tabulation is the fast step. DREs slow everything down to the speed of the slow step. Therefore, a few slow voters (checking and triple checking their candidate lists and re-reading all the campaign literature they brought with them) at a busy time can disenfranchise anywhere from dozens to hundreds who have to get back to work or pick up their kids. Add in the kinds of problems that result when you store complex cranky machinery for months at a time without using it, and you get a real guaranteed supercharged disenfranchisement machine. And the deliberate shorting that low income areas get in every other area of life--housing, schools, parks, and now voting machines that aren't as good as the well-off get.

[OnTheOtherHand]

66. excellent list -- just on your last point

You say, "I just don't understand why any time at all is spent discussing whether DRE fraud by itself stole the popular vote or stole the electoral vote." It seems to me that different audiences could agree with that statement for different reasons.

Recently someone (you would recognize the name, but I won't attach it to my rough paraphrase) commented that Walter Mebane's analysis of Ohio was flawed because Mebane assessed individual factors, concluded that no one of them would change the outcome in the state, but ignored the fact that any two of them would. (I think the person actually did say "any two" -- I got a little bit mad at that point, so my memory might be tricking me.) I don't think that critique is at all sound or fair, but it would be useful for someone to try to formulate it (or some variant) systematically.

Actually, the serious people (for illustrative purposes, I will include Mebane on one hand and Richard Hayes Phillips on the other, since AFAICT they disagree in their conclusions) try to ascribe point estimates and/or ranges to as many mechanisms as possible, then combine those estimates to assess possible overall impact. (RHP does this more explicitly than Mebane in the DNC report.) DREs are one piece of the puzzle.

Mebane, in Ohio, I think finds no support for widespread vote-switching on DREs or any other technology. (However, he doesn't quantify what extent of vote-switching would likely be compatible with the observed data -- which would indeed be a pretty speculative calculation. Some of the outliers favor Kerry, not Bush.) I don't think he finds support for vote subtraction, but there the evidence would be more equivocal. He finds strong support for lost votes in Franklin County due to machine rationing and misallocation (and probably that analysis could be extended to a few other counties). And so on.

The state of play isn't that political scientists think hacked DREs are likely to have contributed some substantial fraction of Bush's Ohio margin, and are engaged in trivializing the problem by considering it in isolation. I think Mebane's point estimate of hacking in Ohio is 0 or close to 0. I don't know what his range of uncertainty is.

I'm not saying this to cut off discussion of machine theft in Ohio or anywhere else; I am just reflecting on a common misunderstanding (IMHO). Some folks seem to perceive a rhetorical strategy of considering impacts separately in order to minimize them -- which certainly happens. But the serious analysts are just trying to disaggregate a big messy question (who should have won Ohio?) into smaller, somewhat less messy questions. There is so much mess regardless, it isn't surprising that reasonable people can come to different conclusions.

[eomer]

67. Thanks, it's helpful to know someone out there is looking at the aggregate

effect.

Is there any particular paper you would recommend (with a link)?

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. no, I am afraid I will have to write it...

but first I need to catch up with Mebane and anyone else who is looking at Ohio in particular. It's definitely risky for me to try to paraphrase other people's positions when I have a hard enough time explaining my own.

If you have never read the analytical part of the DNC report, slowly, it is definitely worth a look. Oh, while you are there you can check out Mebane's Benford Law paper -- which I need to read a few more times slowly. Go via http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/ , then follow the DNCVRI link to http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/Ohio2004/OhioDNC/ .

Time for change had some interesting correspondence with Mebane; I think he posted it here.

Here is a link to RHP's Ohio "scoresheet" (my word, not his) as of very early 2005; I really have no idea how his thinking may have changed since then.
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1071
I simply don't accept his Southwest Ohio argument about Connally at all (there might be a better one). I have smaller back-of-the-envelope figures for Cleveland and Columbus -- although there is plenty of uncertainty on the high side. I wonder whether RHP has revised his assessment of uncounted and provisional ballots upwards. It seems plausible to me, and utterly at odds with Greg Palast's flat certainty that these ballots alone flip the state to Kerry. (RHP estimated a net Kerry gain of about 22,000 votes. I haven't tried to create my own estimate.)

[eomer]

69. I never had an opportunity before to assign a paper to a professor...

I sort of like how that feels.

You have until the Wednesday after Memorial Day and we will be picking up homework tomorrow.

Thanks for the references -- I will check them out.

[Boredtodeath]

56. Oh my!

Perhaps that's because BBV/Bev Harris have no credibility at all!!!!!!!!!

