Okay, fraud naysayers:

[smartvoter]

If there was no fraud, why are Ohio counties breaking their own rules by selecting precincts in advance, instead of at random, for the 3-percent samples, and replacing machines when they don't match rather than proceed with the hand counts? Why did they break ethics rules with technicians? Why has Blackwell & Co. been a hindrance to investigations at every turn? Do innocent people, or those confident in their work, behave this way?

In other words, if nothing happened,

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???

[understandinglife]

1. And, how many crimes are they committing trying to 'hide it'?? (n/t)

[Generator]

3. Can you say "Watergate" boys and girls?

[FogerRox]

5. Can you say-- president of the United States John Kerry

[saracat]

2. And Prosecutor Kerry wouldn't be entering without an ability to show cause

You can take that to the bank.

[impeachthescoundrel]

4. Too much

good news for one day! It has been so ho hum since November 3, this is a real treat.

Yes I can say Watergate. I can also say fraud, indictment, impeachment and disgrace!

I remember when the Reagens moved in to the White House. Nancy was a real bitch to Rosalynn Carter.

It would do this old heart good to see the same thing happen to Laura.

[Acryliccalico]

6. WATERGATE 2

[RaulVB]

7. You have to be honest to respond to your question

Most of the naysayers are not looking at this issue honestly, IMO.

[gulogulo]

8. smartvoter - Ohio requires all the ballots to be

entered into public record after the "canvassing period" is over - which will be in three weeks or so. This means that if there was massive fraud, as you think, you personally will be able to easily prove it in a month or so - just request an inspection of the ballots in the precincts that you chose, pay for the time of county workers who will be handling those ballots for you (since you're not allowed to touch them) and recount the suspect precincts. You find huge discrepancies - voila, you got yourself hard proof of fraud.

Those officials there know that you can do this. Do you think they will risk their jobs, their reputations and risk incarceration when they know just how easily the fraud could be uncovered?

Promise that you will go and recount the precincts you suspect in a month. It should not cost much - the cost of recount of an average precinct should be way below $100. You probably will not like the results of your recount, though.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[pointsoflight]

11. Yeah, such a recount showed Gore won in 2000.

Didn't matter, though, did it? In fact, the media wouldn't even touch it. Damn shame that this can happen in America, isn't it?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[New Earth]

16. LOL

i was waiting for someone to say somethign like that! (didn't wanna have to do it myself)

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[RaulVB]

21. Broken record (n/t)

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[pointsoflight]

38. Deleted by pointsoflight

[MarkusQ]

43. Fraud? Perhaps not. But voter suppression?

There was massive rigging (everything from voter roll tampering to ballot manipulation). Voter suppression in general was quite high, and there may well have been things like we are seeing in Ohio (e.g. precinct level shenanigans), but no one knew to look for them.

--MarkusQ

[smartvoter]

44. Isn't that just another aspect of fraud? nt

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[trumad]

20. Did Blackwell provide enough voting machines

in heavy Democratic areas? Yes or no?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[trumad]

33. Wow... You need to read up a bit more...

Let me help you..
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/16/144321/34

[RevCheesehead]

23. is that Latin for "with harmonica?" or "with grits?"

my Latin's so rusty it squeaks by.

[RaulVB]

25. Ha, ha, ha...

:evilgrin:

[merh]

34. Simple answer to your question:

"Those officials there know that you can do this. Do you think they will risk their jobs, their reputations and risk incarceration when they know just how easily the fraud could be uncovered?"

YES!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

35. You forgot the characteristic that defines

these fucking Republicans:

arrogance.

They never even considered they'd get caught.

[smartvoter]

39. You are right, they have mastered the ability to...

... muddy the water so much that it's diffcult to make heads or tails of what they do.

[smartvoter]

40. Okay, let's think about this, since you have said it 1,000 times:

Your premise ignores many aspects of the problems in Ohio that cannot be accounted for in ballot counting, although there is reason to suspect that there are problems here as well. The list of problems in the state is enormous -- if you don't know them, thumb through the threads out here for a couple of hours.

Further, the idea that citizens will count them after the fact and that will be accepted as proof of fraud is absurd. If it doesn't happen with all parties present in a formal, organized and above-board manner it will never be accepted.

Moreover, with all the academic and citizen testimony now documented, how can we possibly NOT investigate in a formal manner? What is more important to our democracy than fair and accurate elections?

Finally, as is your pattern, from what I can discern, you completely ignored the questions raised while spitting out a square message you seem hell-bent on stuffing into a round hole. In fact, by virtue of misdirect to "count them yourself later," you entirely avoided the key question of behavior inconsistent with integrity. You've done nothing to answer the question:

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

[Stand and Fight]

9. There was/is fraud in Ohio.

You can take that one to the bank for sure, smartvoter.

[GetTheRightVote]

12. I have no doubt of fraud, saw alot of it first hand during the election

and afterwards. It has been the experience of a life time and hopefully the last of this kind for me in my life.

[You do not need that]

18. To a foreigner it seems weird that you remain so calm

It would be a hell of a racket here if we had to queue for ten hours to cast our votes. That would be totally unacceptable. Democracy failed. Absolute non-mandate for our government.

[smartvoter]

42. Don't remind us. It's embarrassing. nt

[PennyMan]

22. Why Does't Blackwell Want To Testify Under Oath Sounds Like Guilt To Me

[OldLeftieLawyer]

36. Fuckface never testified under oath

before the 9/11 panel, don't forget.

Plus, he needed Cheney to be there with him, to answer for him, I suppose.

It would seem that Republicans have a real horror of having to face the legal consequences of their larcenies and lies.

[Mistwell]

37. Naysayer response

I am not a naysayer (at least, I don't count myself as one). That said, I think you can in fact imagine a number of senarios that would result in the actions you describe WITHOUT the need for fraud or fear that something bad will be discovered by the folks working in the voting precincts.

The number one reason off the top of my head is laziness. Simply put, you choose recount regions in advance out of laziness (no need to go through the whole deal of putting names in a hat and having people observe and wait around etc...).

And of course, the OBVIOUS reason people would not want to go ahead with a hand recount of all ballots is laziness as well. Most of these people are VOLUNTEERS, and you are asking them to hand count THROUGH CHRISTMAS. No need to claim they are hiding anything when looked at from that simple human perspective. If there is an easier way to do it, people faced with the burden of recounting by hand ballots, FOR FREE, over their holiday break, or do what Triad says they should do and just swap machines until it all appears to work out, will pick the easy way out most of the time.

Triad could as well be doing bad things out of laziness as well, rather than hiding things or fear. It's easier (and better PR) to say that, after a couple of glitches, it all worked out fine...even if they were SUPPOSED to do it better. They do not have to have committed fraud to want it to work out correctly by swapping machines.

Blackwell is going to fend off an investigation unless he is forced to do the investigation. Almost any politician would. Investigations cost money, and discredit the system that put them into power, and cast a negative light on them and give them bad press. Even if Blackwell genuinely thinks an investigation would turn up nothing bad, he might still try to stop it for the simple reason that - so far - nobody is making him do it, and an investigation itself is bad for his reputation.

So, while these are not necessarily the actions of INNOCENT people, they COULD BE actions of simply lazy people who actually believe the election went fine and just don't want to pay the money and put in the time and energy to prove it.

I agree with you that we should be suspicious, and force people to do their jobs right. However, I disagree with you that actions which can be explained as simple laziness should be declared absolutely as intentional fraud. Most of the people involved with this thing are just underpaid election workers and volunteers, and I really don't think we should go around pointing the fraud finger at people without proof.

So...let's get the proof, and lets stop calling suspicions "proof".

[smartvoter]

41. Okay, let me get this straight:

You are saying that suspicious behavior, including not following rules and procedures specifically designed to protect the integrity of the vote at a time when that very integrity is being questioned, should not be viewed with skepticism because the people involved may just be "lazy?"

There are so many problems with this that I'm not even going to start on them. It's just loopy.