You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #69: "Their formulas are based on guesses." --jobycom [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-05 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
69. "Their formulas are based on guesses." --jobycom
So, what do you think Diebold's and ES&S's 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code is based on? Hm-m?

Lay it out for for me. Show me how they tabulate our votes. Explain the code. Give me a url where I can review it, or have a programmer review it. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY COUNT ARE VOTES!

I'm sorry, but you DON'T NEED EVIDENCE when a system is INHERENTLY FRAUDULENT and is designed TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE.

We had a fraudulent election system going in. And...


...all external evidence points to a Bush loss. And...


...numerous internal anomalies--such as nearly a hundred reports of touchscreens changing Kerry votes to Bush votes, with almost none going the other way; or, studies of paper vs. electronic voting showing tens of thousands of phantom votes for Bush in electronic voting--also pointing to a Bush loss. And...


...among all the external evidence pointing to a Bush loss, all polls--not just some polls--ALL polls point to a Bush loss.

Consider the scientific principle of cumulative effect. Cut down one tree. The birds and fish can still make it. The streams are still clear. Cut down ten trees. A few birds and fish fall by the wayside. The streams run brown for a short period. Cut down a hundred trees. Some birds and fish stop reproducing. The streams get browner for longer period. Clear-cut the hillside, and spray it with garlon. Those local fish, if they are coho salmon (and therefore are genetically tied to only one stream and can spawn nowhere else) disappear from the face of the earth; sensitive birds become stressed, can't find habitat, and some die without laying eggs, or their young die for lack of dispersal habitat. Further, frogs start being born with three legs or no eyes; they can't reproduce. Their predators starve. The forest itself, now a near desert, pours mud into the stream with every rainstorm. Young trees fry in the hot sun. Invasive species of plants take over some of the ground. A forest that took a thousand years to become tall and green and wet and full of life never grows back. Its scrawny, sparsely placed trees never again can adequately protect nesting birds. And the combination of sun, heat, pesticides, muddy waters, and loss of species, known and unknown, destroys that once beautiful ecosystem forever.

It happened in Greece. It happened in North Africa. It happened in China. Sometimes cumulative effects are definitive and final, and the original conditions cannot be restored.

Industry foresters will deny, deny, deny that cumulative effects are real. They will say, "Show me one dead fish." They will ignore the evidence of their own eyes. They will say one tree, a hundred trees, what does it matter? It'll all grow back. They will call the old fisherman a liar who says that, when he was a boy, the stream was teeming with thousands of fish, so thick you could walk across the stream on their backs. They will say that's just anecdotal. They will say the hot sun on your face--where cool forest should be--and the nausea you feel from pesticides, and the feeling of death all around you, are anecdotal. They will require you to raise $100,000 for a scientific study; then they will get their lawyers to deny that evidence in court.

One poll. Two polls. Three polls. Four polls. Five polls and more. All saying the same thing. New registration figures saying the same thing. Polls of new voters, independent voters, and former Nader voters, all saying the same thing. Pre-polls. Post-polls. Polls leading up to the election. Poll today. All pointing to a Bush loss. The issue polls all pointing to huge disapproval of every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, way up in the 60% to 70% range, over the last two years. Anecdotes of enthusiasm among voters to get rid of Bush. One, two, three, four, five--many anecdotes, all saying the same thing: My brother who never votes; my Republican grandfather who voted for Bush in '00; my co-worker who let her registration lapse--all inspired to vote THIS TIME, because "this is the most important election in our history", for Kerry, because "I can't stand Bush any more"--or dragged to the polls by Gore voters who are still angry about '00. The spontaneous enthusiasm at Kerry-Edwards rallies. The highly vetted, bused-in dullness of Bush-Cheney events.

The war that 58% of the American people opposed before it ever started. The torture photos revealed--such horror!--six months before the election, with 63% of the American people opposing torture "under any circumstances." The failure to find WMDs. The outing of a CIA agent and her entire WMD counter-proliferation project--an act of treason--for political revenge. The secrecy--on everything from budgets to Halliburton's no bid contracts, to 9/11. The massive loss of jobs. Bush's utterly dismal performance in the debates--an idiot, an embarrassment. Continued carnage in Iraq.

Where does the cumulative effect begin, and get acknowledged? Does this not ADD UP to an overwhelming picture, some of it detailed and some of sketched in, but, cumulatively compelling, of a wrong outcome in the 2004 election?

And when you combine it with the secret, proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations, and the lack of a paper trail, and the Republicans fighting a paper trail in Congress, and the voting machine companies lobbying against it everywhere--egregious and deliberate non-transparency--it seems to me deliberate know-nothingism, deliberate blindness, of the kind that the industry forester exhibits, to NOT SEE THIS REALITY.

"Show me one dead fish." Well, what I can show you is that no fish come up here any more, so, I can't show a dead example of something that no longer exists.

"To prove it you need evidence." Ask Diebold and ES&S.


People who demand proof and evidence, in this instance, fail to grasp that evidence is the very thing that the Bushite Republicans and their electronic voting companies, with their secret, proprietary programming code, sought to deny us; and that the denial of that evidence IS evidence. AND, everything else says Bush lost.

The Diebold and ES&S vote tabulation result, which the war profiteering corporate news monopolies "matched" their exit polls to--thus disguising and hiding some of the evidence of election fraud--is the ONLY evidence that Bush won. The secret vote count of his buds at these companies is the only "proof" THEY have. Everything else--including the real exit poll results--says he lost.

Why should anyone presume that Bushite corporations, counting the votes with secret formulae, would produce a correct result? Their very secrecy cries out against them. And why make--or retain--this presumption, when all other evidence says the opposite?

Trends MEAN SOMETHING. The cumulative sweep of an aggregate of facts MEANS SOMETHING. All polls, and all other evidence, trends to Kerry. AND, they counted the votes behind a veil of secrecy.

The scientific mode of thought tends to take things apart, and dissect them down to their smallest constituent parts. We can do that to a frog, for instance. But we can't MAKE a frog, nor understand it as a whole creature, nor understand it IN ITS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, without some fuzzy, intuitive thinking.

You have got to get out of the "proof and evidence" mode, for a moment, and ask yourself: What the hell are you looking at? Are you looking at a tongue? Are you looking at an eyeball? Or are you looking at a whole thing, a living creature, with a face, with being, and with intricate relationship to other living things, and to air, and water, and rocks?

Now try to "see" that frog, and determine what it is, while it hides under a black veil. Come on, you can do it. Something's hopping around under there. Something's croaking.

It's not a cat. It's not a tarantula. It's not parrot. It's not a rock. It's a....

....stolen election!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC