NationStates Jolt Archive

My thanks to Project Censored for all this...

1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.

Historical Fact: High turnout favors Democrats and more liberal-left candidates because the groups who participate the least and most sporadically in voting are from lower socio-economic groups who generally eschew more conservative candidates.

2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.5 million vote surplus nationally.

Documented Fact: Seventeen percent of election 2004 voters did not vote in 2000. This includes both first-time and lapsed voters. Kerry defeated Bush in this group 54 percent to 45 percent. (Katharine Q. Seelye, "Moral Values Cited as a Defining Issue of the Election," The New York Times, November 4, 2004). This data contradicts the widely held belief that Bush owes his victory to mobilizing conservative evangelicals and getting out the Republican base.

3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties, merely shows Floridians’ enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this despite the fact that his share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points.

documented Fact: Gore carried the 2000 Florida Independent vote by only 47 to 46 percent whereas Kerry carried them by a 57 percent to 41 percent margin. In 2000 Bush received 13% of the registered Democratic voters votes and in 2004 he got the virtually statistically identical 14% of their votes. Sam Parry, "Bush's 'Incredible' Vote Tallies," Consortiumnews.com, November 9, 2004.

4) Florida’s reporting of more presidential votes (7.59 million) than actual number of people who voted (7.35 million), a surplus of 237,522 votes, does not indicate fraud.

Documented Fact: See Colin Shea's analysis: "In one county, where 88% of voters are registered Democrats, Bush got nearly two-thirds of the vote--three times more than predicted by my model. In 21 counties, more than 50% of Democrats would have to have defected to Bush to account for the county result; in four counties at least 70% would have been required. These results are absurdly unlikely." http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.asp?id=321


5) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as 8%, do not indicate a rigged election.

Documented Fact: "Certified reports from pro-Kerry Cleveland, in Cuyahoga County, showed 5 precincts with turnouts of as few as 22.31 percent (precinct 6B), 21.43 percent (13O), 20.07 percent (13F), 14.59 percent (13D), and 7.85 percent (6C) of the registered voters. Thousands of people in these precincts lined up for many hours in the rain in order, it would appear, not to vote.

"Meanwhile, in pro-Bush Perry County, the voting records certified by Secretary of State Blackwell included two precincts with reported turnouts of 124.4 and 124.0 percent of the registered voters, while in pro-Bush Miami County, there were precincts whose certified turnouts, if not physically impossible, were only slightly less improbable. These and other instances of implausibly high turnouts in precincts won by Bush, and implausibly low turnouts in precincts won by Kerry, are strongly suggestive of widespread tampering with the vote-tabulation processes." Michael Keefe, "The Strange Death of American Democracy: Endgame in Ohio," http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE501A.html


6) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time in history this has happened. Truman has been cited as having also done this, but Truman’s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two months before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush’s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.

Documented Fact: Bush's job approval has slipped to 48% among national adults and is thus below the symbolically important 50% point." "Questions and Answers With the Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, Editor in Chief, The Gallup Poll, November 2, 2004, http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13948&pg=1


7) Harris' last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong (even though Harris was exactly on the mark in their 2000 election final poll).

Documented Fact: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=515 , dated November 2, 2004, retrieved on June 1, 2005: " Both surveys suggest that Kerry has been making some gains over the course of the past few days (see Harris Polls #83 http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=512 , and #78 http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=507 ). If this trend is real, then Kerry may actually do better than these numbers suggest. In the past, presidential challengers tend to do better against an incumbent President among the undecided voters during the last three days of the elections, and that appears to be the case here. The reason: undecided voters are more often voters who dislike the President but do not know the challenger well enough to make a decision. When they decide, they frequently split 2:1 to 4:1 for the challenger." For Harris' last minute poll results before the 2000 election, see http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=130 , dated November 6, 2000 in which they call the election between Bush and Gore too close to call and predict that the result will depend upon the turnout.


8) The “challenger rule” - an incumbent’s final results won’t be better than his final polling - was wrong;

Documented Fact: As Gallup explains, challengers tend to get the votes of those saying they are undecided on the eve of an election: "ased on an analysis of previous presidential and other elections there is a high probability that the challenger (in an incumbent race) will receive a higher percentage of the popular vote than he did in the last pre-election poll, while there is a high probability that the incumbent will maintain his share of the vote without any increase. This has been dubbed the 'challenger rule.' There are various explanations for why this may occur, including the theory that any voter who maintains that he or she is undecided about voting for a well-known incumbent this late in the game is probably leaning toward voting for the challenger." "Questions and Answers With the Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, Editor in Chief, The Gallup Poll, November 2, 2004, http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13948&pg=1


9) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.


10) The fact that Bush “won” Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn’t cast any suspicion upon the official tally.

Documented Fact: Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman, "Ohio's Official Non-Recount Ends amidst New Evidence of Fraud, Theft and Judicial Contempt Mirrored in New Mexico, The Columbus Free Press
31 December 31, 2004, at http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1057

POSSIBLY THE MOST DAMNING BIT YET...
11) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush’s 1994 running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the initial impression that he was creating this software in order to forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: “You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida.”

Documented Fact: Curtis states in his affidavit that he met in the fall of 2000 with the principals of Yang Enterprises, Inc., - Li Woan Yang., Mike Cohen, and Tom Feeney (chief counsel and lobbyist for YEI). Feeney became Florida's House Speaker a month after meeting with Curtis. Curtis says that he initially thought he was being asked to make such a program in order to prevent voter fraud. Upon creating the program and presenting it to Yang, he discovered that they were interested in committing fraud, not preventing it. Curtis goes on to say: "She stated that she would hand in what I had produced to Feeney and left the room with the software." As the police would say, what we have here is motive and opportunity - and an abundance of evidence of criminal fraud in the Florida vote, together with Feeney's intimate connection to Jeb Bush. Curtis, on the other hand, as a life-long registered Republican - as of these events at least - has no discernible motive to come forward with these allegations, and only shows courage for the risk to himself by doing so. For his full affidavit, see
http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2004/12/affidavit-of-vote-fraud-software.html#110243131597922449


12) Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s declaration in a August 14, 2003 letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn’t result in any fraud by Diebold.


13) There was no fraud in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where the number of recorded votes was more than 93,000 larger than the number of registered voters [b]and where they admitted counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to count.


14) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents - were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically impossible.

Documented Fact: Michael Keefer, "Footprints of Electoral Fraud: The November 2 Exit Poll Scam," http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411A.html


15) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections, paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very wrong.

Historical Fact (and take NOTE OF THIS!!) In the Ukraine, as a result of the exit polls' variance from the official tally, they had a revote. In the U.S., despite the exit polls varying widely from the official tally, we had an inauguration!


16) The National Election Pool’s exit polls were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.


17) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.


18) It must be merely a stunning coincidence that exit polls were wrong only in precincts where there was no paper ballot to check against the electronic totals and right everywhere there was a paper trail.

Now what do you think??

I think this is really old news, that we can do nothing about.

I'd say it is entirely possible that the GOP was able to outmobilize and motivate their supporters. The reason why the Democrats didn't lead in this is because they voted against Bush and not for Kerry. Clinton and all of the previous Democrat presidents won because their voters voted for them, not just against the Republican (that's why Dole lost in 1996 among other reasons; he was an anybody-but-Clinton candidate). The Republicans voted for Bush, not against Kerry, so there was more support and enthusiasm and more mobilization than there was for the Democrats.

It's been a year. There's nothing that can be done about it now. And that doesn't really offer proof of corruption more than it does insinuations of corruption.

*prepares for shrieking*

:eek: how do you know that stuff but nobody does anything with it ?

I'd say it is entirely possible that the GOP was able to outmobilize and motivate their supporters. The reason why the Democrats didn't lead in this is because they voted against Bush and not for Kerry. Clinton and all of the previous Democrat presidents won because their voters voted for them, not just against the Republican (that's why Dole lost in 1996 among other reasons; he was an anybody-but-Clinton candidate). The Republicans voted for Bush, not against Kerry, so there was more support and enthusiasm and more mobilization than there was for the Democrats.

I have to admit there is some truth to that, I was less than enthused by Kerry...but I was an Edwards supporter from way back, and so, I was relieved when Edwards became the VP nominee, saying, "at least NOW I have something to vote FOR...instead of just voting against Bush!"

But how do you explain all the documented discrepancies??

I don't deny there were a hell of a lot of people on my side more eager to vote AGAINST BUSH, rather than FOR KERRY. Myself being one of them, at least until Edwards was put on the ticket.

But, still...how do you account for all the discrepancies...and what about Clinton Curtis' sworn affadavit? On the GOP side, you now have motive and means. But what would be Curtis' motive in bringing such charges? What would he gain by this? And what did he risk LOSING, by coming forward with this? I think that lends a considerable amount of creedence to Mr. curtis' story.

It's been a year. There's nothing that can be done about it now. And that doesn't really offer proof of corruption more than it does insinuations of corruption.
A dead body with a bullet hole and a smoking gun in the hand doesn't directly prove a murder either. Without omniscience, at a certain point people have to use reasonable judgement.

Historical Fact:

The only documented case of voter tampering/fraud occured in Ohio in a (get ready for it) Democratic office. An office worker had to be threatened w/ dismissal before he would stop calling registered Republicans giving them innacurate polling locations and telling them they needed 4 forms of ID to vote.

:eek: how do you know that stuff but nobody does anything with it ?

Because a lot of this stuff is NOT COMMON KNOWLEDGE...because the Corporate Media refuses to report it...and buries it....because the Corporate Media has an agenda.

Most of this stuff is gleaned from various bloggers. There was some stuff in there that even I hadn't previously known about!!

But, still...how do you account for all the discrepancies...and what about Clinton Curtis' sworn affadavit? On the GOP side, you now have motive and means. But what would be Curtis' motive in bringing such charges? What would he gain by this? And what did he risk LOSING, by coming forward with this? I think that lends a considerable amount of creedence to Mr. curtis' story.

I don't know how to explain them, personally. There are discrepancies in every election, and so some of these are more than explainable. However, there are others that cannot be explanied and should be investigated. The election was certified by the FEC and so is legit, but a full investigation in to the election would settle the issue and should have been implemented ASAP. We should investigate this one last time to be sure. I'm no Bush fan, so I'm not motivated by politics on this one. We just need to be sure.

It's been a year. There's nothing that can be done about it now. And that doesn't really offer proof of corruption more than it does insinuations of corruption.

True. and because there is no paper trail, we will NEVER have the kind of proof you seek! but there comes a point where, when you have this much circumstantial evidence, that one has to use reasonable judgement, and consider the implications, and the possibility that there just might be some merit to the allegations.

Even in a murder case, rarely is there a definitive eyewitness account, yet that does not stop murderers from getting convicted, because, at some point, jurors have to consider all the evidence presented to them, and use reasonable judgement to determine guilt or innocence.

I believe there is enough circumstantial evidence here to at least cause a reasonable person to entertain the likelihood that some malfeasance occurred. Whether or not it was enough to tip the scales is yet another question to be considered...and only reasonable judgement of the available evidence can be used, because the type of iron-clad proof we'd like (a paper trail) doesn't exist! I do not think that is accidental, either!

True. and because there is no paper trail, we will NEVER have the kind of proof you seek! but there comes a point where, when you have this much circumstantial evidence, that one has to use reasonable judgement, and consider the implications, and the possibility that there just might be some merit to the allegations.

Even in a murder case, rarely is there a definitive eyewitness account, yet that does not stop murderers from getting convicted, because, at some point, jurors have to consider all the evidence presented to them, and use reasonable judgement to determine guilt or innocence.

I believe there is enough circumstantial evidence here to at least cause a reasonable person to entertain the likelihood that some malfeasance occurred. Whether or not it was enough to tip the scales is yet another question to be considered...and only reasonable judgement of the available evidence can be used, because the type of iron-clad proof we'd like (a paper trail) doesn't exist! I do not think that is accidental, either!

Your murder analogy is false because circumstantial evidence is almost never admissible in court. The fact that there is no definitive proof to be gathered is very troubling, but cannot be ignored. If something is to be done, it will have to be done against those who precipitated the conspiracy, not those who benefitted, as there is evidence condeming the former, but not the latter. Unfortunately, that is often the way of things, the little people take the fall for the big people.

Anyone know when Shrub changed his name? :rolleyes:

Anyone know when Shrub changed his name? :rolleyes:

Actually, I think he's Chomskyrion now.

Actually, I think he's Chomskyrion now.


Did Shrub get Deated?

Did Shrub get Deated?

I don't know for sure; I remember he got in trouble with the mods a couple times but I don't think he was. I wanted to participate in the "think tank" and hear about his political compass some more, but he hasn't reposted them.

I made the connection when he put his name on top of an article Chomskyrion wrote. "William Young" is his real name I believe, and I saw it.

Your murder analogy is false because circumstantial evidence is almost never admissible in court. The fact that there is no definitive proof to be gathered is very troubling, but cannot be ignored. If something is to be done, it will have to be done against those who precipitated the conspiracy, not those who benefitted, as there is evidence condeming the former, but not the latter. Unfortunately, that is often the way of things, the little people take the fall for the big people.

If you present enough evidence to convince a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, then you win your case. that is the way the American court system works...or is supposed to work, anyway.

The evidence I presented, while some of it is circumstantial and anectodal in nature...a lot of it is also documented and verifyable fact. I think there is enough documented and verifyable fact to lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that there was most definitely some malfeasance in both the 2000 and the 2004 elections, though the iron-clad proof (a paper trail) will never present itself, because it doesn't exist (convenient, isn't it?)

Certainly, there is enough documented, and verifyable evidence to lead a reasonable person to at least want to have another look at everything, and for a court to at least rule that there was probable cause to suppose malfeasance occurred, and to thus move the matter to trial. That is always the first step, is the preliminary.

And in a pre-trial hearing, or arraignment, circumstantial evidence IS admissible, and frequently is used. At that point, all a prosecutor seeks to do is to convince a judge that probable cause exists for the matter to move to trial. That is where the more substantive evidence is then presented.

A good prosecutor is not going to lay out all of his cards at the preliminary trial, and neither am I. Right now, I seek only to have a reasonable person determine that probable cause exists to suppose that malfeasance occurred, and that it should therefore warrant further investigation, to determine if it did...and if so, to what scope...and what effect did it have, assuming it occurred?

With what I presented...are YOU convinced that this at least warrants further investigation? If so, I already won the preliminary. And that was my only objective here.

I am just one person, and I doubt I could prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that malfeasance occurred. All I want to do is to raise the American conciousness to the very real possibility that it did occur. and to thus cause the matter to be investigated further.

I am not out to indict George Bush just yet. And, I agree, what I have presented so far does not equal an open-and-shut case. But it does, I believe, if you look at it in an unbiased way...at least provide for probable cause to believe malfeasance occurred, and thus warrants further investigation.

Don't take my word for it, or believe anything I say...investigate it for yourself! See if you come to the same conclusion I have! Alll I want is to make the American public AWARE. The problem is...the Corporate Media has a direct vested interest in keeping the public UNAWARE of the very things I have brought to light in this posting. Which is why many people did not know a lot of the things I posted.

In fact, some of what I presented was new information even to ME!!

My thanks to Project Censored for all this...

1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.

Historical Fact: High turnout favors Democrats and more liberal-left candidates because the groups who participate the least and most sporadically in voting are from lower socio-economic groups who generally eschew more conservative candidates.

You're absolutely right. High turnout favors Democrats and more liberal-left candidates. Except when it doesn't. What happened in 2004 is similar to what happened in 1994. The values of America's conservative majority were threatened, and we responded. Sorry, kid.


2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.5 million vote surplus nationally.

It's embarassing to you when you make stuff up and don't support it with actual data. First time voters constituted approximately 11% of the voting public in 2004. This is right on par with any other presidential election. Those first time voters favored John Kerry over George Bush by 53% to 46%--hardly what any rational person would call a crushing defeat. Likewise, 91% of those who said they voted for Bush in 2000 voted for him again in 2004. By comparison, 10% of those who said they voted for Gore in 2000 said that they voted for Bush in 2004. So basically, Bush gained more on Democrats than Democrats gained on Bush between 2000 and 2004. No matter how much you WANT that to not be true, those are the facts. If you still dispute this, I suggest that next time you back up your statements rather than just making uninformed assertions.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Documented Fact: Seventeen percent of election 2004 voters did not vote in 2000. This includes both first-time and lapsed voters. Kerry defeated Bush in this group 54 percent to 45 percent. (Katharine Q. Seelye, "Moral Values Cited as a Defining Issue of the Election," The New York Times, November 4, 2004). This data contradicts the widely held belief that Bush owes his victory to mobilizing conservative evangelicals and getting out the Republican base.

It's simple, so I'll try to keep it short. This is to demonstrate the principle: Let's pretend 50% of voters voted for Bush in 2000 for a total of 50 million votes and 50% voted for Gore in 2000 for a total of 50 million votes. Let's say that of those numbers, 9 of 10 Bush voters returned to the polls, but only 5 of 10 Gore voters returned to the polls in 2004. Let's say that 17% of the total amount of new voters voted 100% for Kerry. This means that Bush would receive 45 million votes and Kerry would receive 39.3 million votes (25 million + 14.3 million). For those of you who don't understand this... well, you're bad at math which is why I have to explain this to begin with. Regardless, your assertion is based on assumptions that just aren't in place.

3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties, merely shows Floridians’ enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this despite the fact that his share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points.

If a county had 1000 people in 2000 and 50 of them voted for Bush that year, and it grew to 1200 people in 2004 and 150 voted for Bush that year, it's easy to see how those numbers are possible.

documented Fact: Gore carried the 2000 Florida Independent vote by only 47 to 46 percent whereas Kerry carried them by a 57 percent to 41 percent margin. In 2000 Bush received 13% of the registered Democratic voters votes and in 2004 he got the virtually statistically identical 14% of their votes. Sam Parry, "Bush's 'Incredible' Vote Tallies," Consortiumnews.com, November 9, 2004.

Right, but more conservatives voted in 2004 than 2000. You're also ignoring that Bush retained 93% of Florida's Republican vote, but Kerry only retained 84% of the Democratic vote. So where's the confusion?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/FL/P/00/index.html

4) Florida’s reporting of more presidential votes (7.59 million) than actual number of people who voted (7.35 million), a surplus of 237,522 votes, does not indicate fraud.

Documented Fact: See Colin Shea's analysis: "In one county, where 88% of voters are registered Democrats, Bush got nearly two-thirds of the vote--three times more than predicted by my model. In 21 counties, more than 50% of Democrats would have to have defected to Bush to account for the county result; in four counties at least 70% would have been required. These results are absurdly unlikely." http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.asp?id=321

Where Bush tromped Kerry in Florida were the same places he tromped Kerry everywhere else in the country: in rural and suburban communities. Baker County, Florida, has only about 12,000 voters, and about 9,000 of them are registered Democrats. This doesn't change the fact that the population is almost entirely white, practicing protestant, working class farmers who live on the outskirts of the Bible belt. Bush won in that county by approximately 5,000 votes. Party registration, especially in the south, does not correlate with party-loyalty. In fact, Democrats have had the registered majority in virtually every southern state since Reconstruction. If everyone was a partisan like some people (*cough*), then the entire south would have voted for Kerry. Bush won handily, and I don't think that anyone disputes that the South is a Republican bastion these days. But then again, you're disputing that Bush won, so I suppose that nothing is off limits.

But then again, Democrats do seem to think of people as numbers...


5) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as 8%, do not indicate a rigged election.

Documented Fact: "Certified reports from pro-Kerry Cleveland, in Cuyahoga County, showed 5 precincts with turnouts of as few as 22.31 percent (precinct 6B), 21.43 percent (13O), 20.07 percent (13F), 14.59 percent (13D), and 7.85 percent (6C) of the registered voters. Thousands of people in these precincts lined up for many hours in the rain in order, it would appear, not to vote.

Bush didn't get more votes than registered voters. He got more votes than registered REPUBLICAN voters, but since neither party has a majority of voters registered for them in Florida, the winner would necessarily have to have more votes than voters registered for his party, unless a 3rd party candidate siphoned off a large chunk of votes.

"Meanwhile, in pro-Bush Perry County, the voting records certified by Secretary of State Blackwell included two precincts with reported turnouts of 124.4 and 124.0 percent of the registered voters, while in pro-Bush Miami County, there were precincts whose certified turnouts, if not physically impossible, were only slightly less improbable. These and other instances of implausibly high turnouts in precincts won by Bush, and implausibly low turnouts in precincts won by Kerry, are strongly suggestive of widespread tampering with the vote-tabulation processes." Michael Keefe, "The Strange Death of American Democracy: Endgame in Ohio," http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE501A.html

I was actually compelled by this piece of information, but then I investigated the source. The author you quote echoes your claim, but he got his information from a source titled "Ten preliminary reasons" by authors Fitrakis, Rosenfeld and Wasserman. So I investigated this article. Unlike any reliable article, this article does not back up its assertions with references to voting records or news articles. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0103-24.htm . Though this information is easily accessible, the author cannot identify a source or even a precinct where this supposedly took place. Frankly, I would be happy to write an article about how John Kerry swore allegence to the Communist Party in 1976, but like these folks, I wouldn't have any data to back it up.

Perhaps more ridiculous about this source is that PERRY COUNTY, FLORIDA DOES NOT EXIST. 124% of 0 voters from the non-existent Perry County Florida voted in the 2004 elections.

I have a question for the author of this thread--doesn't this bother you in the slightest? How do you rationalize relying on information that's so obviously flawed?


6) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time in history this has happened. Truman has been cited as having also done this, but Truman’s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two months before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush’s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.

Documented Fact: Bush's job approval has slipped to 48% among national adults and is thus below the symbolically important 50% point." "Questions and Answers With the Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, Editor in Chief, The Gallup Poll, November 2, 2004, http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13948&pg=1

Presidential polling has only taken place since the common appearance of telephones in the home. Your assertion about pollers stopping their polling is unfounded, and I challenge you to support this claim.

Furthermore, the statistic you showed indicates that 48% of likely voters approved of Bush's performance. The exit polls, which you rely on so heavily later on in this post, indicate that 53% of voters approved of Bush.

This argument makes as much sense as if Kerry had won and I claimed that incumbants have won every reelection bid except for two since 1928, and since Bush was the incumbant, this is evidence that Kerry's win wasn't legitimate.

7) Harris' last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong (even though Harris was exactly on the mark in their 2000 election final poll).

Documented Fact: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=515 , dated November 2, 2004, retrieved on June 1, 2005: " Both surveys suggest that Kerry has been making some gains over the course of the past few days (see Harris Polls #83 http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=512 , and #78 http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=507 ). If this trend is real, then Kerry may actually do better than these numbers suggest. In the past, presidential challengers tend to do better against an incumbent President among the undecided voters during the last three days of the elections, and that appears to be the case here. The reason: undecided voters are more often voters who dislike the President but do not know the challenger well enough to make a decision. When they decide, they frequently split 2:1 to 4:1 for the challenger." For Harris' last minute poll results before the 2000 election, see http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=130 , dated November 6, 2000 in which they call the election between Bush and Gore too close to call and predict that the result will depend upon the turnout.

