It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary

Which was completely not the point of the article, if you read it.

It wasn't that the Republicans would mount an "anti" anything campaign, it was that the Dems would get the (white guy)repub candidate elected by default by engaging in the petty race/gender stuff.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Which was completely not the point of the article, if you read it.

It wasn't that the Republicans would mount an "anti" anything campaign, it was that the Dems would get the (white guy)repub candidate elected by default by engaging in the petty race/gender stuff.

Oh, my bad.

In that case; people would be stupid to elect or let (by not voting) a republican carry on the same way of doing things as Bush out of disgust for this temporary dust up between the primary candidates. It is always ugly during the primaries and by the time the general election comes around the party resigns itself to who ever wins and concentrates on beating the other guy.

Already things have calmed down in that direction; so I think it will be alright.

0 Replies

Your faith in human nature is admirable.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Not at all.
I have said many times on here that I do not trust or believe in polls.
I am a firm believer in the fact that polls are often wrong.
They can be worded so they have someone saying that Hitler was a benefit to the world, depending on how the question is worded.

I am saying that those who believed the polls in 2000 and 2004, then cried foul when Bush won are now having no problem with the fact that Hillary beat every poll.

So, if those same people cried foul and accused Bush of wrongdoing when he won the Presidential elections, why are they not doing the same thing about Hillary?
After all, none of the polls had her winning, and yet she won.

OK, so you dont believe Hillary had to rig the vote in NH to get the victory?

Thats a relief. That was just... out there.

I admit my statement was "out there", I meant it to be.
I was just trying to point out how those that trusted the polls and complained when Bush won dont seem to mind the fact that Hillary beat all expectations and all the polls when Hillary won.

It seems a contradiction to me, thats all.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

nimh wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Not at all.
I have said many times on here that I do not trust or believe in polls.
I am a firm believer in the fact that polls are often wrong.
They can be worded so they have someone saying that Hitler was a benefit to the world, depending on how the question is worded.

I am saying that those who believed the polls in 2000 and 2004, then cried foul when Bush won are now having no problem with the fact that Hillary beat every poll.

So, if those same people cried foul and accused Bush of wrongdoing when he won the Presidential elections, why are they not doing the same thing about Hillary?
After all, none of the polls had her winning, and yet she won.

OK, so you dont believe Hillary had to rig the vote in NH to get the victory?

Thats a relief. That was just... out there.

I admit my statement was "out there", I meant it to be.
I was just trying to point out how those that trusted the polls and complained when Bush won dont seem to mind the fact that Hillary beat all expectations and all the polls when Hillary won.

It seems a contradiction to me, thats all.

No contradiction. You just aren't informed about what's going on in New Hampshire in regard to the recount of votes. I first posted about it in this thread here: http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3041527#3041527

You can catch up on the latest here: http://www.bradblog.com/

Both Republican and Democrat votes are being recounted.

0 Replies

Quote:

No contradiction. You just aren't informed about what's going on in New Hampshire in regard to the recount of votes. I first posted about it in this thread here: http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3041527#3041527

You can catch up on the latest here: http://www.bradblog.com/

Both Republican and Democrat votes are being recounted.

I knew there was a recout going on, but I hadnt heard any results.
Thanx for the info.

My point however had nothing to do with the vote totals as much as it did the people on here.

Many here on A2K claimed after Bush won in both 2000 and 2004 that since Bush had defied all the polls and won, it must mean he cheated, rigged the vote, or did anything else illegal to win.

Those same people however, have no problem with the fact that Hillary beat all expectations and defied all the polls with her win.
They seem to think it was just how the people voted, and nothing illegal was done for her win.

I dont trust or believe in polls, so her winning doesnt bother me, nor does it concern me.

I was only commenting about the reaction on here, not on the vote itself.

0 Replies

mm, you are right, I understand your point perfectly, which some here apparently do not because you keep having to re-explain it. The point being that some people believe if a Democrat loses and the poll numbers showed otherwise, then Bush won by fraud, but if a Democrat wins when poll numbers show otherwise, there was no fraud. You are pointing out the hypocrisy.

Of course, polls mean little or nothing compared to actual ballots.

The recount in NH could be very interesting.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Many here on A2K claimed after Bush won in both 2000 and 2004 that since Bush had defied all the polls and won, it must mean he cheated, rigged the vote, or did anything else illegal to win.

Those same people however, have no problem with the fact that Hillary beat all expectations and defied all the polls with her win.
They seem to think it was just how the people voted, and nothing illegal was done for her win.

Who specifically claimed that because Bush defied the polls, he must have cheated. I venture that NO ONE made this claim as you characterize it. How do you come up with such bullshit?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Many here on A2K claimed after Bush won in both 2000 and 2004 that since Bush had defied all the polls and won, it must mean he cheated, rigged the vote, or did anything else illegal to win.

Those same people however, have no problem with the fact that Hillary beat all expectations and defied all the polls with her win.
They seem to think it was just how the people voted, and nothing illegal was done for her win.

Who specifically claimed that because Bush defied the polls, he must have cheated. I venture that NO ONE made this claim as you characterize it. How do you come up with such bullshit?

Lets see, here is one that claims Bush couldnt have won without cheating...

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2878296#2878296

Thats from Setanta, BTW.

And almost anything from BBB about elections finds a way to claim fraud on the part of Bush and the RNC.
Yet, none of them will admit that the polls could have just been wrong, instead they claim that Bush cheated.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Lets see, here is one that claims Bush couldnt have won without cheating...

Not really.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
mysteryman wrote:

Many here on A2K claimed after Bush won in both 2000 and 2004 that since Bush had defied all the polls and won, it must mean he cheated, rigged the vote, or did anything else illegal to win.

Those same people however, have no problem with the fact that Hillary beat all expectations and defied all the polls with her win.
They seem to think it was just how the people voted, and nothing illegal was done for her win.

Who specifically claimed that because Bush defied the polls, he must have cheated. I venture that NO ONE made this claim as you characterize it. How do you come up with such bullshit?

Lets see, here is one that claims Bush couldnt have won without cheating...

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2878296#2878296

Thats from Setanta, BTW.

And almost anything from BBB about elections finds a way to claim fraud on the part of Bush and the RNC.
Yet, none of them will admit that the polls could have just been wrong, instead they claim that Bush cheated.

Saying he cheated and saying because the polls were saying one thing and it ended up being something else (or words to that effect) are not the same thing.

In my opinion; but just got selected president. Some people think the machines were rigged or messed up in the 2004; but not too many people were saying because the polls....

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Many here on A2K claimed after Bush won in both 2000 and 2004 that since Bush had defied all the polls and won, it must mean he cheated, rigged the vote, or did anything else illegal to win.

Also, that just leaves out so many facts. Do you really think that people were only questioning the results because there was a difference between the polls and the final numbers?

0 Replies

I just received an e-mail from a friend of mine who I consider an intelligent and educated person.

It was one of those e-mails that make a particular point and encourages the recipient to send to others. There must be a clever net-name for these but I don't know it.

In any case this one was forwarded only to me and with no comment from my friend.

The gist of the message was a ridiculous warning that Obama was in fact part of an Islamist conspiracy to take down the US from within. Of course it's basis were facts like Obama's middle name is Hussein, he went to school in Indonesia etc. Utter tripe which I really find hard to believe anyone takes seriously, but it is out there making the rounds.

If I see it with any regularity; coming from different sources I may start to become alarmed, but for now it's the same sort of nonsense that gets spread around by kooks on both sides of the spectrum.

I haven't had a chance to discuss it with my friend, and I'm actually embarrassed to ask him if, in any way, he takes it seriously, but he is a heavy-duty Republican partisan, and in a far and small corner of my mind I have the tiniest of doubts that he forwarded it only for a laugh.

Certainly not an admission of the existence of Republican Attack Machine or a suggestion that Republicans are mor prone to this sort of thing than Democrats. More an acknowledgment of how seriously some people can take political races, and perhaps justify "dirty tricks."

A hackneyed thought game is to ask someone whether or not they would shoot and kill Hitler if they could sent back in time and be provided with the opportunity. How much simpler the question would be if it involved being sent back in time to circulate scurrilous and unfounded charges against Hitler.

0 Replies

http://www.blatanttruth.org/draftalert.gif

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Many here on A2K claimed after Bush won in both 2000 and 2004 that since Bush had defied all the polls and won, it must mean he cheated, rigged the vote, or did anything else illegal to win.

Those same people however, have no problem with the fact that Hillary beat all expectations and defied all the polls with her win.

Hm, I smell a straw man.

I mean, yes - there were a few of those who peddled the line that the end results diverging from the polls beforehand somehow "proved" that there had been fraud. And that was a BS line. As several liberals at the time responded to say as well.

But the argument that it was the difference between polls and outcome that proved fraud was pretty peripheral, mostly limited to either fringe nuts or used only as a circumstantial ground for suspicion.

The reason that many here claimed that the vote in Florida in 2000 was rigged or that there had been cheating going on, was because of a bunch of concrete suspicious things that had happened during the elections. Things that were listed and argued ad nauseam, some persuasively, some less so. Concrete things. It was not just, "oh Bush did better than the polls so he must have cheated".

I mean, did you even read Setanta's post that you just linked in to prove your point? He never says anything about polls. Or the difference between them and the results. Instead, he mentions specific things that actually did go wrong during the elections - such as the scrubbing of thousands of black Floridians from the voting rolls as convicted felons who turned out not to be and never having been felons at all - on the information from a private company contracted by the Republican Secretary of State who was also the co-chair of Bush's campaign committee in Florida.

Thats pretty specific. Thats not, "Bush did better than the polls so he must have cheated".

