Reply #14: Well, I'm guessing that's what a lot of activists are working on.

[emcguffie]

I hope it is. Really the only skill I have to contribute -- and I'm not saying I'm a really great shakes at it, either -- is to package and pitch stories to the media. It's what I did at work, before I was put on disability. I did it for the UN Dept. of Public Information, which obviously was not exactly a great success in this department either. But it is what I have done and have an idea how to do.

So I'm looking for, first, to gain some basic comprehension about how to explain in a plausible fashion to, first, media people and then to the public, why there is evidence that election fraud has been taking place. Yes, that it can take place anytime, because of these machines (I still don't understand why people would ever trust a voting machine that counts your vote invisibly and gives you no record when they would never trust an ATM machine that didn't give one either), and that these machines must be replaced, but also that, no, really, it's quite likely that there wasn't an overwhelming Republican sweep in 2010, and it's quite likely that Obama won by a landslide, and that there is real evidence that Kerry won but a sizeable margin.

It all makes sense, and it all adds up to the American people not being SO STUPID as we all keep saying we/they are, to keep voting for people who are bound and determined to take away their way of life. It doesn't make sense that they would keep doing it because they wouldn't keep doing it and they haven't kept doing it, but we are so lied to that we just accept it when they tell us we're upset and we're stupid and we're too lazy to go vote, and so the guys who want to take everything away from us keep winning.

We keep tearing our hair out wondering how our neighbors can be so crazy or stupid or hateful, but what if they just plain are not? What if they are just tearing their hair out saying the same thing? But the media keeps saying something else, so we all think the other guy is the stupid mean nasty one who keeps electing the bad guys?

For a long time there was literally no media to go to, but now we have Rachel and Cenk and maybe Lawrence, and we will have Keith again. They are certainly more approachable. I can't help but believe that Rachel could be convinced if she were presented with well organized sensible evidence, because she can certainly understand it and she does have the attention span to follow it.

So I guess I'll just nose around and ask questions, if that's all right. Maybe someone knowledgeable would like to work on it with me?

Can someone explain to me the antagonism surrounding TIA? Is it all just a part of the difference of opinion I have read about regarding how best to count the votes?

I'm not looking to rile anybody up, just trying to get myself up to speed.