NationStates Jolt Archive

You all know the drill.

He did and it's over.

He did and it's over.

Im just interested in seeing how many republicans will admit it :p

g30rg3 bu5h h4x0r3d t3h 3l3c710n5. :sniper:

... what no debate?
Gee i guess this is something we all agree on.
...
APOCALYPSE SIGN I

When I first read this I thought, "Wait, how could he steal two thousand elections? ...Oh!"

I felt stupid :(

When I first read this I thought, "Wait, how could he steal two thousand elections? ...Oh!"

I felt stupid :(

So you should. :p

When I first read this I thought, "Wait, how could he steal two thousand elections? ...Oh!"

I felt stupid :(
With a very big crane. *nods*

Lol, ah well, can't win them all.

Long time ago, but yes he did.
What killed me back then and kills me right now is how all those people claim that the right to own guns is meant to be a protection in case a tyranical, unelected government seizes power.... *lol

Who only knows? How can anyone expect to know ever again who really won a Presidential election while the system is hopelessly compromised by black box voting. Free and fair elections are a thing of the past in the US... I only hope they are also a thing of the future, but right now, that doesnt seem likely.

The whole reason why Things happen is so that we don't have to talk about events six years ago.

Talk about something new, lest ye anger the Great Happening of Things!

Strangly election rigging is a pretty big deal to some people

Strangly election rigging is a pretty big deal to some people
Who'd've thunk it?!

Old news. Learn from it. Move on.

Help!
I'm trapped in the NS version of Groundhog Day!

Every day I wake up and there's a "Bush stole the 2000 election" thread on NS. What can I do to get out of this?

Old news. Learn from it. Move on.
No it isnt old news, it's ongoing news. Ignoring things is not a good way to learn from them...at that rate we're more likely to fall back than move on.

Where's the "No, he didn't. The Dems sound like whiny SoreLoser(man)s and are hurting themselves with this BS. (Independent)" option?

When I first read this I thought, "Wait, how could he steal two thousand elections? ...Oh!"

I felt stupid :(

Heh.. I read it as "electrons".

Which made me wonder who he stole them from and where did he keep them?

Help!
I'm trapped in the NS version of Groundhog Day!

Every day I wake up and there's a "Bush stole the 2000 election" thread on NS. What can I do to get out of this?

Kill Bush, obviously. Then every day you'll wake up to a 'Bush got pwned' thread.

Of course he did.

He won, the world lost.:mad:

Trilby63;11806737']Heh.. I read it as "electrons".

Which made me wonder who he stole them from and where did he keep them?

He keeps them in a box under his bed, together with the missing link and the third part of the Bible trilogy: The Last Testament.

Where's the "No, he didn't. The Dems sound like whiny SoreLoser(man)s and are hurting themselves with this BS. (Independent)" option?

That's under the 'closet Republican' category.:)

He keeps them in a box under his bed, together with the missing link and the third part of the Bible trilogy: The Last Testament.

The Last Testament? You mean the couldn't come up with an original name for the thing?

Trilby63;11806759']The Last Testament? You mean the couldn't come up with an original name for the thing?

Nothing that George Lucas didn't already have a copyright for. :(

I truly believe this is why democrats haven't mounted a decent effort yet at retaking the presidency. Seriously, who is going to vote for a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

There are real things to complain about regarding George Bush that don't require one to forget the facts. Fact: The contested counties were Democratic Counties (no coincidence - no point in trying to up the vote count in counties where it will just mean more Republican votes). Fact: It was a ballot used in many Democratic counties across the country, including the one I voted in. Fact: It was a paper ballot chosen by Democrats so it would be a bit of miracle if somehow Republicans 'rigged it' as has been repeatedly stated by Democrats for 6 years. Fact: None of the recounts ever suggested Gore won. Fact: GWB sucks as president.

Stick with the facts and leave the sour grapes in the supermarket. Bush got us involved in a morass. He's failed in dozens of ways as a leader and president. Stop whining about how he got there and start attacking him on his record. Isn't it time?

I truly believe this is why democrats haven't mounted a decent effort yet at retaking the presidency. Seriously, who is going to vote for a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

There are real things to complain about regarding George Bush that don't require one to forget the facts. Fact: The contested counties were Democratic Counties (no coincidence - no point in trying to up the vote count in counties where it will just mean more Republican votes). Fact: It was a ballot used in many Democratic counties across the country, including the one I voted in. Fact: It was a paper ballot chosen by Democrats so it would be a bit of miracle if somehow Republicans 'rigged it' as has been repeatedly stated by Democrats for 6 years. Fact: None of the recounts ever suggested Gore won. Fact: GWB sucks as president.

