The larger problem is that a huge portion of the electorate no longer has faith in our democratic process. As far as being "unlikely" that the election was tampered with, it is a fact that it was, the voter suppression in Ohio has been well documented. The allegations of hacking are being investigated and will eventually be resolved.
Harper wrote:The larger problem is that a huge portion of the electorate no longer has faith in our democratic process. As far as being "unlikely" that the election was tampered with, it is a fact that it was, the voter suppression in Ohio has been well documented. The allegations of hacking are being investigated and will eventually be resolved.
Yup, right about the time we find Hoffa and they release the papers telling us who was on the grassy knoll....
Listen to this
interview and then tell me that you don't think that Bev Harris and her now army of volunteers won't get to the bottom of this. Either this woman is totally on to something or she is a complete wacko or fraud.
I vote for wacko or fraud, but then you will just find a way to tell me I am not enlightened nor thinking for myself, but rather just following the party line.
Is it possible there were some problems? Yep, sure it is possible. Wanna bet both sides were causing the problems? You just won't hear about the possible fraud charges aimed at the dems because they lost. But don't fool yourself into thinking there were none.
If you want proof of tampering, I already provided some,
2 pages ago. :wink:
As I said Bill, neither side has a monopoly on voter fraud. Has probably happened in every election we've ever had. Wish it didn't happen, but that is the way it is.
A reality check here for those who say "Yeah, but Clinton and his re-election and then Gore woulda won but ... " by way of telling themselves there's no Democratic Party decline.
American politics is about more than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue ... there's Captitol Hill, 50 Governor's mansions, and 50 State Legislatures. And at the very bottom, there's Party Registration ... the declared preference of those who register as a member of one or another party.
Yeah, Clinton won, but with a mere plurality, mind you, and retained The Incumbency for his party, with another plurality. In the meanwhile, things were, and have been since, going less well for The Democratic Party by every other measure.
About the only "Triumph" the Democrats have had since the 1960s has been the reelection of the man who is only the second President to have been impeached, and the only Democrat since Truman to have managed re-election, while two Democratic incumbencies failed convincingly, while McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis all brought The Party embarrassing defeats, control of both Houses of Congress has gone to The Republicans (increasing with The Incumbent's retention for the first time since Roosevelt, and the first time ever for a Republican Administration), and the majority of Governorships and State Legislatures have likewise moved to The Republicans.
No, the Democratic Party isn't dead. Its not even on life support - its managing OK for itself. But its sure as hell hard to figure any way one might maintain its doing very well.
Harper wrote:Either this woman is totally on to something or she is a complete wacko or fraud.
Yup. Pretty much. Those are the 2 possibilities, allright
And "On to something ... "? Personally, I think it more like "On something".
We shall see.
CoastalRat wrote:I vote for wacko or fraud, but then you will just find a way to tell me I am not enlightened nor thinking for myself, but rather just following the party line.
Is it possible there were some problems? Yep, sure it is possible. Wanna bet both sides were causing the problems? You just won't hear about the possible fraud charges aimed at the dems because they lost. But don't fool yourself into thinking there were none.
You didn't even listen to the interview, that fiigures though, ignorance is bliss.
timberlandko wrote:Harper wrote:Either this woman is totally on to something or she is a complete wacko or fraud.
Yup. Pretty much. Those are the 2 possibilities, allright
And "On to something ... "? Personally, I think it more like "On something".
We shall see.
You didn't listen to the interview either. Don't bother responding to my posts unless you are going to digest the material I posted. This is so typical of the misinformed Bush voter who just wants to exist in her or his little cocoon of misinfomation.
Harper - you also told us Kerry would win by a "landslide". Which is why I understand your monumental disappointment. However, it's a myth that the election was "rigged".
Plain and simple.
You assume without knowledge Harper ... I did indeed listen to the interview .., before you posted it, in fact. That she and some folks choose to think she's "On to something" means she and some folks are so deeply in denial they can't see the river for the rising floodwaters.
I should mention, in fairness, that bit of Harris-on-the-radio silliness is widely linked on conservative boards and forums ... the entertainment value is undeniable.
Harper wrote:CoastalRat wrote:I vote for wacko or fraud, but then you will just find a way to tell me I am not enlightened nor thinking for myself, but rather just following the party line.
Is it possible there were some problems? Yep, sure it is possible. Wanna bet both sides were causing the problems? You just won't hear about the possible fraud charges aimed at the dems because they lost. But don't fool yourself into thinking there were none.
You didn't even listen to the interview, that fiigures though, ignorance is bliss.
I had no reason to listen to more than the first 3 or 4 minutes of it to form an opinion. In fact, my opinion was pretty much formed based on her first statement of "I pretty much knew this would happen" (may not be the exact quote). Yeah, when someone begins an interview claiming they knew this would happen (only because of course their candidate lost), then I don't bother wasting my time with the rest of the interview.
Coastal Rat, I already see that your opinions are not based on fact but on fears, prejuduce and pre-conceived notions. I really don't see why you are responding to my posts when you refuse to look at the info I posted but I guess that is why you have the beliefs that you have. It is really sad when people choose ignorance.
timberlandko wrote:You assume without knowledge Harper ... I did indeed listen to the interview .., before you posted it, in fact. That she and some folks choose to think she's "On to something" means she and some folks are so deeply in denial they can't see the river for the rising floodwaters.
I should mention, in fairness, that bit of Harris-on-the-radio silliness is widely linked on conservative boards and forums ... the entertainment value is undeniable.
OK then tell me what it is in the interview that you dispute.
timberlandko wrote:A reality check here for those who say "Yeah, but Clinton and his re-election and then Gore woulda won but ... " by way of telling themselves there's no Democratic Party decline.
Since I'm the only person that I'm aware of who's mentioned Gore on the last several pages, I'll assume that this, as well as nimh's reference is for me. However, I only brought up Gore's popular victory to refute Larry's claim that the democratic agenda was found to be 'unpalatable' to voters in both of the last two elections. The fact that the Democratic party has lost power is not questioned. Whether or not that means that they should turn into the Republican party is another thing altogether.
Harper wrote:Coastal Rat, I already see that your opinions are not based on fact but on fears, prejuduce and pre-conceived notions. I really don't see why you are responding to my posts when you refuse to look at the info I posted but I guess that is why you have the beliefs that you have. It is really sad when people choose ignorance.
Think what you want Harper. Doesn't much bother me. I listened to all I needed to listen to. The democratic candidate lost the election, and rather than accept that and look for legitimate reasons why, you and some other democrats are running off trying to prove that the election was rigged, because in your minds no sane person could have voted for Bush. Well, keep thinking that way.
Harper wrote:OK then tell me what it is in the interview that you dispute.
The entire absurd, preposterous, paranoid "black helicopter"-ish premis. I don't dispute it, for it merits no such serious attention, but rather I wonder at the gullibilitity and credulity of those so desperate as to be able to convince themselves there might be so much as a scintilla of validity to the allegation. Alex Jones and Bev Harris strike me as havin' the makin's of quite the comedy team.
