Reply #130: I think the problem

[Febble]

is that we have two separate agendas here, that are not diametrically opposed, but end up looking as though they are.

In one corner we have activists like you, dedicated to uncovering a "stolen pair of elections", and all evidence, weak and strong, is grist to your mill. And I have some sympathy with that.

In the other corner we have people like OTOH, and me, and maybe Foo_bar and Nederland, who are similarly appalled (yes) at the broken state of American democracy, who also believe (probably - I do) that Gore was the rightful winner of 2000, and who also believe that 2004 was grossly unjust, but who do not think that the evidence points unambiguously to outright election theft.

So we end up actually fighting over how strong the exit poll evidence is for actual theft in 2004, instead of working together for ways of restoring transparency, trust and justice, which we all agree is imperative.

I think both groups have important roles to play in the future, and possibly in uncovering what happened in 2004. It might be difficult for both groups to see the role the other has to play at times. I will try and see yours more clearly. But I would submit that there is also value in critiquing the arguments used by your own side, which is what I see myself as doing, and I don't think the exit poll evidence is nearly as strong an argument for a stolen election as TIA appears to believe. I may be mistaken; and I may be mistaken that it matters, but I find it hard to believe that what I honestly find flawed arguments are the best way of making progress in restoring American Democracy. I'd like to be able to point the way to better arguments. I will try. But I will also try not to get in your way.

But I most sincerely wish you well.

Lizzie