Stick with the facts and leave the sour grapes in the supermarket. Bush got us involved in a morass. He's failed in dozens of ways as a leader and president. Stop whining about how he got there and start attacking him on his record. Isn't it time?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1112505.stm
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html

He won for sure, eh?

Nothing that George Lucas didn't already have a copyright for. :(

They weren't seroiusly considering calling it " The J-man Strikes Back" were they?

Stick with the facts and leave the sour grapes in the supermarket. Bush got us involved in a morass. He's failed in dozens of ways as a leader and president. Stop whining about how he got there and start attacking him on his record. Isn't it time?

I could agree more. And while we're out it, lets get a democrat house and senate to make sure he can't to to much more harm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1112505.stm
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html

He won for sure, eh?

You mean people are upset about the 2000 election? Really? I guess I didn't realize. I thought this thread was about blue jeans. What do you think you're proving? Nothing. There is no actual evidence that what happened was intentional. No evidence at all. What I saw in FL where I was living at the time was that there was a hundred levels of collossal incompetence by nearly everyone involved in that debacle. You choose to focus on Republican errors, but if we're erasing errors then we have to erase all of the errors and then you have a state that elected his brother as governor and is strongly Republican or was at the time. When a Republican state that supports his family goes to GWB, it's not a conspiracy, it's a likely outcome.

Yes, he won for sure. Keep pulling at that thread. It worked for Kerry. Oh, wait.

You all know the drill.

2000? Really? I'd have thought two would have been enough...:p

I could agree more. And while we're out it, lets get a democrat house and senate to make sure he can't to to much more harm

Yes, exactly. Unfortunately the people of FL are hardly going to get behind candidates that keep telling them they belong to a conspiracy to get GWB elected. And the people are tired of politics as usual so Democrats need to get back to their base.

You mean people are upset about the 2000 election? Really? I guess I didn't realize. I thought this thread was about blue jeans. What do you think you're proving? Nothing. There is no actual evidence that what happened was intentional. No evidence at all. What I saw in FL where I was living at the time was that there was a hundred levels of collossal incompetence by nearly everyone involved in that debacle. You choose to focus on Republican errors, but if we're erasing errors then we have to erase all of the errors and then you have a state that elected his brother as governor and is strongly Republican or was at the time. When a Republican state that supports his family goes to GWB, it's not a conspiracy, it's a likely outcome.

Right. So the blockades that scream "Jim Crow" at the top of their lungs and the fucked up felons list that was un-checked before it got put into play, which disenfranchised African American voters throughout Florida were just "mistakes".

Fuck that. :rolleyes:

Wow, now a whole thread is time warping back from 6 years ago. Jolt is fucked.....oh wait.

Wow, now a whole thread is time warping back from 6 years ago. Jolt is fucked.....oh wait.

That sentiment is probably 6 years old as well.

Their poor hamster just keeps having heart attacks.

Trilby63;11806759']The Last Testament? You mean the couldn't come up with an original name for the thing?
As if, it's a second sequal, at this point we're just in it for the money....er sorry souls....

Right. So the blockades that scream "Jim Crow" at the top of their lungs and the fucked up felons list that was un-checked before it got put into play, which disenfranchised African American voters throughout Florida were just "mistakes".

Fuck that. :rolleyes:

Okay, let's play that game. Then in this vast conspiracy we must, of course, implicate the people who prevented overseas votes from being counted, votes that go heavily to Republicans, votes of American soldiers. We must implicate the news for announcing the election results in FL early causing people in the heavily Republican panhandle to go home. We must implicate the Democratic counties for using a confusing ballot. We must implicate Gore and Kerry for running crappy campaigns. We must implicate everyone involved for their role in the current state of things, in their role for disenfranchising voters, for their role in preventing votes from counting, and most importantly their role in preventing the American public for making an educated decision on their elected officials.

I notice that the sour grapes in the group only want to complain about the results they don't like. Either it's all a problem or none of it is.

I truly believe this is why democrats haven't mounted a decent effort yet at retaking the presidency. Seriously, who is going to vote for a bunch of conspiracy theorists.
Mmm, you might have a point. I mean maybe it's somehow really silly to suspect that people might collude in secret for gain or profit...

I guess the rationale for such a conclusion would be perhaps that people never work with at least one other person to achieve nefarious gains....or that if they did, they sure as heck wouldnt keep it a secret, or maybe doing something a bit naughty for gain is something no person would do anyway, what with human nature being what it is and all....

There are real things to complain about regarding George Bush that don't require one to forget the facts.
Like the facts relating to the Velusia black box votes....oh right I guess you forgot those facts in your analysis....

