DescentBB

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

Make of it what you will...

I'm not buying it because according to the Palm Beach Post, more than 6,500 ineligible felons voted, *despite* having their names on the 'convicted felons list.

yet the votes did not count.

No, those illegal votes *did* count.
There were something like 20 counties where the felon list wasn't used and in counties where it was used some felons voted succesfully anyway and almost 5000 of them were registered democrats! I never heard anyone suggest we remove those votes from the total.

That's the reason Gore didn't win, because he wanted to selectively correct mistakes in only a few places where he knew he had a high ratio of support so he would harvest a net positive result.

Every election these kinds of things happen, in every state, but you never hear about it because the election isn't so close that you could change the outcome by trying to correct it. If you do correct it however you must correct *all* of it or else you are just trading one mistake for another.

The only recount that puts Gore as the winner is the recount that selectively salvages lost votes only from Gores strong precincts and doesn't salvage the votes lost from Bush's strong precincts.

I think that Michael Moore would be proud of the guy that made that video.

Even if all those felons did not vote Will, and assuming that 100% voted for Gore, Bush still wouldn't have cleared the margin of error. People think margins of error are just "fuzzy math". That, indeed Bush did win by 500 votes, and just some "math thing" says that he might not of. It simply is not the case.

All we can say is that Bush won anywhere from some number to another number votes, and Gore won anywhere from some number to another number, and those number spans overlap!

That is the most striking thing about this, is that we just don't know who won Florida, and we never will. Perhaps a case could be made that Bush was slightly more likely to have won, but no one can say he did.

"That's the reason Gore didn't win, because he wanted to selectively correct mistakes in only a few places where he knew he had a high ratio of support so he would harvest a net positive result."

are you telling me that Gore actually wanted to toss votes that didn't agree with him?

Ferno wrote:are you telling me that Gore actually wanted to toss votes that didn't agree with him?

I'm telling you that other than the military votes he wanted to "toss", he just wanted to selectively harvest *only* the lost votes in precincts where the majority of voters were Gore voters so that the net result of his efforts would have increased his totals.

So, in regards to the so called 'disenfranchised voters', he didn't want to "toss" anyones vote, he wanted to re-enfranchise *only* those who were most likely to have voted for him.

That's where the equal protection came in and the reason the Fla. Supreme Court was overturned...actually they weren't overturned they were directed to do it in a way that it didn't leave out all the votes that may have been lost. I believe the Sect. of State enforced a time limit as per Fla. law and they couldn't do it correctly in time. It was Gores choice to squander his time to challenge and then come late with the selective re-count plan.

If Gore had immediately asked for a statewide recount he would have got it and had time but he didn't want to do that because it was feared, and later proven, that if he counted all of them according to the existing law he would have lost anyway.

Gore needed one of two things to win:
1) recount selective precincts where the majority of votes lost were Gore votes
2) recount all the votes in a very liberal fashion(no pun intended) to interpret anything that might have been a vote for Gore as his. They wanted to count ballots that are always thrown out because of double selection...unclear selection...etc.
Basically they wanted to change the rules in the middle of the game.

He chose path #1 and lost.

I just want to point out, again, that these election screw up's happen every time but we never hear about it because until 2000 it never mattered.

This year Kerry's people have already said they will challenge and demand recounts in many states if Bush wins.
Think about it for a minute...

They will challenge, regardless of the results because they know there are always votes that are lost...mistakes..etc.
So they can perpetuate the republicans are stealing the election myth once again simply as a political grandstanding move.
If Bush wins a state by too great a margin to trigger a recount they can still demand one and cry foul when they don't get it. If the margin is close enough to trigger a recount they will do it even if they don't think they will win, simply so they can hold up what lost Kerry votes they can find, statistically they will find some, and cry foul.

If you ever played a game against a whining little beotch you know what it will feel like to beat the democrats in an election

Will, I couldn't agree with you more that the lawsuits need to stop (not start). And I really doubt it is just the dems.

However, margins of error is a real issue that needs to be addressed.

This is a great short essay on the BS being pulled in this election.

An excerpt follows. Yes it's an opinion piece & yes the guy who wrote it is voting for Bush but read the whole thing anyway.