In the NH primaries this year, there wasnt anything like that kind of stuff going wrong, so I dont think your comparison goes anywhere...

0 Replies

As I recall, many of the accusations by Democrats, such as people being denied voting in Florida, were proven false. Now, we do know the polls were kept open past the allotted time in places like St. Louis, and we do know the Democrats tried to deny ballots sent in by members of the military because of some technicality with the Postal Service. We also know a network or networks declared Gore winner before the polls closed in Republican rich Florida panhandle, thus likely depressing turnout.

Further, the investigations into the recounts concluded Bush won, fair and square in Florida. What the court did was stop an illegal cherry picked recount in Florida, which was unconstitutional, but even if that had been completed, I think I recall hearing Bush would have won anyway.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Further, the investigations into the recounts concluded Bush won, fair and square in Florida. What the court did was stop an illegal cherry picked recount in Florida, which was unconstitutional, but even if that had been completed, I think I recall hearing Bush would have won anyway.

You might think that all there was to the investigations was that some Democrats who contested the results because they didn't like the fact that Bush won.

Or some variation thereof.

What I would be really concerned about, no matter what party you favour or what candidate you support, would be the: can you really trust the process? How sure can you be that every vote will be counted?

For example, look at the story of the Volusia Error: in a precinct with 585 registered voters, 412 had shown up to vote in the 2000 elections. Out of those, 2,813 voted for Bush, and 16,022 had given Gore a negative vote.

Regardless of party affiliation: don't you think that's reason for some concern?

0 Replies

Heres how democracy works in socialist Venezuela;

"But Venezuela is not Pakistan. In fact, it's not Florida or Ohio either. One reason that Chavez could be confident of the vote count is that Venezuela has a very secure voting system. This is very different from the United States, where millions of citizens cast electronic votes with no paper record. Venezuelan voters mark their choice on a touch-screen machine, which then records the vote and prints out a paper receipt for the voter. The voter then deposits the vote in a ballot box. An extremely large random sample - about 54 percent - of the paper ballots are counted and compared with the electronic tally.

If the two counts match, then that is a pretty solid guarantee against electronic fraud. Any such fraud would have to rig the machines and stuff the ballot boxes to match them - a trick that strains the imagination."

http://www.cepr.net/content/view/1383/45/

They won't give us this in America because the vote would be to hard to fix.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

For example, look at the story of the Volusia Error: in a precinct with 585 registered voters, 412 had shown up to vote in the 2000 elections. Out of those, 2,813 voted for Bush, and 16,022 had given Gore a negative vote.

Regardless of party affiliation: don't you think that's reason for some concern?

The wikipedia article shows the facts of the article are disputed. Besides, how do you vote negatively? I read the article and it seems to indicate the error was corrected. Apparently some numbers were posted wrong, that were corrected.

I happen to believe corruption is alot more common in urban areas where Democrats prevail.

We need a permanent copy of each ballot that can be hand counted if necessary. I would never favor complete electronic voting. And I am against full mail in voting. If people are too lazy to go to the polls where conditions can be fairly monitored, too bad. And we need a way to check if people are voting in more than one place. We need better ID checking and cross checking of voter rolls.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The wikipedia article shows the facts of the article are disputed.

I know that the article shows the facts as disputed, but you can go to the 'discussion' page and follow all the links there.

okie wrote:

Besides, how do you vote negatively?

Yes, that's the prize question. The mere fact that such a thing as 'negative votes' could occur at all seems deeply troubling. Apparently, there was a problem with the memory card. And whereas the company producing the voting machines (it's actually an optical reader machine) claimed that these machines were 100% safe, this has later been shown to be false.

If you want, you can read this wikipedia article about the 'Hursti Hack'.

With the optical reader machines used in Volusia, you a) the actual ballots, b) a control printout of the votes stored on the memory card after all the votes have been cast that has to be signed by election officials and c) a central computer, where the memory cards get plugged in, the votes read and the numbers tallied.

In this hack, it was shown that somebody could manipulate the vote merely by fooling around with the memory card. Wrong number would not only show up in the central computer, but also in the control printouts. The only way of verifying would therefore be to manually recount each and every ballot cast.

If you want to see how the actual hack works, here's the relevant part of an HBO documentary. And while the company producing the machines claimed that documentary had been faked, a later investigation of scientists at UC Berkeley found that the "Hursti Hack" did indeed work, and that it was possible to rig the vote without access to any passwords, cryptographic keys or any other part of the voting system.

okie wrote:

I read the article and it seems to indicate the error was corrected. Apparently some numbers were posted wrong, that were corrected.

Yes, it was. But the error was caught because the numbers were so obviously wrong. No way of telling if similar errors (or, let's face it, manipulations) have occurred elsewhere.

And, just to be clear: this doesn't equal saying that Bush or the Republican party was behind any of this.

0 Replies

It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know