The problem isnt simply 'did X steal Y election'. It's about the fact that we cant be certain that 'X didnt steal Y election' or the 'X didnt loose election Y due to computer or human error Z' in far too many elections. In fact in any and every election that relies on black box voting.

How naive are people that they actually think if it's possible for someone to commit election fraud on a huge scale, that at least one person wont do it? The same people that wouldnt trust their car not to be stolen if it were left unlocked with the keys in the ignition, somehow think the more valuable commodity of power and control wont be stolen given the chance....poor 'ol Jefferson, he tried to warn you, I expect he's got friction burn now-days what with the speed he's 360ing round at in his coffin...:(

You all know the drill.

Yes....

Now... let's kill this thread.

Even as a left-wing socialist, I found this tired after three years of whining...

Plus. I have something better to whine about, the crappy Canadian parliamentary system that lets someone with 31% of the vote be the ruling party... (at least it's just a minority).

Yes....

Now... let's kill this thread.

Even as a left-wing socialist, I found this tired after three years of whining...

Plus. I have something better to whine about, the crappy Canadian parliamentary system that lets someone with 31% of the vote be the ruling party... (at least it's just a minority).

Im interested to see how many republicans reckon he did it and how many democrats dont.

Plus. I have something better to whine about, the crappy Canadian parliamentary system that lets someone with 31% of the vote be the ruling party... (at least it's just a minority).

If it makes you feel better, Tony Blair leads a large majority Government when just 25% of the electorate voted for him. :)

Im interested to see how many republicans reckon he did it and how many democrats dont.
Democrats think?? :eek: When the hell did that happen?

If it makes you feel better, Tony Blair leads a large majority Government when just 25% of the electorate voted for him. :)
Actually, no it doesn't because the Canadian system is based off the British system. This makes me more worried if anything. :)

Mmm, you might have a point. I mean maybe it's somehow really silly to suspect that people might collude in secret for gain or profit...

I guess the rationale for such a conclusion would be perhaps that people never work with at least one other person to achieve nefarious gains....or that if they did, they sure as heck wouldnt keep it a secret, or maybe doing something a bit naughty for gain is something no person would do anyway, what with human nature being what it is and all....

Like the facts relating to the Velusia black box votes....oh right I guess you forgot those facts in your analysis....

The problem isnt simply 'did X steal Y election'. It's about the fact that we cant be certain that 'X didnt steal Y election' or the 'X didnt loose election Y due to computer or human error Z' in far too many elections. In fact in any and every election that relies on black box voting.

How naive are people that they actually think if it's possible for someone to commit election fraud on a huge scale, that at least one person wont do it? The same people that wouldnt trust their car not to be stolen if it were left unlocked with the keys in the ignition, somehow think the more valuable commodity of power and control wont be stolen given the chance....poor 'ol Jefferson, he tried to warn you, I expect he's got friction burn now-days what with the speed he's 360ing round at in his coffin...:(

First of all, it's just a conspiracy theory without an evidence. Conspiracies happen. However, without any additional evidence I'm going to have to say it has the same weight as the theory that Kerry and Democrats wanted Bush to win and that's why he put up such a lame campaign. Prove me wrong. You can't? Maybe that's because like most conspiracy theories it's based on nothing but speculation and possibly coincidence.

Meanwhile, if this thread was about our flawed voting system, you would have a point. But they aren't complaining that voting is flawed under the current system. They are complaining about a specific outcome they didn't like. There is no evidence Clinton didn't steal the elections as well. There is no evidence the elder Bush didn't. And Obama and Kennedy, etc. The positive assertion is that Bush stole the election and the proof is lacking gravely.

You're right about the voting system. Start a thread about it and I'll support you. However, this thread is just sour grapes. He won under the current system and no one can prove he cheated. No one can even show reasonable evidence he cheated.

You all know the drill.

The New York Times and a number of Florida newspapers did their own recounts and investigation after the election was over. Bush won.

get over it.

Gee wasnt it funny that while the whole nation was waiting on supreme court decisions, USA Today, poped up out of the fucking blue and said "Bush had more Florida votes" Yes. I know the final outcome also said that (which was more of the same bullshit)

Ever win a lottery? The odds are pretty rare. Also pretty rare is an issue of USA Today from 1992 to 2001 that DIDN'T have negative remarks about Clinton! (best president of the 20th century)

Gee wasnt it funny that while the whole nation was waiting on supreme court decisions, USA Today, poped up out of the fucking blue and said "Bush had more Florida votes" Yes. I know the final outcome also said that (which was more of the same bullshit)

Ever win a lottery? The odds are pretty rare. Also pretty rare is an issue of USA Today from 1992 to 2001 that DIDN'T have negative remarks about Clinton! (best president of the 20th century)

Which newspapers reported that the final outcome was more votes for Gore?

You focused on a newspaper that you claim was anti-Democrat, but did you happen to notice that many, many newspapers across the country reported the same thing. Perhaps it's the ebil conservative media.

First of all, it's just a conspiracy theory without an evidence.
Right, but this isnt a case of an absence of evidence. This is a case in which anomalies occured in a Presidential election at a level that should be unacceptable to anyone who values free and fair elections. Whether or not anyone did intentionally 'rig' anything, there is evidence that things were not all above board. The fact that people have concerns and suspicions when in a circumstance of huge gains to be made, multiple serious anamolies occured, isnt exactly unreasonable...

Conspiracies happen. However, without any additional evidence I'm going to have to say it has the same weight as the theory that Kerry and Democrats wanted Bush to win and that's why he put up such a lame campaign.
There is much more evidence that the vote count from the 2000 Presidential elections (and many elections before and since) were corrupted than there is for the theory you refer to.

Prove me wrong. You can't? Maybe that's because like most conspiracy theories it's based on nothing but speculation and possibly coincidence.
Are you being serious? You dont think that a precinct returning a vote count of 10000 for a candidate and minus 16000 for another candidate when there are only 600 voters registered in the precinct is evidence that something is amiss....or for that matter the fact that this anamoly has never been reasonably explained, or the fact that there were other identical electronic voting systems in place that were not as a matter of course (in the context of such a huge anomally being found elsewhere in the system) checked over?

Meanwhile, if this thread was about our flawed voting system, you would have a point. But they aren't complaining that voting is flawed under the current system. They are complaining about a specific outcome they didn't like.
The thread is about a potential instance of election rigging, how the integrity (or lack there of) of the security and transparancy of the vote registering and count isnt relevent to a thread about a potential instance of election rigging, I'm not sure...

There is no evidence Clinton didn't steal the elections as well. There is no evidence the elder Bush didn't. And Obama and Kennedy, etc. The positive assertion is that Bush stole the election and the proof is lacking gravely.
It is not unreasonable in the circumstance to propose that Bush stole the election, I dont see that there is a similar basis for making the same claim about Bimbo-Bill. If similar anomalies occured in the elections you refer to, they didnt get the same press, so it's probably not surprising that less people would be aware in order to form suspicions. If in fact a similar level of anomaly exists and that is brought to light, then I'd find such suspicion reasonable.

You're right about the voting system. Start a thread about it and I'll support you. However, this thread is just sour grapes. He won under the current system and no one can prove he cheated. No one can even show reasonable evidence he cheated.
So, it's not the truth of what's said but where it is said or who is saying what (and their motivation) in the same discussion...

The fact is it isnt just sour grapes. Whatever bias might occur in reaching their conclusions, the suspicion that 'something 'aint right here' is entirely reasonable. When you have an election and 'something 'aint right here' how is it sour grapes to conclude that vote rigging might have occured, or to attribute such rigging to the person who appears to most have benefited from any such rigging if it did occur?
Such suspicions are not unreasonable, they are entirely well-founded, whether or not they are true. Because whatever the level of intent, and whoever is or is not causally implicated, 'something 'aint right', and telling people 'you just got sour grapes' is sure a fuck not going to change their mind in such a context. They know that something is amiss and if you try to dismiss that as conspiracy theoryism, chances are you'll just make them believe it even more!
That's why a 'did Bush steal the election' thread is a good place to point out that whatever happened people are entirely reasonable to be suspicious and to be frankly down-right wild, whether Bush actually steal the election or not, because the fact that we cant prove to a reasonable extent that he didnt, or even that he didnt end up President by virtue of (unintentional) computer error is unacceptable.

People's conclusions as to what is amiss could be wrong, but dismissing the whole issue as sour grape motivated conspiracy theories, when whether or not the conclusions are correct, the evidence of a problem still remains, isnt going to change anyone's mind, nor is it conducive to getting something done about the farce is black box voting.

Gee wasnt it funny that while the whole nation was waiting on supreme court decisions, USA Today, poped up out of the fucking blue and said "Bush had more Florida votes" Yes. I know the final outcome also said that (which was more of the same bullshit)

Ever win a lottery? The odds are pretty rare. Also pretty rare is an issue of USA Today from 1992 to 2001 that DIDN'T have negative remarks about Clinton! (best president of the 20th century)

So USA Today is Conservative propaganda now? Someone alert the conservatives!

and President Clinton better than Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower or even JFK and Ronald Reagan?

nnnn...nnnnn...NO.

Right, but this isnt a case of an absence of evidence. This is a case in which anomalies occured in a Presidential election at a level that should be unacceptable to anyone who values free and fair elections. Whether or not anyone did intentionally 'rig' anything, there is evidence that things were not all above board. The fact that people have concerns and suspicions when in a circumstance of huge gains to be made, multiple serious anamolies occured, isnt exactly unreasonable...

There is much more evidence that the vote count from the 2000 Presidential elections (and many elections before and since) were corrupted than there is for the theory you refer to.

Are you being serious? You dont think that a precinct returning a vote count of 10000 for a candidate and minus 16000 for another candidate when there are only 600 voters registered in the precinct is evidence that something is amiss....or for that matter the fact that this anamoly has never been reasonably explained, or the fact that there were other identical electronic voting systems in place that were not as a matter of course (in the context of such a huge anomally being found elsewhere in the system) checked over?

The thread is about a potential instance of election rigging, how the integrity (or lack there of) of the security and transparancy of the vote registering and count isnt relevent to a thread about a potential instance of election rigging, I'm not sure...

It is not unreasonable in the circumstance to propose that Bush stole the election, I dont see that there is a similar basis for making the same claim about Bimbo-Bill. If similar anomalies occured in the elections you refer to, they didnt get the same press, so it's probably not surprising that less people would be aware in order to form suspicions. If in fact a similar level of anomaly exists and that is brought to light, then I'd find such suspicion reasonable.


So, it's not the truth of what's said but where it is said or who is saying what (and their motivation) in the same discussion...

The fact is it isnt just sour grapes. Whatever bias might occur in reaching their conclusions, the suspicion that 'something 'aint right here' is entirely reasonable. When you have an election and 'something 'aint right here' how is it sour grapes to conclude that vote rigging might have occured, or to attribute such rigging to the person who appears to most have benefited from any such rigging if it did occur?
Such suspicions are not unreasonable, they are entirely well-founded, whether or not they are true. Because whatever the level of intent, and whoever is or is not causally implicated, 'something 'aint right', and telling people 'you just got sour grapes' is sure a fuck not going to change their mind in such a context. They know that something is amiss and if you try to dismiss that as conspiracy theoryism, chances are you'll just make them believe it even more!
That's why a 'did Bush steal the election' thread is a good place to point out that whatever happened people are entirely reasonable to be suspicious and to be frankly down-right wild, whether Bush actually steal the election or not, because the fact that we cant prove to a reasonable extent that he didnt, or even that he didnt end up President by virtue of (unintentional) computer error is unacceptable.

People's conclusions as to what is amiss could be wrong, but dismissing the whole issue as sour grape motivated conspiracy theories, when whether or not the conclusions are correct, the evidence of a problem still remains, isnt going to change anyone's mind, nor is it conducive to getting something done about the farce is black box voting.

You miss the point. Start a thread about it if you like. Or keep arguing your strawman. Show me where I said it was a fair election? Show me where I said most elections are fair? Show me where I said anything about what you're arguing against. The point is that there is no proof that the attrocities of that election and most elections aren't an indictment of the entire group we call politicians and their flunkies. GWB is just another player in a game where people stopped caring about the rules a long time ago.

However, this thread isn't complaining about the game. It's complaining about one particular election where they didn't like the outcome. Now if you can show me how the 2000 election is somehow unique in the types of events that occurred (aside from the fact they were more transparent) or that only one side was 'likely' guilty of straying from the rules, then it's just sour grapes. They aren't saying "something ain't right here". They're saying "we don't like the president so we're only going to complain about that one election". It's entirely different and it's why your strawman is ablaze.

Playing a game exactly like your opponents and winning isn't 'stealing'. You can't steal a farce.

Oh c'mon! Reagan was never president! Bush part 1 was president for 12 years!
(presidents dont tell former CIA directors what to do. didnt you know that?)

Lots of links to support my 2K election claim! here is one:
http://www.legitgov.org/index_hot_April5.html

Oh c'mon! Reagan was never president! Bush part 1 was president for 12 years!
(presidents dont tell former CIA directors what to do. didnt you know that?)

Lots of links to support my 2K election claim! here is one:
http://www.legitgov.org/index_hot_April5.html

You mean a group that hand-picked articles to suggest a particular argument because it's the one they believe is arguing that what they believe is true? Really? I'm shocked. Meanwhile, they have a link to USA Today that argues for Gore pretty hard. Hmmm... seems to counter your claim. Whoops. You should read your own links.

You mean a group that hand-picked articles to suggest a particular argument because it's the one they believe is arguing that what they believe is true? Really? I'm shocked. Meanwhile, they have a link to USA Today that argues for Gore pretty hard. Hmmm... seems to counter your claim. Whoops. You should read your own links.

