Re: There is no doubt, Bush was never elected president, he was installed
- From: "Black Elk" <windriver2000@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:58:58 -0600
"John Black" <jblack@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1eece3edac31ca6a989c22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <Xns97D867F994A82gloyshrv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rob@xxxxxxx
says...
They stole it in 2000 and 2004. What makes anyone think they won't do it
again? Maybe when the exit polls show a 10% or 20% win for the democratic
candidate, but he still loses in the fixed count, will Americans get the
picture then, or will they just turn on FOXnews and accept Hannitys
version
of these extreme anomalies are normal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
This thing is laughable. Which is why it appears in Rolling Stone
rather than a credible news source which would have fact checkers and
reputations to uphold. Much of the piece is silly and deserves no
response such as some hotel worker overhearing some phone call of some
other unnamed person who was calling to intimidate felons. This all
sounds like the 2000 Florida whining that millions (then it was
thousands) of voters were intimidated by police and evil Republicans but
then when hearings were held, none could be found.
I see you've not taken the time to actually disprove any of what Kennedy
wrote. Typical fascist rebut all an attempt at humiliating, demonizing and
harassment.
--
They knew...
Despite the whitewash, we know that the Bush administration
was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/
The first indication that something was gravely amiss on November 2nd,
2004, was the inexplicable discrepancies between exit polls and actual
vote counts. Polls in thirty states weren't just off the mark -- they
deviated to an extent that cannot be accounted for by their margin of
error. In all but four states, the discrepancy favored President Bush.
Over the past decades, exit polling has evolved into an exact science.
Wow, how unbelieveably wrong. An "exact science", LOL! Polls are wrong
ALL THE TIME and exit polling is especially hard to do. Like any poll,
you don't talk to everyone but even worse here, you don't poll at every
precinct. All precints are not equal. Some are heavily democrat, some
are heavily republican, some are closer to even and the mix changes over
time. Its very difficult to know which ones to include, and just as
important, which to exclude and how to weight the ones you are
including. It would be very easy to get almost any result. Also, the
exit polls showed Kerry leading early in the day which is another flaw
of exit polls -- the people who vote early may be a different political
mix than those who vote after work just as certain kinds of people will
wish to not participate in exit polls. Much of this article is an
inability to get past the wrong exit polls even though they have been
adequately explained many times over.
But during the summer of 2004, the GOP targeted minority voters in
Ohio by zip code, sending registered letters to more than 200,000
newly registered voters(64) in sixty-five counties.(65) On October
22nd, a mere eleven days before the election, Ohio Republican Party
Chairman Bob Bennett -- who also chairs the board of elections in
Cuyahoga County -- sought to invalidate the registrations of 35,427
voters who had refused to sign for the letters or whose mail came back
as undeliverable.(66) Almost half of the challenged voters were from
Democratic strongholds in and around Cleveland.(67)
and around Cleveland.(67)
"almost half"?? LOL! So the majority of those challenged where non-
democrats! This is getting silly and desperate.
Another way Ohio "rigged" the election, according to this piece, is by
requiring people to vote in their precinct. This is a reasonable rule
that exists throughout the country for very obvious reasons.
The decision left hundreds of thousands of voters in predominantly
Democratic counties to navigate the state's bewildering array of
11,366 precincts
Hilarious. Why do democrats continually find the voting process so
difficult to understand? In 2000, they were "bewildered" by the
butterfly ballot (which was designed by democrats by the way). Now,
they are "bewildered" about which precinct to go to and its all those
wascally republican's fault!! Democrats want to be able to show up at
any precinct at all and vote (even in a different state -- hey why not,
this is a democracy dag gummit!) and further they don't want to be
required to show an ID. LOL! Its beyond absurd. Cynical republicans
think they want these things because democrats know it will increase
voter fraud (ineligble people voting and people voting many times) and
that the democrats think they will benefit from more voter fraud. I
won't comment on that theory but I will agree that the current rules of
voting in your precinct (where your name can practically be checked off)
and with an ID is a very reasonable way to conduct an election and guard
against fraud.
There is much whining in the piece about long lines. This is more
crybaby stuff that a serious news organization would be embarassed to
print. Studies after the election showed that lines really weren't
longer on average in the more democrat precincts. And people crying
about a long line to vote (a vote that happens only one day every 4
years) should look at the people of Iraq who not only waited in long
lines but who braved quite real death threats to cast their vote. Their
voter turnout percentage put ours to shame.
The rest of the piece deals with some faulty voting machines found here
and there. The flaw of course is that Kennedy only looked for them in
democrat precincts. Of course there will be some issues at every
precinct but he only reported the ones in democrat areas. If all the
precincts were put to this much scrutiny, the problems tend to balance
out. But this is not a serious piece and Kennedy made no attempt to do
that. Nothing he cites comes close to turning around the 120,000 vote
lead that President Bush achieved.
John Black
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: There is no doubt, Bush was never elected president, he was installed
- Next by Date: Re: Bush is finally going to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment to our Constitution.
- Previous by thread: Re: There is no doubt, Bush was never elected president, he was installed
- Next by thread: Re: There is no doubt, Bush was never elected president, he was installed
- Index(es):
Loading