The usual Kevin election post.

WildCat said:
But there's no evidence of that in the document linked to above. For your scenario to be true, the poll answers would have had to be fudged. Likely meaning that the pollsters were in on the massive conspiracy, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if a loon like Ion believes that.

Kevin's not a loon, he's just naive. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm disappointed. I made such a carefully worded post, and yet your response makes all the misunderstandings that my careful wording hoped to avoid.

Please consider it logically. I am not arguing that any scenario is true... and so the evidence one way or the other is irrelevant. Start with the IF-Then proposition you have effectively made:

If the poll answers were fudged, then the pollsters were in on a conspiracy to defraud the election.

My argument is the negation of that if-then statement--it is possible that the poll answers were fudged but the pollsters were not trying to defraud the election. My response explains exactly why they might fudge the results for their own reasons.

Please review.
 
There is also nothing to keep the RESPONDENTS from fudging their answers, as in the Wilder case that has been mentioned repeatedly in these threads.

Nor is there any means for preventing deception on the part of those who choose to talk to pollsters.

All of which leaves discrepancies between polls and actual results about as useful and as significant as any other coincidence.
 
gnome said:
I'm disappointed. I made such a carefully worded post, and yet your response makes all the misunderstandings that my careful wording hoped to avoid.

Please consider it logically. I am not arguing that any scenario is true... and so the evidence one way or the other is irrelevant. Start with the IF-Then proposition you have effectively made:

If the poll answers were fudged, then the pollsters were in on a conspiracy to defraud the election.

My argument is the negation of that if-then statement--it is possible that the poll answers were fudged but the pollsters were not trying to defraud the election. My response explains exactly why they might fudge the results for their own reasons.

Please review.
Click to expand...
I understood perfectly, that's why I said it "likely" meant they were in on the conspiracy, especially from Ion's view (who I was initially responding to). Ion has since admitted as much.

But it would take a lot of pollsters fudging data to make the numbers come down to where they were, wouldn't it? Sure, it's possible. But not likely, IMHO.
 
Ion said:
There is no more "Really? Maybe? Might? Could?...", Senator Boxer officially signed the start of the fight that disputes the Ohio vote.

The fight is on.
Click to expand...
Boy, that was some fight! Unfortunately, I blinked and missed it all.

Let's see, 31 Representatives (out of 200 Democrats) voted to challenge, and Boxer was the lone senator. No one else wanted to hitch their horse to that broken wagon.
 
Skeptic said:
Indeed so; but you're now sounding like the flat-earther who says, "Oh well, it took hundreds of years to realize Galileo was correct".

You see the logical fallacy here, don't you? For every rumor of political fraud with no current evidence that eventually turns out to be true because the evidence was suppressed, there are a zillion rumors of political fraud with no current evidence of political fraud that turn out to be nonsense because there WAS no evidence. They laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at creationists. Doesn't mean they're correct, you know.
Click to expand...

Pish.

WildCat's implied claim was "If there was fire and not just smoke, there would be investigative journalists and leakers all over it". I was just pointing out that this was not the case with past fires.

No fallacy.

So, what have you got to show us--apart from the pious hope that we cannot disprove that somewhere, sometime in the indefinite future, in some way, maybe, perhaps, some evidence "proving" the Ohio elections were a fraud might surface?
Click to expand...

Go look at that wiki link I keep posting. I'm not going to repost everything every time a troll pretends there is no evidence of shenanigans.

Indeed so. But the point here is different. It is not merely that the mainstream media doesn't report it.

It is that very powerful people (both in the media and in the Democratic party), with much better access to the facts, and with much more riding on having Kerry win than you or I, did NOT consider it worth their while to claim there was a conspiracy or fraud in the Ohio elections.
Click to expand...

It's funny how the media and the Democrats are incompetent boobs when it suits you, and hypercompetent operators with access to sources of information lesser mortals are excluded from when it suits you.

Either way, you are noodling about playing games with very limited, flawed and circumstancial evidence indeed ("If this was a real Watergate it would have been all over the papers by now!") when there is concrete evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony, scholarly papers, professional opinions from computer security experts and so forth to discuss. That's just lazy.

If they don't consider it a fraud, why should you?
Click to expand...

Because the available evidence indicates it is a significant possibility? You know, that crazy evidence stuff that skeptics are supposed to pay attention to, more so than CNN?
 
If they don't consider it a fraud, why should you?

Because the available evidence indicates it is a significant possibility?

So why are they ignoring the "available evidence"?

Did the Republicans pay them?

Are they "in" on the "fix"?

Are the afraid GWB would assassinate thier families?

They're masochists who enjoy losing?
 
Skeptic said:
So why are they ignoring the "available evidence"?

Did the Republicans pay them?

Are they "in" on the "fix"?

Are the afraid GWB would assassinate thier families?

They're masochists who enjoy losing?
Click to expand...

No idea. It's a mystery to me. PM me if you ever get it figured out.

In the mean time, shall we discuss the available evidence?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
No idea. It's a mystery to me. PM me if you ever get it figured out.

Well, did it occur to you that the rather obvious explanation of this "mystery" is that they don't consider the alleged "evidence for fraud" to be reliable, or to prove fraud?

So if THEY don't think the evidence is good enough for proof of fraud--with a). far more power, b). far more to gain, c). far more information than those who do--why should anybody else take such "fraud" allegations seriously?

Please, explain that one to me.
Click to expand...
 
WildCat said:
You have proofs but no evidences. :D
Click to expand...
To what I said about me (i.e.: 1.), 2.) and 3.) above) I have proofs and evidences.

Not questioning what I say about me, with in depth knowledge, means that you and Skeptic have no counter argument to 1.), 2.) and 3.) above, you are just fishing around for something to troll about.
 
Can you spot your contradiction in the time span of a few hours today?

Between this:
WildCat said:

...
...as of now there are no Democratic Senators willing to challenge the vote,...
...
Click to expand...
and this:
WildCat said:

...
...and Boxer was the lone senator.
...
Click to expand...
Let me confide in you about how investigations uncover fraud:

from observed infractions to evidence of purported infractions.

The process is rolling, right now.

Stay put...
 
Ion said:
Can you spot your contradiction in the time span of a few hours today?

Between this:

and this:

Let me confide in you about how investigations uncover fraud:

from observed infractions to evidence of purported infractions.

The process is rolling, right now.

Stay put...
Click to expand...

It looks like the process rolled itself flat:
In the end, the House voted 267 to 31 against the challenge. In the Senate, where the vote was 74 to 1, Mrs. Boxer stood alone.
Click to expand...

Congress Ratifies Bush Victory After a Rare Challenge

:rolleyes:
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Check that wiki link I gave earlier - a variety of mainstream news sources have at least recognised the issue, and from memory one of the Ohio newspapers has been covering the issue reasonably well.

A few journalists like Olbermann are covering the issue, and maybe in time they will be remembered in the same way W&B are... or of course maybe not.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Bev Harris said the media was covering up the story. So which is it?
 
Skeptic said:
Well, did it occur to you that the rather obvious explanation of this "mystery" is that they don't consider the alleged "evidence for fraud" to be reliable, or to prove fraud?
Click to expand...

It is of course possible.

So if THEY don't think the evidence is good enough for proof of fraud--with a). far more power, b). far more to gain, c). far more information than those who do--why should anybody else take such "fraud" allegations seriously?
Click to expand...

Here is a very, very simple answer: Because the facts give enough support to a very worrying hypothesis that a serious investigation is warranted. Facts are the bottom line.

These same people and organisations were very slow to pick up on the CIA drug connection, just to pick one example that I have brought up already in this very thread.

Why were they so slow to pick up on that issue, even after Webb had blown the whistle? It's a mystery. I have no idea. PM me if you get it figured out. But the ironclad fact is that they have not performed in the past with the omniscience and fearlessness you attribute to them. Your proclaimed faith in them is proveably irrational.

The behaviour of the press and the bulk of Democrat officials is neither here nor there. It's not evidence for or against the fraud case. And that is as much time as I am prepared to spend on this particular red herring of yours.
 
WildCat said:
There's a journalism career to be made (ala Woodward and Bernstein did w/ Watergate) by showing massive election fraud in Ohio. And yet, only Green Party bloggers seem interested. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

And where are the disgruntled Triad and Diebold workers who could blow the lid off this thing? Can you imagine the fame and fortune that would come to any journalist or aspiring author who could tell the story of the greatest scandal in the history of this country - the stealing of a presidential election?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they are out there. Let's listen:
































{crickets chirping....}






































{Off in the distance, a lonely owl calls to its mate......}















































[A frog splashes as it jumps into a pond.....}



























Wow, what a peaceful, serene place!
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Interesting. Bev Harris said the media was covering up the story. So which is it?
Click to expand...

This has been asked and answered repeatedly, which is more than it deserves since it is yet another red herring. It has nothing to do with the facts.

There are scholarly papers, eyewitness affidavits, reports from computer security professionals, letters to and from Conyers, a one hundred page report from members of the Judiciary Committee, in fact you are spoiled for factual material to get your teeth into. But you, Skeptic, Crimresearch and the other lightweights run like rabbits from any discussion of the facts.

You and the other trolls spend all your time trying to scrape up ad hominem arguments attacking individuals, or silly appeals to the authority of the media rather than addressing any of the facts. That's fairly pathetic behaviour for posters on a supposedly skeptical message board. If the facts are on your side you should be able to do better than this.

Shoo, troll. Go poke Ion or something.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
This has been asked and answered repeatedly, which is more than it deserves since it is yet another red herring. It has nothing to do with the facts.

There are scholarly papers, eyewitness affidavits, reports from computer security professionals, letters to and from Conyers, a one hundred page report from members of the Judiciary Committee, in fact you are spoiled for factual material to get your teeth into. But you, Skeptic, Crimresearch and the other lightweights run like rabbits from any discussion of the facts.

You and the other trolls spend all your time trying to scrape up ad hominem arguments attacking individuals, or silly appeals to the authority of the media rather than addressing any of the facts. That's fairly pathetic behaviour for posters on a supposedly skeptical message board. If the facts are on your side you should be able to do better than this.

Shoo, troll. Go poke Ion or something.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll address the facts:

1) Bush won. Get over it.
2) If you have evidence of fraud, call the police or the FBI (oh wait...you can't. "They" are part of the conspiracy)
3) Bev Harris will still be whining about this "conspiracy" 20 years from now (and milking "contributions" out of marks like you)

Shoo, mark. The moon landing hoaxers need your expertise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom