Is this forum for those who believe the 2004 Election was fraudulent?

[Der Blaue Engel]

And if not, can we get one?

I'm tired of having to wade through all of the arguments from "our own" that there was no fraud, or that exit polls aren't to be believed.

I'm certainly not suggesting anyone has to discuss one side of an issue, but I would like to find a place to discuss how to move forward for those of us for whom the fraud is now a given, and not just by having to bookmark a single thread.

I've seen a few posts on renaming the forum, but haven't seen any consensus, and they seem to quickly fall off the main page, so if I've missed the discussion, could someone please send me a link?

Thanks!

[damntexdem]

1. We need to discuss how to move forward, ...

whether or not the election was fraudulent. Of course, the facts of that case should influence what we do; but knowing for sure will likely take time, as those digging into Ohio and Florida slowly get at the info -- or are totally stopped.

[goclark]

8. "Knowing for sure ,"according to which yardstick?

I already know for sure.

I know them by their deeds.
It is crystal clear to me.


Now this yardstick that you are talking about must be by the Republicans frame of reference.

Well, guess what, they will never find it "for sure."
Only Democrats believe that it must be "for sure."

[Der Blaue Engel]

13. Well, I think that's two distinct areas of focus

a) Fraud focus

b) Move on focus (not meant to be derogatory)

It would be great if we could have a space for both, so that no one feels the need to constantly "educate" the others to bring them over to their point of view on a pivotal subject. I'll suggest this to the admins. Thanks.

[RevCheesehead]

2. No, BE, this forum is for whining & bitchin' about JKerry.

And it's getting pretty damned disgusting.

I am so frustrated with the "waa...Kerry deserted us...he's a traitor...he's a flip-flopper," as well as all those who have specific ideas of what he should have done, or what he needs to do with not only his campaign money, but his personal money as well.

I wish some of the complainers would STFU and get into the world. Go DO something, and stop waiting for someone to lead you!!

Fortunately, there are still reasonable voices to be heard. I believe that there is much, much more yet to come. And I, for one, am willing to be patient - and in the meanwhile, get out into the real world and help some real people with their real problems.

/rant

[troubleinwinter]

6. I sooooo agree with you!

I asked the Admins... but maybe they forgot...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x27764

[RevCheesehead]

7. I saw that, and agreed.

Here's the one I asked them about:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=120x27822

[johnaries]

25. I have to agree with the Mod.. the rules are VERY easy to find

and every time a post is deleted, well, there is a link to the rules. People just skip over them. I know that in my case, I'm just so excited to be online, and there are usually so many rules (talking about those "agreements" from MicroSoft that go on forever "we are not responsible if you forget you're cooking dinner while on line and the kitchen catches on fire", etc) that after a while, you skip the "rules" and only check them if you actually broke one.

Personally, I would like to be able to pull up a deleted post. I'll see the message "deleted... check the rules here" and I'll see the responses, and it's a Jerry Springer type of reaction inside me: "oooh, what he'd say, what'd he say?"

Personally, I think the mods are doing a GREAT job (honestly, this is not a suck-up)! :toast:

And the success of DU is the smoking gun PROOF! :yourock:

[Blue_In_AK]

10. Rev Cheesehead

Stand up and take a bow. :toast:

[tngledwebb]

33. You mean go DU something, right?

But if the fraud IS real, that issue must be top priority. Nothing we do otherwise will help if BushCo has gotten away with stealing two presidential elections in a row right here in the USA. The reality of the election theft means, in fact, that we Democrats chose the correct issues, the best candidates, and had the majority of the public support, despite all those that want to have otherwise.

And it also means if MSM ( and leading pols on both sides ) are not complicit, they may as well be.

[NickiWitch]

46. Me likey you.

I LOVE what you said and how you said it!!

Peace!!!

[Up2Late]

3. It was for the last 2 months

The fraud talk might start to migrate over to the 2006 or 2008 election soon :silly:

Where ya been?:shrug:

[Der Blaue Engel]

12. LOL...exactly

I've been here the whole time, believe me. Personally, I see no point in talking 2006 or 2008 until we've dealt with 2004, but that's just my preference for focus...and I'm just trying to figure out if I'm in the right place to be doing it. :)

[RevCheesehead]

31. and there is a forum for the 2006-2008 campaigns, too.