[MissWaverly]

57. the problem is we are dealing with the cover up of failed DREs

the states don't won't to admit what happened

[glitch]

43. Depositions are testimony. They are presented in court all the time

Since when are sworn affadavits not depositions and not accepted in court? You may've been there and done that, but that doesn't make what happened to you right.
And it doesn't make that principle wrong.

[Boredtodeath]

45. No.......you would be wrong again

A deposition may be REFERRED to in court testimony but it NEVER allowed as evidence without the deposed in court. You see, there's this little rule........a party accused has the right to confront their accuser at trial.

[anoraksia53]

49. and despite what

boredtodeath says they are still mighty useful and helpful to a case........Boredtodeath is tryin to make it look like they're pointless which they are not.........Maybe boredtodeath will know more about this in the future.

[kster]

12. How about selling voting machines with known security flaws

in them?

[Boredtodeath]

13. You might have a case

Why don't you find an attorney and sue them?

[kster]

2. Plenty of Evidence that there is silence from the ON TV media

when it comes to these voting machines, Hursti and Raba hack into the voting machines are real, Why won't they inform the public? Why do they remain silent?



K&R

[Kelvin Mace]

4. Silence in the media?

On a lark I had a reporter friend run a news search on the issue from 2003 to present:

"diebold and voting and security and flaws"

--642 stories

add "new york times"

--41 stories

add "John Schwartz"

--25 stories.

Schwartz is the fellow who contributed to the most recent story on the 12th in the NYT. He has written TWENTY-FIVE stories on the issue in THREE years! There have been SIX HUNDRED AND FOURTY-TWO STORIES in thirty-six months. That is an average of SEVENTEEN STORIES A MONTH!!

For people being so SILENT, then can't seem to shut up about this issue.

[BeFree]

15. ON TV, kelvin, ON TV

I guess if you just want to read what you want to read and disregard what doesn't please you, then one might miss the capital letters ON TV, eh?

Next time, get your friend to run 'Bev Harris' + Diebold. I am sure you will get many more hits. More than you can count, probably.

Oh, and if he's any good, get him to add ON TV. Heck, I've seen her ON TV a couple of times.

Anyway, the point is, the media has been woefully absent in covering this issue. 17 stories a month when there are hundreds of stories every minute is kin to a needle in a haystack.

While you are here, how about telling us your viewpoint on the OP? What further evidence do you need to see that the machines vaporized thousands of votes? How about Carteret County? Weren't there thousands of votes vaporized there?

The machines stole votes. It wasn't historic... but it is history, now. It wasn't old-fashioned stealing, it was a new-age, machine + vendor screw-up. There is no telling how many other votes were likewise stolen. No telling.

[Kelvin Mace]

19. You said the media

last time I checked, newspapers and magazines were the media. I have personally done several dozen interviews in NC on the topic, but I have no source for national TV stories.

As to Carterete Co., the committee I served on read the entire BoE investigation report into what happened there, plus heard testimony from the county director, the precinct judges, and the state's IT people.

The votes were lost, they were not "stolen". They were lost as the result of a system error that no one noticed. The computer ran out of memory, and each vote after it ran out, overwrote the last vote cast.

Please, do lecture me now on what really happened, because, I am sure you know far better than little ol' me who actually read the post-mortem and questioned the witnesses.

You know what? I cede the field to you. You obviously know so MUCH more about this than I do. You obviously are much better equipped to fight The Forces of Evil™, than naive little me.

So have at it. Knock yourself out. I'll sit back and wait for you to save truth, justice and the American way. I'm sure you and Bev will have this all taken care of by November.

Do let me know how it turns out.

[BeFree]

23. Have it your way.

But it takes a lot of people working together to fight the machines. It would be better if you stuck with us, but I think we will manage.

[kster]

29. Selling voting machines with known security flaws

you won't see that story ON TV, because if the majority of Americans knew just that story alone, these vote theft machines would be thrown into the "Boston Harbor" faster than a cat trying to sh*t on a hot tin roof, AND THE CROOKS KNOW IT!

[anoraksia53]

41. what do you think about

Febble saying that if there's fraud there HAS to be extra votes somewhere????? Or did I misunderstand cause it makes no damned sense to me that fraud HAS to mean extra votes.

[emcguffie]

58. Maybe you should do a comparison count--

-- compare stories about election fraud frequency to stories about something much less serious, but which gets attention in the news every day. Or go back and compare this story to the "blue dress".