To these guys, winning office is more important than the sanctity of elections. Holding power is more important than the Constitution. Much as I despise at least half of what most Republicans stand for, they don't seem nearly as willing to trash the system they're trying to run. Too many Democrats, especially at the national level, just don't care that our system, our nation is far more important than any single election.

I could mention the Lautenberg Trick in New Jersey. Or Gore's ballot shenanigans in Florida. Or the voter-registration fraud currently going on in Colorado, Nevada, and elsewhere. Or the Democrats' successful call to bring election observers into this country. Bring them in from where, Venezuela? Hey, no big deal sullying the reputation of the world's oldest continuously-functioning democracy, just so long as we can make the Republicans look bad, right?

The rules don't matter. The reputation of the country doesn't matter. The political health of the nation doesn't matter. Power matters.

Sure power is important. I mean, why else would someone want to run for a position that ages you ten years, consistently has you in the crosshairs of someone's weapon, and which for all intents and purposes is incredibly stressful?

Much less spend millions of dollars trying to get the position?

The power. The fame. The fact that history will remember you, whether positively or dubiously. There can be no other sane explanation.

Only very brave men or very stupid men would want to be President. We've already had some very brave men, quite a few when it comes down to it. The stupid men were bound to come eventually. Just sucks that we keep getting them in bunches

"I'm telling you that other than the military votes he wanted to "toss", he just wanted to selectively harvest *only* the lost votes in precincts where the majority of voters were Gore voters so that the net result of his efforts would have increased his totals."

Where's the evidence on this? because this sounds a lot like a conspiracy theroy.

Ferno wrote:Where's the evidence on this? because this sounds a lot like a conspiracy theroy.

You must be one of the smart ones who turned off his TV during the months of Nov. and Dec. 2000 because this is no secret, it was discussed and critiqued up and down, left and right, on every faux news program 24/7!

"faux news"

heh

yeah, Kerry is ready to do all that Will, but you don't think Bush has plans for it either? If it's close, and it goes Kerry's way, you think Bush is going to just concede? You know, I really don't care for Kerry, and I'll admit it, but it's so annoying when someone thinks the candidate they like is completely unfallable and wouldn't do anything out of sorts, I mean after all, he's only a politician. And an outsider of course.

Zuruck wrote:yeah, Kerry is ready to do all that Will, but you don't think Bush has plans for it either?

No.
I think he has lawyers and funds to take on any legal challenge that is thrown at him but there is no evidence that he or the RNC is involved in the kind of activities the Kerry camp is, or the Gore camp was.

If it's a case of 'both sides do it' and the country is so evenly divided, why do the illegal votes cast by dead people each election always favor the democrats almost exclusively? Certainly republicans *could* do the same thing.
Or maybe you believe in ghosts...ghosts that vote...and that all ghosts are democrats.

Where are the crack dealers trading rock for phony republican registration cards? Where are the republican lawyers filing to throw out the military absentee ballots or, more to the point, the pro democrat equivilent?

In the world of election fraud the democrats are the leaders and I beleive it's born of their elitist mentality that they are the good guys fighting the good fight so their methods are excused.

Ironic when you consider their rejection of the policy of the country as a whole 'fighting the good fight'...

I guess they see their political partys success as a more rightous goal.

I actually voted through an "Early Voted" program yesterday.

... And I can assure you it was nothing like that.

"In the world of election fraud the democrats are the leaders and I beleive it's born of their elitist mentality that they are the good guys fighting the good fight so their methods are excused"

Continue the conservative dellusion

Birdseye wrote:"In the world of election fraud the democrats are the leaders and I beleive it's born of their elitist mentality that they are the good guys fighting the good fight so their methods are excused"

Continue the conservative dellusion

They're the ones so insanely desperate to win, so the first half is no doubt right (all the lunatics like those at DU and similar places flooded all the online polls immediately after the debates, which is why they were always horribly slanted toward Kerry instead of being about even for the ones they didn't find -- you don't think they'd try the same in real life?). Second half...not really.