YOU are definately in the right place! :)

[RaulVB]

4. Yes, indeed it is

You just have to deal with people who wants to use the possibility of attacking that fact because doesn't suit their agenda, while hiding on the Internet.

Normal.

[hangloose]

5. It's an important en ought issue that I agree a dedicated forum

would be appropriate

[goclark]

9. I agree we need a...

Here Is How They Did It Forum

[bardgal]

11. YES IT IS.

[DCwebmaster]

14. Channel the frustration

Whether or not there is a new forum or it takes months to get to the bottom of the fraud issue, the next big opportunity to show the country and the world how we feel is at the inaugural.

New site at http://www.dcprotests.com

The goal of the site is to bring in as many people from all walks of life. Just have to be anti-bush.

Pardon the appearance, we are wating for a new redesign. Wanted to get it up quickly.

[New Earth]

15. i was just about to write you an email

but if you are still here and you have any effect on that site, could you PLEASE change that button that says 'voter fraud' to ELECTION FRAUD?

the voters did not commit the crime and gives people the wrong impression. sorry to sound picky but it really does mean a lot.

[DCwebmaster]

16. Will try to get to it

we are wating for a new design, the designer is slow and there is not much time left. Right now I am trying to get a housing board up because it is very difficult to get a hotel room in DC for less than 350-400 a night.

[New Earth]

21. well please get to it if you can

it is very important. when people come to your site and see 'voter fraud' mentioned they are going to TOTALLY get the wrong idea.

[LiberalCompassionate]

68. DCwebmaster site rocks

especially "this presidency brought to you by DIEBOLD -
you don't count because we don't count"

I agree we all need to be there J20. I will be there



turnyourbackonbush.

[read the law first]

17. This forum has been the center of the election fraud universe.

I don't know of any single place in the world that has more up to date information on the Theft than this forum.

[Der Blaue Engel]

18. I quite agree

But it can be hard to see, for the...trees.

[RevCheesehead]

32. an awful lot of "trees" around here, eh?

you might have just given yourself the nickname "lumberjack!" :)

[Der Blaue Engel]

36. Lol!

"I am a lumberjack and I'm okay; I sleep all night, I work all day!" (C'mon, everybody, sing along!)

:evilgrin:

[DCwebmaster]

19. Your Right

DCprotests.com main goal is to get regular Americans out to protest. We put an election fraud link just as place to start searching for those who get their info from MSM. More content will be up soon. Until then organize those car pools.

[corbett]

51. Hear! Hear!

This board has been invaluable to those of us in search of the truth and how to foment reaction to it!

[bleever]

20. I think RTLF nailed it. This is the place. And people who want to

talk about 2006 Issues have a forum they can go to for that, as they should.

I think the topic of 2004 Election Results and Discussion goes to the heart of whether or not democracy survives. There's still sooo much to say about the 2004 Election that I think this forum could easily keep the same name.

And whatever we call ourselves, the whiners will follow (I think).


woe=us; skyfalling; doomedIsaydoomed.


NGU.

[GuvWurld]

22. How To Move Forward >> The No Confidence Movement

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com

[New Earth]

23. this forum is for the puppies.

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[meganmonkey]

24. The bickering distracts from the cause - it has to stop.

THis forum has been the birthplace of some amazing ideas, research, inspiration, motivation, activism, and comradierie. These are the things that are important. These are the things we must focus on and continue.
There is a time and a place for differing opinions, there is no question about that. But there are a hell of a lot of us who do, as you say, see fraud as a given. We don't want to debate the 'IF' anymore. We believe it. Dissent is good, discussion is good. But for those of us who are working on the Election Fraud movement in one way or another, we need a place where we don't have to constantly defend why we believe. We have already finished that conversation. We know how we feel and why.
We need a forum where fraud is a given, and activism can take shape. A place where we can discuss new evidence, ask for and offer resources and ideas, make plans of action, and otherwise fight the fight we are committed to. Whether that is this forum, this forum renamed, or a wholly different forum, I don't really care. I would prefer that it is this forum and not a new one, simply because this is where we started.
I ask, please, that people respect this idea, and understand that it is not about squashing dissent. There are plenty of places on this board to argue about whether Kerry bailed on us or has a secret plan.