Oh Sure! Election LONG over now and USA today employees have to eat.

I guess the rationale for such a conclusion would be perhaps that people never work with at least one other person to achieve nefarious gains....or that if they did, they sure as heck wouldnt keep it a secret, or maybe doing something a bit naughty for gain is something no person would do anyway, what with human nature being what it is and all....

Like the facts relating to the Velusia black box votes....oh right I guess you forgot those facts in your analysis....

The problem isnt simply 'did X steal Y election'. It's about the fact that we cant be certain that 'X didnt steal Y election' or the 'X didnt loose election Y due to computer or human error Z' in far too many elections. In fact in any and every election that relies on black box voting.

How naive are people that they actually think if it's possible for someone to commit election fraud on a huge scale, that at least one person wont do it? The same people that wouldnt trust their car not to be stolen if it were left unlocked with the keys in the ignition, somehow think the more valuable commodity of power and control wont be stolen given the chance....poor 'ol Jefferson, he tried to warn you, I expect he's got friction burn now-days what with the speed he's 360ing round at in his coffin...:(

Good God, stop constantly using the agit-prop tactic of calling electronic votign machines "black box voting."

I have worked extensively with the Diebold voting machines, as a representative of my county's board of elections, they are MULTIPLE TIMES MORE SECURE than just having a paper ballot, because, in this instance, you have a digital copy, plus a paper copy. The paper copy is under stricter security than the digital copy, because at no point is the paper copy ever outside of totally sealed ballot box.

Not to mention the electronic checks that have to be performed by poll workers, checks that there is no way you can perform with a paper ballot system.

All this "black box voting" crap is, is people just being a herd of technophobes.

Good God, stop constantly using the agit-prop tactic of calling electronic votign machines "black box voting."

I have worked extensively with the Diebold voting machines, as a representative of my county's board of elections, they are MULTIPLE TIMES MORE SECURE than just having a paper ballot, because, in this instance, you have a digital copy, plus a paper copy. The paper copy is under stricter security than the digital copy, because at no point is the paper copy ever outside of totally sealed ballot box.

Not to mention the electronic checks that have to be performed by poll workers, checks that there is no way you can perform with a paper ballot system.

All this "black box voting" crap is, is people just being a herd of technophobes.


Not to mention the election results that were contested were not obscured in any way and were not on electronic machines. He's arguing a strawman because he's trying to veil the sour grapes or to hijack the topic. Either way, it's sad.

Good God, stop constantly using the agit-prop tactic of calling electronic votign machines "black box voting."

I have worked extensively with the Diebold voting machines, as a representative of my county's board of elections, they are MULTIPLE TIMES MORE SECURE than just having a paper ballot, because, in this instance, you have a digital copy, plus a paper copy. The paper copy is under stricter security than the digital copy, because at no point is the paper copy ever outside of totally sealed ballot box.

Not to mention the electronic checks that have to be performed by poll workers, checks that there is no way you can perform with a paper ballot system.

All this "black box voting" crap is, is people just being a herd of technophobes.


Besides th legitimiacy of electronic voting machines, why do conspiracy theorists (driven by blind partisanship) scream foul play when:

The Buttefly Ballot was designed and approved for use by Democrats

and

Electronic Voting machines were demanded to be implemented immediately after the 2000 election by, you guessed it, Democrats.

oh wait, i get it! The Republicans must have infiltrated the Democratic party.

Are you being serious? You dont think that a precinct returning a vote count of 10000 for a candidate and minus 16000 for another candidate when there are only 600 voters registered in the precinct is evidence that something is amiss....or for that matter the fact that this anamoly has never been reasonably explained, or the fact that there were other identical electronic voting systems in place that were not as a matter of course (in the context of such a huge anomally being found elsewhere in the system) checked over?
.

Where did this happen?

cite, cite, cite

And if you say Gahanna, that wasn't the case.

You miss the point.
No I dont.
Start a thread about it if you like. Or keep arguing your strawman.
I'm not arguing a strawman.
Show me where I said it was a fair election?
It's implicit in the accusation of 'conspiracy theorists' against people who claim it might not have been a fair election.

Show me where I said most elections are fair? Show me where I said anything about what you're arguing against.
Have you somehow missed the fact that I am arguing against the classification of people suspicious about the 2000 Presidential elections, as 'conspiracy theorists'? I dont see how you managed that...

The point is that there is no proof that the attrocities of that election and most elections aren't an indictment of the entire group we call politicians and their flunkies. GWB is just another player in a game where people stopped caring about the rules a long time ago.
Show me where I argued against such a point.

However, this thread isn't complaining about the game. It's complaining about one particular election where they didn't like the outcome.
Er, actually it's a poll asking about peoples' opinion. And one poster in respons stated an opinion that people who have their suspicions are conspiracy theorists and because I disagreed I responded stating as much. Now you can gabble about strawmen all you like, but I'm not arguing against something that wasnt said. What I'm arguing against is 'people who think Bush cheated is a conspiracy theorist', that's something that indeed was sais. You should know this seeing as how it was you who said it.

Now if you can show me how the 2000 election is somehow unique in the types of events that occurred (aside from the fact they were more transparent) or that only one side was 'likely' guilty of straying from the rules, then it's just sour grapes.
How very simplistic and reductionist of you. Not to mention utterly naive as to the nature of people. The thing about people is they do tend to be more suspicious of something that is suspicious, and tend to think it's a bigger deal when it that thing is to their detriment. You can harp about sour grapes all you like, but the fact that people are more concerned where they feel they have a strong interest at stake is pretty typical behaviour, and that's reasonable. The suspicions whether correct or not are not unreasonable.

They aren't saying "something ain't right here". They're saying "we don't like the president so we're only going to complain about that one election". It's entirely different and it's why your strawman is ablaze.
I dont believe that is the case. I believe that in most cases people who complain do think 'something 'aint right here'. I see no reason to believe otherwise frankly. You see the outcry is out of the ordinary, given this all started up before Bush become as unpopular as he is I dont see why the exceptional anomalies found to have occured are a less likey explanation for the exceptional objections than the not at all exceptional happenstance of some peoples' preferred candidate not winning. The latter happens every election so why would it suddenly cause such an exceptional reaction, coincidental to the anamolies. Whether or not people are right in their suspicions, their suspicions are not unreasonable.

Playing a game exactly like your opponents and winning isn't 'stealing'. You can't steal a farce.
And here-in lies the problem of dismissing people as conspiracy theorists. The fact is a conspiracy is going on, whether it's one of intentional aims and goals, or simply one of 'hide the negligence and incompetence rife throughout the system'. Instead of dismissing peoples' suspicions, (which isnt going to have any effect other than making them stubborn, they know something is wrong and their conclusion as to what seems more reasonable to them than accusations that they are conspiracy theorists), it should be pointed out to them that what has generated their particular suspicions might be a symptomatic of something else.

Gee wasnt it funny that while the whole nation was waiting on supreme court decisions, USA Today, poped up out of the fucking blue and said "Bush had more Florida votes" Yes. I know the final outcome also said that (which was more of the same bullshit)

Ever win a lottery? The odds are pretty rare. Also pretty rare is an issue of USA Today from 1992 to 2001 that DIDN'T have negative remarks about Clinton! (best president of the 20th century)

Have you read an issue of USA Today that hasn't had negative remarks about Bush? (Admittedly, there's a handful clustered in September of 2001 that didn't, but those don't count).

*snip*

Oh, I see, so when I say that it requires a conspiracy theory for him to have 'stolen the election' that must mean it's a fair election. Ah, I didn't realize. So your 'non-strawman' is based on taking something I said and claiming it means something else and then arguing against that something else. Methinks you don't know what a strawman is. See, conspiracies, require conspiring. If the results are the result of people who are NOT collaborating , then it's not a conspiracy. The point is that people in this thread were arguing for a concerted effort to 'steal' an election. That's not mistakes. That's not individual foulplay. That's a concerted and successful effort by a group of people to take the election. However, all evidence suggests that they weren't coordinated and it can't even be shown to be intentional. To say otherwise is a conspiracy theory. However, the argument isn't binary. It's not conspiracy or fair. There are all kinds of unfair results that don't include conspiracies. But hey, if you admit that obvious bit of logic then you have to admit you're arguing a strawman and we can see you don't wish to do that.

Where did this happen?

cite, cite, cite

And if you say Gahanna, that wasn't the case.
Volusia County.
linkie (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm)

Have you read an issue of USA Today that hasn't had negative remarks about Bush? (Admittedly, there's a handful clustered in September of 2001 that didn't, but those don't count).

Like I said. Covering their ass. Newspaper people have bills too.
If you were in charge of USA today and was involved in the crime of the century, would you spike the ball when it was over?

Volusia County.
linkie (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm)

That happened during the certification with one of the machines we were dealing with.

We ran multiple fictional ballots and we voted on them a couple of times, to give us a simulation of an election, one of them being the "Minister of Space" spot. In the "Minister of Space" spot we had Neil Armstrong, John Glenn and Judith Resnick.

One of the machines, somehow, recorded John Glenn as having some enourmous number of extra votes, and Judith Resnick as actually being in the negative, when the votes were tallied on the central counting machine.

This had us, and the Diebold techs, stumped. By the end, we came to the conclusion that it was some sort of really bizarre copying error. We ran the election again, and the problem didn't repeat. All the same, we didn't certify the machine, and sent it back.

Volusia County.
linkie (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm)

Here are the elections results for Volusia - http://volusia.org/elections/results2000.htm

Show us who got the 10,000 votes. Or is your complaint here that an error occurred and was corrected in the final results. The fact that the error was detected makes it sound like perhaps it's not so black box. The fact that it was so obvious suggests it wasn't intentional. Looks like you just showed an example of where the checks in the system worked perfectly. Thanks for increasing everyone's confidence in the system.

You're not very good at this, are you?

Like I said. Covering their ass. Newspaper people have bills too.
If you were in charge of USA today and was involved in the crime of the century, would you spike the ball when it was over?

Ha. So part of their ebil conservative effort to control the country is to bash the conservative President just like the did the liberal President. Hmmm... I guess the logic never starts.

I also heard that the prisons hate Jews and seek to incarcerate Jews in their vast anti-semetic conspiracy. Now, of course they incarcerate a bunch of black people and much higher rates than just about every other group but that's just to cover up the 'crime of the century'.

And Kerry was really a conservative seeking to help Bush win the election. You may not know it. But all that bitching about Bush and the Viet Nam war is just a coverup so that he could end up throwing the 2004 election.

Zagat, here is my case in point. There is no amount of illogical inference that is out of line once you get on the path that this thread is on. Apparently the anti-Bush newspapers are just covering up for their efforts to keep in him in the Presidency.

Trying to stir things up with a six year old issue?

Oh, I see, so when I say that it requires a conspiracy theory for him to have 'stolen the election' that must mean it's a fair election.
If you think that an election wasnt fair, then why would you think others who thought it were unfair are simply 'sour grape conspiracy theorists'?

Ah, I didn't realize. So your 'non-strawman' is based on taking something I said and claiming it means something else and then arguing against that something else.
I dont find the line of reasoning 'that election was probably unfair, if people say someone cheated in the election that was probably unfair, they are conspiracy theorists' to be anything anyone with any inkling of intelligence would come up with...perhaps my crime is in assuming an inkling of intelligence, if so I apologise.

Methinks you don't know what a strawman is.
Never mind, it's probably not the first time you've been wrong, it's likely not the last either.

See, conspiracies, require conspiring. If the results are the result of people who are NOT collaborating , then it's not a conspiracy.
And in this case there is no evidence of an absence of conspiracy although there is scope for it have occured.

The point is that people in this thread were arguing for a concerted effort to 'steal' an election.
The point is that's not an unreasonable think for them to think. Very strange stuff happened in the election, they know that, why wouldnt they suspect foul play? There is very strong evidence that intentional tampering occured, so what the frig is so out of line in suspecting cheating on the part of the ultimate winner?

That's not mistakes. That's not individual foulplay.
Well hang on, you called people who thought Bush cheated conspiracy theorists, it is you who injected the aspect of non-individuality by invoking the word conspiracy. It's rather circular to use your notion that they are conspiracy theorists to insert the premise that they believe a conspiracy (rather than individual foulplay) occured, in order to prove that they are conspiracy theorists...

That's a concerted and successful effort by a group of people to take the election.
Right, a group being 2 people. You think it's far-fetched to suppose that 2 or more people might collude together with dishonest intent in order to reap the huge potential rewards on offer? They call that naive where I come from.

However, all evidence suggests that they weren't coordinated and it can't even be shown to be intentional.
Actually there is very strong evidence of intentional tampering, and no evidence that it was carried out by a 'lone-ranger'.

To say otherwise is a conspiracy theory.
To suggest cheating by one individual in the presence of anomalies and strong evidence of intentional tampering is a conspiracy theory...:confused:

However, the argument isn't binary. It's not conspiracy or fair.
You know Bush is only one person, you are the one who brought in conspiracy...

There are all kinds of unfair results that don't include conspiracies. But hey, if you admit that obvious bit of logic then you have to admit you're arguing a strawman and we can see you don't wish to do that.
How ironic and yet consistent with you MO in the thread to date for you to be throwing out accusations that everyone else is bashing the straw-guy. It is a strawman to argue against my inclusion of conspiracies, the person who invoked conspiracy was you honey, I'm arguing not for the presence of conspiracy, but rather that it isnt unreasonable conspiracy theorist sour grapes to reach a conclusion that Bush cheated, it's no less reasonable than reaching a conclusion that he didnt.