Right, and the final Zogby and Gallup polls showed Bush winning. But it doesn't matter because they're not the election. That's the only poll that counts.

8) The “challenger rule” - an incumbent’s final results won’t be better than his final polling - was wrong;

Documented Fact: As Gallup explains, challengers tend to get the votes of those saying they are undecided on the eve of an election: "ased on an analysis of previous presidential and other elections there is a high probability that the challenger (in an incumbent race) will receive a higher percentage of the popular vote than he did in the last pre-election poll, while there is a high probability that the incumbent will maintain his share of the vote without any increase. This has been dubbed the 'challenger rule.' There are various explanations for why this may occur, including the theory that any voter who maintains that he or she is undecided about voting for a well-known incumbent this late in the game is probably leaning toward voting for the challenger." "Questions and Answers With the Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, Editor in Chief, The Gallup Poll, November 2, 2004, http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13948&pg=1

It's not a "rule" just because you say it's a rule.

You're really confused as to what public opinion polls actually tell you.

9) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.

I can't speak to previous elections, but after your previous ridiculous assertions I'd love to know where the heck your information is supposedly coming from. The early exit polls showed a modest Kerry lead because different people vote in the morning than in the evening. The unemployed, women, union workers (they get paid time off to vote), college students are all most likely to vote early in the day because their work schedules allow for it. 8-5 pm dad has to vote when he gets home. I would be surprised if the morning polls didn't favor the Democratic candidate slightly.

10) The fact that Bush “won” Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn’t cast any suspicion upon the official tally.

You're saying that Kerry won 54.46% of the absentee and provisional ballots? First of all, provisional ballots are provisional--valid upon demonstration of validity. I could go to Ohio and cast a provisional ballot, but that wouldn't mean that my vote was valid. Secondly, with almost 6 million votes in Ohio, 147 thousand votes wasn't going to change the outcome even if they all went to Kerry.

POSSIBLY THE MOST DAMNING BIT YET...
11) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush’s 1994 running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the initial impression that he was creating this software in order to forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: “You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida.”

Documented Fact: Curtis states in his affidavit that he met in the fall of 2000 with the principals of Yang Enterprises, Inc., - Li Woan Yang., Mike Cohen, and Tom Feeney (chief counsel and lobbyist for YEI). Feeney became Florida's House Speaker a month after meeting with Curtis. Curtis says that he initially thought he was being asked to make such a program in order to prevent voter fraud. Upon creating the program and presenting it to Yang, he discovered that they were interested in committing fraud, not preventing it. Curtis goes on to say: "She stated that she would hand in what I had produced to Feeney and left the room with the software." As the police would say, what we have here is motive and opportunity - and an abundance of evidence of criminal fraud in the Florida vote, together with Feeney's intimate connection to Jeb Bush. Curtis, on the other hand, as a life-long registered Republican - as of these events at least - has no discernible motive to come forward with these allegations, and only shows courage for the risk to himself by doing so. For his full affidavit, see
http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2004/12/affidavit-of-vote-fraud-software.html#110243131597922449

You again seem to cling to this notion that people are robots who are religiously devoted to the party line. Mr. Curtis claims that he was asked to fix the results. Prior to his ever filing suit, the company for which he worked had fired him, bringing into question his motives. Lastly, the Kerry camp, although aware of Mr. Curtis's claims (for which there was no evidence except for his testimony) voluntarily chose to not pursue the matter--speaking volumes to its veracity.

I think that it says a lot about your claims that your "most damning" piece of evidence that Bush won illegitimately is the testimony of one guy who's suing in retaliation the company that fired him.


12) Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s declaration in a August 14, 2003 letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn’t result in any fraud by Diebold.

Yes, it's all part of our vast, right-wing conspiracy. That's how we work... we openly declare ahead of time when and where we're going to commit fraud. It doesn't make sense, but we do it anyway. Oh, and people don't twist our words to imply that we plan to commit felonies.


13) There was no fraud in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where the number of recorded votes was more than 93,000 larger than the number of registered voters [b]and where they admitted counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to count.

What's your source for this information? Who did Cuyahoga County vote for, and in what proportion?


14) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents - were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically impossible.

Documented Fact: Michael Keefer, "Footprints of Electoral Fraud: The November 2 Exit Poll Scam," http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411A.html

Ok, you're totally reading this wrong. CNN's exit polls were completed well before 9 pm EST. The "Well over 13,000 respondents" are the same people as the "13,531 respondents". The exit polls didn't change; the exit polls taken that morning had a different sample of people (as explained earlier) than the overall voting sample. Of course it'll be close, but of course it'll be different. For like the 30th time, you rely way too freaking heavily on polls :)


15) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections, paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very wrong.

Sigh :) I'm not even going to respond to this except to urge you to take a statistics class.


Historical Fact (and take NOTE OF THIS!!) In the Ukraine, as a result of the exit polls' variance from the official tally, they had a revote. In the U.S., despite the exit polls varying widely from the official tally, we had an inauguration!

Yeah... good point... :P I'm starting to realize how ludicrious this thread is, and I'm seriously losing my energy to respond to this junk :)


16) The National Election Pool’s exit polls were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.

I think you should marry a poll.


17) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.

*yawn* this is getting really repetitive.


18) It must be merely a stunning coincidence that exit polls were wrong only in precincts where there was no paper ballot to check against the electronic totals and right everywhere there was a paper trail.

*yawn* where's your evidence? What, you don't have any?

Now what do you think??

I think that nothing will ever convince you that Bush won the election, and that you (Democrats) will continue to lose elections until you realize that the problem is that the majority of Americans disagree with your ideas, values, and way of thinking.

Original Quote:
Perhaps more ridiculous about this source is that PERRY COUNTY, FLORIDA DOES NOT EXIST. 124% of 0 voters from the non-existent Perry County Florida voted in the 2004 elections.


My response:
Quite true. Perry County, FLORIDA...does not exist. This refers to Perry County, OHIO!! There is a Miami county in OHIO, too, go look it up. Did you assume that because the county was named "MIAMI" that it was in Florida??

Thanks for playing. Just goes to show how much ACTUAL research you did. You just engaged yourself in the conclusion jump! Perry and Miami Counties that were referred to in my source material were both counties in OHIO....not Florida.

ON EDIT:
http://www.census.gov/datamap/www/39txt.html

Ohio County Profiles
---

Adams
Allen
Ashland
Ashtabula
Athens
Auglaize
Belmont
Brown
Butler
Carroll
Champaign
Clark
Clermont
Clinton
Columbiana
Coshocton
Crawford
Cuyahoga
Darke
Defiance
Delaware
Erie
Fairfield
Fayette
Franklin
Fulton
Gallia
Geauga
Greene
Guernsey
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardin
Harrison
Henry
Highland
Hocking
Holmes
Huron
Jackson
Jefferson
Knox
Lake
Lawrence
Licking
Logan
Lorain
Lucas
Madison
Mahoning
Marion
Medina
Meigs
Mercer
Miami
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Morrow
Muskingum
Noble
Ottawa
Paulding
Perry
Pickaway
Pike
Portage
Preble
Putnam
Richland
Ross
Sandusky
Scioto
Seneca
Shelby
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Tuscarawas
Union
Van Wert
Vinton
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Williams
Wood
Wyandot

The day the supreme court ended the Florida recount was the day democracy died in the USA. Not to mention that Al Gore would've been a great president.

If you Republican types don't stop dwelling on the 2000 and 2004 elections, you'll never win in 2006/2008.

Look forward, not back.

Or don't ... I don't care ... the lot of you should be rounded up and shoved naked into gay bars anyway.

So Bush cheated within the rules. So? Who's sitting in the White House now? That's politics for you, Americans. :rolleyes:

Or don't ... I don't care ... the lot of you should be rounded up and shoved naked into gay bars anyway.

Alrighty then....

Alrighty then....

And now back to your regularly scheduled libral crying. :rolleyes:

The day the supreme court ended the Florida recount was the day democracy died in the USA. Not to mention that Al Gore would've been a great president.

And if Al Gore listened to his advisors, he probably would've been. He didn't. However, SCOTUS also saw that the counties in which a recount was being done was not using one standard. Each county was recounting differently. Also, the Florida Supreme Court (6 dems to 1 rep) was changing election laws from the bench. Sorry but that is a no-no and SCOTUS called them on it. No wonder SCOTUS ended the recount. Violations of Florida Election Laws by the Florida Supreme Court, not using 1 standard for recounting votes, both things were declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Get your facts straight.

Though Brian's Test debunked this whole thread,

Lyric, your facts are so screwed up it isn't even funny. There are exceptions to everything. Look at it this way:

Nobody who won the electoral vote and not the popular vote didn't get re-elected: Bush was the first one to do it.

No wartime President has ever been defeated during a war: Bush didn't either.

No father son duo ever won re-election: The Adams didn't but the Bush's had it happen when GWB got re-elected.

Also, what about the slashing of tires done by the Democrats? Are you forgetting that? Or how about the breakins at Republican headquarters across the country?

History maybe a good thing to go on but history doesn't always repeat itself. Its high time you remember that.

Bush won 2000 and 2004 legally and that's all fact. No amount of liberal spin will ever change that.

My thanks to Project Censored for all this...

1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.

Historical Fact: High turnout favors Democrats and more liberal-left candidates because the groups who participate the least and most sporadically in voting are from lower socio-economic groups who generally eschew more conservative candidates.

2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.5 million vote surplus nationally.

Documented Fact: Seventeen percent of election 2004 voters did not vote in 2000. This includes both first-time and lapsed voters. Kerry defeated Bush in this group 54 percent to 45 percent. (Katharine Q. Seelye, "Moral Values Cited as a Defining Issue of the Election," The New York Times, November 4, 2004). This data contradicts the widely held belief that Bush owes his victory to mobilizing conservative evangelicals and getting out the Republican base.

3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties, merely shows Floridians’ enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this despite the fact that his share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points.

documented Fact: Gore carried the 2000 Florida Independent vote by only 47 to 46 percent whereas Kerry carried them by a 57 percent to 41 percent margin. In 2000 Bush received 13% of the registered Democratic voters votes and in 2004 he got the virtually statistically identical 14% of their votes. Sam Parry, "Bush's 'Incredible' Vote Tallies," Consortiumnews.com, November 9, 2004.

4) Florida’s reporting of more presidential votes (7.59 million) than actual number of people who voted (7.35 million), a surplus of 237,522 votes, does not indicate fraud.

Documented Fact: See Colin Shea's analysis: "In one county, where 88% of voters are registered Democrats, Bush got nearly two-thirds of the vote--three times more than predicted by my model. In 21 counties, more than 50% of Democrats would have to have defected to Bush to account for the county result; in four counties at least 70% would have been required. These results are absurdly unlikely." http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.asp?id=321


5) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as 8%, do not indicate a rigged election.

Documented Fact: "Certified reports from pro-Kerry Cleveland, in Cuyahoga County, showed 5 precincts with turnouts of as few as 22.31 percent (precinct 6B), 21.43 percent (13O), 20.07 percent (13F), 14.59 percent (13D), and 7.85 percent (6C) of the registered voters. Thousands of people in these precincts lined up for many hours in the rain in order, it would appear, not to vote.

