Reply #15: I agree, FRAUD explains the results of the 2004 "election"

[texpatriot2004]

The way I read this, the GOP's 3 million "Evangelical" votes would not have put him over the edge but rather helped him close in on the Democrats and possibly, POSSIBLY win the "election" narrowly. Instead, he "won" by a "3 million vote majority where no such vote could exist." Which definitely explains the "moral majority" and "Evangelical" vote nonsense that the pundits spewed after the "election." Some Republicans were indeed "shocked" by this result, it was obvious to watch.

So, basically, this affirms the theory that some of us have had that Kerry won the "election" by about 8 million votes or at the very minimum 4.5 million votes.

I think that it does illustrate the realistic obstacles that the GOP faced going into the "election."

This would validate a person opinion of mine...Kerry ran a great campaign, so much so that he kept the Gore voters (who won in 2000), increased the Democratic votes (our voter registration drives were exponentially more successful), brought in the 3rd party votes who were screaming with the rest of us "anybody but Bush", and I know he converted Republican voters who were doubtful about this pResident being a TRUE CONSERVATIVE. I think the motivation against Bush has not been given sufficient weight in most analysis.

It seems to me then that Rove had to go to plan "D" - manipulate the central tabulator and use any other means necessary to achieve his end goal. Therefore, I agree with the statement here that the exit polls point to a logical conclusion that is the "election" results could not have been achieved without FRAUD.

Still, the KICKER is this, this Government CANNOT prove to me (or to anyone else) that they are legitimate. They cannot "prove" they were elected. They have the burden of proof in this matter, not I. Without being able to prove that they were indeed "elected" as they say they were, we have NO TRANSPARENCY IN OUR ELECTION AND NO DEMOCRACY!

KERRY WON! GET OVER IT!