Using the "P" word

[garybeck]

PROOF

I'm sick of hearing people say there is no proof.

"Yeah, there are suspicions, but there's no way to prove the election was stolen."

BS

I've had trial lawyers tell me that people have been convicted of murder on less evidence than we've already seen.

There hasn't even been a trial, and people say there is no proof. Normall if there is an accusation of a crime, there is a trial, and then lawyers get subpeona power, to go look for proof. Without a trial, our hands are tied to look for proof.

Still, having said that, I say there is already proof now.

When a consortium of PhD statistians analyze the exit polls and say that there is a 16 million to 1 chance that they were off by that much just by chance... that is proof to me that SOMETHING happened.

when 7 Ohio recount witnesses saw white stickers on the ballots, covering up Kerry votes, and one of them took a photograph of them, ... that sure sounds like proof to me.

I could go on and most of you are familiar with it...

What I'm trying to say it's OK to use the "P" word. Next time someone says there isn't any proof, tell them there is.

The entire system being set up as it is, with Repubicans counting the votes in secret, with the exit polls being off by so much, with the white stickers, with the long lines, with all the "glitches"... it all adds up to PROOF. Ultimately proof is a subjective and relative word, I guess that eventually comes into the hands of a jury. In my book there's more than enough evidence to call it proof.

[McKenzie]

1. all of which supports the hypothesis

that there is effectively a coup d'etat. The evidence, as you rightly point out, points towards fraud where the consequences are huge.

So where is the mechanism for investigating the perpetrators? Many people are outraged yet nothing is being done about the sorry affair. The answer is because those who could initiate an investigation are the perpetrators (or should that be "perpetraitors"?)

[Neil Lisst]

2. There is plenty of proof

It's the same kind of proof we use to catch and convict embezzlers and other frauds. We examine the paper trail, and we determine what has been altered based upon the vortex created by the combination of other facts known to us.

The evidence of the election fraud can be mathmatically determined as highly probable, the same type of expert witness standard commonly used in courts.

The stole it in Ohio, no question about it.


------
TERROR ALERT!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

[Montauk6]

3. It's like the C word

CONFLICT of interest, that is.

Maybe an exaggeration but haven't judges been known to recuse themselves from cases if they sat at the same table at a formal dinner with either the plaintiff or defendant?

Anyway, my point is that the merest acquaintance or connection is enough to send MOST jurists of integrity bye-bye, YET we're not supposed to arch an eyebrow when, in a MAJOR Supreme Court case where the pick of the President is the central issue, the spouse of one judge is a member of one of the petititioner's transition team, and said judge stays put. Likewise in a later case involving the Vice President and he's spending secluded weekend hunting with one of the judges.

And, for crying out loud! SPEAKING of the Veep, here's a guy who's still making money from a company that always seem first in line for the no-bid contracts on multi-million dollar projects, and we're supposed to take it at face value that there's no conflict.

Y'know, not for nothin', but is there any tin foil left over for the COINCIDENTALISTS?

[NoBushSpokenHere]

4. Recommended n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. honest disagreement

About a month ago, someone posted to this board: "I will refuse to be discredited or marginalized for observing the TRUTH." That poster's "truth" was that the state exit polls proved Kerry had won. Since I don't believe that, I have to recast the statement: that poster rightly refused to be discredited or marginalized for observing the truth as he believed it to be. Right on. Let's stick up for the facts as we understand them.

So, as vehemently as you are sick of being told that there is no proof, I am sick... not so much of being told that there is proof, since your gut tells you that, but sick of being told that any arguments contrary to yours are "BS." And we have both spent a lot of time on the issue. I don't speak for Febble, but she is someone else who has spent a lot of time on this issue and is far from convinced that the 2004 election was stolen. As a proud member of the reality-based community, I affirm my right to be unconvinced. And I am.

I've been busting my gut for months looking for arguments (on a scale to change the election outcome) that I would find even moderately persuasive. I've also spent a lot of time trying to explain why the arguments so far have not been persuasive. I don't ask anyone to give up believing that the 2004 election was stolen, but I think it might be useful for them to know why so many observers of politics and public opinion don't see it. Maybe that is irrelevant if the board is officially committed to limit itself to "preaching to the choir," but I don't see how that will work.

Just quickly on your two points --

Freeman and Mitofsky both said last November that the exit poll discrepancy wasn't due to chance. If that settled the exit poll debate, there wouldn't be an exit poll debate.

Simply put, a bunch (how many?) of white stickers in Clermont don't add up to 60K votes. And the overall numbers in Clermont are pretty much in line with the rest of the state. I have no idea how many votes could have been stolen (and suppressed) in Ohio, and as far as I can tell you don't know either. So there's no basis for either of us to present our opinion as true and another as "BS."

Guvwurld got this absolutely right -- it's appropriate to say that there is no basis for confidence in the 2004 returns, and above all there is no basis for confidence in future returns. That is ground we all could stand on, and it would not be necessary for you to take a shot at everyone who disagrees with your assessment of 2004.

I'm happy to talk about 2004. Tfc has a great thread about Cuyahoga County going over on GD; there is still work to be done, and I'm trying to help him do it.

[Time for change]

6. I respectfully disagree Gary -- and here's why

Yes, we have proof on a number of counts that fraud occurred. AND, I believe that we have good reason to believe that that fraud overturned the election -- but not proof. Here is a thread where I talk about those reasons in detail:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2052179

Yes, we have proof that the exit poll discrepancy was not due to chance. Even Mitofsky admits that. AND, I believe that we have good reason to believe that that discrepancy was mostly due to fraud (which is also discussed in the above link), rather than exit poll bias -- but not proof.

Here are the things we can do, rather than claim that we have proof that the election was stolen:

1. We can fight for election reform, using as our primary argument the proven fact that our current election system is easily manipulated and provides no basis for confidence that our elections are fair. Therefore, we can even make the case that our Democracy is in grave danger, if not gone, until we fix this problem.

2. We can expose all the fraud that we are aware of and try to educate the public about all the good reasons to believe that the 2004 election was probably stolen.

3. We can continue to look for actual proof that the election was stolen. I believe that it exists out there. Some have pointed out that the most likely scenario for finding the proof will be to continue to identify statistical and other evidence for a stolen election, which in turn will encourage whistle blowers to come forward with evidence that will eventually add up to actual proof.


So, there is quite a bit we can do in the absence of claiming proof for a stolen election. I think that the harm we potentially do by claiming proof at this point in time is that we may discredit ourselves, and therefore make it less likely that people will listen to us if and when we do find the proof.

[organik]

7. It's irrelevant, because they stole it in 2000.

Stolen Election 2004 doesn't matter, because Bush stole 2000, even Jimmy Carter has admitted that. Had Bush not been given the presidency in 2000, he certainly wouldn't have it now.

And I agree with Gary, there is proof, and it's unacceptable to allow this to be forgotten.
The vast majority of "irregularities" favoring Bush and Bush only equals proof in my book.

How many more stolen elections without "proof" will we allow?

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. Respectfully, you are quite wrong. The circumstantial evidence

is more than overwhelming. It's embarrassing. Even to Dems, I imagine. Utterly surreal in its comprehensiveness.

It amounts to the most compelling truth of all, indeed, indisputable, because it is mathematical, statistical, "a priori". Proof positive.

On the other hand, How many people are convicted of capital crimes on the basis of so-called "hard evidence", such as DNA, which, itself, relies on statistical probability? Even in physics it has long been known that all knowledge, apart from "a priori" truth, such as that pertaining to mathematics, itself, is statistical. Mathematically-computed statistics relating to probablities virtually defines truth - uncertainty - falsehood.

There is a wealth of evidence adduced, respectively, to prove and to disprove a wide-ranging, a high-level conspiracy to murder John Kennedy. Clearly, some of it must be truthful evidence, proof, and some patently false. And, indeed, because of the official "clout" of the people in the utmost bad faith, this putatively conflicting "hard evidence"/proof is used only to confuse the issue.

On the other hand, when actuaries tell us that the probability of the mysterious deaths of all the public-spirited grassy-knoll witnesses within a period of 3 years was simply astronomical, you have compelling circumstantial evidence of the conspiracy, and the power of its protagonists.

There were so many gross irregularities on the part of the authorities concerned, following the murder, that the "a priori" evidence wouldn't be needed by a single soul in good faith, but it is there, and not open to dispute (even in bad faith, as was inevitable in relation to the "hard evidence", given the nature of the Establishment protagonists).

And, incidentally, timeforachange, I don't think "It's time for a change" quite cuts it as a rationale for getting the Republicans out of office, and never would have at any time during Bush's incumbency. It might have during Eisenhower's but I doubt if it ever has since. Some Democarats might even be insulted by the notion.

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. please share

What is the mathematical, statistical, a priori proof positive that Kerry won the election?

[Time for change]

21. Hey, there's no need to insult my name

I never claimed that "time for change" cuts it as a reason for getting Bush out of office.

In fact, you and I talked about this once before, and you may have forgotten, but I gave several reasons for getting him out of office:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2069007

But it's kind of summarized in reason # 10.

[kster]

8. 100% correct

the voting machine manufactures need to prove to us that they are not rigging the elections. Based on the evidence we have right now, they need to come forward and if they refuse to come forward we should not continue to work with them. We need to defy them

The reason I keep screaming Paper Ballots is because even if all them manufactures did an about face and decided to go honest it would take years to put the security in place to make them machines just 90% secure, and they know that.

With in two weeks we could print paper ballots,and have secured elections for 06. And it would be 96 97% secured, yes their are no 100% elections some ballots will get away but with paper ballots it won't be to the tune of 4 million.

[texpatriot2004]

9. Thanks for this post on "proof" Garybeck.n.t

[kster]

10. kick one more recommend will flip it !..nt

[petgoat]

11. Proof is Really Beside the Point

By framing the issue in terms of proof, we're bogged down in squabbles
over the reliability of data, disputed facts, and the endless cataloging
of minutiae that make ordinary citizens' eyes glaze over.

What is undeniable is that the electronic machines are simply not
trustworthy.

A really rude way to make the distinction to a neocon is to say:

"Will you let me spend the night with your wife? I promise there will
never be any proof that we had sex. And if you won't let me do that,
why should I let Diebold and ES&S to spend the night with the votes?"

Maybe somebody can suggest a more polite metaphor.

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. Nah. No need. I think you nailed it.

No pun intended. Really. ;)

[yowzayowzayowza]

13. Umm...

What is undeniable is that the electronic machines are simply not
trustworthy.

No. Unaudited machines are undeniably untrustworthy.

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. OK, just so we're not talking past each other...

can you sketch your basic view of what would be adequate auditing? I agree with you in the abstract, so far....

[yowzayowzayowza]

15. Got that goin on...

over here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=396156&mesg_id=396575

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. oops, I dropped that thread -- OK, catch you over there. n/t

[kster]

22. That isn't going to happen any time soon

"I don't think with today's technology we can have a voting system that is fully electronic that can be trusted," said Avi Rubin, a computer science professor. He will head a new Hopkins center called ACCURATE, short for A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Auditable and Transparent Elections

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1076711&tw=wn_wire_story

[yowzayowzayowza]

24. "Fully" electronic is garbage.

"I don't think with today's technology we can have a voting system that is fully electronic that can be trusted."

Partially electronic, as in opti-scan counting, can be very trustworthy with appropriate auditing.

Nice try.

[kster]

29. Are we having fun yet?

This is the message that appeared in the window of a county optical scan machine, startling Leon County Information Systems Officer Thomas James. Visibly shaken, he immediately turned the machine off.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/060305BBV/060305bbv.html

[yowzayowzayowza]

32. Over the years...

I've authored many error msgs far more colorful than that.

Your article proves my point, a lack of auditing is the issue:

Most states prohibit elections officials from checking on optical scan tallies by examining the paper ballots. .... Without paper ballot hand-counts, the hacks demonstrated below show that optical-scan elections can be destroyed in seconds.

With appropriate auditing of every counting device in every election opti-scan systems can be safe. Indeed, any counting system, mechanized er not, which doesn't yield to audit controls is ultimately "faith based" crap.

[kster]

41. So we agree "a lack of auditing is the issue"

we don't need optical scanners counting our vote, and if we have to fight our goverment to put common sense auditing procedures in place, then we need to ban the vote stealing machines and start counting our own votes by hand.

We don't need to take their sh*t.

[yowzayowzayowza]

42. Yet, I submit to you ...

that focusing on the machines dilutes the issue. Yer rite tho:

We don't need to take their sh*t.

Their fecal matter being unaudited elections, not the machines. Of the mantras in our environs, "Prove It!" is far apt than "Hand Counts!"

[kster]

44. Kerry won the election and * won the vote count

its pretty much that simple,because of unaudited election machines.

[Cults4Bush]

16. I used a similar argument a few times and they had a good answer...

apple and oranges. Which is true if your mind is so narrow and lacking of imagination.

Nowadays I just switch everything repuggy over to far left wing... "What would you do if Jesse Jackson and Barbara Boxer were in the WH, and Nader who owned one of the largest e machine comps out there promised Ohio to them, and you had 10 hour waits in white sub-burbs that lean heavy right?" I have about a dozen of these that I tailor to the audience in question. Most bushies cant bear to have their regime subjected to the same standards or compared to the far left, so its always fun to watch them squirm and fall into ambush after ambush.

Wingnuts are easy to talk circles around and baiting them up to be hypocritical is easier than breathing. Once they have shown their abuse of the golden rule a few times I usually just call them on it and end the conversation along the lines of "I don't think I'd trust any group of people who have to lie to themselves as much as you just did"...

I am actually quite surprised at how often my debates end this way, but really its just because they don't mind being hypocrites for the most part, probably has to with that Scalia quote.

... sorry for the ramble... just got me to thinking.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. The evidence against OJ was even stronger .....

..... and we all know where that went.

I am ***on*** ***your*** ***side*** on all this. But the American sheeple are much like the OJ jury. And until there is a serious, impartial, government sanctioned panel with legal authority to follow it all up and report out to the people (including the ability to level criminal charges) and get the real truth out there, the results of the evidence you posted wil have the same outcome as the OJ trial.

An honest media reporting on this in an honest way is the key to making this an issue that the sheeple care about.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

23. Just because the nightly news doesn't talk about the proof

doesn't mean it didn't happen! I think it is time to break this story.........is anyone in MSM listening?

Anxious to see your opinions of the theory "there isn't proof" once the media starts talking, and I predict, they will.

[autorank]

25. Here's a new proof...no numbers, just politics.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x396678

I know what you mean. If we have this much now, the presumption is that the level of proof would increase exopnentially. Too bad for the deniers and "skeptics." It's tedious.

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. aww, you love the thrill of having me disagree with you

Like I said, you can believe anax's argument if you want, but most political observers don't. If someone can actually break this story open, I'm all for it, but this arg is very unlikely to do it.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[autorank]

31. hi, long time, no see

I think we have all the proof we need. Proof of probable fraud, proof of the means to commit the fraud (beyond any doubt on this one), proof of willingness to commit acts commensurate with and beyond election fraud (invading a country that has not attacked us for a shifting set of reasons). What won't these people do if they have the means? That question sums up all we know right now. I have no faith in the * crew to restrain itself in any way whatsoever. That's enough proof for me. Nice seeing you here again.

[Joe Chi Minh]

35. Same here, Autorank!

The point I was making was that probabilities based on statistics are ascertained by mathematical means, and hence their veracity, (all things being equal, i.e. the samples being of sufficient scope) is beyond dispute, mathematics being of the nature of "a priori knowledge".

Our friend evidently has various forms of so-called "hard evidence" in mind (he certainly couldn't have circumstantial in mind, which, nevertheless can be compelling to any person even of indifferent reasoning powers, cf OJ and, more recently, the lad who killed his wife to wed his fancy woman).

At the end of the day, no matter what evidence is adduced, it is the jury (or in some cases,perhaps, the judge) who decides what constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If "reasonable doubt" is what he has in mind, then, well, he's ready for the yellow van with red wheels and the man in white coats.

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. shall we try this again? what probabilities are you talking about?

You actually don't seem to have made much of a point yet.

To say that statistical probabilities are "beyond dispute"... oh, never mind. Fish or cut bait.

[Joe Chi Minh]

39. Actuaries are gentlemen and ladies who work out

the odds for insurance companies, for instance, of accidents occurring to a car and its occupant/s, when driven by a certain individual.

Now, like bookmakers, insurance company company CEOs are not starry-eyed new-age hippie types, with a soft spot for a bit of the old narco, like that nerdy hate radio Jock, but very hard-headed businessmen. And they use these "actuaries". Say, "actuaries...". There! You can do it, you see?

Now, the reason why they employ actuaries is because they know that if the odds are accurately mathematically computed - and they allow for a margin of error, I feel sure - then there is no way they will not make the kind of profit that they envisage - all other things being equal? Do you see?

2 + 2 = 4 as a postulation is not open to argument or "hard proof", it simply is in the most mysteriously fundamental way. This, like all mathematics, is called an "a priori" truth.

So if mathematics is the basis for the computation of the probabilities of fraud having occurred in the Ohio election in a measurable degree - in the event, it proved to be copiously measurable, indeed, so vast as to be wholly damning to the Republican party, its operatives and cronies - then the circumstantial evidence of fraud amounts to the most compelling proof. The kind of statistical figures established, tended to be of the order of billions, even in some cases, trillions of trillions to one. In short, effectively certain in their damnation of the aforesaid Republican crowd.

Crucially, the anomalies showed an enormous preponderance in favour of Bush and the other state Republican politicos. However, the anomalies palpably indicated a wide range of different kinds of fraud and voter suppression, simply to common sense.

Nor were they, in fact, restricted to Ohio. They occurred in many places. And what's more, the vicious voter suppression, alone, would probably have been enough to steal the election, vastly though Kerry's vote had exceeded Bush's.

But here's why I question why I deign to even answer you, why I consider you to be posting in the utmost bad faith: I have yet to hear from any of you:

1. What justification you can adduce for keeping the software codes codes in the election machines secret. Copyright won't do.

2. What justification there can be for the neocons fighting against paper trails, instead preferring to force on the public, kind of secular faith-based elections; expecting the public to trust not just in the probity of big business, known to be unambiguously psychopathic, but voting-machine manufacturers who were massive supporters of Bush and his Republicans. What's more there were convicted criminals involved in the designing of the software - convicted moreover of election-software fraud.

Those were just two simple questions among scores, if not hundreds.

Don't bother to answer unless it is by way of a very contrite confession, and an assurance that you have expressed to God a firm purpose of amendment. Don't leave it too late. Otherwise you are BOUND to respond in bad faith, here on earth, and go to a very hot place marked out for you in the next life.

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. oh, brother

Do you actually have any idea what the statistical arguments are, or is "trillions of trillions" about the limit of your understanding? If you can't cite the arguments, then, uh, don't cite the arguments, that would be my advice.

Dude, I have no clue what you mean by "any of you." It's just some screwball construct in your head. I haven't taken any position on whether the software codes should be secret (escrow would probably be OK), and I support voter-verified paper ballots with strict auditing.

I would ignore you now, but you might be dangerous, so I guess I'll watch you out of the corner of my virtual eye.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Febble]

53. If you think that statistical "truths"

have "unambiguous" implications, then not only do I have a bridge to sell you, but I have a batch of scientific papers that I would be delighted for you to review.

Unfortunately most peer-reviewers tend to insist that even massively significant findings remain ambiguous. Statistical certainty is possible. Interpretational certainty is not.

And the only statistical methoology for establishing a causal relationship involves random assignment of an experimentally manipulated variable, for example drug and placebo in a double blind trial. Even then we may not be able to distinguish between proximal and distal causes.

It is nonetheless possible to use correlational statistics to test causal hypotheses. None of these, as far as I know, "unambiguous"ly point to fraud. Indeed, some point in the other direction.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Febble]

58. Not pedantry

Decent statistics.

See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=395353&mesg_id=396266

I agree, common sense is vital when interpreting statistics. I use mine.

And I have stated my positions on election reform elsewhere. I'm not going to be interrogated on them each time I post. I've also linked widely to papers on Gore Bush 2000 that demonstrate, using good statistics that either the butterfly ballot or vote spoilage alone cost Gore the presidency, never mind the Supreme Court.

[yowzayowzayowza]

43. No Way!

2 + 2 = 4 as a postulation is not open to argument or "hard proof",

Ummm...

... it simply is in the most mysteriously fundamental way.

Addition ... iz ... mysterious?

M'kay.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Febble]

51. a priori assumption

Not knowledge. A useful assumption too. Sometimes.

If I have 2 apples and I add 2 more I will indeed have 4 apples.

If I have 2 apples and add 2 oranges I will not have 4 apples.

I will however have 4 pieces of fruit.

And in arithmetic and algebra, so in statistics - everything depends on your assumptions and your definitions. A statistical statement, like an arithmetical statement, only has meaning if you state your assumptions and define carefully what you are saying.

For example:

"There is a 16,000,000 to 1 probability that the exit poll discrepancy was due to chance" does not mean that there is a 15,999,999 to one probability that it was due to fraud.

It means that there is a 15,999,999 to 1 probability that it was due to some systematic bias in either the sampling methodology or the vote count.

It certainly does not tell you which.

(edited for numerical typo!)

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. In any case, the bottom line is....

YOU ARE NOT THE JURY and you will not be when it all comes out!!!

GET OVER IT!

[yowzayowzayowza]

52. Of course I am...

part of the jury of public opinion, most desirous of the evidence, but jus not findin arithmatic particularly mysterious. Keep me posted.

On edit: Dern, linkz were werkin last nite
http://www.palantir.net/2001/sounds.html

[Febble]

50. Do you know

what "there is a 16 million probability that the exit poll discrepancy could have happened by chance" means?

It means it didn't happen by chance.

It does NOT mean there is a 16 million probability that it was due to fraud. It means it was not due to chance.

Fraud is certainly one possibility. Another is some form of sampling bias - which certainly happens, as we know from countries with transparent well-audited hand-counted elections (the UK for instance). Differential vote spoilage is another possible contributor to the discrepancy.

But the statistics simply do not tell you which of these contributed to the discrepancy in 2004, no matter how many zeros you put on the end of your estimate of the probability that it did not happen by chance.

You need quite different investigations to answer that question, some of which are being done, as I type, by posters you seem to be currently threatening with hellfire.

[Febble]

54. Oh and....

I'm not sure who you mean by "you", but for myself:

It is perfectly possible to believe that elections should be transparent and secure, and yet not to find the statistical evidence for fraud convincing.

I do not need proof that I have been burgled to know that my front door ought to be locked.

To ask those not yet convinced that the evidence for a stolen election is overwhelming to justify your points 1 and 2 is absurd.

I certainly couldn't, and wouldn't.

I am, nonetheless, still unconvinced that the popular vote in 2004 was stolen (though I find the evidence for the theft of Ohio more persuasive).

[nashville_brook]

28. deniers -- what's wrong with them? -- blindness and consensual reality

there's a story about the natives on the islands when Columbus "discovered" them. the natives have never seen a ship in the ocean. they didn't have a conceptual framework for it. the ships sat off the island for days and the natives were BLIND to them. they literally couldn't see them.

finally, the island's shaman, whose conceptual framework was larger than the rank and file native, spotted the ships.

but how to alert the natives? they still couldn't SEE them.

he performed a ritual in which in touched the rank and file on their forehead in orderr to give them sight. yea verily they could SEE.

consensual reality is a powerful. Shamen are just as relevant today as they were in the Middle Ages.

thank you gary for helping us SEE.

(and if anyone is interested in more of this kind of story, see the movie What The Bleep Do We Know -- link below)

http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=70011191&trkid=189530

[GentryLange]

30. Felony purge lists

Ok, so reagardless of the machines, isn't there proof that tens of thousands of legally registered voters were purged in 2000? Isn't that proof of fraud?

I get into this argument all the time. Proof, proof, proof. Circumstantial evidence might convince a jury but is doing little in the court of public opinion.

So what can we prove?

I always counter that the machine manufacturers need to prove the elections were fair and honest, I don't need to prove they were rigged. But that's not enough.

The felony purge lists in Florida 2000, was that "legal"? Has anyone sued over this? Is anyone working on this issue?

Thanks,
Gentry

[riqster]

33. The law requires proof that an election was clean

It can no longer be proven. Thus, our elections are illegal on that basis alone.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Febble]

55. And there seems to be

a group of DU islanders who, faced with a probability figure with a lot of zeros in it, can see nothing but FRAUD.

The opposite of chance is not "fraud". In statistics, the opposite of chance is an "effect". The hard part is establishing "cause" for the "effect".

The statistics tell us that there is an "effect".

They do not tell us the cause. It could be fraud. It could be sampling bias. There is plenty of precedent for both.

And it may be that by looking more carefully at the statistics that we will find out more about which is more likely where.

But we can't look more carefully if we can't see.

[eomer]

34. One of the most important facts is that the winner in Ohio was declared...

by way of an illegal process.

A recount should have been performed in accordance with Ohio law and the result of that recount should have determined the winner of the electoral college votes.

Rather than a recount performed according to state law, what was done was a sham process that did not follow state law.

The sham process was administered by the SOS, who was also the co-chair of the Bush/Cheney campaign in the state.

Having the winner of Ohio, which in turn decided the whole election, determined by a sham and illegal process means that the whole election is illegitimate and stolen.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kster]

45. Heres how they do it

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ellipsis]

56. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just count ALL the votes in Ohio...

...instead of clouding a good thread. It's not the math...it's the method. I always like to think that you have hit on something when I see the soup being stirred.

Thanks Mr. Beck