1
   

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 03:02 pm
Quote:
I must say also that your objections and caveats - essentially just attacking the messenger - do nothing to challenge, let alone diminish the findings of the report.


That's either disingenuous or naïve of you. A messenger simply delivers the intended message. There is, however, much to suspect when the messenger is also the researcher, and when messenger/researcher has a vested interest in the nature of the data presented. I can't figure out if you really are so silly as to just consider this a case of attacking the messenger, or if you're trying to avoid an important aspect both of historiography and practical forensics--cui bono. The best accounts of the battle of First Manassas/Bull Run do not come from Irvin McDowell nor Pierre Toutant (aka Beauregard)--they're interested parties. The same is true of Hearne. Furthermore, Hearne was legal counsel to the Bush/Cheney campaign, with emphasis on litigation. It would, in fact, be gross negligence on the part of an historical researcher or a criminal investigator to ignore the possible interest a witness or researcher has in the nature and content of the message.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 06:49 pm
Irvin McDowell and P.T.G. Beauregard did not annotate their memoirs (dry, pedestrian, and self-serving, if you've read them - and I suspect you have) with cites source referenced to published studies, news articles, police reports, sworn testimony, and other court documents. Perhaps Hearne et al brought their own ax to the grindstone - thats very possible, even likely. On the other hand, there seems to be no other ax anywhere near the grindstone. If you don't like their ax, get one of your own. Gather your counter documentation and prove the report's evidence is flawed and its conclusions are invalid. The messenger well may have an agenda and at the same time deliver a valid message. I have seen nothing which leads me to doubt the validity of the report's evidence, I have seen nothing to contradict the report's conclusions.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 06:54 pm
And i have seen little of substance in that report to support a charge of wide-spread voter fraud practiced by undeniably identified Democratic Party employees, permanent or temporary. The report leans on innuendo and the post hoc fallacy like a pair of crutches. As my grandmother always said: "You think your way, and i'll think mine."
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 07:45 pm
The report says nothing about widespread vote fraud, in fact it argues there was no widespread, institutional, organized, systemic, vote fraud. It does point to, with documented reference, numerous isolated instances of irregularities and infractions, originating with and perpetrated by supporters or operatives of both parties across several states.

Its findings are that documented instances of complicity in electoral irregularities weigh quantitatively more toward the supporters and operatives of one particular party than to their opposite numbers. Thats all - just one side appears, by the available, documented, independently verifiable evidence, more likely to have been causatively involved in 2004 electoral irregularities, local, state, and national, whether fraud, intimidation, or other malfeasance or incompetence, than does the other.

Dislike the report and its principals all you wish. However, to refute the report, you need to counter its findings with documented, independently verifiable evidence to the contrary. Go right ahead - gather your documentation and present your own conclusions.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Aug, 2005 12:52 am
on 2/8/2005, at 8:59 pm, timberlandko wrote:
Hadda reactivate this thread - there's new news. It seems indeed there was vote fraud - lots of it - in the 2004 election. This just in: . . . etc.


However, now the Big Bird states:

Quote:
The report says nothing about widespread vote fraud, in fact it argues there was no widespread, institutional, organized, systemic, vote fraud.


Seems i have no homework to do at all, you've done it for me . . . hoist on your own petard.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Aug, 2005 05:41 am
If I remember correctly, several of the WV incidents all occurred with one man in particular present. There was a pic of him and his daughter being attacked at a rally, and it turned out to be one of his sons that was ripping the sign from her hand in an attempt to make it look like a Democrat was doing it.

Anyone remember that? Same guy was at the WV headquarters when the gun was supposedly fired. That incident is on the list posted on previous page. But, we don't know that it really happened as stated since this guy was subsequently outed.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Aug, 2005 05:46 am
You know Squinney, after the 2000 election it was revealed that Katherine Harris, then the Florida Secretary of State, had hired a private company to review Florida to review voter registration rolls, during which review tens of thousands of voters were disqualified on specious grounds. Just less than two years ago, the CEO of Deibold, which among other things manufactures voting machines, sent out a memo promising to deliver Ohio for Bush.

These may or may not have been legitimate causes for alarm. But they represented a strength in the debate between Democrat and Republican. Rove's formula is to attack you opponent's strengths rather than the weak points. This joker Hearne who is behind the phoney voters rights organization was the Bush/Cheney legal counsel, and responsible for litigation. How much in keeping with Rove's tactical doctrine if the Republicans are going after this issue to usurp it from the Democrats.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Aug, 2005 01:17 pm
Setanta wrote:
on 2/8/2005, at 8:59 pm, timberlandko wrote:
Hadda reactivate this thread - there's new news. It seems indeed there was vote fraud - lots of it - in the 2004 election. This just in: . . . etc.


However, now the Big Bird states:

Quote:
The report says nothing about widespread vote fraud, in fact it argues there was no widespread, institutional, organized, systemic, vote fraud.


Seems i have no homework to do at all, you've done it for me . . . hoist on your own petard.


Hardly - you appear to be missing the point. There was no institutional, organized, systemic, vote fraud, however there were many, many independent, not inter-related instances of electoral irregularities, which to a statistically significant degree more quantitatively originated with and/or were perpetrated by those whose interests coincided with the Democratic Party's agenda than by their Republican-leaning counterparts. The Democrats love to whine about Republican misdeeds, but in this instance, the evidence indicates that while neither are sinless, the sins mount more to the Democrats' column than to the Republicans' column.

Now, as mentioned before, perhaps selective data sampling was employed by the pricipals of the report - perhaps there is evidence which contraindicates their findings, evidence they either overlooked or purposely excluded; either way, the presentation of such evidence would invalidate the conclusions of the report. Absent such contraindicative evidence, the report's findings stand unchallenged - not necessarily validated, mind you, but none the less unchallenged, unrefuted. Challenge the report - gather and present the contraindicative evidence.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 06:26 am
Boise Weekly

Quote:
AUGUST 24, 2005
Eye of the Beholder
Is treason only a matter of perspective?

BY BILL COPE


This one's for the Republicans. Admittedly, it's a huge leap of faith to suppose there are any them who have enough sense left to reason with. But here's hopin'.

Be prepared, Republicans, I'll be asking you to use your imaginations. I know you have 'em, people. Hey, not so long ago, you were able to imagine weapons of mass destruction all over Iraq. You imagined that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, and you imagined that the war was going to be a waltz. And the most remarkable thing of all is that you were capable of imagining all of this without a shred of evidence to support your convictions. So don't try to tell me you don't have imaginations, you Republican dreamers, you. Far as I'm concerned, you guys are better at living in a fantasy world than Willy Wonka and Michael Jackson combined.

Now relax. Just close your eyes and come with me for a brief cruise through the Land of "What If?" And I apologize for that crack about you not having enough sense left to reason with. Sometimes I can't stop myself from being a snot. But for the rest of the column, I'll try to behave myself.

•

Imagine ... what if it's November 2008, and Hillary Clinton has just won the presidential election? (Calm down there, Red. Remember, it's only make-believe.)

Yes, Clinton won, but only after another bruising, vicious campaign season that divided the country into screaming opposites, and only after a another squeaker at the polls. It was a close 'un, I tell you. And in one or two of those states with a pivotal role in the Electoral College, it could have gone either way, depending on ... say ... that ice storm in Cincinnati, or those lost ballots in Orlando.

But by midnight on the West Coast, the Republican candidate had graciously conceded defeat and Hillary was giving credit for her victory to a massive turnout of Unitarians and Scientologists. Tom Delay and Bill Frist issued a joint statement saying, "The American people have spoken, and it is now our duty to put the rancor behind us and cooperate with the new president." (I realize some of this may be hard to imagine. But look, it's easier to swallow than the notion we'll be done in Iraq anytime soon, isn't it?)

So the wheels were greased for a smooth transition of power. Only, in the days and weeks since the election, accounts have been pouring out of the suburbs of Cincinnati and Columbus, Toledo and Cleveland and Dayton, that indicate there was something fishy about the way the election was run. There are reports of persistent and unexplained voting machine malfunctions in dozens of Ohio precincts, and in several rural counties, warehouses full of the machines were not even deployed, leaving citizens in those areas to stand in line for hours to cast their ballots.

Bloggers glommed onto the incidents like plaque on teeth. PowerLine.com turned itself into a national registry of the irregularities, but it was Michelle Malkin who put the two and two together, pointing out that every county, every precinct, and every polling place with a suspicious story to tell were in areas known to be most heavily populated with Republicans. Very odd, don't you think?

Then there were those crazy exit polls, every one of which put President Clinton's opponent ahead by substantial margins early in the day, and every one of which proved wrong. Curiouser and curiouser. How could it be that every last darn thing that went wrong, went wrong in Clinton's favor?

Finally, the doubts accumulated to such a degree that Congressional Republicans demanded an investigation, and what they found was disturbing, indeed. Fraudulent and illegal pre-election maneuvering, a concentrated effort to disenfranchise voters in GOP neighborhoods, an insidious scheme to keep reporters and other observers away from polling stations ... to sum it up, the inquiry led the House committee to the conclusion there were "massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies." And most of these anomalies seemed to center on the Ohio secretary of state, who-what a surprise-also served as the co-chair for Ms. Clinton's Ohio campaign committee.

Trouble is, nobody but the most ardent Republicans paid any attention. Democrats ridiculed the whole thing, calling the findings "laughable, if it weren't so sad," and pundits dismissed it all as the ravings of the "looney right." The so-called "fair and balanced" media buried the affair, all except for CBS anchor Katy Couric, who joked about the complainers being "totally divorced from reality ... duh!"

A smattering of intrepid independent journalists continued to pursue the leads. Mark Crispin Miller, the author of several books on chicanery in American politics, laid it out succinctly in an article-"None Dare Call It Stolen"- published in the August 2009 Harper's Magazine, almost a year after the election. But for all purposes, the deed was done and the message was apparent to anyone who cared: Whether Clinton was aware of it or not, it has become clear that powerful figures in the Democratic Party set about systematically to steal the 2008 election. And it appears they got away with it.

•

That's it, Republicans. You can open your eyes now. Story's over. And please, feel free to tell me how you feel.

Outraged, perhaps? That such a thing is even conceivable? That after 230 years of America being the beacon on the hill, the bright and shining light to all those down-trodden fledgling democracies around the world, a cabal of self-serving criminals could so easily turn our election process into an unsolved crime scene?

I'll bet you're even thinking that if such a thing were to happen, it would be time to get those citizen militias kicked up another notch. That somebody-probably a lot of somebodies-should hang. If such a thing were to happen, I mean. That this foul betrayal is the highest treason a democracy can suffer, and that if justice is not served, maybe a little civil war is in order to set things right ... if such a thing were to happen.

By the way, if you truly give a damn about America like you pretend you do, Mark Miller's article is in this month's Harper's, so you don't have to wait until 2009 to get outraged. He ends with this: "This nation can survive a plot to hijack an election. What it cannot survive is our indifference to, or unawareness of, the evidence that such a plot has succeeded."

Oh, and the article is not about the future-and it's not about Hillary.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 06:43 am
http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 07:45 am
John Conyers report re what went wrong in Ohio
John Conyers report re what went wrong in Ohio:

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 03:59 pm
I'm still disappointed in Kerry for reneging on his pledge to make sure that every vote was counted. He needs not to run in the next election cycle.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 04:16 pm
Just think how disappointed you'd have been if he'd been elected and count your blessings.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/21/2024 at 05:27:51