Birdseye wrote:Continue the conservative dellusion

Well it's pretty obvious they do these things so you must be questioning my interpretation of their motives. Tell me, why do you think they do it?

you see what I mean will? how can we, I guess the left, ever try to get you to see any kind of fallacy in the right? I know there is a lot of crap on the liberal side and I don't argue that, I know they pull this kind of election crap every single time. But I also know the GOP does it too, and you people are so blindly following your party, you don't think they do anything wrong. That's sickening, and Birdseye is right, a big conservative dellusion.

Zuruck wrote:you see what I mean will? how can we, I guess the left, ever try to get you to see any kind of fallacy in the right? I know there is a lot of crap on the liberal side and I don't argue that, I know they pull this kind of election crap every single time. But I also know the GOP does it too, and you people are so blindly following your party, you don't think they do anything wrong. That's sickening, and Birdseye is right, a big conservative dellusion.

I gave examples and ask for *any* evidence that it's equal on both sides. You don't have anything to back up your claims but I should just believe you....the guy who is consistantly wrong more than anyone else here?!?

I'll hold out for something more tangible before I change my mind ok?

Your evidence was "more dead people vote for Democrats"...no study, no analysis, no nothing but verbiage from a middle aged conservative that has the answers for everything yet posts on a stupid internet bulletin board. c'mon man, you need to get beyond your blinders. what about the reports coming from Nevada of regristrations being shredded because they aren't republican? do you believe that evidence or am i just reading leftist newspapers and lies?

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp ... v=168XRvNe

There is the link for that story.

*add - Don't sit there for a second and say Bush has nothing to do with this. It's the same as the Swift Boat thing, he denied having any contact, then sooner or later, his lawyers were involved along with other people. I guess that's standard Republican stance, deny deny deny. Dont' own up to it.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... estigation

something from minnesota. ok will, i've posted two different websites with similar stories, do i need more evidence? something from fox news that you would believe?

Here is a link to a site that has been tracking donkycrat efforts at voter registration fraud. You managed to find 2 whole stories - thid site has dozens. Many of his links go to stories from big media organizations in case you don't trust a right-leaning blogger.

Also interesting that you should bring up the Swift Boat Vets. If you compare the revolving door between the Kerry campaign and some of the lefty 527s with the rather more tenuous connection between Bush and the swifties you'll find another example of how the cheating does not appear to be equal on both sides.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the republicans are saints. It's just that they're amateurs where this kind of thing is concerned.

This thread was about the candidates themselves and the lawyers tricks etc.
We already had a thread about voter registration fraud and the fact that even though the dem's do it 20 times as much the news storys don't seem to reflect that reality. So if you think the few examples you have showing this done by republicans comes close to the numerous examples of democrats doing it you are mistaken.
I already gave you that info so go back to that thread if you want to change the subject and do the search I suggested there and you will see that not only do the democrats lead in candidate legal tricks as in this thread but the democrat party supporters also lead in the registration fraud catagory as we discussed in the other thread...

So, once again, we are back at the reality of my statement that the dem's lead the way in this kind of thing. Don't make me drag the spectre of Daly in chicago out for you....unions rigging ballot boxes...etc. etc. etc.

"Well it's pretty obvious they do these things so you must be questioning my interpretation of their motives. Tell me, why do you think they do it? "
-Will


The same reason the schools, media, and the boogeyman are all stacked up against you.

but I don't dispute that the Democrats do that!! All I'm saying is that it's not JUST THE DEMOCRATS. I haven't said once that it was just the Republicans. It's all politicians...they all do it...I merely fought off Will's notion that his GOP is a bunch of nice people and only the left side is rotten. They both are, they both suck, that's what I'm trying to get him to think about. And he refuses.

Zuruck wrote:...I merely fought off Will's notion that his GOP is a bunch of nice people and only the left side is rotten.

Not true. I just said that the dems "lead" in this tactic and go to extremes the repub's don't.
It's not "my GOP" either, I've abandoned them but I still strongly support the War on Terror and in that arena I hope Kerry loses to Bush because Kerry is a pansy assed two faced snob who won't do shi+ until it's too late.
He is a french poodle: A rich womans pampered pet who couldn't protect you if he tried.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ ... -news-palm

The article makes it sound like it's both sides but when you get down to the specific instances each were involving Kerry supporters. I will add that I voted early last week and didn't see any interference here in Colorado.