JMHO.

KEEP HOPE ALIVE

[Mister Ed]

26. Yes, please! A forum for investigation of fraud & disenfranchisement...

...and a separate forum for people who really, really like to engage in endless debates.

[Up2Late]

28. I can't recommend this link any more

than I've been, but for some reason, the Mods keep archiving threads I post it to, It has everything you might have missed.

<http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud_ohio.html>

or this <http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html>
:smoke:

[Vektor]

27. kick - and agreed!

[bettyellen]

29. I agree with you betty....

i'm looking fwd to see arnheim getting the VOTE project off the ground. i think they are working on getting their own forum or group. i hope so. i could get behind that. it's important to build up some momentum now. i think those who worry about this creating and image problem for the dems should step the fuck off at this point, if you know what i mean. why stop the investigation?
betty

[Der Blaue Engel]

30. Two out of two Betties surveyed agree

:thumbsup: :)

[AntiFascist]

35. Kids in the Hall....

cool :thumbsup:

Many of the DUers here may be trying to get others to move on to future issues.

You might want to check out the forums at www.velvetrevolution.us
They just started it up and it seems quite a bit more liberal than DU with the backing of Justice Through Music, PDA, and was started by Brad Friedman of BradBlog (who has a direct connection to Clint Curtis). They are dedicated to seeing this cause brought to the mainstream, and also elevating other issues to full-blown "Velvet Revolution" status.

[bettyellen]

37. Thanks AntiFascist......

will check it out. You know there's also an AntiBetty?

[mycatforpresident]

38. I think they are actually "Helens".

[myschkin]

34. Yes

[kster]

39. yes

[newyawker99]

42. Hi kster!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Pacifist Patriot]

40. I believe the 2004 Election was fraudulent and this is where I mostly post

As for the whining, can't say I notice it. But then again, I'm really really good at not seeing what I don't care to see. ;)

[Karenca]

41. Yes ..................nt

[crispini]

43. Can we expand it to include those of us

who are not entirely sure yet of the out-and-out-fraud (still waiting for a smoking gun, me), but are convinced that there was systematic voter disenfranchisement, and that the process was an ugly mess, and would like to work towards change and reform?

I'm just not going to "BELIEVE" anything. I am a diehard cynical realist, now and forever. I only believe what's been proved, and sometimes not even all of that.

[Stevepol]

44. For you, exit polls are not proof? Statistics is a science, not a theory.

Exit polls, as Steven Freeman says in his paper on the unexplained vote anomalies, are accepted all over the world as being accurate barometers of the result of elections. In Germany, the exit polls are used to determine the winner until the votes can be counted (usually takes two weeks) because they have been found to be nearly 100% reliable. So when Freeman says that the possiblity that the differences between the exit poll numbers and the actual results in just the three critical states of OH, FL, and PA happened by chance is one in 250 million -- this does not strike you as a smoking gun?

That's not to mention a dozen other statistical facts that are even more telling as to the top 11 swing states, the number of states where the deviation from the exit polls was in Bush's favor as opposed to the number where the deviation was in Kerry's favor, etc. etc. etc. etc.

At what point could you say there's a smoking gun? Because with electronic voting machines it's either impossible to have, or highly unlikely that you will have, any recount using hand counted paper ballots. That is, there's no way you can ever "prove" that fraud took place. In every other country in the world exit polls are the accepted way of discovering if there is fraud in elections. Statistical regressions are perfectly acceptable in court to show criminal activity when you're talking about embezzlement or any of a number of other crimes.

So what's the prob? If you were in court and the defense said that the blood on the weapon, on the floor, in the car, on the glove belonged to the defendant with 99.9999% certainty, that wouldn't be a smoking gun? You would vote for acquittal because you couldn't be sure?