Seriously, if you make comparative studies, while the media has finally begun to occasionally MENTION election fraud, they do NOT give it a great deal of attention. It seems to me that they give it the least they can and appear to be still alive. And this I think may only be because even Republicans are beginning to be alarmed about what may be taking place today -- if we never have another honest election, and if, gee, if what we've got is any indication of where we're going. That's probably why a lot of people are getting upset, and why editors and papers and media outlets of all kinds are allowing a story here and there. So there, you have a few stories, but not with daily follow-up -- hardly what I'd call a "hue and cry".

Remember White Water? Now, I think one might call that a hue and cry. An interminable hue and cry. But it wasn't about the end of democracy. Just one more step on the long road toward the complete destruction of....

I'm in such a state, I stopped reading this stuff, including this thread, 6 months ago, but I'm looking at it again. I've been in too much pain, horror and terror for too long, and don't know what to do with it. I also happen to be physically ill. So I needed to stay in bed and stick my head in the sand for a while, just to take some deep breaths.

For me, I still think the very best thing we could do would be to develop a proposal for a privately-owned newspaper, find some very wealthy people to establish it and own it, and start publishing real news, that is really available, to real people, every day, in every state. An alternatiave newspaper. Like what newspapers were 30-40 years ago. Just think, young people today have no idea what a real newspaper was like before deregulation and consolidation. That would be such a shock to people. My dear darling daddy, rest his soul, was complaining mightily about that back in the 1960s. This "takeover" -- and that's what it is, for sure -- has been going on for a very long time. Since before JFK was assassinated, don't you think? I do, now. I didn't, but now I do.

And now is the time, because now peoples' eyes are beginning to open up a little bit, now they're not sound asleep anymore. They might recognize the truth when they see it. Or it might be a bit easier for them to do so. It is at least a possibility right now.

There has to be a way to reach the masses of American people. That is the only way. A newspaper, a new news cable channel, or well-funded pamphleteers in every community. That seems a little bit complicated. Something. Anybody?

I haven't donated in a while, I need to, so if I don't see any replies soon I will lose the whole thread....

[BeFree]

60. Hello, emcguffie

Good to see you around. Hope you are feeling better. It does help to take some time away, but glad you are back.

If we are to generate some publicity from here, we will need to establish some commonly held beliefs that almost everyone here can agree to stand behind.

Unity of message is a core of any campaign, and it does seem there are but a few things that we all are on message with.

Having been away for awhile, are you able to see what those agreeable items are?

[emcguffie]

70. I'm not quite sure what you mean.

I just donated, so I'm now able to find my posts.

Maybe I could before, I don't even know.

But to me, there are two things:

The media is/are all owned by corporations, so they are not free to be objective;

We will never have an honest election again until we have some privately-owned media....

That's what I think.

I'm sure you have something more pithy in mind.

But I'm just about to start printing up little flyers and walking around my town with them. I think this is one of the things that led me to stop posting on DU. I was practically begging for someone to help me organize such a grassroots effort. Let's organize by neighborhoods, however, design some flyers, something sharp and the point, and arrange for canvassing, sort of like selling Girl Scout cookies, just put these things under peoples' doors.

Most people already believe the elections have been stolen. They just don't know what to do. Maybe the first thing would be to point them all in one direction?

I don't know....

[kster]

5. Befree, I asked you to lock the doors

:rofl:

[troubleinwinter]

7. Aw, well,

you know perfecly well where to go where doors are locked. But here on DU, we will discuss these matters.

Go ahead over to the 'place of locked doors' where no one will dispute nonsense, if you are more comfortable.

[BeFree]

14. Ya know

After the last few days of nonsense here, I visited that site you call 'place of locked doors' and found it rather sensical.

So, you could say I am disputing your nonsense? And after these last few days here, I can see why they have to 'lock the doors'. Why let foolish, ego driven, disuniting voices in to spread their personal crap when there is real work being done?

[troubleinwinter]

16. You'd not visited the place of locked doors before the last few days???!!!

Wow. Well glad you finally did, after all this time. If you like it as much as you say, I invite you to stay there. There will be no bothersome facts presented. Only comfortable adulation. I hope you enjoy your comfort very much. There is the occasional outing of people for vindictive purposes, too. That is always fun.

I am missing one thing... I don't understand your comment about my "nonsense". I am lost. Want to elaborate?

Just as an aside, since I had asked for BBV.org 990 some weeks ago, and it was to be filed Monday, I was just SURE I'd be FIRST on the list to get a copy. I checked my mail box today, and nothing there. Maybe your new friends can tell me if I might see it tomorrow?

