MSM keeps claiming that nothing will change the results of the election.

[The Night Owl]

MSM keeps claiming that nothing will change the results of the election. Why?

If massive election fraud is proven, then how can the results of the election not change?

[crispini]

1. Because they have to vote after TWO HOURS.

You can't prove election fraud in two hours, to anyone.

[fasttense]

But in 1876 they assigned an investigative body?

Why if they had to vote after two hours, did they investigate and not come to a conclusion until March?

[FreepFryer]

16. Exactly right. You found a valid precedent! You get a nice candy cane.

[crispini]

36. Well, in that instance, and I quote:

"Congress was itself split with the Senate being controlled by Republicans and the House of Representatives by the Democrats. In an attempt to solve the problem both houses agreed to set up a special Electoral Commission of 15 senators, representatives and supreme court justices."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAelection1876.htm

Congress ain't split this time. The Rethugs control both houses, and they're gonna force a vote after two hours.

But at least we'll get HEARD, if Boxer stands up! GO BOXER GO BOXER GO!

[tridim]

25. You can prove it to the people in two hours

as long as the media reports it, which I admit probably won't happen.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

2. What's been proven?

I'm hoping, like we all are, but, so far, all I've heard are rumors and allegations - there has been no substantial evidence of fraud submitted to any court, as nearly as I've been able to ascertain.

[meisje]

22. Nothing

[merwin]

37. except that pesky felony of locking down Warren County with a false

terrorist threat.

[Worst Username Ever]

I don't think the election results will change, but I am optimistis

that if SOME sort of fraud is shown, at least a reform will take place in the way our elections are conducted. That any voter at all was suppressed should be cause for an investigation, at minimum.

[SicTransit]

15. If there is a Senator who stands up tomorrow

that slams the door down on any possible election reform or official investigation of election 2004 etc. Such an objection will make any such investigation into an extremely partisan issue, no Republican will touch either of these issues with a 10-foot pole, because any involvement in it will be looked upon as justifying the attempt by the Democrats to delegitimize the Republican presidency.

No Republican cooperation equals no electoral reform and no investigation. There is no such thing as a Congressional investigative committee that only has Democrats sitting on it. There can be no electoral reform if you don't have at least a few Republicans on board.

For 2 hours of grandstanding the Senator that objects would have to be willing to give up on having election 2004 ever officially investigated or any hope for election reform. That is why I don't think any Senator will object.

[FreepFryer]

18. That's like saying asking for a dr's diagnosis will kill you of a disease.

[SicTransit]

21. No - address the points I made.

It is easy to throw around false analogies. It is harder to argue substance.

[FreepFryer]

You make these same points all the time, and they have been addressed

Over and over and over and over and over and over.

You're not interested in the answers. You're interested in the number of people you can sucker into a non-discussion.

[SicTransit]

28. I make these points all the time and the response

from people like you is "what, you want us to do nothing?". That's about the extent of "addressing the points", it it can be called that. No one yet explained how it would be possible, after getting the entire Republican portion of Congress extremely pissed off at Democrats for trying to delegitimize their president, to conduct any kind of official investigation into elections 2004 or to have any hope of passing any kind of election reform.

[FreepFryer]

32. not the case at all.

1. I don't care if Repubs are pissed at us. They already want us gone.
2. EVERY one of your assumptions in your tirade(s) is flawed, but you see it as a given.

ergo

3. There's no resolution possible with someone proceeding from a false assumption who will not examine said assumption.

'People like me' are interested in growing the Dem party unity and strength, and ensuring fair elections. What are you interested in?

[SicTransit]

35. Read what I wrote:

"No one yet explained how it would be possible, after getting the entire Republican portion of Congress extremely pissed off at Democrats for trying to delegitimize their president, to conduct any kind of official investigation into elections 2004 or to have any hope of passing any kind of election reform."

You didn't explain it either. Can you?

You're asking what I am interested in? I am interested in election reform. I see us, if we make the grandstanding gesture tomorrow, destroying all chances of it.

[In Truth We Trust]

61. Do you reaize how absolutely flawed your argument is?

Essentially you seem to be saying that those we empower to represent us should not do so so that what we desire can be achieved.

By your logic then it is good that there was no warning or attention brought to the people who were victimized by the tsunami because then they could of had a chance.

[SicTransit]

64. What I am saying is there are political realities -

and one of them is that since Republicans are a majority in both House and Senate you need at least some cooperation from them to achieve anything. Do you realize this? And poisoning the issue to the extreme by having a Senator object on the 6th will guarantee that you will get no such cooperation. Conequence - no hope of achieving anything on the issue in the next four years.