[crispini]

45. I'll be honest here.

I am neither a mathematician, nor a statistician. I do know that, as the saying goes, there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." In other words, what are the baseline assumptions, what is the data you are using and how do you treat that data? That all has an impact on your conclusions.

I respect Steve Freeman's work a great deal, but like I said, I don't know enough to evaluate it on the basis of the methods and science involved. Can't I just remain agnostic on this? I'm not throwing dirt on anyone -- I certainly believe that there WAS a horrendous amount of voter suppression of the old-school kind, and the statistical stuff may very well BE, um, a statistical smoking gun. I'm just not enough of a brainiac to know, and I know damn well better than to make conclusions and judgements when I don't know stuff.

And the court analogy doesn't hold up, sorry. That's based on forensic science, not statistics, and someone can explain blood typing and DNA matching to me in a way that I can get it in about two sentences.

[troubleinwinter]

47. crispini, I absolutely welcome and invite those such as yourself

who are not convinced, yet are open minded cynics. Those people add to the conversation by asking legitimate questions and making valuable challenges, so that we can check and practice our facts and arguments.

Those who are here disingenuously (we sure know who they are!) and merely seek to disrupt the conversation and are simply argumentative, are a royal pain in the ass, and are a distraction to serious conversation.

But GENUINE DU doubters are an asset to us, and help us to double check our ideas and information.

Yup, I do see fraud, and want Blackwell and others indicted. But do join us as a resident DU cynic/agnostic, we need you to help check us!

:toast:

[RevCheesehead]

49. She's also good with pool pics and floaty hearts, too.

:loveya:


:loveya:

[troubleinwinter]

50. Well, I had thought I was all over with the hot flashes.

I don't generally actually POST on the KOEB, but spend my time RUNNING between the TV and the monitor during commercials & laughin'. Best part of the day!

[crispini]

64. LOL, poolpics and floaty hearts.

We should write a book! :)

(Seriously, do you think he reads those threads? I'd be so embarrassed if I thought so. Heh heh heh.)

[Der Blaue Engel]

52. I agree with this 100%

There is a huge difference between questioning/doubting and arrogantly dismissing.

Question everything! :)

[crispini]

66. Thanks, I'll stick around!

"Fraud agnostic" -- I like that, I'll wear it for a while. :)

[Lurker321]

54. Exit polls are indicators of an election, and

if they show results such as 60%/40% you can easily use them to predict the winner of an election. I can assure you, that if a German exit poll would show a result of 51%/49%, no one in Germany would use that to predict the winner of an election.

I looked at the last election in Germany that had exit polling in order to check the accuracy claim - the June 2004 European Parliament election. Don't have the URLs handy so you will have to trust me on my recall of the numbers, or go google them yourself. The exit polls showed 42% for the leading party, 23% for the trailing party. Thus, the winner was easily predicted. The actual results were 45% for the leading party and 21% for the trailing one. Thus, as you can see yourself, if the exit polls were actually showing 51%/49% they could not be used to predict the outcome, because the exit polls are not accurate enough.

That's the problem with using German exit polls as an example. Yes, they are used to predict the outcome of the elections, because the elections are decided pretty definitely in Germany. No, they are not more accurate than the US exit polls.

[Karenca]

60. you're not getting

the meaning of this thread, are you? :boring: yawn ..........

[Skittles]

62. no and it is getting VERY tiresome

nt

[Der Blaue Engel]

70. Oh, but I think he is

And I rest my case.

I may just yawn myself into a coma. :boring:

[New Earth]

61. k

[davidgmills]

56. Maybe since you want a smoking gun you would like to play a game with me

Before you do read my post about the "Parable of a Rigged Game" First


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=272294&mesg_id=272294

[crispini]

63. Ok, I read it.

First point: I do not say that there is not enough proof of fraud to convince me.

I say, simply, that I do not have the training or the brains to evaluate for myself the statistical arguments that I have seen so far. In other words, the *nature* of the proof is such that I cannot speak to it.

And, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your point about the game has to do with it. Perhaps you would care to elaborate? It's a nice parable, and the point to the parable is that the game is rigged without being apparent, but I don't quite see how you move from "this game is rigged" to "this election was rigged"?

Namaste ~

[davidgmills]

71. The point is simply this

Most people will never perceive that they have been defrauded if the fraudster is good enough.

You may be suspicious, but you will always feel you never quite have the proof.

In my game though, if you played me enough, amd especially if you got some of the brightest people you know to play me and I still beat them, eventually you might come to the conclusion that the game was rigged.

And maybe you might even find one or two who have enough interest (and brains) in proving that the game is rigged to prove it. But my experience with a realy good fraud has been that those people are few and far between. Heck, even with this game, I have found very few people who were even interested enough in this fraud that when they were shown it had the diligence to learn how to play it and remember how.

I may never have the proof this election was stolen. But I will always believe it.

Not only is this election like flipping a coin and having it turn up heads 41 times out of fifty. but it is also like flipping the coins in a circle where the odds are only twice out of fifty a coin lands outside the circle and one is heads and one is tails, but this time nine land outside the circle and they all turn up heads.

[Time for change]

48. It seems to me that the good majority in this forum

believe the 2004 election was stolen. I don't see why we can't "move forward" on this forum, without getting another one. I'm only about 95% certain that Kerry really won the election, but I look forward to occasionally seeing opposing points of view. I think we may be doing ourselves a disservice by closing ourselves off entirely from that.

[Der Blaue Engel]

53. I actually agree

And I agree that this forum OUGHT to be the right place for that.

I posed the question because it seems nearly impossible to move forward at the moment because there seem to be some people sticking their legs out and tripping people for whatever reason, rather than engaging in respectful and productive discourse.

I don't see any reason that those who aren't convinced of fraud would be dismissive of efforts to investigate and work for change. I'm sure that you aren't. Question is, why would anyone be?

[crispini]

65. Ah! (raises hand)

I know the answer to that one! 'Cause they're KKKarl Rove plants? :)

Actually some people may just not give a sh*t about election reform. Of course, that begs the question about why those people would bother to come to this forum and post, especially repeatedly?

I think some people do have the urge to appoint themselves netnannies and run around hating to see other people "waste" their time? ok, now I'm just thinking out loud.... :shrug:

[Time for change]

67. I think that a small minority of DUers are disrespectful

of our views on this. When I run up against them I just tell them what I think. But I don't even need to do that, I could just ignore them if I wanted to, and it would take even less time.

[euler]

55. Yes, shutting out those who disagree with you is certainly...

...a good way to get to the truth.

[Der Blaue Engel]

57. Oh, yawn.

Try reading the whole thread and paying attention.

:hi:

[Karenca]

58. Yes....

yawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnn :boring:

[New Earth]

59. i'll third that

:boring: :hi:

[berniew1]

69. The widespread fraud is documented. Is this really an issue? Some of doc

There was widespread and systematic voter suppression of minority voters, dirty tricks, vote machine fraud, and other vote manipulation in Ohio, New Mexico, and Florida- that was of magnitude enough to call in question who won those states.

http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla.html
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19
http://www.helpamericarecount.org/NewMexicoData/NewMexicoGeneralElection.pdf
http://www.flcv.com/bernalil.html
etc.

and also similar patterns in other states where the suppression and fraud did not change the election results including vote machine fraud in Calif., Pennsylvania, Washington, Texas, etc.
http://www.flcv.com/orangets.html
http://www.flcv.com/snohomis.html
http://www.flcv.com/mercerco.html
http://www.flcv.com/philadel.html
http://www.flcv.com/texas.html
http://www.votersunite.org
etc.

(the voter suppression of minorities in Mercer County is the worst I've ever seen-followup needed)

The unethical and illegal actions were so systematic and widespread that this cannot be allowed to continue uninvestigated and unpunished. There was a huge amount of obvious malfeasance and dirty tricks that should be investigated and dealt with
http://www.flcv.com/dirtytrf.html
http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla2.html
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
http://www.votersunite.org
http://www.freepress.org departments
http://www.flcv.com/cuyahovs.html
http://www.flcv.com/cuyahopb.html