REFRAME: Prove massive election fraud didn't occur.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

Send to a freeper near you. It's impossible to prove a paperless negative.

[libertypirate]

1. We only know of the fraud we can see.

We can't see all the fraud that occured.

Republicans are against civil liberties, and that just freaking obvious!

[dkofos]

2. Are you trying to confuse the simple minded??

[tx_dem41]

3. That's easy to refute unfortunately....

the answer to your request: why should they?

On edit: i.e. We have the burden to prove the fraud.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

4. that's where you're wrong...IMHO

the other side would never let something like Reason dictate who had the burden to prove anything. I know we have to prove it in court. Outside of court, in the public arena, they've got to explain why exit polls didn't match, why Triad techs are suggesting cheat sheets, why Blackwell's locking out recounts from observers, why statisticians think Kerry had another 130,000 votes in Ohio, why....

....you get the point. Make them prove they aren't covering up fraud.

[tx_dem41]

8. I was speaking within the legal area.....

...but again, not to be cruel, but this story is NEVER going to raise its head above the rest of the news. About 1/100th of 1 percent even know about it or ever will. So by all means, fight the legal fight in all the individual areas, but why should the Repubs even respond to your request?

Sorry for sounding defeatist.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

11. it's not actually about them responding

It's about how we reframe the issue and pose it to MSM, wackos, or anyone who will listen.

(typo edit)

[SueZhope]

9. and don't forget the

NEW testimony
with Diebold reprogramming voting machines
and the list goes on gets bigger and the MSM
keeps chanting ....GET OVER IT ... :crazy:

[Igel]

18. Nobody has yet said that the machines don't

need reprogramming to avoid counting races that aren't being recounted.

I'll worry about techs having access to machines only when somebody can authoritatively (as opposed to vehemently) say that.

[righteous1]

14. One of the biggest mistakes one can make is

underestimating the intelligence of his adversary

[forgethell]

5. Yeah, but the burden is

on US to prove that fraud occurred. Don't bother to flame me. I don't know whether it did, or did not. The evidence that I've seen has seemed pretty damned weak, to me, but it still could have occurred. But my opinion, and yours, too, for that matter, are not the issue. We have to have evidence clear enough to convince the courts and/or the American people.

Conspiracy theories of a complexity that would perplex a Bible de-coder are not going to do it.

Massive protests, without some clear and convincing evidence will accomplish nothing. In January, Mr. Bush will be inaugurated. There is nothing that I can do about it, or you either. YOu can turn your backs on his parade, or have a protest, or file a lawsuit. But in he goes, and we have 4 more years of hell.

Unless someone comes forward. It is hard for me to believe that in a conspiracy as massive as this was there is no one who regrets his actions and has some solid evidence.

I've changed my mind. Flame away, but I'm right, and you know it.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

12. forgethell, I'm not trying to convince you. You already

know the mandate is crap. And you're right, * is most likely going back in, by any means necessary. But there's a PR battle to be fought, and it's an important one.

[forgethell]

15. Right.

But it can only be fought if we have evidence. Otherwise, we look like the tin-foil hat fools that the Freepers already think us. We're just whining, not accomplishing anything. It will cost us votes in the next election.

Of course, you can say that there will be no next election, but there I think you're wrong. And remember, if it's not close they can't steal it.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

21. I agree it shouldn't have been close, but we don't have to all

be seen as tinfoilies by demanding they prove fraud didn't occur. the fact is, they can't--and this itself is damning. Republican leadership blocked legislation dictating a paper trail. If it weren't for that, they'd have a parayer to prove they're legit. And that's the point.

[Griffy]

6. like WMD.. prove you dont have them... bush... prove you won fair! nt

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

7. exactly, griffy. perfect example

[Hamoth]

10. We purge fellons from voting,

but not from programming the voting machines...

[fshrink]

13. It's not a "re-frame".

It's what becomes the question ONCE you put some media pressure on it. And the only way to achieve that on a national level, is to have a national figure, several thereof in fact, explicitly and publicly stepping in like Jackson and Conyers did.
Short of that, you can e-mail that to 280 millions Americans and only get the reputation of a mentally unstable individual. And have Rove making fun of you, and the idiot smirking, on top of that.

[wiggs]

16. This should have been a tactic throughout the campaign

Like the republicans, assume the worst:

Cheney's secret task force made plans to go to war with Iraq for oil and to pillage the environment in the US for corporate gain

Rumsfeld directed Pentagon to abuse prisoners in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere

Cheney directed the CIA and OSP to distort intelligence on WMD

WH directed staffers to lie about Medicare costs

Cheney outed Plame

Sibel Edmonds overhead translated phone chatter that linked 9/11 to Pakistan to the WH

Bush was AWOL

SBVT was funded by the RNC

Rather memos were written by Rove

Draft is coming

Blackwell conducted voter supression and vote tampering in favor of Bush


Unfortunately, assuming the worst with this administration is going to get you somewhere close to the truth

[EFerrari]

19. Truer words. I got REALLY nervous when I first heard, just heard

about the "Help America Vote" Act. I didn't even know what it was but damned if I didn't guess right: easier way to steal elections.

I don't even want to know what "restore the constitution" is. We HAVE to get those guys outta there before Cheney nukes us all.

[texpatriot2004]

17. Yeah, as far as I know, they can't prove that. n/t

[Igel]

20. "Paperless negative"?

There are lots here assuming that even the paper trail (where it exists) has been thoroughly corrupted.

In other words, the only evidence that could prove innocence is also taken as signs of guilt. Sigh.

[Yupster]

22. You can never disprove a conspiracy theory

Any evidence against the theory will just prove the conspiracy was even bigger than first thought.

If anyone changes their mind and is now convinced the conspiracy was wrong, it only proves the conspirators got to that person too. It's pointless trying to disprove any conspiracy theory. The believers will go to their graves believing it.