The usual Kevin election post.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Maybe Ion is saying "Pay no attention to that recount behind the curtain".

And his master, Woo_Lowe, has been strangely quiet the past week or so. I wonder why?

 

[Ion]

Only barely.

But still better than yours.

 

[Ion]

You forgot to answer these two questions:

Are you trying to say that Florida had NO Senators in 2000? So for that year the Senate only had 98 members?

And the vote "went wrongly to Bush"? What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Answer in English please.

They are answered in English.

 

[Ion]

Maybe Ion is saying "Pay no attention to that recount behind the curtain".

Yes.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They are answered in English.

Where???????????

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And his master, Woo_Lowe, has been strangely quiet the past week or so. I wonder why?

A thesis deadline and GTA: San Andreas.

The short story on the Ohio recount is that it was riddled with outright illegalities. The hand-counted samples legally had to be randomly chosen, but almost universally they were not. In Cuyahoga County the ballots were illegally and secretly hand-counted beforehand by election officials, who only owned up after being caught. The actions of the Triad technician fiddling with election machinery with the recount pending were also illegal. I think there were a few other instances of Ohio officials playing fast and loose with the election laws.

In our terms, it was an experimental protocol with holes you could drive several trucks through. Holes that by both Ohio law and common sense should not have existed.

There is, of course, absolutely nothing suspicious about election officials acting so as to make sure that a recount procedure has truck-sized holes in it. That's crazy woo-woo conspiracy talk.

 

[Ion]

Where???????????

There.

 

[Skeptic]

I wrote:

Nononononono.

The fact that Kerry lost the recount as well is just evidence that the Republicans controlled the recount as well as the original elections.

It's just MORE EVIDENCE of how evil they are.

Kevin Lowe wrote:

The short story on the Ohio recount is that it was riddled with outright illegalities...

There is, of course, absolutely nothing suspicious about election officials acting so as to make sure that a recount procedure has truck-sized holes in it.

The difference is, I was joking, while Kevin REALLY DID fall the conspiracy theorists' rabbit hole.

 

[crimresearch]

So when exit polls give you numbers you like, they are rock solid proof...but when the closely watched recounts don't flip-flop the results, it is fraud?

Gotcha.

 

[Ion]

So when exit polls give you numbers you like, they are rock solid proof...but when the closely watched recounts don't flip-flop the results, it is fraud?

Gotcha.

No.

The recount in Ohio was a farce:

there was an alleged test, matching counts by a voting machine with counts done by hand;
it introduced new votes from provisional ballots into a voting machine, and started a paper trail of these ballots;
it matched the machine's counts against the counts done by hand from the paper trail;
it accounted for 3% of the total votes;
it came out as matching;
Triad's fraud in preparation for this test, is documented in the thread;
after this 3% test, the recount was done by the Triad's machine same as the count was done, without paper trail, to prove that -gasp...-:

the machine works twice in the same way.

The recount counted like the count did, it did not test the machine's count.

crimresearch,

in another thread you mentioned that voting for Bush was giving more power to African-Americans;
in contrast with Kerry's platform (taxing the outsourcing, raising the minimum wage, insuring more people in healthcare, no lone wars funded by a US consumer economy falling in recession), I think that Bush is a bad deal for African-Americans and the middle class.

 

[crimresearch]

crimresearch,

in another thread you mentioned that voting for Bush was giving more power to African-Americans; in contrast with Kerry's platform (taxing the outsourcing, raising the minimum wage, insuring more people in healthcare, no lone wars funded by a US consumer economy falling in recession), I think that Bush is a bad deal for African-Americans and the middle class.

I have never, in any way shape or form, advocated voting for Bush, and you are blatant liar and fraud to imply that.

I call B*lls**t, and challenge you to provide a link to anyplace where I used those words. Particularly anything about taxing outsourcing or minimum wage.

If you have taken a post where I said that minorities who felt otherwise, should be allowed to decide for themselves, or a post where I said that growing numbers of minorities had decided to vote for Bush/reject Democrats, and twisted it into the above fabrication that *I* supported Bush, you are a seriously deluded and dishonest individual.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So when exit polls give you numbers you like, they are rock solid proof...but when the closely watched recounts don't flip-flop the results, it is fraud?

Gotcha.

The trick to putting words into people's mouths is to do it with accuracy. If you do it right it's very effective. If you do it wrong, you embarrass yourself.

When the exit polls and the tabulated votes don't match reasonably closely it's circumstancial evidence of either fraud or flawed poll design.

When the exit polls don't match, avenues for fraud are clearly documented before the election and still left wide open and election officials do funny things like clearing the media out of polling rooms with false allegations of terrorist threats (among other irregularities) then the election is clearly a flawed protocol. One that allows cheating.

Then when a recount is paid for by third party candidates with nothing to gain, but election officials break the law to see that the protocol is once again open to cheating, then you have to be incredibly stupid or trusting to have faith that everything is above board.

This is not proof of large-scale fraud, any more than it is proof that I am a shoplifter if I leave a store with a huge bulge under my jumper, and then refuse to be searched, and then run away. There are just a swathe of incredibly suspicious circumstances, entirely consistent with fraud and the covering-up of fraud.

The resident idiots ignore all that and try to confine the scope of the debate to "Is there currently undeniable, concrete proof that the whole election was rigged?". (That and trolling Ion, because that's a great way to end reasonable discussion). That's never been the point. The point is that there are rock solid grounds for suspicion about the conduct of the election, and non-trivial grounds for suspicion about the election's outcome. That should be simply intolerable to anyone who cares about robust democracy.

The Ukrainians kicked a whole lot harder about their rigged election than the people of the USA have, and they forced the government to hold a proper one. If the Ukraine can afford to hold a second election just to make sure everything was above board, the richest and most powerful nation in the world should be able to do so.

 

[Skeptic]

If the Ukraine can afford to hold a second election just to make sure everything was above board, the richest and most powerful nation in the world should be able to do so.

Why bother? When the official election results didn't jive with the unscientific, meaningless "exit polls", you claimed it was a conspiracy and demanded a recount. Now that the recount shows the same results as the official election results, you claim the recount, too, is fraudulent and demand new elections. If you will be given new elections and the results of those elections will not jive with the "exit polls", you'll just claim THOSE elections were rigged, too.

Clearly, the only result you will accept is a Kerry victory--no matter how many elections, re-elections, recounts, or lawsuits are needed; for every recount or election that fails to give the nod to Kerry would, ipso facto, be "evidence" of a massive Republican conspiracy that needs to be "investigated" so that the "legitimacy of the presidency will not be questioned", etc., etc., etc.

Of course, what you will exactly say will also depend on how the Republicans (and the public in general) react to the kooky demand for a new election: if they oppose it, you'll claim they're "covering up" the "theft" of the elections, while if they agree to it, you'll claim that in itself is "evidence" that they are "admitting" something was terribly, terribly wrong with the original elections.

 

[crimresearch]

While I recognize that Kevin is trying to frame his arguments more rationally than Ion, the assumption that exit polls are a benchmark, is a sticking point that I can't get past.

A framework of circumstantial evidence built past that point may look substantial, but it is not going to be convincing without support, such as the outcome of these reported criminal actions, and sworn affidavits.

If at the end of the day, we are asked to suspend our disblelief in exit polls, and accept a conspiracy so broad that it encompasses law enforcement at every level, international observers, John Kerrry, the Democrats, the Republicans, the media, several different companies, and the entire election apparatus...the question becomes the same one that any conspiracy theorist should be able to answer...

'OK, So what are you going to do about it'?

 

[Ion]

That's what I meant:

I have never, in any way shape or form, advocated voting for Bush, and you are blatant liar and fraud to imply that.
...
...or a post where I said that growing numbers of minorities had decided to vote for Bush/reject Democrats, and twisted it into the above fabrication that *I* supported Bush, you are a seriously deluded and dishonest individual.

I don't think I twisted, I think you lie that there is a difference between what I said from what you wrote.

I wrote this:

...
in another thread you mentioned that voting for Bush was giving more power to African-Americans;...
...

matching this:

...
...or a post where I said that growing numbers of minorities had decided to vote for Bush/reject Democrats,...
...

So your:

...
... and twisted it into the above fabrication that *I* supported Bush, you are a seriously deluded and dishonest individual.

is a lie.

 

[Ion]

...
Now that the recount shows the same results as the official election results, you claim the recount, too, is fraudulent and demand new elections.
...

Well new elections are justified, aren't they?

Triad's fraud in preparation for the recount is documented here.

 

[crimresearch]

That's what I meant:

I don't think I twisted, I think you lie that there is a difference between what I said from what you wrote.

I wrote this:

matching this:

So your:

is a lie.

Then all you have to do is provide a direct link to the quote where I said those words.

 

[Ion]

It's in 'Bitter Voter':

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...&perpage=40&highlight=minorities&pagenumber=2

There are all sorts of reasons why people of color might choose to reject the Democratic candidate and vote for Bush.

Those reasons might include having family members in harms way in Iraq, and honestly believing that replacing *any* CiC mid-war would expose their loved one to harm.

Others may have been the victim of racist actions and policies from Democrats, and wanted to send a message by voting against Kerry...and there could be many other reasons for thoughtful minorities to make an intelligent voting decision.

But none of that matters to you...they are all the same...'dumb'.

And if you can't see how that is a racist way of refusing to admit that minorities could ever be intelligent, thinking, individuals who are free to form their own conclusions, then you are doubly a racist.

My post here:

...
crimresearch,

in another thread you mentioned that voting for Bush was giving more power to African-Americans;
in contrast with Kerry's platform (taxing the outsourcing, raising the minimum wage, insuring more people in healthcare, no lone wars funded by a US consumer economy falling in recession), I think that Bush is a bad deal for African-Americans and the middle class.

matches your:

There are all sorts of reasons why people of color might choose to reject the Democratic candidate and vote for Bush.
...

with my representation here (from memory) of what you said there:

...
crimresearch,

in another thread you mentioned that voting for Bush was giving more power to African-Americans;
...

and further says that Kerry's platform is a better deal to the middle class than Bush's policies.

 

[WildCat]

The trick to putting words into people's mouths is to do it with accuracy. If you do it right it's very effective. If you do it wrong, you embarrass yourself.

When the exit polls and the tabulated votes don't match reasonably closely it's circumstancial evidence of either fraud or flawed poll design.

When the exit polls don't match, avenues for fraud are clearly documented before the election and still left wide open and election officials do funny things like clearing the media out of polling rooms with false allegations of terrorist threats (among other irregularities) then the election is clearly a flawed protocol. One that allows cheating.

Then when a recount is paid for by third party candidates with nothing to gain, but election officials break the law to see that the protocol is once again open to cheating, then you have to be incredibly stupid or trusting to have faith that everything is above board.

This is not proof of large-scale fraud, any more than it is proof that I am a shoplifter if I leave a store with a huge bulge under my jumper, and then refuse to be searched, and then run away. There are just a swathe of incredibly suspicious circumstances, entirely consistent with fraud and the covering-up of fraud.

The resident idiots ignore all that and try to confine the scope of the debate to "Is there currently undeniable, concrete proof that the whole election was rigged?". (That and trolling Ion, because that's a great way to end reasonable discussion). That's never been the point. The point is that there are rock solid grounds for suspicion about the conduct of the election, and non-trivial grounds for suspicion about the election's outcome. That should be simply intolerable to anyone who cares about robust democracy.

The Ukrainians kicked a whole lot harder about their rigged election than the people of the USA have, and they forced the government to hold a proper one. If the Ukraine can afford to hold a second election just to make sure everything was above board, the richest and most powerful nation in the world should be able to do so.

Your post reads better while listening to this.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why bother? When the official election results didn't jive with the unscientific, meaningless "exit polls", you claimed it was a conspiracy and demanded a recount. Now that the recount shows the same results as the official election results, you claim the recount, too, is fraudulent and demand new elections. If you will be given new elections and the results of those elections will not jive with the "exit polls", you'll just claim THOSE elections were rigged, too.

Let's see. Lie #1, exit polls are no more unscientific than any other random sample and far from meaningless. Lie #2, I never said the exit poll discrepancies were proof of fraud as opposed to circumstancial evidence. Lie #3, you cannot possibly know that I would dispute future election results, and I can say with confidence that I would not do so if the election was held properly.

Plus a bonus misrepresentation, that the reason I am not convinced by the recount is that I don't like the outcome rather than that I don't like the illegalities involved.

If you want to do your point of view any service you should take the trouble to debate honestly.

Clearly, the only result you will accept is a Kerry victory--no matter how many elections, re-elections, recounts, or lawsuits are needed; for every recount or election that fails to give the nod to Kerry would, ipso facto, be "evidence" of a massive Republican conspiracy that needs to be "investigated" so that the "legitimacy of the presidency will not be questioned", etc., etc., etc.

This is precisely the self-serving lie put about by woo-woos to "discredit" skeptics. "Even if we did prove psychic powers existed, you'd just demand more tests ad infinitum".

No. We demand a sound test. No number of unsound tests are any good. You can have improper elections and improper recounts until the cows come home and it proves nothing either way. What a skeptic wants is one test, or one election, that leaves no scope for cheating. Whatever outcome results from that test is the one that matters, and all the rest is just a light show for the suckers.

So far the Republicans administrating the Ohio election and recount have run from a sound election like a psychic runs from the million dollar challenge. There are a million excuses why they can't or won't do things right, but until they do things right the outcomes prove nothing.

Of course, what you will exactly say will also depend on how the Republicans (and the public in general) react to the kooky demand for a new election: if they oppose it, you'll claim they're "covering up" the "theft" of the elections, while if they agree to it, you'll claim that in itself is "evidence" that they are "admitting" something was terribly, terribly wrong with the original elections.

If one takes the time to look over this post, this paragraph in particular, you'll notice something. There is no content. It's just a sustained, baseless attack on me personally. You believe this, you believe that, you will say this, you will say that, therefore you are irrational and therefore I am excused from discussing any actual matters of fact.

As I said earlier if you want to do your point of view any service you should discuss the real issues and discuss them honestly, not just fantasise about what I, personally, might do in the future that might discredit me.

I'm an Australian, by the way. Bush annoys me but I've got no particular knowledge of Kerry's policies or reason to support them. It's also worth pointing out that I would have preferred a Labour/Green victory in the last Australian election but that I don't think the Liberal win was fraudulent, even though it affects me much more directly, because there was no evidence of fraud or a cover-up. Ah, stuff it. Defending myself against ad homs from trolls like Skeptic is playing their game.

Shoo, troll.