Where's all the smack talkers NOW????????

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:17 pm

Rian Jackson wrote:Interesting.....

Kerry Won...

then why on earth did he concede?

hmmmmmm?

really, i don't want an answer, i just wanted to be a smartass.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:22 pm

yes, you've been good at that lately.
it's ok, i'm learning to ignore you better.
cause you're even annoying me, even though i am not a kerry supporter.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:28 pm

Rian Jackson wrote:yes, you've been good at that lately.
it's ok, i'm learning to ignore you better.
cause you're even annoying me, even though i am not a kerry supporter.

i don't consider myself a bush supporter...

i do consider myself a supporter of the constitution (USA).

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:30 pm

Simply Joel wrote:
Rian Jackson wrote:yes, you've been good at that lately.
it's ok, i'm learning to ignore you better.
cause you're even annoying me, even though i am not a kerry supporter.
i don't consider myself a bush supporter...

i do consider myself a supporter of the constitution (USA).

cause you're even annoying me

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:47 pm

Rian, I have a question ...

I don't know about Ohio (yet, but I will look around at a few things) but I do know about Florida. There are a few things that don't add up. The major thing is that the vast majority of polling stations in Florida that had "problems" were stations that were managed by Democratic Party members. Why would Democratic poll workers want to discard, mis-count, destroy, or discard ballots for their own party?

Also, the sheer number of vote difference, somewhere around 140,000 votes ... I find it difficult to believe THAT MANY ballots could have gone unrecorded. That would have had to happen at MANY polling stations.

Why would punch cards fail in minority areas of Ohio but function just fine in every other state? I see no evidence to back those numbers up in his article. When he produces some, please let me know. CNN would be all over this if there was any truth to it. Believe me, they want to keep the election suspense going for as long as possible to keep viewers glued to them.

It was the REPUBLICANS that were worried about DEMOCRATIC voter fraud in Ohio, not the other way around.

Being from Ohio made a difference. While Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Elizabeth was talking about "voter fraud'' in Ohio early in the evening, an hour later ABC's Claire Shipman -- a Columbus native -- was reporting the real news: "big turnout, little trouble.''

Actually, it turned out that there is a very good reason the exit polls were wrong. They were taken very early in the day when most of the people being polled were women. The numbers being reported were consistant with the demographic between the sexes. Instead of separating the results male/female and extrapolating the result, they extrapolated the uneven aggregate and arrived at the conclusion that Kerry was kicking ass. Later in the day when more men were voting than women, the numbers would have been swinging the other way but there were no exit polls being taken at that time.

Fraud is much more likely with electronic votes than with punch card, actually. In my state when you are done voting, your choices are written onto a "smart card". It is ejected and you carry the smart card to the central reader. The card is inserted and the ballot is read. You get no receipt or other indication that the ballot was properly recorded in the machine. What they HAVE done, though, is have a tally sheet. Every time someone is given a card, a tic mark is made through a list of sequential numbers. When you get to the end, the number of ballots in the central reader should equal the last number checked off the tally sheet. When I voted, the poll workers did properly mark the tally sheet for the two people ahead of me, myself, and the person behind me. That was all I could see.

There were about 2000 registered voters for my polling place. At a turnout of 65%, that would mean about 1300 people probably voted there. In order to skew a vote by 140,000 the votes over 100 polling places the size of my own would have to be "dumped". Something on that scale is too big and too many people would know about it to keep it quiet. I think the same is true in Ohio. Until I hear any solid evidence, I am going to write that article off as sour grapes.

The Democratic Party doesn't seem too worried about it. You would think that if they thought there was any truth to it, they would be raising hell.

Oh, and howcome hanging/pregnant chads always seem to go against Democrats in news stories?

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:55 pm

geekster wrote:Oh, and howcome hanging/pregnant chads always seem to go against Democrats in news stories?

Ted Kennedy???

(taken from the DVD's booklet on composing amusing posts)

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:09 pm

Simply Joel wrote:
geekster wrote:Oh, and howcome hanging/pregnant chads always seem to go against Democrats in news stories?
Ted Kennedy???

(taken from the DVD's booklet on composing amusing posts)

Same with drunked chads...

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:10 pm

Were those guys whos pictures that Spinner posted in the bar the other night named Chad?

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:12 pm

Simply Joel wrote:
geekster wrote:Oh, and howcome hanging/pregnant chads always seem to go against Democrats in news stories?
Ted Kennedy???

(taken from the DVD's booklet on composing amusing posts)

Same with drunked chads...

that should read drunken chads

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:15 pm

shit. can't respond properly to it now, Geekie, gotta get some shit done for a meeting tonight.

but i think it has a lot to do with simple economics.
poorer people tend to vote D.
people of colour are statistically less wealthy than other folks.
poor communities get shittier supplies, which would have a much higher margin of error.

Palast is known to do some pretty decent research...

anyway, hope to be able to respond later when there's more time.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:22 pm

Still, the assumption remains ...

In order for that to work, you have to assume that all of the votes being discarded were Democrat, all poll workers must have been non-Democrat and that the uncounted votes are for Kerry in a ratio much higher than the "regular" voting was. I just don't see how that could happen.

How do you ensure that all poll workers in minority areas are Republican so you can throw ballots away without being noticed? How does a poll worker create a "hanging chad"? How does a poll worker create a "pregnant" chad. If poll workers can not create a "pregnant" or "hanging" chad, how come so many Democrats do but Republicans don't?

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:30 pm

geekster wrote:Still, the assumption remains ...

In order for that to work, you have to assume that all of the votes being discarded were Democrat, all poll workers must have been non-Democrat and that the uncounted votes are for Kerry in a ratio much higher than the "regular" voting was. I just don't see how that could happen.

How do you ensure that all poll workers in minority areas are Republican so you can throw ballots away without being noticed? How does a poll worker create a "hanging chad"? How does a poll worker create a "pregnant" chad. If poll workers can not create a "pregnant" or "hanging" chad, how come so many Democrats do but Republicans don't?

Because they can't afford better punch pins...?

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:40 pm

Hey, Alpha ... you might like this one ...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/ ... index.html

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:27 am

geekster wrote:Still, the assumption remains ...

In order for that to work, you have to assume that all of the votes being discarded were Democrat, all poll workers must have been non-Democrat and that the uncounted votes are for Kerry in a ratio much higher than the "regular" voting was. I just don't see how that could happen.

How do you ensure that all poll workers in minority areas are Republican so you can throw ballots away without being noticed? How does a poll worker create a "hanging chad"? How does a poll worker create a "pregnant" chad. If poll workers can not create a "pregnant" or "hanging" chad, how come so many Democrats do but Republicans don't?

the point, Geekster, is not that theres some Big Republican Conspiracy (!) to get rid of those pesky voters. the point is that the rate of spoilage is considerably higher with crappy old machines that don't do a complete punch. i betcha that the folks who have a lot of cash (statistically a lot more white folks) don't have the crapy old machines that create a higher percentage of spoilage. you don't need Republican's to be staffing the poles and viciously weeding out those who disagree with them. Economics does it by itself.

It's a fairly simple argument. And the point, for me, is not even who should have won - they're both crap candidates. It has a lot more to do with systematic (and unintentional, i assume) disenfranchisment of sectors of us society.

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:36 am

Thanks geekster, that's somewhat encouraging although I fear that as congress moves even futher to the right, not even moderates like Specter will be able to stop the steam roller. Time will tell...

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:03 pm

is not that theres some Big Republican Conspiracy (!) to get rid of those pesky voters

um, actually there is, although it's a little too open for it to be much of a conspiracy. I believe it was the republican secretary of state from Pa. that was quoted in US news and world report as saying 'in order to win Pa. we have to suppress the vote in Philadelphia.' my empahsis added

it's interesting regarding black voters. They provide a unique opportunity for suppression. You can't look at a white person and tell which team they play for but looking at a black person gives you a 90% shot. Odds most folk will take any day. All you got to do is give a predominantly black precinct beat up punch card machines and you are in business. The poll workers could be raving liberals and it would not matter one bit. Also, if you check the wait times in various neighborhoods you will find black folk tend to have to wait for quite a while longer to cast a ballot. In Cleveland, predominantly democratic, for example, even though voter registration was at record levels, the secretary of state, a republican, decided they needed %75 of the voting machines at those precincts than previous elections. The result was a three hour plus wait (in the cold rain) to vote. Many people gave up.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:42 pm

Good theory. And if the actual human being that decides which machines go to which polling place is always a Republican, I would agree. But Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are pretty solid Democratic areas. Pennsylvania is a pretty solid Democratic state. They went Kerry by a HUGE margin. They have a Republican Senator but he is known as one of the most moderate Republicans on The Hill.

Good theory but it doesn't stand up to either what happened there or even the culture there.

Besides, and increasingly large percentage of African-Americans are voting Republican and are seen as one of the fastest growing Republican demographics, along with Hispanic voters. Democrats are increasingly becoming rich, urban, and white.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:58 pm

I don't feel sorry for all the gay republicans and pro choice republicans that voted for Bush.

To get what you voted for!

A II Z

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:19 pm

Apollonaris Zeus wrote:I don't feel sorry for all the gay republicans and pro choice republicans that voted for Bush.

To get what you voted for!

A II Z

That is almost funny. It seems to imply that somehow Bush want's to outlaw abortion or homosexuality. He can't. He might have a personal position on the issues, that's fine, everyone has a personal position but there is no way he is going to be able to enforce his personal position on the rest of us and I have seen no indication that he WANTS to.

What he ACTUALLY said was that he was tired of judges interpreting things in conflicting ways. That the issue needs to be presented to the people and decided with clarity. A proposal for a constitutional ammendment does just that. It must be ratified by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and then by the legislatures of 33 of the 50 states. In order to pass there must be an OVERWHELMING majority. I am not afraid of this process. If such a thing passes, I would have to accept that I am part of an eccentric oddball minority. I would rather see it shot down in flames. Once that happens the discussion is over. I seriously doubt it would ever even get to the states.

But I will say that when the Defense of Marriage act was signed by Bill Clinton that basically bans gay marriage for purposes of federal law, it passed the House 342-67 and the Senate 85-14. Clinton could have vetoed it, knowing that Congress would override his veto, in order to take a personal stand on the issue. Since he was already in his second term, it wouldn't be any skin off his political nose. But he didn't. He signed it. Where's the outrage?

THIS is what makes me believe it is all this bitching about Bush's stand on the issue is simply political posturing and not REALLY about the issue itself at all. I say let the states decide and live with the result. I sincerely doubt that 33 states will ratify it.

Actually, Bush doesn't need to propose it, some Congressman from Alabama probably will.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:43 pm

Good theory. And if the actual human being that decides which machines go to which polling place is always a Republican, I would agree. But Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are pretty solid Democratic areas. Pennsylvania is a pretty solid Democratic state. They went Kerry by a HUGE margin. They have a Republican Senator but he is known as one of the most moderate Republicans on The Hill.

Good theory but it doesn't stand up to either what happened there or even the culture there.

the outcome absolutely reflects the theory

as you point out, Pa. went democrat

Ohio on the other hand, with a right wing secretary of state who wanted voter registration thrown out cuz it was on the wrong card stock, went republican. It's not a theory, it's a reality.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:44 pm

an argument could be made for violation of the equal protection clause. Remember that famous one from Florida?

Why should urban dwellers have to wait in lines 3 times as long as sub-urban or rural voters?

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:57 pm

PA didn't "go democrat" ... they have been for quite some time.

Also, in Cleveland (Cuyahoga county) the vote went 66%-33% Kerry. Votes cast accounted for >70% of the registered voters. There are about 650,000 votes currently recorded with absentee and provisional votes yet to be counted. There just isn't room for a lot of "missing" votes. I would be surprised if the number of people giving up and going home was significant considering the stories I was hearing of people NOT giving up and going home. How people were bringing umbrellas, food, chairs, just about anything people needed so they could stay on line.

Why are people still looking for an evil boogyman in here? Why can't they just accept that they lost. Period. Time to start working on the NEXT election and expanding your base of support for next time. Is it THAT hard to accept that your choice might not have been shared by the majority in OTHER places in the country?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:02 pm

I'm not looking for a boogey man. I accept that 'i' lost. I also accept why. None of these things, however, negate the fact that voter suppression is alive and well in this country. It always has been. The reports from this year are numerous, the reports from four years ago were numerous, the reports from four years before that also numerous. Etc., etc..

I never made the argument that supression made the difference this time out. Not in this thread or anywhere else. Last time out, the argument was made with much documentation by folks way smarter than me.

The only thing I argued here was your denial of the situation.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:07 pm

I agree and I think BOTH parties do it and that is why the DNC isn't raising a stink about it. If they do, they will get caught with their own fingers in that jar and they aren't willing to go there. I fully accept and expect there to be cheating. That is the OBVIOUS reason in most states for NOT requiring positive ID at polling places.

tonytohono · Post by **tonytohono** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 8:53 pm

MACHINE ERROR AIDS BUSH

An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3.893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, Ohio, elections officials said Friday.
Franklin County’s unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry’s 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush’s total should have been 365.
Deducting the erroneous Bush votes from his total could not change the election’s outcome, and there were no signs of other errors in Ohio’s electronic machines, said Carlo Loparo, spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. Bush won the state by 136,000 votes.

-Associated Press

TheMuse · Post by **TheMuse** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:31 pm

http://notmypresident.tribe.net/

Force · Post by **Force** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:22 pm

tonytohono wrote:MACHINE ERROR AIDS BUSH

An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3.893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, Ohio, elections officials said Friday.
Franklin County’s unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry’s 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush’s total should have been 365.
Deducting the erroneous Bush votes from his total could not change the election’s outcome, and there were no signs of other errors in Ohio’s electronic machines, said Carlo Loparo, spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. Bush won the state by 136,000 votes.

-Associated Press

And given that there is absolutely no backup or other way to check for errors and zero paper trail, other than comparing an incorrect total of votes compared to how many voters exist, what signs exactly should they be looking for?

The fact that people sat back and let themselves get buttfucked by electronic voting with zero accountability measures would piss me off to no end if I allowed myself to care about it.

Fortunately my cynicism shield is functioning well, and allows me to be experience only mild amusement at the folks who actually proclaim electronic voting is A-OK.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:40 pm

Force wrote:
And given that there is absolutely no backup or other way to check for errors and zero paper trail, other than comparing an incorrect total of votes compared to how many voters exist, what signs exactly should they be looking for?

The fact that people sat back and let themselves get buttfucked by electronic voting with zero accountability measures would piss me off to no end if I allowed myself to care about it.

Fortunately my cynicism shield is functioning well, and allows me to be experience only mild amusement at the folks who actually proclaim electronic voting is A-OK.

Ah ha ha ha ha.............Force you rock.

tonytohono · Post by **tonytohono** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:48 pm

Force wrote: The fact that people sat back and let themselves get buttfucked by electronic voting with zero accountability measures would piss me off to no end if I allowed myself to care about it.

That's about there is to say.

tisha2 · Post by **tisha2** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:20 pm

http://www.fuckthesouth.com

complete with cites...

Where's all the smack talkers NOW????????

From this morning's paper

Re: From this morning's paper

Re: From this morning's paper

Re: From this morning's paper