Edit: typo

[merwin]

69. Provide the name of one repub senator that is currently interested

in honest election reform? Can't lose cooperation that doesn't exist!

[SicTransit]

74. The obvious one is John McCain n/t

[Chelsea Patriot]

78. AHA! HA! HA! HA ! AHA! HA! HA! McCain! Voter Reform!

Oh, Mary! You're so Camp!

[sepia_steel]

79. Don't get sucked in, guys.

Let me guess... Walt is posting nonsense again? He is only trying to waste your time. :hi:

[bowens43]

40. Are you really so naive that you think that the republicans

will address the issue while they are able to steal elections with impunity? This is the third election cycle in a row with widespread fraud, intimidation and vote suppression on the part of the republicans. They have NO reason to reform anything. They cheat, they steal and nothing is done about it. It's time to make a stand. The ONLY way to bring about change is to ensure that their actions (or inaction) will have consequences.

[SicTransit]

42. and the "conequences" are what -

two hours of debate? Oooooh. Scary.

[bowens43]

47. You really don't get it.

Stick your head back in the sand and put your faith in those who are stealing elections again and again.

[SicTransit]

50. You said "consequences" - do explain which "consequences" you meant.

[merwin]

54. Are you really so naive that you think blacks and women should vote?

The only way for minorities to get heard is by fighting the losing fight until you win public opinion.

Right now, the Democrats are the minorities in the government. If we don't stand up at every chance, NOTHING will happen.

[crispini]

43. The Republican portion of Congress already hates Democrats.

Look at all the talk about taking away the filibuster (the only thing we've got left.)

There is no bipartisanship here ALREADY. There is only, "Bend over and take it, and STFU" from the Republicans.

Any meaningful voting reform we are gonna have to do ourselves at the state level.

[AllegroRondo]

26. Republicans wont touch election reform now, nothing to lose

they have much more important things on their mind, like SS reform.

the best we can do is stand up now and get some MSM attention on it, and shame them into 'doing the right thing', like what happened yesterday with the ethics rules.

[SicTransit]

31. That's where you're wrong -

there would be quite a few Republican willing to vote on election reform if it was a non-partisan issue, as it should be. Once you make it into a partisan issue, and an explosive partisan issue at that, you can kiss election reform good bye.

[bowens43]

49. bullshit.

There will be no meanigful reform while republicans are 'winning' these elections.

[SueZhope]

56. so why did they

kill of the idea about having paper trails?
i was under the impression that was non-partisan.
seems they already showed us were they stand

[genieroze]

76. Why is election reform partisan? Because Democrats want fair

elections and pukes want unfair sElection. With them controlling everything there will NEVER EVER be any reform. PERIOD!!!!!!

[pgh_dem]

27. pssst...there is no republican now on election reform

So what difference does it make?
If public consciousness of the 'irregularities' is raised to a degree that all of congress feels it has to do something about it, then you have some reason to expect support from republicans. You'll never get weasels like DeLay or Santorum, but if the heat is turned up enough, folks like Chafee and McCain could be persuaded to help out.
(edit to acknowledge AllegroRondo's superior speed and clarity on the same point - cheers )

[bowens43]

29. I think that that is nonsense.

I also think that YOU know that it's nonsense.

The ONLY way we see election reform is with an objection and a challenge to Ohio's electors. It's already a partisan issue. The only way to force reform is to keep this in the public eye.

[SicTransit]

33. you can't force it when you're a minority

*and* you have an up in arms pissed off majority that you inflamed on that exact issue. Don't you get that?

[FreepFryer]

34. Yes'm, we sho' nuff does, massa. Don' wanna cause no ruckus, now.

[SicTransit]

38. and once again, contentless post

Please explain how it would be possible, after getting the entire Republican portion of Congress extremely pissed off at Democrats for trying to delegitimize their president, to conduct any kind of official investigation into elections 2004 or to have any hope of passing any kind of election reform.

[bowens43]

51. If there is a challenge to the electorial votes of Ohio

the MSM will be all over this. It won't die. Republicans will be forced to take up the issue. If we were to follow your advice it would just be more of the same. Nothing done and more stolen elections.

[SicTransit]

57. This is from today's Kerry's letter:

"Tomorrow, members of Congress will meet to certify the results of the 2004 presidential election. I will not be taking part in a formal protest of the Ohio Electors.

