Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Who wants to believe

By

Recently prolific BMGer “mplo” comments in one of David’s Dodd threads as follows:

Moreover,  G. W. Bush had the Presidency handed to him..on a silver platter…twice.  Not only was the recount in Florida deliberately stopped, but the computers were deliberately tampered with, syphoning Democratic votes to Dubya.  

Also, the election was stolen from the Democrats in Ohio, although it was in a much more insidious way:  Computers were also tampered with, republicans stood at voting polls, especially in minority districts, deliberately intimidating voters and creating long lines and delays, making it so that many people, weary of standing in long lines, and/or having to return to work, ended up not  voting.

Also, machines were tampered with, syphoning off votes to Bush.  

Question:  how many of you actually believe this?  If few, then why let it stand?  If many, then you may need a new tag line for the site.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. is it not?  Moved on.  The lack of impeachment most definitely means the Illuminati really runs the world.

  3. 2 things:

    <

    p>The Florida recount was stopped by the Supreme Court, blatantly handing the election to George Bush. This is common knowledge and don’t think has ever seriously been disputed.

    <

    p>The 2004 election is more questionable, but there were computers in Ohio recording many more votes for Bush than numbers of people of had voted. I think Bush probably did win that election, and didn’t need to cheat, but it seems clear he was trying to anyway.

    • The FL state supreme court is the one that interfered with the regular election process, including the provisions for recounts.  In any case Bush won all the recounts including the independent one that happened after the fact.  So, whats the point?

      <

      p>In Ohio ’04 do you have any evidence for your assertion?

      <

      p>

      • evidence to dispute the result of the election in Florida.  If all votes had been counted based on intent, Gore won.  If targeted voters had not been purged from voter lists, Gore would have won.  The whole episode should be considered an embarrassment for any “democratic” country.

        • Oh of course, if you could include the overvote (whenever people voted for 2 or more candidates) and magically divine a bunch of intent from that, maybe also flip over a few Buchanan votes, because while we’re skimming off hanging chads, hey why not right? then you might come up with a winning scenario?  The hubris of thinking that you can “determine the intent” of people who voted twice is telling, but in any case as I understand it most overvote scenarios still went to Bush.  

          <

          p>Here’s a nice article for you:

          <

          p>http://www.americanthinker.com…

          <

          p>Dems are just angry that they finally failed to steal a close one.  Which I guess to them is tantamount to having it stolen, since thats about all they understand.

          <

          p>

          • on who was responsible for the mass removal of valid voter registrations?  Not wasting breath anymore.

                • First off, given the D propensity to manufacture votes from e.g. homeless shelters*, I can see why R’s might want to do this.  But, if the recipients are not stationed overseas then theoretically they can receive the letters that are sent to them.  (How R’s sending letters DQ’s people from voting I’m not exactly sure but I’ll go ahead and take it on faith for now).

                  <

                  p>(*

                  One defendant “said it was hard work making up all those cards,” and another “said he would often sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out cards,” according to a probable-cause statement written by King County sheriff’s Detective Christopher Johnson.

                  • now thats evidence)

                  <

                  p>OK so lets take the military personnel – the only case really mentioned in the Palast (!?) article and supporting BBC (unlinked) piece and linked excel sheet.  You accuse the R’s of disqualifying military ballots from a Naval Air Station in Florida and then claim that all those people are somehow African American.  OK well I’m not sure how you figured that one out (you, or Greg, or the BBC – skepticism anyone?) but wouldn’t it be helpful to include the fact that the military votes overwhelmingly Republican?  Wouldn’t you think that the one piece of supposed evidence linked from the BBC piece showing a supposed attempt to block military votes would actually help the Democrats????

                  <

                  p>Leftist source:  http://www.leanleft.com/archiv…
                  (the best they can do is “only” 2/3 military votes R.  Thats best D case but most numbers I see are far higher for R’s)

                  <

                  p>Wapo:
                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

                  We now have fairly compelling evidence, in the form of a Military Times survey of its readership (primarily career military officers and enlisted personnel), that reports of the demise of Bush’s popularity were premature. By an astonishing 72 to 17 percent margin, the active-duty military personnel who took the survey favored Bush over Kerry (Guard and Reserve respondents favored Bush, 73 to 18 percent). Frankly, the margin greatly exceeds anything that I or any other analyst had expected.

                  <

                  p>On a related note, it seems that:

                  <

                  p>

                  The Democratic Party issued 8 pages of “instructions” to help Florida Democrats challenge military overseas absentee ballots. The instructions incorrectly stated that military overseas ballots required a postmark. Although this was a mistake, it resulted in several ballots being thrown out.

                  Did the Democratic Party purposely try and disenfranchise military personnel stationed overseas, or were they just trying to ensure the law was complied with?

                  <

                  p>http://usmilitary.about.com/li…

                  <

                  p>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n…

                  <

                  p>

                  Over 1,000 military absentee ballots were tossed out by Florida canvassing boards, most of them because they lacked a postmark.

                  The postmark issue, in particular, is of concern to the campaign of Republican George W. Bush, because Florida law indicates that if a military absentee ballot is “otherwise” valid, no postmark is necessary for the ballot to be counted.

                  Though other news sources have reported that the postmark is “required” by Florida law, the actual provision, statute 1S, 2.01 (7), says: “With respect to the presidential preference primary and the general election, any absentee ballot cast for a federal office by an overseas elector which is postmarked or signed and dated no later than the date of the Federal election shall be counted if received no later than 10 days from the date of the Federal election as long as such absentee ballot is otherwise proper.”

                  Also, military votes traditionally favor Republican candidates — a fact known to the Bush camp and likely an underlying theme in five lawsuits Bush lawyers have filed against Florida counties that threw those votes out.

                  <

                  p>Sorry, who was trying to suppress the vote again?  I forgot now.

                  <

                  p>In the end I think you will find that there are a small number of people clinging to the idea of stolen elections in 2000 and 2004, and they may continue to produce arguments to support that case.  Any conspiracy theory is going to have a cadre of wanna-believers.  That doesn’t make it true.

                  <

                  p>More fun reading for ya:
                  http://findarticles.com/p/arti…

                  <

                  p>(OMG!  Vulnerabilities!  D’s get to work stealin’ and blamin’!)

                • They were targeted as more than likely democratic voters, that’s the point.  To say that military in general tends to vote one way or another is actually running away from the point.  These persons in the military were specifically targeted.

      • In 2000, I read the relevant FL election statutes and all of the FL state court opinions, including those of the FL State SupCt for commenting on a generally web site.  Moreover, I read the US SupCt opinion, which was a jurisprudential travesty.

        <

        p>The FL court opinions were correct, the US SupCt opinion was a complete usurpation of state power over the election.

    • OK lets take these one at a time, real quick:

      <

      p>First off Rolling Stone – well, ok rolling stone sure lets use that as a source.  Wait!  No, that article was written by Robert F. kennedy Jr., who is himself a Democratic politician and a panderer and sensationalist of the worst sort.  You simply cannot use an article by Kennedy as “evidence” any more than I can use an article by Tom DeLay to prove you wrong.  I hope you can see the wisdom in this.  Robert Kennedy’s opinion does not constitute evidence.

      <

      p>Now, the Ohio article about flawed voting machines:

      <

      p>It starts out:

      CINCINNATI – All five voting systems used in Ohio, a state whose electoral votes narrowly swung two elections toward President Bush, have critical flaws that could undermine the integrity of the 2008 general election, a report commissioned by the state’s top elections official has found.

      <

      p>OK, sure, lets grant that.  So because flaws exist that could be used then that is evidence that Republicans did use such flaws?  How do you know Democrats didnt use those flaws in their own favor?  How do you know anyone at all used them?

      <

      p>There are all sorts of ways to cheat in paper ballots as well, e.g. registering dead voters, sending in 200 D votes after the fact from a homeless shelter – just because these vulnerabilities exist, and have always existed, is that evidence that all elections to date have also been fraudulent?  

      <

      p>From the very same article:

      <

      p>

      “It is important to note,” he said, “that there has not been a single documented case of a successful attack against an electronic voting system, in Ohio or anywhere in the United States.”

      <

      p>With all due respect, so far your “plenty of evidence to show that the 2004 Ohio vote was fraudulent” has failed to turn up a shred.

      <

      p>OK, on to the last one –

      <

      p>Wait, thats just a reprint of the Ohio article.  Was that on purpose, did you think I wouldn’t check?

      <

      p>Anyone reading your post and not reading the linked sources might have been deceived into thinking that you had a point.

      <

      p>This is unfortunate because so much conspiracy theory and other drivel around here goes unchallenged and then erstwhile perfectly intelligent liberals end up believing a whole bunch of embarassing nonsense.

      <

      p>I’m just trying to help!

      <

      p>

      • is not limited to one party or another.  To say that only Democrats or Republicans lie would be problematic.  If logic is applied to this whole set of scenarios, it’s a different story.  Some people don’t care to do research and repeat “arguments” that are worthless because they are not even fact based opinion.  That is a problem with human behavior and shouldn’t be considered proof positive that there was not tampering with the elections.

        <

        p>I’ll go back to my question about voter purging, because I think it is well documented by a credible journalist with facts and supporting evidence here.   There is proof in this instance of motive, premeditation and no logical explanation for the action other than a desire to sway the outcome of an election.  

        <

        p>  

        • Some people don’t care to do research and repeat “arguments” that are worthless because they are not even fact based opinion.

          <

          p>I’ve presented considerably more research and facts in this thread than you have, I’m afraid.  For now see my reply above maybe later I’ll dig through yet another Palast assertion.

          • I was not referring to you in that comment.  The only piece of evidence that I am convinced of is the work that Palast did.  I even spoke with him when he was doing the research, and I’m convinced of it’s accuracy based upon the methodology he used.  I wish there were far more journalists who would take the time to make a case the way that he did.  The results of more accurate reporting would probably result in a real picture of where we are as a country and democracy.

              • his book, so the only documentation that I am fully familiar with and convinced of is from Greg.    

                • … I did read some convincing disputes about his take on ‘peak oil’.  At least the take he published in his book.  He does strike me as the kind of guy who will gladly adjust his views as the facts merit, however.

                • Palast is the peak oil guy?  Aaarrggghh!  I was going to use that as an example of an annoying conspiracy theory that loonies love to trot out as the cause of every evil…

                  <

                  p>Oh man I can’t believe you’ve had me reading this guy, well no WONDER he’s out in the forefront of the stolen election conspiracy theory pack!

                  <

                  p>Hate to attack the author (again!?) but some people (e.g. conspiracy theory pushers) just don’t have any credibility.

                • purposes, I cited Greg’s research on the voter purge with no mention of anything else.  Your dismissal of his research based upon an entirely different article doesn’t address what what I presented.  It’s a neat way of ignoring something, but doesn’t make any case for your arguments or stance.  

                • I retract the peak-oil dismissal immediately below this.

                  <

                  p>Secondly, I responded at length the the first Palast article above.  Have you not read that yet or are you just ignoring it?

                • comment thread and don’t see anything specific to the issue of voter purging anywhere.  Appreciate you taking back the comment on Palast and owning up to the error of mistaken identity.

                • but it has absolutely nothing to do with my contentions about the voter purge in Florida.  Were you trying to pretend it did?  

                • It addresses nothing but the first Palast article, which only deals with voter purge.  So yea I guess I was “trying to pretend” that it did.

                  <

                  p>What do you think of the D attempts to purge legit absentee military ballots based on lack of postmark, btw?  Does that warrant a comment from you, or not?

                • … “the” peak oil guy.  What the hell are you talking about?  

                  <

                  p>Peak oil is a subject that comes up in any discussion about future oil supply, from the Brookings institution to AEI to the Coucil on Foreign Relations to the UN.  If discussing peak oil is on your list to qualify one to the fringes of lunacy, I think you’d be surprised at the distinguished company in that set of people.

                  <

                  p>It seems that now your just throwing mud for the sake of throwing mud.  It’s a neat trick, however, since it isn’t clear from what you said what any ‘mud’ would be.

                • I think I got that last comment wrong.  Not backwards exactly, but Palast had some other weird set of conspiracy points related to peak oil but actually somewhat in opposition to some of the primary peak oil theorists.

                  <

                  p>I was thinking of this loon:

                  <

                  p>http://www.fromthewilderness.com/

                  <

                  p>Sorry about that

        • From your article:

          <

          p>

          (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.)

          <

          p>Nice, the party of felons.  Not sure I’d be too proud of that, really.  In any case its irrelevant because felons are not allowed to vote in Florida.

          • and research were behind the figures.  Are you arguing with the validity or do you prefer to just make snyde comments about it?  It’s provable that bogus lists were sent out to purge voters.  For some mysterious reason, the source of the lists was changed from a vendor that cost the state in the mere thousands of dollars to a vendor that cost 4.3 million.  Is there a logical reason for that to have happened?  Knowing how tight state budgets are, how can that logically be accounted for?  It’s just not reasonable to assume that there was a sudden need to change a reliable vendor to an unreliable vendor at such a price differential.  

            • I’ll just continue to point out that your wonderful 90% of felons statistic is logically irrelevant.

              <

              p>Why?

              <

              p>Because felons can’t vote in Florida.

              <

              p>So, what were you saying about statistics?  BTW before you ask me to respond to every single little point you conjure out of the Palast archives you probably ought to read my absentee-ballot-suppression reply above and respond to that.

              • the fact that the list provided for purging did not contain just the names a valid felons.  It resulted in enough voters being purged erroneously from the lists to sway an election.  Targeted purging is one way to subvert the democratic process.  

      • and say that same human behavior might be applicable to Democrats in this state as well (although I have no proof except for being skeptical).

        <

        p>I moved back to MA this year after having been gone for a little less than a year.  One of the first things I had to do was register my car in the state.  When I did, I reregistered to vote here.  All was fine until a week or two ago when I received a notice that I had been purged from the voter registration list.  Why?  Because I was being taken off the list for having moved out of state almost a year and a half ago?  Is it normal to have a backlog of notices go out a couple weeks before the deadline to be registered to participate in the Democratic caucuses?  I don’t know, but it would seem to be a stretch and extremely questionable timing.  It doesn’t matter because I immediately took care to be placed back on the rolls.  That said, isn’t there a lot of leeway in the process that can be used to the advantage of one party or another?  I support instant voter registration because I think there are too many loopholes in the system that can be used by one party or another.    

        • Its an interesting point but I think what it shows is that this sort of messy thing happens all the time just by the very nature of the administrative beauracracy that it requires.  Disparate (or worse, centralized) government processes are rarely the model of excellence and efficiency.  I doubt that its always a sinister plot.

          • it does leave the door open for abuses regardless of party.  In the case of voter purging, it’s in our best interests to never allow that to happen.  Remember, Katherine Harris had very close ties to Jeb Bush.  It’s certainly not a stretch to think that her goal was something other than improving a government process by paying 4.2 million more for an unreliable product.  Since Republicans in the state purport to hate beaurocracy, inefficiency and government waste, how can that price differential be so glibly disregarded?

            • There is no such thing as a perfect system.  When you are counting 100M votes, there will be something for the losing party to talk about ominously when the margin of victory is very small.

              <

              p>It sure seems to me that the “stolen election” is a nice way to avoid wondering why the Democrats nominated cadavers in both 2000 and 2004, both of whom lost elections that Republcans had no business winning.

      • “You simply cannot use an article by Kennedy as “evidence” any more than I can use an article by Tom DeLay to prove you wrong. “

        <

        p>Dismissing what someone says merely on the basis of who they are is a fallacy (ad hominem).  Feel free to dispute what they say, however.

      • …Rolling Stone has never produced a piece with journalistic integrity. Mr. Lynne was right, it’s an ad hominem – just because you don’t like the source doesn’t make it incorrect.

        <

        p>The Ohio article is different from the NYT article, at least on my computer.

        <

        p>Ohio:

        <

        p>

        Published on Monday Nov 05, 2007 – Two former elections workers pleaded no contest Monday to rigging a recount during the 2004 presidential election that prosecutors say was meant to avoid a lengthier, more expensive hand recount of all votes.

        <

        p>NYT:

        <

        p>

        CINCINNATI – All five voting systems used in Ohio, a state whose electoral votes narrowly swung two elections toward President Bush, have critical flaws that could undermine the integrity of the 2008 general election, a report commissioned by the state’s top elections official has found.

        <

        p>You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.  If you want to inform yourself about the facts about what happened in Ohio, the links I provided should point you in the right direction on Google, etc. I know they are far from conclusive, but the case has been made over and over again elsewhere. I’m not going to spend the time here trying to prove the sky is blue.  I’m sure someone here could spend a few hours putting together a comprehensive, well-sourced diary and it wouldn’t matter, you’d just choose to believe what you want. It’s your choice if you want to ignore what happens or examine the facts and the substance of the matter.  

        • I accepted Rolling Stone, but I rejected Robert Kennedy’s opinion piece as a piece of “evidence”.  Would you like me to introduce a sermon from an evangelical minister as evidence that evolution is not real?  No, I dont think so.

          <

          p>Anyway the Ohio article I dunno I must have clicked on the NYT one twice (d’oh user error) because now Ohio is crashing my browser.  I’m reading it in dreaded IE now….

          <

          p>

          Special prosecutor Kevin Baxter did not claim the actions affected the outcome of the election. Democratic Sen. John Kerry Kerry gained 17 votes and President Bush lost six in the county recount.

          Baxter said the employees broke the law when they picked ballots they knew would not cause discrepancies when checked by hand so they could avoid a lengthier, more expensive hand recount of all votes.

          Baxter said there was no evidence of the defense contention that recounts at the board had routinely handled in similar fashion.

          <

          p>Ahh well, you’ve got something there I must admit.  

          <

          p>But this hardly excuses the sky-is-blue-certainty stolen election conspiracy theories that zing around this place, though, does it?

          <

          p>

          I’m not going to spend the time here trying to prove the sky is blue.

          <

          p>… then I guess you’re one of the believers!

Archives