|
"Looking back at 2000, one sees that the election was stolen, yet, do you hear the DNC, etal, the republicans, etal, talking about it? No. Well the similar happened in 2004, and the same parties, save us truth seekers, are silent again. Therefore, that part of your argument is destroyed, and the rest becomes very questionable, eh?"
No, my argument was not in anyway destroyed, and the rest of my points are simple reality. You may or may not chose to accept where we are, but it is what it is.
A majority of Democrats, and most certainly 100% of the population on DU to include myself, agree that the Supreme Court of the United States had zero business interfering with the state of Florida's election in 2000. Saying that, the Supreme Court made its decision and there wasn't a whole lot that could be done that wouldn't be counterproductive after the fact. Had we as a party to continued contesting that decision, refuse to recognize the electors, walk out of Congress, insist that we wouldn't work with Bush or the Republicans, etc, we simply would have been destroyed as a viable American political party. There is a terrible confusion on DU and on other left leaning web boards that assumes that activists that take part in these forums have terribly much in common with the bulk of the American public. We don't. The American people, for the most part, tend to completely reject the views and vision of the far left and far right. Americans tend to gravitate towards the middle, with a go along get along mindset so long as they can lead fairly productive lives. Americans do not want the US government shut down - witness what happened to Newt Gingrich when he tried to take on Clinton in 95' and essentially brought many services the Federal Government offers to a halt. Gingrich never really recovered from that and it was all down hill from there for him. The media and the majority of the American populace were in no mood to see the Democratic Party continue to contest the 2000 election, and had we done so it would have horribly damaged the party. Democratic Party officials and strategists knew this, Al Gore knew this, the media knew this - activists and fringe players didn't accept it, but that is because you can always bitch, scream and complain when your on the outside looking in because your not really responsible for the reprecussions.
"One, the exit polling. Hell, even Fox news at 5pm, Nov. 2, was as good as calling Kerry the winner. The exit polling cannot be so easily dismissed as you attempted."
Flawed exit polling, and the use by the media and blogs to draw conclusions the way they began to is simply not proof of fraud. Witness the recount in parts of New Hamphire where a relook at the balloting in the areas where polling and the final results showed a huge gap, revealed that the voting machines were indeed accurate and Bush simply did better than expected. Exit polls can be used to back up claims of fraud, IF, in addition to said exit polls you had unmistakable, obvious, widespread real evidence of fraud taking place. Witness the Ukraine, where beatings at polling stations were caught on tape, where video of thousands of government employees going from precinct to precinct in eastern Ukraine to vote numerous times were distributed to the media, etc, etc. No actual evidence of fraud exists here, only theories that it occured.
"Two, the centralized nature of the machines used, four companies count 80% of the US vote, making it quite possible that the alteration on such a massive scale could have taken place."
Only two or three companies are in the business of building commercial airliners, does that mean a conspiracy by these companies to brainwash passengers, via subliminal messages on their personal viewscreens, to lobby governments to bailout these companies by handing them further billions of taxpayer dolars could have taken place? I suppose, but before I'd take such a theory seriously, you'd have to show me some proof to back it up. Saying something could have happened, is a long, long, long way from being able to say that it did.
"It is hard to accept that our vote can be stolen. It is an awful thing to even think about. But if one DOES think about it, one must conclude that it very well could have happened. Then, when that same someone looks at the compiled evidence, one simply has to conclude it probably did happen on Nov. 2."
Not true, I could accept it easily if you showed me actual proof. I've followed this fairly closely actually, and, as something of a hobby, I've actually looked to see if I could find anything at all that constitutes real, reasonably convincing proof, and to date I've seen nothing. And the same pile of nothing is why no Judge will alter the inevitable outcome of Bush being innagurated in January. I'm talking about real proof here, not these halfcocked conspiracy theories that border on the comically insane I've been seeing so many swallow hook, line and sinker here.
You will see, at the end of the day, that every single thing I've posted here on this issue will have been proved to be 100% accurate. There is no proof of election fraud, only evidence of irregularities, annomolies, errors, mistakes, etc, etc. There will never be evidence of massive Republican or Democratic efforts to steal elections through organized fraud, it simply won't happen, and the reason it won't happen is because neither party is that stupid, and further there would be no chance of keeping something like that quiet for long. Discovery of something like this would be revolutionary in its effect, and the political party who perpetrated such a scheme would be destroyed.
Do you really believe that the conspiracy theorists here and on other weblogs are smarter than the very Democratic stategists, polling firms and operatives who have been in this business for decades and know virtually everything there is no know about elections, demographic shifts, voting populations right down to the block, etc? There is a reason virtually none of the pro's take this stuff seriously, and that is because they know it is complete fantasy.
Some of this dreamland stuff about Kerry waiting in the wings, bidding his time, ready to pounce on "the Fraud" once all the i's are dotted and t's crossed is just so silly I often find myself, while pitying the posters naivete, shaking my head in disblieve. Kerry is done, and his occassional talk of counting every outstanding vote is nothing more than a bone thrown to the activists base whom Kerry understands still haven't accepted defeat.
At the end of election night, it was clear there were simply not enough votes for Kerry to claim victory in Ohio. Of the 125,000 or so provisional and absentee ballots counted, Kerry closed the gap by a far less than expected (by some) 17000 or thereabouts which leave a lead of approximately 118,000 votes for Bush. Add every single under/over vote to Kerry, and you still don't have enough numbers to overcome Bush's lead. And believe me, the under/over count is not going to get Kerry more than a few thousand more votes to add to his total at the end of the day, not to mention the fact that a sizable number of said over/under votes will go to Bush as well.
The numbers just aren't there, there is no evidence of fraud, Ohio is not going to flip to Kerry, Bush will be inaugurated in January, and Kerry will be left to decide what new role he wishes to play in the Democratic Party. These current courtcases are nothing more than sideshows that will, over time, be tossed out of court and eventually forgotten about (most Americans assuming it was sour grapes all along).
Imajika
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