"Meanwhile, in pro-Bush Perry County, the voting records certified by Secretary of State Blackwell included two precincts with reported turnouts of 124.4 and 124.0 percent of the registered voters, while in pro-Bush Miami County, there were precincts whose certified turnouts, if not physically impossible, were only slightly less improbable. These and other instances of implausibly high turnouts in precincts won by Bush, and implausibly low turnouts in precincts won by Kerry, are strongly suggestive of widespread tampering with the vote-tabulation processes." Michael Keefe, "The Strange Death of American Democracy: Endgame in Ohio," http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE501A.html


6) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time in history this has happened. Truman has been cited as having also done this, but Truman’s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two months before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush’s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.

Documented Fact: Bush's job approval has slipped to 48% among national adults and is thus below the symbolically important 50% point." "Questions and Answers With the Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, Editor in Chief, The Gallup Poll, November 2, 2004, http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13948&pg=1


7) Harris' last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong (even though Harris was exactly on the mark in their 2000 election final poll).

Documented Fact: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=515 , dated November 2, 2004, retrieved on June 1, 2005: " Both surveys suggest that Kerry has been making some gains over the course of the past few days (see Harris Polls #83 http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=512 , and #78 http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=507 ). If this trend is real, then Kerry may actually do better than these numbers suggest. In the past, presidential challengers tend to do better against an incumbent President among the undecided voters during the last three days of the elections, and that appears to be the case here. The reason: undecided voters are more often voters who dislike the President but do not know the challenger well enough to make a decision. When they decide, they frequently split 2:1 to 4:1 for the challenger." For Harris' last minute poll results before the 2000 election, see http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=130 , dated November 6, 2000 in which they call the election between Bush and Gore too close to call and predict that the result will depend upon the turnout.


8) The “challenger rule” - an incumbent’s final results won’t be better than his final polling - was wrong;

Documented Fact: As Gallup explains, challengers tend to get the votes of those saying they are undecided on the eve of an election: "ased on an analysis of previous presidential and other elections there is a high probability that the challenger (in an incumbent race) will receive a higher percentage of the popular vote than he did in the last pre-election poll, while there is a high probability that the incumbent will maintain his share of the vote without any increase. This has been dubbed the 'challenger rule.' There are various explanations for why this may occur, including the theory that any voter who maintains that he or she is undecided about voting for a well-known incumbent this late in the game is probably leaning toward voting for the challenger." "Questions and Answers With the Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, Editor in Chief, The Gallup Poll, November 2, 2004, http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13948&pg=1


9) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.


10) The fact that Bush “won” Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn’t cast any suspicion upon the official tally.

Documented Fact: Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman, "Ohio's Official Non-Recount Ends amidst New Evidence of Fraud, Theft and Judicial Contempt Mirrored in New Mexico, The Columbus Free Press
31 December 31, 2004, at http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1057

POSSIBLY THE MOST DAMNING BIT YET...
11) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush’s 1994 running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the initial impression that he was creating this software in order to forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: “You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida.”

Documented Fact: Curtis states in his affidavit that he met in the fall of 2000 with the principals of Yang Enterprises, Inc., - Li Woan Yang., Mike Cohen, and Tom Feeney (chief counsel and lobbyist for YEI). Feeney became Florida's House Speaker a month after meeting with Curtis. Curtis says that he initially thought he was being asked to make such a program in order to prevent voter fraud. Upon creating the program and presenting it to Yang, he discovered that they were interested in committing fraud, not preventing it. Curtis goes on to say: "She stated that she would hand in what I had produced to Feeney and left the room with the software." As the police would say, what we have here is motive and opportunity - and an abundance of evidence of criminal fraud in the Florida vote, together with Feeney's intimate connection to Jeb Bush. Curtis, on the other hand, as a life-long registered Republican - as of these events at least - has no discernible motive to come forward with these allegations, and only shows courage for the risk to himself by doing so. For his full affidavit, see
http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2004/12/affidavit-of-vote-fraud-software.html#110243131597922449


12) Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s declaration in a August 14, 2003 letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn’t result in any fraud by Diebold.


13) There was no fraud in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where the number of recorded votes was more than 93,000 larger than the number of registered voters [b]and where they admitted counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to count.


14) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents - were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically impossible.

Documented Fact: Michael Keefer, "Footprints of Electoral Fraud: The November 2 Exit Poll Scam," http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411A.html


15) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections, paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very wrong.

Historical Fact (and take NOTE OF THIS!!) In the Ukraine, as a result of the exit polls' variance from the official tally, they had a revote. In the U.S., despite the exit polls varying widely from the official tally, we had an inauguration!


16) The National Election Pool’s exit polls were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.


17) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.


18) It must be merely a stunning coincidence that exit polls were wrong only in precincts where there was no paper ballot to check against the electronic totals and right everywhere there was a paper trail.

Now what do you think??


I think some people should just give it up and stop being a sore loser, because that is what those type of people are. Just plain old sore losers. If there were a REAL controversy, people would care and the media would know. Let's face it, if CNN (Communist News Network) is not reporting this so called "coverup" or "cheating", nobody will because it is FALSE.

And now back to your regularly scheduled libral crying. :rolleyes:


Hey-I'm not liberal in today's sense of the word and I havent cried in a long time.

If you Republican types don't stop dwelling on the 2000 and 2004 elections, you'll never win in 2006/2008.

Don't you mean the Democrats? They are the only ones that keep bringing it up!

Look forward, not back.

Amen to that. To bad liberals can't look forward.

Or don't ... I don't care ... the lot of you should be rounded up and shoved naked into gay bars anyway.

LOL!

The day the supreme court ended the Florida recount was the day democracy died in the USA. Not to mention that Al Gore would've been a great president.
No, the million days that Al Gore called for a recount ended democracy in the USA. In an election it should be vote, automatic recount, plus maybe 1 or 2 requested recounts, then it is over, whoever wins wins. Al Gore messed it all up by setting the awful precedent that the election can still be won after all the votes are in. He believed (and convinced many other people too) that you can win an election by votes+legal action, which is wrong. Al, you had less votes in Florida, and it is wrong and illegal to try to gain votes by squeezing some out of the justice system. Al Gore tried to cheat, and he lost. Let's hope that no other elections go that far or to those extremes, although I fear now that Al has set that precedent, others will be willing to go to the same extremes.

Don't you mean the Democrats? They are the only ones that keep bringing it up!





A little misdirection, perhaps?

I have to admit there is some truth to that, I was less than enthused by Kerry...but I was an Edwards supporter from way back, and so, I was relieved when Edwards became the VP nominee, saying, "at least NOW I have something to vote FOR...instead of just voting against Bush!"

But how do you explain all the documented discrepancies??

I don't deny there were a hell of a lot of people on my side more eager to vote AGAINST BUSH, rather than FOR KERRY. Myself being one of them, at least until Edwards was put on the ticket.

But, still...how do you account for all the discrepancies...and what about Clinton Curtis' sworn affadavit? On the GOP side, you now have motive and means. But what would be Curtis' motive in bringing such charges? What would he gain by this? And what did he risk LOSING, by coming forward with this? I think that lends a considerable amount of creedence to Mr. curtis' story.

all of the discrepancies are circumstancial .. and a leap of abstraction is required to actually say that Bush rigged anything.

numbers from 2000 have no bearing whatsoever on 2004... you can use predictive models all you want, but they still cannot DETERMINE who actually showed up to vote.

there could be millions of reasons why many new voters voted for Bush... or why all those liberal college voters didn't vote for Kerry (maybe they simply got sick of waiting and went home before actually casting their ballots... maybe they had an instant change of heart... etc.)... or why 235,000ish more votes were cast in Florida than there were registered Florida voters (couple of ideas: overseas military vote -- were they counted among registered Florida voters?; instant/late registration for those who were not "listed" as registered voters; etc.)

fact is:

Bush won Ohio easily
Bush won Florida easily

If you really want to nit-pick, let's go back and count the vote in the really CLOSE states.

Continue harping on the past whilst your opponents look foward to the next electoral beatdown. :p

I think it's very disturbing personally that there was absolutely no paper trsail or way to check the accuracy of the electronic voting machines (this needs to be fixed right away - there was already well known technology for this and lots of people pushing to have it installed, yet it wasn't).

The huge discrepencies where there were more votes than voters and machines booted up on election day with votes already in (somehow I'm having a hard time believing that is an accident, but whatever - no paper trail - can't prove anything - how convenient).

Then there is a Republican programmer saying he wrote a program to help cheat (yet not a single Republican on this board has said that they want this looked into and are all to happy to blow it off as the only excuse it could be is getting back at his old boss for firing him *though did it ever occur to you that it is possible that they fired him because he was unhappy about them wanting to use his program to cheat rather than to fight against cheating and didn't like having a dissenter onboard? Republicans sure have shown a great intolerance for dissent).

If the Republican party did cheat their way into office then whomever is shown to have complied in this should definitely go to jail for a long long time. Any Democrat that was shown to cheat should also go to jail. I beolng to no party so this isn't about partisanship - Whomever says that politicians don't lie, cheat and steal whenever they can are just closing their eyes to the truth. Quit making excuses for how it's okay for politicians to be dishonest and lets hold them to higher standards people.

Continue harping on the past whilst your opponents look foward to the next electoral beatdown. :p


Yes, lets not hold anyone accountable for cheating in the most important election in the US, if they are found to have done so. Anything in the past is stupid to dwell on. Let's not learn from our mistakes. Forget going after someone just because they were recently proven to have killed anyone 30 years ago. It's the future and the future only thast matters. Thats the black and white world of a Republican for ya, well, unless it's something a Democrat (or a liberal) did then don't ever stop taliing about it.

Yes, lets not hold anyone accountable for cheating in the most important election in the US, if they are found to have done so.

You have to prove it first.

Anything in the past is stupid to dwell on. Let's not learn from our mistakes.

Then you'll repeat the mistakes of the past. Learn from your mistakes.

Forget going after someone just because they were recently proven to have killed anyone 30 years ago. It's the future and the future only thast matters. Thats the black and white world of a Republican for ya, well, unless it's something a Democrat (or a liberal) did then don't ever stop taliing about it.

Actually, republicans seem to live in a more greyish world than the democrats do.

You have to prove it first.

:rolleyes: Don't you get it? That's what I am saying... lets look into these allegations and see if they are true. I said hold them accountable IF they had done it. Reading comprehension is your friend.




Then you'll repeat the mistakes of the past. Learn from your mistakes.

Again... Thats what I was pointing out. Reading comprehension and maybe a little critical thinking is your friend.



Actually, republicans seem to live in a more greyish world than the democrats do.

I'm generalizing there (unfairly because some Conservatives have shown to be good at looking at more than one side of an issue). The reason I am generalizing is because of statements by Republicans like (and this is just a small droplet of a much larger sea of black/white statements):

"You are either with us or against us" <- gee there you go how profound. One can't disagree with one of your policies or they are completely against you

"Continue harping on the past whilst your opponents look foward to the next electoral beatdown" <- because of course it's completely impossible to plan for the future while dealing with the past. :rolleyes:

If you Republican types don't stop dwelling on the 2000 and 2004 elections, you'll never win in 2006/2008.


8-0 <---my eyes buldging and jaw dropping.


Republicans dwell on the 2000 and 2004 elections??? :)

Things You Have To Believe To Believe Bush DIDN'T Cheat:
The only thing I have to belive in to say that President Bush didn't cheat is that if he did, our Media Services would've found out. in this era where Top Secret Memos, Documents, Secret Government Sources abound, it would've been plastered all over our News.

8-0 <---my eyes buldging and jaw dropping.


Republicans dwell on the 2000 and 2004 elections??? :)

I said "Republican types" ... not just Republicans. A huge chunk of Democrats *are* Republican types ... they're just too stubborn to notice.

Things You Have To Believe To Believe Bush DIDN'T Cheat:
The only thing I have to belive in to say that President Bush didn't cheat is that if he did, our Media Services would've found out. in this era where Top Secret Memos, Documents, Secret Government Sources abound, it would've been plastered all over our News.That is so sad. Would you have believed it if it actually came on one of the channels?
I've seen too many people doubt the secret memos leaked by the British to trust the American public to act on the truth instead of what they want to be true... :(
(And no, I don't only mean Republicans, if that's what you think)

this is very very very old. Tho you did put lots of effort into it :)
Bush def cheated first time round-not so sure about second time, but we only have 3 more years of him and then Hillary gets elected and we can return to the terrorist reduced state of infidelity.

this is very very very old. Tho you did put lots of effort into it :)
Bush def cheated first time round-not so sure about second time, but we only have 3 more years of him and then Hillary gets elected and we can return to the terrorist reduced state of infidelity.

Bush didn't even cheat the 1st time around. And if Hillary gets elected, there goes our soveriegnty and our military forces.

No, the million days that Al Gore called for a recount ended democracy in the USA. In an election it should be vote, automatic recount, plus maybe 1 or 2 requested recounts, then it is over, whoever wins wins.

It should be.
Interesting then that even the automatic recount across Florida that is required by law wasn't carried out in many counties.

In fact, the first lawsuit initiated was by Volusia County in order to get extra time beyond the 5pm deadline to complete their manual recount, after the Palm Beach commission voted 2-1 for a manual recount.

Katherine Harris said no extra time.

Florida Judge said yes.

Attorney General says it's up to the county.

Katherine Harris says no, it's not, it's up to her.

Florida Judge says counties have to submit by 5pm but can submit amended totals later. Ms. Harris can refuse to take the totals only if she uses "proper exercise of discretion"

Katherine turns in vote count totals as of 5pm Tuesday, and gives 2 heavily democratic counties until 2pm Wednesday to explain why they need extra time to turn in amendments.

She then goes to the Supreme Court of Florida and asks them to order the counties stop recounting "pending resolution as to whether any basis exists to modify the certified results"

Katherine Harris receives the letters from the counties as to why they should be allowed to finish a recount.

Gore proposes a full recount of all the counties in Florida (what should have been done in the first place).

Bush refuses.

Katherine Harris decides, that the reasons the counties have submitted are insufficient, and the only reason to allow hand recounts are natural disaster or mechanical failure.

Gore lawyers approach Florida Supreme Court saying this does not qualify as "proper exercise of discretion"

Florida Supreme Court says recounts can continue. Gives no ruling on whether recounts must be included.

Lower court judge says the law gives Harris broad powers to decide what is included and what isn't.

Katherine says results will be certified without recounts, following absentee ballots.

Florida Supreme Court says weren't you listening? We said they can continue, so you can't certify until they're done.

Bush lawyers get rejected in Federal appeals court to stop recounts.

Florida Supreme Court says that recount totals must be appended to the results before they are certified.

Bush goes to Florida court to order that several hundred overseas ballots without proper postmarks or, more importantly, signatures, be allowed.

Over the next week, a lot of confusion over who's allowed to recount what. What should be pointed out, however, is there was only ONE recount going on, it was just interrupted on multiple occasions by the legal fighting.

Katherine Harris certifies the election results, despite recounts continuing, as showing Bush winning the Flordia electoral vote by 537 total votes.

At this point, Gore's legal team challenges this result in the Supreme Court, saying that counties must be allowed to recount. Note that many counties have not recounted their votes at all at this point, nor seem to have any intention of doing so (in contravention of Florida law)

There are several suits swirling around now involving specifics of whether hand recounts are legal, ballot counting and overseas ballots. These largely revolve around G.O.P. members being allowed to add voter-ID numbers to absentee ballot votes that didn't have them, therefore making them valid. Florida courts in general rule for more inclusivity than exclusion.

The Florida Supreme Court then rules that, not only are hand recounts legal, but to be fair, hand recounts must be done in every county that has not done them, not just the selected states that Gore chose. (It should be noted that this is the recount should have been done by law in the first place)

Bush goes to the federal supreme court and asks them to reverse this decision.

The US Supreme Court, the decision split 5-4 along idealogical lines, agrees with Bush, and orders all hand recounts stopped, due to differing ballot counting methods violating the equal protection clause and due to time limitations that made establishing a common method and recount impossible. But in doing so it makes a special provision in the majority opinion, stating that the case did not set precedent in any way, and could not be used to justify any future court decision. Seen by many as a departure from the stare decisis principle, and a tacit acknowledgement by the US Supreme Court that they weren't really judging this on the law.

Of course, the really sad thing is? If the Republicans hadn't been so darned afraid, they would have granted Gore his "selective county recounts" and allowed them all the time they needed, as media agencies coming in later determined that Bush still would have won.

There are only two ways Gore could have won Florida. If the entire state had been recounted, Gore would have won according to totals by the media. This really was what should have been done by law, but never was, and neither party pressed for it. The other way would have been if all of the over-votes with clear intent (ie, two holes punched but "Gore" written across it) in those selective counties had been counted, but the Gore party never asked for that at all.

Instead, due to Republican fear, the election failed. Remember that an election isn't to determine a winner, it's so that everybody can agree on who really was the loser. As the past 5 years have shown, the 2000 election was anything but.

Conspiracy theory? Hell no. Just one corrupt individual, Katherine Harris (who is also responsible for scrubbing the voter lists of nearly 57,000 legitimate black and hispanic voters (primarily democratic demographics) based on a similarity of their names to the names of criminals, often criminals convicted in other states and having already served their sentences so allowed to vote again) who abused her authority to get in good with the Bush family. Note that the Supreme Court didn't disagree that hand recounts should be conducted across the state, but rather that the differing methods used and the time considerations made doing so impossible. The courts of Florida were essentially correct in their repeated orders that the people's right to vote was the most important thing and that every vote cast should count.

Unfortunately, corruption tends to spread, and seeing Katherine Harris being given a better position within the GOP makes me think that it has.

Now, for the 2004 election, I do believe that there was massive fraud undertaken, not necessarily by the Republican heads, but rather by their supporters in the electronic vote-counting machine business. It's just too easy, and thus tempting, especially with no paper trail, to do so. Every American should be concerned about those machines, after all, just because it's the candidate you like this time doesn't mean that some pinko programmer won't get in there next time.

Waterkeep,

The democrats brought the lawsuits first. I believe that was their downfall. It was only after the Florida Supreme Court violated Election laws by writing new election laws did Bush take it to federal court. SCOTUS really did have no choice but to end it because:

1) Florida Supreme Court violated Florida Law
2) There was no state wide standard of manuel recount
3) Florida Supreme Court changing the way a recount was done mid-stream on a constent bases.

Congratulations, you've proved you can swallow the water.
Now show me that you can research what actually happened.

How, exactly, did the Florida Supreme Court violate state law?
I never said statewide standard of manual recount. I said statewide standard of automatic recount. Even *that* wasn't done.
Provide proof that the Florida Supreme court was changing the way recounts had to be done. Every judgement I've seen has them affirming the way recounts were *already* being done, but I could have missed some. If you know them, bring them out.

I said "Republican types" ... not just Republicans. A huge chunk of Democrats *are* Republican types ... they're just too stubborn to notice.

Fair enough. I'll rephrase, (*ahem*)


8-0 <--eyes buldging and jaw dropping.


Republican types dwell on the 2000 and 2004 elections??? :)

Have you even noticed who started this thead? :)

Also, I like those bumper stickers that you may have seen. They read "The election's over. You lost. Get over it." Notice that you won't see any that say "The election's over. You won. Get over it."

I really can't see any point on discussing this particular matter any further :)

That is so sad. Would you have believed it if it actually came on one of the channels?
I've seen too many people doubt the secret memos leaked by the British to trust the American public to act on the truth instead of what they want to be true... :(
(And no, I don't only mean Republicans, if that's what you think)no not sad,
Think about it, what better investigator are there than the News Media. The public likes scandal and bad news, so if there is any evidence of Vote tampering, it would've been found out, and plastered on the news faster than... well almost as fast as the Mistreatment of the Quoran anyway.

Congratulations, you've proved you can swallow the water.
Now show me that you can research what actually happened.

How, exactly, did the Florida Supreme Court violate state law?

By changing how the recounts are done and what can count and what cant! Not to mention they overrode existing State election laws. Didn't help matters much that the Supreme Court was 6 Democrats to 1 Republican. Also, why only 170,000 votes? Why not order the hand recount to include all counties? Why the hand recount in only the ones that went Democratic? Also, there was a December deadline to meet and the recounts would've gone over that deadline.

Did you even bother read the Supreme Court's decision on the issue?

I never said statewide standard of manual recount. I said statewide standard of automatic recount. Even *that* wasn't done.

Actually it was done, however in the democratic strongholds, they did everything in their power to get Al Gore more votes but instead GWB was gaining more votes when they were doing their recounts. They had to go to court to get this done. Then they hit a brickwall when the December 12th deadline came up. Not to mention that the Florida State Supreme Court extended deadlines without legislature approval.

Provide proof that the Florida Supreme court was changing the way recounts had to be done. Every judgement I've seen has them affirming the way recounts were *already* being done, but I could have missed some. If you know them, bring them out.

I think this should be refered to a law class. There's so much info here, it'll take days if not weeks to go through all the info I'm looking at. Not to mention actually reading the rulings and petitions that were filed.

no not sad,
Think about it, what better investigator are there than the News Media. The public likes scandal and bad news, so if there is any evidence of Vote tampering, it would've been found out, and plastered on the news faster than... well almost as fast as the Mistreatment of the Quoran anyway.You put too much faith in the freedom of the press. It's less existent than you'd think. Bush has taken on Reagan-style methods of dealing with the press; if the News Media brought out stories on a frauded election, they'd never get any cooperation from the US government again (interviews, statements, etc.), whether these accusations were accurate or not.
And there's too many Americans around that don't care for what truth is unless it fits their opinion.

And if Al Gore listened to his advisors, he probably would've been. He didn't. However, SCOTUS also saw that the counties in which a recount was being done was not using one standard. Each county was recounting differently. Also, the Florida Supreme Court (6 dems to 1 rep) was changing election laws from the bench. Sorry but that is a no-no and SCOTUS called them on it. No wonder SCOTUS ended the recount. Violations of Florida Election Laws by the Florida Supreme Court, not using 1 standard for recounting votes, both things were declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Get your facts straight.What fact did I get wrong? Did the supreme court cancel the recount or did they not? If the recount was being done poorly then do it over again properly. You cannot play around with citizen's votes in a democratic country. They are sacred. They should've been recounted in the entire state.

Furthermore the popular majority wanted Al Gore for president. He did not win. Democracy died with that election as far as I'm concerned.

To bad liberals can't look forward.Labeling political views in that fashion is childish.

No, the million days that Al Gore called for a recount ended democracy in the USA. The incompetence of the vote counters in Florida or whatever department or association that was responsible is to blame for the million days. It all worked in Bush's favour. And when Katherine Harris took over Bush was a shoe in... Democracy and freedom my ass...

In an election it should be vote, automatic recount, plus maybe 1 or 2 requested recounts, then it is over, whoever wins wins. Al Gore messed it all up by setting the awful precedent that the election can still be won after all the votes are in. He believed (and convinced many other people too) that you can win an election by votes+legal action, which is wrong. No it's not what he did. And no it's not wrong. As a matter of fact that is exactly what George Bush did when he asked the US supreme court to stop the recount and they happily obliged.

Al Gore tried to cheat, and he lost. He cheated by asking for a recount when all those votes representing the state of florida were decided by a mere 500 ballots combined with all the reports of irregularities from several counties? He was searching for the truth. The supreme court gladly ended that search.

*snip*

C6,

Did you even read the Supreme Court's decision on the matter? Did you know that there is a deadline in regards to when votes have to certified by? Did you know that deadline was there?

Yes I'm aware of all that. I'm also aware that all those conditions worked in Bush's favour and that the republicans pulled all the right strings at the right time.

Yes I'm aware of all that. I'm also aware that all those conditions worked in Bush's favour and that the republicans pulled all the right strings at the right time.

No court actions would've been taken if the Gore hadn't gone to court first. That was when all the court battles began. Also, if Gore won his home state, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about something that happened nearly 5 years ago now.

I think this should be refered to a law class. There's so much info here, it'll take days if not weeks to go through all the info I'm looking at. Not to mention actually reading the rulings and petitions that were filed.

I know. Basically, it seems to come down to the fact that some people just don't know when to give up. Bush won in 2000; the partisans cried foul. Bush won in 2004; the partisans cried foul. Should a Republican win in 2008, the partisans will cry foul. Of course, when their candidate wins, it's because the people have spoken, since they're obviously the majority...

No court actions would've been taken if the Gore hadn't gone to court first. That was when all the court battles began. Also, if Gore won his home state, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about something that happened nearly 5 years ago now.


Vote tally - Bush wins. Recount - Bush wins. Recount again - Bush wins...

I suppose that if it was done enough, there might be a count that exceeds the margin of error wherein Gore beat out Bush by a vote or two... of course, that would be the REAL tally... :)

I suppose that Democrats think that none of the Democratic candidate votes were obtained through voter fraud.

Ultimately, it just comes down to the fact that no matter what happens, Democrats are not going to believe that they are this country's ideological minority. No matter how many elections they lose, it has nothing to do with what they stand for or what quality candidates they put forth--it's just that there are secret right-wing forces at work, conspiring to illegally tip the outcome in their favor.

It's really fine with me, actually. I prefer that they live in denial because if they ever came to terms with the fact that they're ideologically incompatible with this country's majority, they might be able to determine the things that are actually important to us.

I agree with you Brians Test. I agree with everything you said in both of your posts.

Even the media recount went in favor of Bush and that took place after Bush took office.

As for the Democratic Party, they need to shut up their liberal wing and kick them from their tickets and prevent them from speaking for their candidates. Some candidates don't even ask for their help anymore because they want to win and they know that if they bring in the party big wigs, they wont.

Wow. So much of the original post is based on a horrible misunderstanding of statistics.

I agree with you Brians Test. I agree with everything you said in both of your posts.

Even the media recount went in favor of Bush and that took place after Bush took office.

As for the Democratic Party, they need to shut up their liberal wing and kick them from their tickets and prevent them from speaking for their candidates. Some candidates don't even ask for their help anymore because they want to win and they know that if they bring in the party big wigs, they wont.
Yeah, that's actually what I'm hoping for. That way, we might actually be able to found a liberal party and get a third force out there...

Yeah, that's actually what I'm hoping for. That way, we might actually be able to found a liberal party and get a third force out there...

Isn't that where the Green Party comes in? :D

Yeah, that's actually what I'm hoping for. That way, we might actually be able to found a liberal party and get a third force out there...
Now that is the first thing you've said that I can SOLIDLY agree with!!

Unfortunately, until such time as a true liberal party can be established with enough power to actually capture the White House, or seats in Congress, we have to make do with supporting the Democrats, to at least keep the lesser of two evils at bay.

P.S. The Greens are NOT the answer, by the way. Sorry.

Now that is the first thing you've said that I can SOLIDLY agree with!!

Unfortunately, until such time as a true liberal party can be established with enough power to actually capture the White House, or seats in Congress, we have to make do with supporting the Democrats, to at least keep the lesser of two evils at bay.

P.S. The Greens are NOT the answer, by the way. Sorry.Muahaha! I'm not voting Democrat because I'v realized that it's a waste. Either they're not going to be in power (because as long as the President has conservative values, it's ok for him to lie and start wars needlessly) or they're not going to be liberal enough for my taste (in which case, why should they receive my support?). A decisive abandonment of the real left in the Democratic party would make it easier to turn the current bi partisan system into a liberal-conservative-ultraconservative tripartisan system.
We need a coalition system like its present in other countries.

P.S.: I actually am Green, so telling me I'm not the answer could be a bit insulting...;)

This is an article from the "St. Louis Post-Dispatch" news publication; St. Louis' #1 newspaper and newssource.

Keep in mind that these guys are probably just Republicans posing as democrats who deliberately got caught and convicted just to try to make Democrats look bad! It's all part of our vast right-wing conspiracy! mwahahahahahaaa!


Defendants guilty of vote fraud
By Michael Shaw
Of the Post-Dispatch
06/28/2005

UPDATE:

All five defendants in the vote fraud trial in East St. Louis were convicted by a jury today after five and a half hours of deliberations.

The defendants showed little response when the verdicts were displayed on an overhead projector in federal court. Defendant Sheila Thomas dabbed her eyes, but the other four stared straight ahead.

Charles Powell Jr., the head of the city's Democratic Party, three precinct committeemen and an election worker had been accused of buying votes to get prominent Democrats elected in the Nov. 2 election.

Also convicted were Democratic precinct committee members Thomas, 31, and Jesse Lewis, 56, and City Hall worker Yvette Johnson, 46. Kelvin Ellis, the city's former director of regulatory affairs, along with Thomas, Lewis and Johnson also were convicted of one count apiece of election fraud for allegedly paying at least one person to vote -- or offering to do so. Powell was never charged with that count.

Jurors set aside defense claims that the government's case was flimsy because of unreliable witnesses whose testimony often contradicted each other and, at times, was recanted.

"I respect the jury, but I am disappointed," Ellis' attorney, John O'Gara, said after the verdicts.

O'Gara said the defense attorneys would consider asking for a new trial.

"I would say jurors looked at these tapes and listened to them, and I'm guessing they are using the interpretations these very faulty witnesses gave them to reach their conclusion," O'Gara added. "I would not have trusted the government's presentation."

Ron Tenpas, the U.S. attorney for southern Illinois, applauded the jury's conclusion that "we put together a well-founded case."

"We're not in the business of having ourselves validated," Tenpas said. "We think what the verdict represents is that -- in the judgment of 12 impartial citizens -- when all the evidence is put together we made a strong case."

A date for sentencing was not immediately set.

The Associated Press contributed information for this story.

For later developments, check back with STLtoday.com or read Thursday's Post-Dispatch.

Vote tally - Bush wins. Recount - Bush wins. Recount again - Bush wins...If the recount wasn't completed properly statewide in conformity with the law, what the fuck are you basing that on?

Bush lost the popular vote, the majority of Americans wanted Al Gore as president. He was handed sweeping duties at the whitehouse due to a flaw in your system.

No court actions would've been taken if the Gore hadn't gone to court first. That was when all the court battles began. Also, if Gore won his home state, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about something that happened nearly 5 years ago now.Did Bush win his home state against Kerry? If the united states of america had elected their president with a system that actually represented the population correctly then you might say we wouldn't be sitting here talking about something that happened nearly 5 years ago now.

If the recount wasn't completed properly statewide in conformity with the law, what the fuck are you basing that on?

So you say...

Bush lost the popular vote, the majority of Americans wanted Al Gore as president. He was handed sweeping duties at the whitehouse due to a flaw in your system.

It would only be a flaw if the system was designed to let the candidate with the highest popular vote win.

Did Bush win his home state against Kerry?

Um, actually yes. :D lol What's up?

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Brians Test. But Canada6, he's right, the system, for better or worse, is based on electoral college votes, not an overall popular vote. The popular result is, if not irrelevant, then certainly of little immediate bearing to the overall result's legality.

Original Quote:
Perhaps more ridiculous about this source is that PERRY COUNTY, FLORIDA DOES NOT EXIST. 124% of 0 voters from the non-existent Perry County Florida voted in the 2004 elections.


My response:
Quite true. Perry County, FLORIDA...does not exist. This refers to Perry County, OHIO!! There is a Miami county in OHIO, too, go look it up. Did you assume that because the county was named "MIAMI" that it was in Florida??

Thanks for playing. Just goes to show how much ACTUAL research you did. You just engaged yourself in the conclusion jump! Perry and Miami Counties that were referred to in my source material were both counties in OHIO....not Florida.

lol :D awesome :)

So anyway we were talking about Florida and Ohio and I was confused which one you were referring to. Whateveranyway you didn't respond to anything I wrote which leads me to believe that you have no answer. I know you have the time, because you wrote out this and another massive thread. So what's up?

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Brians Test. But Canada6, he's right, the system, for better or worse, is based on electoral college votes, not an overall popular vote. The popular result is, if not irrelevant, then certainly of little immediate bearing to the overall result's legality.

Miracles do happen...







































...if you believe!!! :cool:

I dont think they cheated. I'm sure Jeb bush did his best to count the votes accurately. And if he was having trouble counting he could have always got his dad to help.

It would only be a flaw if the system was designed to let the candidate with the highest popular vote win.Eureka! You've discovered democracy.

Um, actually yes. :D lol What's up?Connecticut? I think not...

Connecticut? I think not...

You had written, "Did Bush win his home state against Kerry?" Maybe French is your first language, but you asked if Bush won Bush's state, to which the answer is yes. If you meant to ask "Did Bush win Kerry's home state against him?" Then the answer would be no, Kerry won his home state.


Also, for clarification, John Kerry is from Massachutses, not Connecticut.

Bush lost the popular vote, the majority of Americans wanted Al Gore as president. He was handed sweeping duties at the whitehouse due to a flaw in your system.

Candidates run their campaigns knowing that they have to win the most electoral votes. Voters vote differently depending on whether they live in a "swing state" or not. In other words, the electoral college system itself exerts an influence on the overall popular vote, and it's impossible for you or anyone else to say who would have won the popular vote if that influence had been taken away in 2000.

Excuse me...

You mentioned Al Gore not having won his home state... Tennessee. He didn't.
I mentioned Bush not having won his home state vs Kerry... as in the 2004 elections... He did not. Bush' home state is Connecticut.

You had written, "Did Bush win his home state against Kerry?" Maybe French is your first language, but you asked if Bush won Bush's state, to which the answer is yes. If you meant to ask "Did Bush win Kerry's home state against him?" Then the answer would be no, Kerry won his home state.


Also, for clarification, John Kerry is from Massachutses, not Connecticut.

Actually, C6 is kind of right. Bush was born in Connecticut. Of course, if C6 knows this, I would expect he also knows that Kerry lost his "home state" of Colorado.

The popular result is, if not irrelevant, then certainly of little immediate bearing to the overall result's legality.Legality no but democratic legitimacy yes.

And if Al Gore listened to his advisors, he probably would've been. He didn't. However, SCOTUS also saw that the counties in which a recount was being done was not using one standard. Each county was recounting differently. Also, the Florida Supreme Court (6 dems to 1 rep) was changing election laws from the bench. Sorry but that is a no-no and SCOTUS called them on it. No wonder SCOTUS ended the recount. Violations of Florida Election Laws by the Florida Supreme Court, not using 1 standard for recounting votes, both things were declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Get your facts straight.
Black, Kettle. Kettle, Black.
YOU should be reprimanding in such a fashion, Corny. :rolleyes:

Your murder analogy is false because circumstantial evidence is almost never admissible in court.
Circumstantial evidence is admissible in court. Most evidence is circumstantial, in fact. (Actually, one could argue that all evidence is circumstantial, short of an admission in open court.)

