Reply #48: OK, I will concede on the point that

[garybeck]

he has written a handful of articles that address the issue.

but I have heard him on the radio, make emphatic statments that simply can not be backed up by any kind of science. when he says emphatically that the election was not stolen and there is no evidence that anything close to the number of votes required were affected by the efforts to steal the election, I have to say he loses all credibility, and he is simply wrong. and he is doing a disservice to the public by making these false statements.

NO ONE, not YOU, not ANYONE can say emphatically that the election was not stolen. the bullet proof solid truth is that the election COULD HAVE been stolen, at the VERY LEAST. When you consider these facts, no one with any kind of objective view can say emphatically that the election was not stolen:

1) DREs and Opscans with proprietary software and no auditing were used throughout the country.

2) the recount in Ohio was not done legally

if anyone wants to argue either of these, then let's do it. you're not going to win. you know they are true.

So. Knowing what we now know, particularly from the Hursti Hacks, the machines, both opscan and DREs all over the country could have been rigged and none of the testing done by poll workers would have detected it. And the silly response that "it would take a conspiracy of thousands of election workers to do something like that" is false. It would take only a handful of people if they were insiders, particularly employees of the voting machine companies.

So, getting back to my main point. Manjoo writes an article and the title is "Was the election stolen? No."

This alone shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation. I must apologize, I did not read his article because just from the title I can tell that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Would you read an article titled "I've never milked a cow but I would guess this is how you do it"?

AS far as Manjoo being in the Hall of Shame goes, let me say this. I would not put him at the top just for doing a bad job of debunking and basically being a hypocrite. Yes, there is such thing as free speech and having opinions about things. But when you make emphatic statments like "the election was not stolen" and you do it from position of authority, and in a public arena, you really are doing a disservice to the public by misleading them on a very important subject. For that, criticism is warranted.

I'll consider leaving him off the list. My intention is really to put people on there who really deserve it for taking more direct actions that affect elections.

FYI, this thread is not the actual hall of shame. this is a discussion that will help me put together the info I need to make a permanent web page. this thread will die in a matter of days, the actual Hall will look quite different.