[BeFree]

20. Retraction due, and an apology

It is not 'your nonsense'. Sorry to attribute the nonsense I've seen here these last few days to you. I am sure it has been as distasteful for you as it has been for me?

What do you think about my OP? Do you think the machines stole any votes, or did they not?

[troubleinwinter]

25. "Do you think the machines stole any votes, or did they not?"

I think it is beside the point and a diversion, at this point.

I think our job is work to get HR550 passed.

[BeFree]

30. Indeed, HR 550, get it passed

But what if someone asks you why 550 needs to be passed?

If one can't, or won't, claim there is evidence of the machines altering the votes, then why alter the law, they could very well ask.

I guess one could say: well they might. They might alter votes. Well, that doesn't help your case. In fact, I'd wager that is why the law won't be passed... because no one has the balls to say, unequivocally, the machines greatly altered the last election.

Not showing, or even standing up with the evidence of an altered election is a dog that won't hunt. It's chicken - you know what.

[troubleinwinter]

31. I find your view to be peculiar

but not particularly surprising.

I may know of altered voting in 2004, but RIGHT NOW I cannot argue the point.

I needn't show that 2004 WAS stolen, but that ANY MAY be stolen.

This is so utterly basic as to be not worthy of pursuing in this forum, unless the object is simply to divert from the job at hand?

[BeFree]

32. How do you show...

...that any election can be stolen?

I'd like to know how you do that. Because it is precisely what we need...

What evidence can we provide that will prove the machines can steal elections?

[troubleinwinter]

34. I am stumped.

What a waste of time.

First you claim that "no one has the balls to say, unequivocally, the machines greatly altered the last election." "Not showing, or even standing up with the evidence of an altered election is a dog that won't hunt. It's chicken."

Now your view is: "precisely what we need... what evidence can we provide that will prove the machines can steal elections?"

I am mystified ... I haven't a clue where you stand or what you are attempting to say. One one hand, you say that a stolen election must be shown or proven, on the other, only the potential.

I can only think you are being deliberately obtuse. You have been on this board long enough to know the answers.

I am tired of silliness.

[BeFree]

35. No, I don't have answers

But from the way you talked, I thought YOU did.

See how wrong I can be?

[JimDandy]

38. That is a very interesting logic sequence.

I'm going to stew over it -- have been very conflicted over 550. It's bed time for me.

[kster]

33. They want (need) you to follow

thats all they got. Please don't follow you are a much better leader. Your OP was great.

[BeFree]

36. Thanks, kster

Trying real hard to not follow. It is all too easy to become negative and closed minded, eh?

What's the old saying?... something like: Don't fight with a pig, both of you get real dirty and the pig really likes that.

Let us hope those who are exploring this issue for the first time don't become swayed by the division, but instead become able to rely on the presentations put forth here.

[kster]

37. You are correct

Don't fight with a pig, coz you get dirty...and besides, the pig likes it.
:thumbsup:

[eridani]

62. The problem here is--

--that all the data which could be used to find out what went on one way or another is GODDAM PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. not really

Precinct-level vote counts can be used to assess quite a few hypotheses. Some political scientists (and others) have worked hard on that, although they haven't gotten much help from the Exit Poll True Believers.

Somewhat more machine-level data has come out in some cases, but in general the DREs are firmly 'behind the veil.'

[eridani]

72. Even good secondary data--

--is still SECONDARY data.

[OnTheOtherHand]

74. yeah, opaque is opaque

I emphatically agree with your comment on the other thread (despite differences in emphasis). I mean, migosh, if someone has compelling evidence of massive vote theft in 2004, bring it on -- but in the final analysis, we aren't arguing about 2004, we are arguing about the future.

[emcguffie]

71. I agree, there is, and always has been, mountains of

evidence for anyone with eyes to see.

But that isn't enough in our brave new world. The media is all owned, and they won't report it. Why? Because they are owned by corporations, and this whole government takeover is run by a few friends of corporations.

Basic fascism, I think. Take away a free media and you have no freedom of speech and no democracy, no chance of it, at all. No matter how much "evidence" there is.

That is why I keep going back to finding a way to create some new free media.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

75. Its not who you vote for

Its who counts the votes

[BeFree]

76. Don't forget...

... it's also: will your vote even be counted?

They say every vote is important. But it looks like thousands upon thousands of votes were cast, but were never counted.

NGU.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

77. I guess thats why they call me

"WillYourVoteBCounted"

:7