Will Americans even ALLOW another (third!) stolen Presidential Election?

[wcepler]

I don't think they will. I think it would bring us to the brink of out of the box hardball.

The theft would be so blatant; everyone on the planet would know it was another stolen Presidential Election.

Look, after eight years of Bush/elite greed and evangelical hatred, our planet is dying (certainly the human ecosystems are going, going, gone), our Constitutional Republic has virtually ceased to exist, the working class is being turned into peasants for less then one percent of the country (the vampire elites), our civil rights have been stolen, the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job (including, let's just say, certain Middle Eastern "friends") is now absolutely mountainous, our children are being used as cannon fodder for the elite money cow oil wars (with profits in the trillions!), and we now have a pug VP candidate, who if she becomes president, could even catalyze an international war.

Clearly, Palin's murderous anti-environment record would inevitably spill over to the rest of the planet, and, guess what?, the "rest of the planet" would not be amused. In short, if WE didn't rid ourselves of this psychopathic manikin, Russia and China (for openers) might do it for us. Hey, this is their planet too, and they aren't just going to sit back and watch Palin mutilate what's left of the human ecosystem (e.g., for fossil fuels, etc.). It's effectively an absolute certainty that if we don't take care of the Palin insanity, other countries will "intervene".

And the background of this Republican criminal theft is 9/11; but forget the pictures, the analysis of literally hundreds of scientists, the interviews of people who were there, etc., etc. All this can be found on sites now too numerous to mention and all pointing to the interpretation that 9/11 wasn't the result of Bush administration ineptitude, but rather that Bush and company ACTIVELY ENGINEERED this atrocity.

But the short cut way to see into the heart of 9/11 is to answer two simple questions:

(1.) What American political party immeasurably "benefited" from 9/11? Duh.

(2.) What Middle Eastern country immeasurably "benefited" from 9/11? Duh.

So, behind a third stolen Presidential Election looms the infinitely treasonous engineering of 9/11. It sure pulled Bush out of the political toilet, didn't it? And it sure justified hating ALL Middle Eastern Muslims, didn't it?

However, an event which may well be the most treasonous and world changing obscenity in human history has been buried even deeper than John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

But WE haven't forgotten the last two stolen Presidential Elections and the human race will keep 9/11 in its heart as perhaps the treasonous low point in human history. Who knows, maybe the name Bush will become a synonym in several languages for the ultimate incarnation of treasonous evil.

OK, bottom line time. These last eight years have been a literal horror. Our Democracy is nearly dead, our children's blood is being exchanged for oil to make billionaires, multi billionaires, the very Earth is being ravaged for the elites, and we're headed into at least a virulent recession if not depression.

And ALL this is the direct result of Bush/elite/fascist policies. For example, the economy would be healed overnight if the Iraq War (whose ONLY function is to make trillions for the elites!) was stopped, and the astronomical tax breaks for the elites was stopped. I think another Duh is appropriate.

So our moment of truth is are we going to permit four (or more) years of this monstrous evolution into a Dictatorship of the Rich Police State by "accepting" ANOTHER stolen Presidential Election?

God in Heaven, isn't EIGHT YEARS already too much?

Plus, all indications are that McCain's heath would probably give out in a year or two, and that means (God forbid) the thing/woman Sarah Palin would be President of the United States (who, if you care for a religious take on things, has become the number one candidate for the 3rd millennia anti-Christ).

However, none of the above can happen if:

(a.) we somehow keep the fascist/elites from stealing the election (best option, of course).

or

(b.) we simply DON'T ACCEPT a third stolen presidential election.

But "not accepting" would mean what?

Well, I guess that's a function of how profoundly we take it in that the next four years would probably be significantly worse than the last eight years.

McCain (the Alzheimer's God of War) would almost certainly start two or three new Middle Eastern Wars in the first few months – and WW3 would be the inevitable result. And if McCain died or had to step down, Palin would so infuriate the rest of the world with her "religious" contempt for our one and only planet Earth, that some kind of war could easily be triggered against us by most of the rest of the planet (who also happen to live on the same planet we do). Plus, Sarah Palin's tiny, evil mind would step on what's left of our Democratic Republic like a cockroach. Let's face it; this psychotic pinhead would be the death of EVERYTHING.

I think this is called being between a rock and a hard place, since "accepting" another stolen presidential election would be the certain death of our already mortally wounded Democratic Republic and the probable end of the environmental ecosystems necessary for human existence. In other words, human extinction.

Conversely, "not accepting" another stolen presidential election, could very conceivably lead to some kind of civil war.

Maybe some advice can be found in the words of the song: “Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.” And there’s certainly no bloody freedom in “accepting” another stolen Presidential Election.

Viva the United States of America!
**********************************************************************

W. Christopher Epler (Bill)

<http://theliberationofrealism.blogspot.com/>

[DavidDvorkin]

1. Yes, they would.

There would be a constant media drumbeat about the unreliability of opinion polls, and in the end the populace would accept it.

[jrockford]

17. To protect the system - yes. The GOP machine is counting on it.

No reason it should EVER of happened. Confidence gone after the first mess.

[Joe the Liberal]

2. If they did steal this election not much would happen

Probably just some protests and nothing more, then we would just wait another 4 years as the US remains stagnant like it has the last 8 years.

[ailsagirl]

3. Some would have us believe that it's going to happen again

Three questions, if anyone knows:

1) Do we know that plans are in motion to steal it?

2) Does Obama have any safeguards in place to stop it??

3) If it's a landslide for Obama, wouldn't it be difficult for them to steal it?

I cannot even begin to contemplate the worst case scenario-- I'll leave the country. I will. But the damage won't just be to us, the whole world will suffer far more grievously than it has already, if you can picture that. It makes me sick to think those scum would pull such a stunt... again.
Damnit, WHY hasn't anything substantive been done to counter this???? :rant:

[Two Americas]

5. landslide

I don't understand the argument "we have to win by a big enough margin that they can't steal it."

What makes it more difficult to steal 10 million votes than a million votes?

If we had a bank teller stealing our deposits, would we say "we need to deposit so much money that he can't steal it all?"

[notaboutus]

6. They are only able to steal a certain % without getting caught

if Gore had asked for a recount of the whole state of FL instead of certain counties they would have caught them then because they would have shown a pattern. Democrats out number republicans but we don't vote the percentage of stolen votes is small compared to the number of democrats registered to vote.

[Two Americas]

7. not that I can see

I can't see a direct connection between the number of votes stolen and the likelihood of "getting caught." Getting caught by whom is one problem.

Once you are into the vault, the amount of money taken out of it is not related to whether or not you get caught.

If the Dems had an 80-20 lead in the polls and then lost I can hear MSM pundits claiming that this proved once and for all how worthless polls are.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. It's more like this:

Suppose you're in a contest where you have to fill buckets with pennies and dump them into a basket with your name on it. The person with the most pennies at the end of a designated period of time wins and gets to keep the pennies. (I was actually in a contest like that sponsored by a bank many years ago.)

Suppose the top two people are you and Lying Cheat. You have 1000 pennies, and Lying Cheat has 995. In order to ensure his win, Lying Cheat distracts you and grabs ten pennies out of your basket. When the count is made, you have 990 pennies and Lying Cheat has 1005. To the casual observer, it looks as if you had almost identical amounts, so either result is plausible.

Now suppose that you run twice as fast as Lying Cheat and manage to get 2000 pennies while Lying Cheat still gets 995. It's clear to any casual observer that you have many more. Under these circumstances, if Lying Cheat tries to turn the contest to his favor, either by dipping into your basket of pennies or switching baskets, someone will wonder why the pennies in Lying Cheat's basket suddenly doubled and will cry foul.

That's why a landslide is harder to steal.

[ailsagirl]

10. Good response

[Two Americas]

11. sure

Were that the problem.

Changing votes at the touch screen - as per the reports from WV - or at central tabulation is not at all like the pennies example. For the pennies example to work as an analogy, we would need hadncounted paper ballots. Then observers could be distracted momentarily and a few votes stolen.

But with electronic voting "distracted" is the given, the case at all times. The votes are already hidden from observers, or cast wrong at the point of the voter making the choice. The penny you toss at your bucket mysteriously goes into the other bucket, and you can't even see that. Or no one ever sees the buckets. No one knows, and there is no way to verfiy anything.

By the way LL, I do think that a larger majority could make "it harder to steal" but people are not saying exactly how that would be the case. It is not automatically harder to steal.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. For one thing, if exit polls were allowed, the results would be

WAY off the exit polls, which tell how people thought they voted, no matter what the machines did. If the exit polls in a precinct are 51% Obama and 49% McCain and the official tally is the opposite, commentators can chalk it up to "margin of error." Maybe the exit pollers missed a few McCain voters.

However, if the exit polls are 60% Obama and 40% McCain, but the official results are 49% Obama and 51% McCain, that's going to raise some eyebrows.

Also, on the precinct level, if a report comes in that Precinct A went 51-49 for the Republicans, and there are equal numbers of Obama and McCain yard signs up, that's a plausible result.

However, my precinct in Minneapolis went 80% for Kerry in 2004 and has overwhelmingly more Obama yard signs than McCain signs. I think anyone who knows this precinct would sit up and take notice if the official count was 51%-49% in favor of McCain. Minneapolis as a whole is solidly Democratic, and in our last mayoral election, we had two Democrats and a Green, so a Republican candidate taking Minneapolis would be downright odd.

[Two Americas]

15. understood LL

I agree with you. I sat up and took notice, and my eyebrows were raised a long time ago.

Autorank demonstrated that the Bush win was from a mysterious padding of urban totals. How many sat up and took notice? You did, I did, yes. Let's say eyebrows are raised. Let's say more eyebrows are raised. Then what? There is not a person here at DU who has any excuse for not already sitting up and taking notice and raising their eyebrows. Yet there is still much denial and resistance to the truth here. Think of how much worse that is with the general public.

Again, I do think there are scenarios in which a greater margin of victory could make a successful theft less likely, but I am not seeing any such scenarios described in this thread.

[Two Americas]

13. percentage

Thinking about the percentage idea....

If the touch screen machines are flipping a certain percentage of Obama votes to McCain - and can there be any doubt of that? - setting them up to flip 12% is no more difficult than say 7% of them.

Flipping 12% of 10 million votes would have the same outcome as flipping 12% of one million votes. Millions of more Obama votes? Same percentage of votes would be flipped, and therefore more actual votes flipped, that is all - same outcome in the race.

A greater number of Obama votes does not mean they need to flip a higher percentage of them.

[ailsagirl]

8. Just that it would be more obvious that shenanigans were going on

If it's really close, it's easier to make some "adjustments," because any changes that would be made would be hard to track. That was my understanding.

[Two Americas]

12. to whom?

Us? Then what?

Or more obvious to the public? How? The MSM?

How it is easier to "adjust" a million votes electronically then it is to "adjust" 10 millions votes?

If the machines are flipping some percentage of Obama votes to McCain, it does not matter how many Obama votes are cast. Up the percentage of flips - an easy hack. Done. No more evidence, no more risk for the cheaters.

[norepubsin08]

4. Interesting

[Two Americas]

16. stolen elections?

What stolen elections? We have quite a few outspoken DUers who think this is all tinfoil, and are beating up on Autorank.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7497055#7498029