Excuse me...

You mentioned Al Gore not having won his home state... Tennessee. He didn't.

That is what I said! LOL

I mentioned Bush not having won his home state vs Kerry... as in the 2004 elections... He did not. Bush' home state is Connecticut.

But he did win his home state. We're not talking birth state. We're talking state that he resided in when elected. That being Texas so yes he did! :D

Just like my homestate is PA though I wasn't born here. I was actually born in California, then moved to Colorado, then Missouri before being stuck here in PA.

That is what I said! LOLYes I know. I was only stating it again for context.

If you present enough evidence to convince a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, then you win your case. that is the way the American court system works...or is supposed to work, anyway.

The evidence I presented, while some of it is circumstantial and anectodal in nature...a lot of it is also documented and verifyable fact. I think there is enough documented and verifyable fact to lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that there was most definitely some malfeasance in both the 2000 and the 2004 elections, though the iron-clad proof (a paper trail) will never present itself, because it doesn't exist (convenient, isn't it?)

Certainly, there is enough documented, and verifyable evidence to lead a reasonable person to at least want to have another look at everything, and for a court to at least rule that there was probable cause to suppose malfeasance occurred, and to thus move the matter to trial. That is always the first step, is the preliminary.

And in a pre-trial hearing, or arraignment, circumstantial evidence IS admissible, and frequently is used. At that point, all a prosecutor seeks to do is to convince a judge that probable cause exists for the matter to move to trial. That is where the more substantive evidence is then presented.

A good prosecutor is not going to lay out all of his cards at the preliminary trial, and neither am I. Right now, I seek only to have a reasonable person determine that probable cause exists to suppose that malfeasance occurred, and that it should therefore warrant further investigation, to determine if it did...and if so, to what scope...and what effect did it have, assuming it occurred?

With what I presented...are YOU convinced that this at least warrants further investigation? If so, I already won the preliminary. And that was my only objective here.

I am just one person, and I doubt I could prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that malfeasance occurred. All I want to do is to raise the American conciousness to the very real possibility that it did occur. and to thus cause the matter to be investigated further.

I am not out to indict George Bush just yet. And, I agree, what I have presented so far does not equal an open-and-shut case. But it does, I believe, if you look at it in an unbiased way...at least provide for probable cause to believe malfeasance occurred, and thus warrants further investigation.

Don't take my word for it, or believe anything I say...investigate it for yourself! See if you come to the same conclusion I have! Alll I want is to make the American public AWARE. The problem is...the Corporate Media has a direct vested interest in keeping the public UNAWARE of the very things I have brought to light in this posting. Which is why many people did not know a lot of the things I posted.

In fact, some of what I presented was new information even to ME!!

Well, I think what you have here at best is something for a prosecutor to investigate. You don't have nearly the kind of evidence that you would need for an indictment against a drug dealer, much less the president of the United States. And to be honest, you don't have the kind of evidence that is going to get any D.A. in the country excited about possibly ending their career in politics right now. Basically, you've got nothing, just a bunch of could-be's and why's-that's that go nowhere far. You're basically working on the level of Intelligent Design theory. I'm not saying that nothing was going on, but nothing is going to happen about it until someone comes up with some much more compelling evidence.

But he did win his home state. We're not talking birth state. We're talking state that he resided in when elected. That being Texas so yes he did! :D


Funny thing is, that's Dick Cheney's home state too.

Neverminding the fact that two people from the same state cannot serve as President and Vice President ...

*coff*illegal presidency*coff*

Nobody pushed it that hard for some reason, though. Dick Cheney had been living in TX for 20 years, but it's not considered his state of residency because his voter registration was in Wyoming (or somesuch)?

I think I need to re-examine the definition of "residency".

Funny thing is, that's Dick Cheney's home state too.

Neverminding the fact that two people from the same state cannot serve as President and Vice President ...

*coff*illegal presidency*coff*

Nobody pushed it that hard for some reason, though. Dick Cheney had been living in TX for 20 years, but it's not considered his state of residency because his voter registration was in Wyoming (or somesuch)?LOL I see. I guess if one were to carefully analyze the current status of democracy in America... "The shit piles up so fast you need wings just to stay above it" Cpt. Willard in Apocalypse Now.

My thanks to Project Censored for all this...

1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.

Historical Fact: High turnout favors Democrats and more liberal-left candidates because the groups who participate the least and most sporadically in voting are from lower socio-economic groups who generally eschew more conservative candidates.

2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.5 million vote surplus nationally.

Documented Fact: Seventeen percent of election 2004 voters did not vote in 2000. This includes both first-time and lapsed voters. Kerry defeated Bush in this group 54 percent to 45 percent. (Katharine Q. Seelye, "Moral Values Cited as a Defining Issue of the Election," The New York Times, November 4, 2004). This data contradicts the widely held belief that Bush owes his victory to mobilizing conservative evangelicals and getting out the Republican base.

3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties, merely shows Floridians’ enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this despite the fact that his share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points.

documented Fact: Gore carried the 2000 Florida Independent vote by only 47 to 46 percent whereas Kerry carried them by a 57 percent to 41 percent margin. In 2000 Bush received 13% of the registered Democratic voters votes and in 2004 he got the virtually statistically identical 14% of their votes. Sam Parry, "Bush's 'Incredible' Vote Tallies," Consortiumnews.com, November 9, 2004.

4) Florida’s reporting of more presidential votes (7.59 million) than actual number of people who voted (7.35 million), a surplus of 237,522 votes, does not indicate fraud.

Documented Fact: See Colin Shea's analysis: "In one county, where 88% of voters are registered Democrats, Bush got nearly two-thirds of the vote--three times more than predicted by my model. In 21 counties, more than 50% of Democrats would have to have defected to Bush to account for the county result; in four counties at least 70% would have been required. These results are absurdly unlikely." http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.asp?id=321


5) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as 8%, do not indicate a rigged election.

Documented Fact: "Certified reports from pro-Kerry Cleveland, in Cuyahoga County, showed 5 precincts with turnouts of as few as 22.31 percent (precinct 6B), 21.43 percent (13O), 20.07 percent (13F), 14.59 percent (13D), and 7.85 percent (6C) of the registered voters. Thousands of people in these precincts lined up for many hours in the rain in order, it would appear, not to vote.

"Meanwhile, in pro-Bush Perry County, the voting records certified by Secretary of State Blackwell included two precincts with reported turnouts of 124.4 and 124.0 percent of the registered voters, while in pro-Bush Miami County, there were precincts whose certified turnouts, if not physically impossible, were only slightly less improbable. These and other instances of implausibly high turnouts in precincts won by Bush, and implausibly low turnouts in precincts won by Kerry, are strongly suggestive of widespread tampering with the vote-tabulation processes." Michael Keefe, "The Strange Death of American Democracy: Endgame in Ohio," http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE501A.html


6) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time in history this has happened. Truman has been cited as having also done this, but Truman’s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two months before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush’s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.

Documented Fact: Bush's job approval has slipped to 48% among national adults and is thus below the symbolically important 50% point." "Questions and Answers With the Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, Editor in Chief, The Gallup Poll, November 2, 2004, http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13948&pg=1


7) Harris' last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong (even though Harris was exactly on the mark in their 2000 election final poll).

Documented Fact: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=515 , dated November 2, 2004, retrieved on June 1, 2005: " Both surveys suggest that Kerry has been making some gains over the course of the past few days (see Harris Polls #83 http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=512 , and #78 http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=507 ). If this trend is real, then Kerry may actually do better than these numbers suggest. In the past, presidential challengers tend to do better against an incumbent President among the undecided voters during the last three days of the elections, and that appears to be the case here. The reason: undecided voters are more often voters who dislike the President but do not know the challenger well enough to make a decision. When they decide, they frequently split 2:1 to 4:1 for the challenger." For Harris' last minute poll results before the 2000 election, see http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=130 , dated November 6, 2000 in which they call the election between Bush and Gore too close to call and predict that the result will depend upon the turnout.


8) The “challenger rule” - an incumbent’s final results won’t be better than his final polling - was wrong;

Documented Fact: As Gallup explains, challengers tend to get the votes of those saying they are undecided on the eve of an election: "ased on an analysis of previous presidential and other elections there is a high probability that the challenger (in an incumbent race) will receive a higher percentage of the popular vote than he did in the last pre-election poll, while there is a high probability that the incumbent will maintain his share of the vote without any increase. This has been dubbed the 'challenger rule.' There are various explanations for why this may occur, including the theory that any voter who maintains that he or she is undecided about voting for a well-known incumbent this late in the game is probably leaning toward voting for the challenger." "Questions and Answers With the Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, Editor in Chief, The Gallup Poll, November 2, 2004, http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13948&pg=1


9) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.


10) The fact that Bush “won” Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn’t cast any suspicion upon the official tally.

Documented Fact: Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman, "Ohio's Official Non-Recount Ends amidst New Evidence of Fraud, Theft and Judicial Contempt Mirrored in New Mexico, The Columbus Free Press
31 December 31, 2004, at http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1057

POSSIBLY THE MOST DAMNING BIT YET...
11) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush’s 1994 running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the initial impression that he was creating this software in order to forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: “You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida.”

Documented Fact: Curtis states in his affidavit that he met in the fall of 2000 with the principals of Yang Enterprises, Inc., - Li Woan Yang., Mike Cohen, and Tom Feeney (chief counsel and lobbyist for YEI). Feeney became Florida's House Speaker a month after meeting with Curtis. Curtis says that he initially thought he was being asked to make such a program in order to prevent voter fraud. Upon creating the program and presenting it to Yang, he discovered that they were interested in committing fraud, not preventing it. Curtis goes on to say: "She stated that she would hand in what I had produced to Feeney and left the room with the software." As the police would say, what we have here is motive and opportunity - and an abundance of evidence of criminal fraud in the Florida vote, together with Feeney's intimate connection to Jeb Bush. Curtis, on the other hand, as a life-long registered Republican - as of these events at least - has no discernible motive to come forward with these allegations, and only shows courage for the risk to himself by doing so. For his full affidavit, see
http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2004/12/affidavit-of-vote-fraud-software.html#110243131597922449


12) Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s declaration in a August 14, 2003 letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn’t result in any fraud by Diebold.


13) There was no fraud in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where the number of recorded votes was more than 93,000 larger than the number of registered voters [b]and where they admitted counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to count.


14) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents - were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically impossible.

Documented Fact: Michael Keefer, "Footprints of Electoral Fraud: The November 2 Exit Poll Scam," http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411A.html


15) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections, paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very wrong.

Historical Fact (and take NOTE OF THIS!!) In the Ukraine, as a result of the exit polls' variance from the official tally, they had a revote. In the U.S., despite the exit polls varying widely from the official tally, we had an inauguration!


16) The National Election Pool’s exit polls were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.


17) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong.


18) It must be merely a stunning coincidence that exit polls were wrong only in precincts where there was no paper ballot to check against the electronic totals and right everywhere there was a paper trail.

Now what do you think??
1) Largely irrelevant, and I suspect historical in this case means after Kennedy.

2) A lot of people voted for Gore because he was Clinton's legacy and the 90's were good to the US as a whole. They had no such impetus to vote for Kerry.

3) Shall we discuss vote fraud that occured along the same vein in Wisconsin and in Illinois. How about the lady who paid the guy to falsely register doemocrat voters with crack? SOP by both sides. Just because the Republicans appear better at it doesn't give you leave to bitch.

4) *sighs* "Registered" democrat is largely irrelevant to determining someones true political stripes, especially in the southeast. In fact if you were to go in person and ask them if they voted Republican in the national election they would probably say yes. OTOH, their votes for local elections probably tend to be democrat.

5) Sooo, let me get this straight, Bush was somehow able to sabotage an entire county's voting activites, even though it was set up entirely by democrats for democrats? Riiiight, how's that tinfoil hat coming along?


6) Considering the underhanded sniping by various faces in the media *cough*Dan Rather*cough* and highly inaccurate polling leading up to the election it's no surprise. Also, the asshat's wrong. Leading up to November Bush tended to be above Kerry in the polls. On November 1st. the polls were deadlocked.

CNN/USA/Gallup(1573 LV) TIE - http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm


FOX News (1200 LV) TIE - http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/103104_poll.pdf


Reuters/Zogby (1203 LV) TIE - http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6667679


ARG (1258 LV) [admittedly a bad source] TIE - http://americanresearchgroup.com/presballot/

ABC/Wash Post (2047 LV)** TIE - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6367631/site/newsweek/

A number of polls showed bush with a slight lead at that time

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html


7) *shrugs* That which was true last year may not be true this year, especially in something as volatile as the 2004 election.


8) This is like saying that because nobody ever won the Tour De France 7 times in a row that it couldn't be done. Before Lance Armstrong, this was true. Now, it's not.


9)If I remeber correctly they overpolled females in these polls early in the day, which means it was not a statistically significant poll. Also, isn't this the opposite attitude about trends as found in number 8?


10) Depends on how you broke those groups down. If you were to split the provisional and absentee ballots into seperate groups I would be willing to bet that the absentee votes were heavily in favor of Bush and the provisional (ie questionable) votes in favor of Kerry. Given that they were in groups that were different from the main voters it follows that they might be different in their composition.


11) Where's a copy of the program he supposedly created? It is highly unlikely that he would have erased all of the code of the program from his computer before handing a copy to his boss, which means either he's lying about what they said, or he decided evidence of the fact wasn't important enough to keep. This is especially true considering that if something were to go wrong with the program they would come back to him to figure out what went wrong and that is generally easier if you have all of your notes on the source code to work with.

12)Irrelevant really.

13)Tinfoil hats for all! Sorry to disabuse you of your crazyness boyo, but here're the facts of the matter.

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20638/

In Ohio – where Bush's margin of victory was 136,000 – much organizing has been conducted by activists who question the final tally. As of yet, there have been no statistical studies of Ohio similar to the Berkeley paper. But e-mailers have zapped around a chart that supposedly shows 93,000 "extra" votes were cast in various municipalities in Cuyahoga County – that is, these areas listed more votes than registered voters. As I've reported earlier, county elections officials have what sounds like a good explanation for this. They claim their software has an odd glitch that assigns absentee ballots for a group of municipalities to one of the municipalities in the group. Consequently, on the spreadsheet posted by the elections office a particular municipality can end up showing more votes than registered voters. Cuyahoga elections officials – who work in an office run by a Democrat – insist there were no "extra" votes.


14) Dunno, ask CNN and the exit pollers themselves. Don't you go on to bitch about how the polls are always right?


15) This assumes that the exit pollers are impartial for one, something that is not true when it came to the last election in america. As for b] the differentiation in the exit polls with the official tally was much wider there and there was a hell of a lot more support for it.


16) As noted before, for a statistic to be reliable it must be impartial. Very very few people were impartial in this last election. Hmm, I'm sensing a common thread here.


17) Quite simple. If the pollsters were favoring Kerry it explains the discrepancy perfectly. As in pro-Kerry areas they would overstate Kerry's lead so in pro-Bush areas would they understate Bush votes.


18)Dunno, don't pretend to know.








Now, all that being said the voting system in the US needs a complete overhaul, mainly because fraud is rampant throughout both sides.

Excuse me...

You mentioned Al Gore not having won his home state... Tennessee. He didn't.
I mentioned Bush not having won his home state vs Kerry... as in the 2004 elections... He did not. Bush' home state is Connecticut.


Wow. :eek: --and you say it with attitude! :D

Circumstantial evidence is admissible in court. Most evidence is circumstantial, in fact. (Actually, one could argue that all evidence is circumstantial, short of an admission in open court.)

I'm not sure how the argument that all evidence is circumstantial would go.

Nonetheless, JB is right that circumstantial evidence is completely legitimate. Defendants with weak cases kick and scream about how the evidence against them is merely circumstantial to create an image in the jury's minds of a shoody case by the prosecution.

I'm not sure how the argument that all evidence is circumstantial would go.

Nonetheless, JB is right that circumstantial evidence is completely legitimate. Defendants with weak cases kick and scream about how the evidence against them is merely circumstantial to create an image in the jury's minds of a shoody case by the prosecution.

To bad the jury didn't think so in the Scott Peterson case. Most of the evidence brought by the Prosecution was indeed circumstancial evidence. But that is a different story and I'm not about to hijack the thread.

Funny thing is, that's Dick Cheney's home state too.

Neverminding the fact that two people from the same state cannot serve as President and Vice President ...

*coff*illegal presidency*coff*

Nobody pushed it that hard for some reason, though. Dick Cheney had been living in TX for 20 years, but it's not considered his state of residency because his voter registration was in Wyoming (or somesuch)?

I think I need to re-examine the definition of "residency".

You're absolutely right.

To bad the jury didn't think so in the Scott Peterson case. Most of the evidence brought by the Prosecution was indeed circumstancial evidence. But that is a different story and I'm not about to hijack the thread.

I think you didn't understand, but I see no point in going into it because I agree that this isn't really the thread to discuss it.

Is it just me or is this thread dying out?

Is it just me or is this thread dying out?

It's because whatever you thing of this shit, it's old, and almost none of it suggests ways of improving the voting system so that reasonable people won't have a reason to worry.

The one thing we should all be able to agree on is that we need a paper trail. We also can agree that there are jerks, criminals and idiots everywhere. That's who we should all be partisan against. Unfortunately, we get to distracted with incidental crap.

Who is with me! Let's found the Anti-Idiot Party!

It's because whatever you thing of this shit, it's old, and almost none of it suggests ways of improving the voting system so that reasonable people won't have a reason to worry.

The one thing we should all be able to agree on is that we need a paper trail. We also can agree that there are jerks, criminals and idiots everywhere. That's who we should all be partisan against. Unfortunately, we get to distracted with incidental crap.

Who is with me! Let's found the Anti-Idiot Party!

I'll second that but how do we make sure that idiots don't join our party? :D

Who is with me! Let's found the Anti-Idiot Party!What happens when you run out of idiots? :D That sounds to me like a strange concept. You will eventually require the existence of idiots in order to justify your presence. That will eventually lead the anti-idiot party into a situation where it will need to produce it's own idiots in order to survive, thus creating a paradox and contradicting the Anti-idiot's party's founding purpose.

I'll second that but how do we make sure that idiots don't join our party? :D

If they argue about science without knowing the scientific method, they're out. If they argue about religion without having studied religious texts/philosophy, they're out. If they do something harmful because a videogame/movie/song told them to do it, they're out. If they feed their children fast food more than twice a week on average, they're out. If they live in animal feces, they are so gone. If they have ever found themselves enjoying a Jessica Simpson song, they are booted right out. If they make a practice of saying "liberals all..." or "conservatives all..." or even "left-handed Mormon tattoo artists of Aboriginal descent all..." they are encouraged to leave the building by the nearest window.

Any other suggestions? Perhaps we should move this to a new thread.

What happens when you run out of idiots? :D That sounds to me like a strange concept. You will eventually require the existence of idiots in order to justify your presence. That will eventually lead the anti-idiot party into a situation where it will need to produce it's own idiots in order to survive, thus creating a paradox and contradicting the Anti-idiot's party's founding purpose.

2 things: 1. The supply of idiots is nearly infinite. 2. The stated goal of the Anti-Idiot party is for there to no longer be a need for the Anti-Idiot party. Only an idiot needs to sabotage their goals simply to justify their own existance.

If they argue about science without knowing the scientific method, they're out. If they argue about religion without having studied religious texts/philosophy, they're out. If they do something harmful because a videogame/movie/song told them to do it, they're out. If they feed their children fast food more than twice a week on average, they're out. If they live in animal feces, they are so gone. If they have ever found themselves enjoying a Jessica Simpson song, they are booted right out. If they make a practice of saying "liberals all..." or "conservatives all..." or even "left-handed Mormon tattoo artists of Aboriginal descent all..." they are encouraged to leave the building by the nearest window.

No other suggestions but maybe then we should have seats in the NS General Assembly :D

Any other suggestions? Perhaps we should move this to a new thread.

I second the motion to move it to a new thread and I call the question!

I'm not sure how the argument that all evidence is circumstantial would go.
.
Well, basically the point is that circumstantial evidence merely points to an essential factual element, and doesn't conclusively prove it. An eyewitness, for example, could well be considered circumstantial. We only know what the witness saw (or, more accurately, what they say they saw), not what actually happens. I'm sure I don't need to list a ton of examples of how people can see, or claim to see, things that don't exist or did not happen.

Well, basically the point is that circumstantial evidence merely points to an essential factual element, and doesn't conclusively prove it. An eyewitness, for example, could well be considered circumstantial. We only know what the witness saw (or, more accurately, what they say they saw), not what actually happens. I'm sure I don't need to list a ton of examples of how people can see, or claim to see, things that don't exist or did not happen.

I think an eyewitness' testimony would actually be considered direct evidence.

http://www.thelegaldictionary.com/legal-term-details/Direct-Evidence

I don't have a Black's law dictionary in reach, but I suspect it would back me up as well.

Edit: Actually, the following definitions are obviously more precise. They still support my premise.

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=ef/ef86e306d705d5b4b1b0a3ea596690d2

Circumstantial evidence: The bloody shoe print matches the defendant's she size and shoe style he was wearing on the day of the murder.

Direct evidence: A video tape of the defendant murdering the victim.

I think an eyewitness' testimony would actually be considered direct evidence.

http://www.thelegaldictionary.com/legal-term-details/Direct-Evidence

I don't have a Black's law dictionary in reach, but I suspect it would back me up as well.
Well, I know the standard definition. My point is that I think it's a rather artificial distinction. But then, such is language. In practice, however, there is no real distinction between eyewitness testimony and certain kinds of circumstantial evidence. One may be more probative than the other, but ultimately it's a spectrum and not a set of catergories. For example, the fact that the accused had a gun that matched the one used in the murder and left the house minutes before the murder would be circumstantial evidence, but would be more probative than the eyewitness testimony of a guy who was on peyote at the time of the murder.

Before Corneliu auto-proclaimes himself General Secretary of the Anti-idiot party, I would like to bring up the matter of global warming. There is a consensus among the international scientific communty that human interference has altered the process significantly. I doubt that given your past stances on this matter that you Corneliu would apply for the anti-idiot party. No offense. :D

Well, I know the standard definition. My point is that I think it's a rather artificial distinction. But then, such is language. In practice, however, there is no real distinction between eyewitness testimony and certain kinds of circumstantial evidence. One may be more probative than the other, but ultimately it's a spectrum and not a set of catergories. For example, the fact that the accused had a gun that matched the one used in the murder and left the house minutes before the murder would be circumstantial evidence, but would be more probative than the eyewitness testimony of a guy who was on peyote at the time of the murder.

You're definitely honing your ability to b.s.; consider that a compliment :)

You're definitely honing your ability to b.s.; consider that a compliment :)
Law school has to have been good for something, right? :)

Now what do you think??
You should stop posting garbage emails from your I hate America daily email subscription, thats what.