Despite widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote, our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election."


Mark my word. This will be MSM's take, and Kerry is leading the way. "Yes, irregularities happened. No, they were not significant enough to justify a challenge. Even Kerry says so. Whoever challenges is a loon".

Watch this unfold.

[In Truth We Trust]

67. With that line of thought you shoukld just go ahead and bend over now!

Be sure to stalk up on the k y cuz it's coming!

[renaissanceguy]

No--if a Senator DOESN'T stand up....

then nothing will happen. Come on--the Repugs are perfectly content with a fraudulent system, as long as it makes THEM the winner. Why would they want to change that??

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.15032002

[farmbo]

53. Meaningful election reform will occur at the State, not Federal level

If you're advocating that the Dem Senators take a powder on the expectation that Delay and Frist will reward them with an election reform bill...Well, I have a bridge to sell you.

As for Frist and Delay "officially investigating" the 2004 election...your naivete is breath-taking!

[SicTransit]

60. At whatever level, the election reform will need cooperation

of Republicans, unless you mean to reform only the bluest states. If you poison the issue by the appearance of extremely partisan attempt to delegitimize a Republican presidency, no Republican will ever cooperate with you on the issue.

[farmbo]

65. In virtually all states voters can do it through Initiative

There will be no cooperation from the Republicans on this issue...thus there is minimal down side risk to issuing a challenge tomorrow.

[merwin]

3. Because if ohio is thrown out then it goes to congress to decide

who wins, and congress is controlled by the Republicans... meaning that there's no chance in hell we can win.

[tx_dem41]

6. Under what possible scenario will Ohio results be thrown out?? n/t

[merwin]

8. It has happened before. If it is proven that the vote was not conducted as

per the constitution, they can exclude Ohio's electoral votes. That's what the challenge is specifically for.

[tx_dem41]

10. First, cite when it has happened before....second, who judges if..

it has been proven?

[fasttense]

17. It happened in 1876.

[tx_dem41]

39. The Hayes-Tilden battle of 1876 analogy doesn't really hold.

The present rules of 2 (or 4) hours of debate in joint session did not apply (which was an assumption of my question). If you read the history of the electoral debate that went on, much Congressional investigation had been performed before the actual electoral count in the Senate took place. Very little has in the present situation.

Plus, you actually had the Senate and House controlled by two different parties. You certainly don't have that now.

And most forbodingly, the party that did object to the electoral votes in the Senate, the Democrats.....lost.

[merwin]

19. There has been... I'd have to look it up. The judge

is congress. Again, the electoral challenge would cause a meeting of both houses for 2 hours each, and they would vote after on how to proceed.

[tx_dem41]

23. And a party line (plus a lot of crossers from the Dems) would end..

...this promptly.

[merwin]

24. I'm not saying we have a chance in hell of winning, but

it could start some sort of discussion of election reform.

[SicTransit]

41. actually, a much more likely result

is making any kind of discussion of election reform an issue that no Republican will touch.

[bowens43]

44. Ridiculous.

They will be FORCED to address the issue.

[SicTransit]

55. Wanna make a bet that it will go down exactly as I said?

That the objection (if a Senator joins it) will poison the issue so much that no Republican will go even close to it for the next 4 years at least?

I'd love to know how you intend to "FORCE" a pissed-off majority to do anything.

[merwin]

59. You simply get them so pissed off that they trip up and do something

completely and utterly stupid in public view. Most people don't think straight when they're angry.

[tx_dem41]

63. "Forced" to?

How exactly? On January 6th this issue goes from legitimate issue to a partisan Democratic issue. Nothing accomplished for at least two more years.

[merwin]

66. And the issue is bipartisan right now? Try to get one republican to say

that they're for election reform, and actually mean it.

In the good reverend's words, you gotta slap that donkey! :-)

[tx_dem41]

68. Well, have fun....

Just don't be devastated on Friday when the news is about the Alberto Gonzalez hearings (which will totally dominate the news cycle over the next 48 hours).

[merwin]

70. It'll make a great scene in F9/11.5 though :-)

[tx_dem41]

72. Yeah....that sure helped this last time.

:eyes:

[merwin]

73. So your theory is to sit back and watch us get fucked over again and again

until there is nothing left of the democratic party?

The republicans aren't interested in bipartisan talks. They're idea of bipartisan is getting democrats to agree to what they're spinning 100%. No comprimise.

I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable giving up my morals to appease the ruling party.

Might as well be stuck under British rule. Oh well.

[tx_dem41]

75. Thanks for implying...

that I was willing to give up my morals. You know nothing about me.

Guess we don't have anything more to discuss.

[merwin]

77. I said 'I dont know about you, but...'. I don't make statements as to

what other people's beliefs are. I don't personally know you, therefore I can't know exactly what you're thinking.

I know that the current majority will not comprimise at all, therefore attempting to have a bipartisan election reform will lead to only more corruption.

[Dinger]

71. I'd Still Like To See Ohion Thrown Out, Regardless

On principle if anything. . . Making a statement. . .

[liberal N proud]

4. Just part of their whoring responsibilities.

They must keep up their end for the regime.

[pauldp]

5. Grrrrrrrr.

F*ck the Corporate Media!
F*ck the Corporate Media!
F*ck the Corporate Media!
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[merwin]

7. Don't you remember? The media is LIBERAL LEFT WING PROPEGANDA

... or so the conservatives tell everyone

[FreepFryer]

9. Methinks they dost protest too much.

Whatever happens on Jan. 6, does impeaching Bush and ending his term of office count as 'changing the results of the election'?

I think so.

[merwin]

11. If Bush is thrown out, Cheney goes into office, If Cheney gets thrown out

some other damn republican goes into office, and so it continues.

[FreepFryer]

13. Yep. Till we run out of Republicans. I'm ok with that.

[stray cat]

12. Its a protest to call attention to voting problems.

I don't think it will change anything but it at least voices doubts from Americans about the integrity of our vote.

[politicasista]

14. BOOOOOO!

I guess we shall prepare for the worst. Does anyone think this will overshadow Smirky and his "coronation" or presidency? :argh:

[arnp2000]

30. not a

chance! Unfortunately! They'll work with the media to turn it around and make something up that makes them look good!

[garybeck]

20. it's their mantra...

virtually every MSM article on election fraud has two items in it:

1) reference to tin foil hats
2) there is no evidence of enough irregularities to change the results


nothing but lies

[SicTransit]

45. This is from today's Kerry email:

"Tomorrow, members of Congress will meet to certify the results of the 2004 presidential election. I will not be taking part in a formal protest of the Ohio Electors.

Despite widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote, our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election."


Is this "nthing but lies" as well?

[bowens43]

52. this is irrelevent.

This isn't about Kerry and it's not about who won Ohio.

[go west young man]

81. This isn't about Kerry or the next four years....

Its about the Constitution which is bigger than all the other issues. If you would pull your head out of your ass you might realize that. The way Conyers letter is framed the Repubs can ignore and denounce all they want but if they do nothing or ignore it they are walking on the U.S. Constitution. So it puts the impetus on them to act and to prove the election was fair which they can't and won't do. They will of course call us sore losers as ruling party's tend to do when the underdog wins a battle but the winds of change will eventually blow our way. You need to have some hope and get on the winning side disrupter.

[Pacifist Patriot]

46. Realistically, I don't think anything would change the results of the

election either. However, a very visible challenge cannot be ignored by the MSM and could prove highly embarrassing to Republicans and all of our elected officials. All I want tomorrow is for a lid to be blown off the story. I'm willing to settle for an impeachment....though....

<donning my tinfoil hat>

I think several senate races were fixed to ensure that won't come about. i.e. I believe Castor had more voters in Florida show up at the polls intending to cast a vote for her. Instead we get Martinez by what? 1+% Uh uh.

[pacalo]

48. I doubt that Rep. Conyers has given them a copy of the evidence

so that was a presumptuous, unprofessional (sooprise, sooprise) remark by MSNBC.

What I feel excited about is that the evidence of election fraud will be out there for everyone to see, especially since it will be debated on the Senate floor. Eyes will be opened because of what will be happening tomorrow, & that's the first step to change the election system.

[SicTransit]

62. Conyers has published his report today -

there is nothing new and explosive in it

http://www.pdamerica.org/field/final%20status%20report.pdf

[pacalo]

80. Nothing new, perhaps. Explosive, yes.

There is a considerably a lot more evidence in the election fraud than there was in the Scott Peterson case & he was convicted.

[BattyDem]

58. What if Conyers uses all the time to present evidence of fraud?

I'm talking about REAL evidence. What if he proves the election was stolen? Is there any law that says the Repugs can't certify it anyway?

I'm not trying to be a downer ... I'm just trying to figure out what happens next. :shrug: