I'm seeing a tsunami of threads that seem intentionally divisive

[thoughtanarchist]

Who would like to discuss why this might be?

[The Sushi Bandit]

1. What in the Frick are you talking about?????

[KansDem]

2. LOL!!!

good one! :D

[righteous1]

9. My thought exactly LOL n/t

[nashville_brook]

3. see my thread:

we've got the power -- we are a MOVEMENT -- here's why (and how)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x232406


i don't think people are intentionally trying to be disruptive. we just need to brush up on our political skills. we probably haven't used them in a while.

[thoughtanarchist]

7. I don't think they're ALL intentional...

but I have no doubt that some are.

I love that thread. Well thought out.

I'd like to cross post in all the bickering threads I see from now on......

[Walt Starr]

4. Seems to me this entire forum is meant to have lively debate

It is, after all, examining the 2004 election after the fact. There are bound to be hugely disparate views about why we (legitimately) lost in 2004.

Once we get past January 6 and January 20, things should calm down into a realistic look at why we lost instead of fantasyland hokum.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

10. It is hard to take you seriously when you offer no concrete evidence

that Kerry truly did lose this, and really, I can't understand how any well-informed, red-blooded progressive could so emphatically assert that there was no election fraud.

[Walt Starr]

13. Um, the concrete evidence

is the vote count, not to mention the Ohio recount.

I am a red-blooded progressive Democrat and I assert emphatically there was no widespread election fraud conspiracy which had an effect on the outcome of the election.

[FreepFryer]

14. Yes, Walt - we've heard you assert it

in every single thread where others assert theirs emphatically.

A contrasting opinion to yours is that conspiracies are difficult to uncover, and as conspiracies go, there's a lot of ground uncovered thus far with some alarming circumstances, evidence and anecdote.

I am glad to see that you're not being personal, though. And I think that we are honestly grateful.

[Walt Starr]

15. Hmmmm, two months later

and still nothing to contradict the results of the election.

No widespread conspiracy. Not a single conspiricist.

Man, maybe we should look for Kerry votes in the grassy knoll!

[FreepFryer]

17. e.g. Conyers' 36 questions != nothing. n/t

[Walt Starr]

19. RIGHT!

Now you're getting it. Playing to a very small minorityt. It's politics!

[FreepFryer]

22. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Extraordinary. :)

[Blue_In_AK]

24. Two months is a drop in the bucket

Think Watergate

[Chimpanzee]

25. You sure see things differently than I do.

[flyarm]

20. what ohio recount?

DO YOU MEAN THE RECOUNT WHERE BLACKWELL DECIDED WHERE AND WHEN IT WOULD TAKE PLACE WITH PRE-SELECTED PRECINCTS?? AGAINST ALL OHIO LAWS OF A RANDOM RECOUNT??

FLY

[Walt Starr]

21. Please cite Ohio law which was violated

:::::tapping toes waiting::::::

[FreepFryer]

23. He's not asking because he wants to know - he's asking to waste your time

And he will not be convinced, nor consider your source. Again, he asks a single individual to provide him the proof he knows is in the Conyers report.

Just wait and see, and don't waste your time doing research on Walt's behalf.

Believe in yourself and your ability to reason for yourself.

[sepia_steel]

31. Just so you know, FreepFryer

I am no longer able to read what certain people are saying, but for your responses, I love ya. Tons.

:-D

[katinmn]

61. I'm in your camp, sepia_steel

[femme.democratique]

39. Dead on. He spends way too much time detracting others when...

...this will all be played out by the end of the week.

Believe in your ability to reason, no better advice IMO!

[flyarm]

60. THANKS FREEP FRYER..

i wont waste my time pulling it all up..i know this game well...

if he wants the info its easily pulled up by himself!!

thanks again freeperfryer:pals:

[Chimpanzee]

26. I saw it in the Ohio statutes yesterday - and no I won't look it up for u

[Walt Starr]

27. Fine, YOU are the one under the burden of proof

as YOU were the one to assert it violated Ohio law.

[FreepFryer]

28. not true for a few reasons:

1. regarding the burden of proof for violation of regulation is different than for intentional fraud.
2. this isn't court.

[Walt Starr]

29. Wrong again, Freep

In logical discourse, the claimant with the inital positive assertion is under the burden of proof.

This is a blog dedicated to logical discourse and the OP made the initial positive assertion that Ohio law had been violated. I called him on it, he failed to provide the requested proof, ergo, I won the debate.

[FreepFryer]

32. there are no 'claimants' in discourse, Mr. Prosecutor.

Get over yourself. You win no debate, formal or informal, with inadequate, amateurish spin, and you fail to even offer that.

Look up the evidence the 'claimant' referred to and you will see his observation is valid - but as I mentioned, you're not to be convinced, so you instead revert to personal ad hominem.

>yawn<

[Walt Starr]

34. The OP made a claim

Take a course in debate and get back to me.

[FreepFryer]

36. Been there, done that, gave you an F.

[Walt Starr]

37. Obviously you learned very little about how logical discourse is conducted

apparently that 'F' belongs to you.

[FreepFryer]

38. once again, you drive the thread below the threshold of usefulness.

yawn.

[TruthIsAll]

58. Walter, Walter, Walter. What's your problem, man? n/t

.

[Chimpanzee]

30. OK

(Section 3515 of the Ohio Revised Code) "The board must randomly select whole precincts whose total equals at least 3% of the total vote, and must conduct a manual count."

"If the tabulator count does not match the hand count, and after rechecking the manual count the results are still not equal, all ballots must be hand counted. If the results of the tabulator count and the hand counted ballots are equal, the remainder of the ballots may be processed through the tabulator (for optical scan and punch cards)."

[pgh_dem]

45. not sure about this

I've seen that before, but the moritz law site seems to have the whole of section 3515, and the random precinct bit just isn't in there anywhere I can find.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/procedures_recount_os.html#351501
I think the machine/handcount/random stuff may have been just an SoS directive...and I guess they just make those for fun.
I wonder what other directives the SoS made with regard to the 2004 election that was so roundly ignored?
(although I seem to remember one county refused in writing to carry out an SoS directive involving disqualifying provisional ballots.)

[bemis12]

47. That's not in the law

You pulled it from a blog site or some other place. It's not law.

It is, as I said in another place, a directive from the SOS's office. A manual on the proper way to recount. It exists here:

http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/statewide/provisions_recounts.htm

Yes, absolutely that directive should be followed. But, no, it is not law.

[bemis12]

33. I don't believe you did

Because it's not an Ohio Statute.

It's a directive from the Secretary of State's office. That does mean that it should have been followed, but it's not a law. Laws are passed by legislatures.

[Chimpanzee]

35. Look above your post

[bemis12]

40. I see what you saId, but

I am also looking at the Ohio Revised Code Section 3515, and cannot find what you listed.

Did you perchance pull it from a blog?

Here's 3515. If you can find it, you have better eyes than me.

http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll/PORC/1633b/167fe?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_3515

[Chimpanzee]

46. I can't find it either - so if it isn't in there, then Blackwell

violated the statutes by 'making up' the 3% rule to avoid a full recount which would have blown this thing wide open! Either way, Blackwell broke the law.

[Chimpanzee]

49. Here is the Ohio Recount Law:

At the time and place fixed for making a recount, the board of elections, in the presence of all witnesses who may be in attendance, shall open the sealed containers containing the ballots to be recounted, and shall recount them. If a county used punch card ballots and if a chad is attached to a punch card ballot by three or four corners, the voter shall be deemed by the board not to have recorded a candidate, question, or issue choice at the particular position on the ballot, and a vote shall not be counted at that particular position on the ballot in the recount. Ballots shall be handled only by the members of the board or by the director or other employees of the board. Witnesses shall be permitted to see the ballots but they shall not be permitted to touch them, and the board shall not permit the counting or tabulation of votes shown on the ballots for any nomination, or for election to any office or position, or upon any question or issue, other than the votes shown on such ballots for the nomination, election, question or issue concerning which a recount of ballots was applied for.
------------------------
Nothing here about running then through machines - hand count ONLY!! Nothing about 3%!!!! Blackwell is a criminal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bemis12]

54. I'm missing the part

where it says hand count only. I think that's an interpretation on your part? "Counting" can be done by either hand or machine. I don't see anywhere in that law where either method is required.

[Chimpanzee]

65. How do you inspect chads if you are not hand-counting!?

[Chimpanzee]

50. Here is the Ohio Recount Law:

At the time and place fixed for making a recount, the board of elections, in the presence of all witnesses who may be in attendance, shall open the sealed containers containing the ballots to be recounted, and shall recount them. If a county used punch card ballots and if a chad is attached to a punch card ballot by three or four corners, the voter shall be deemed by the board not to have recorded a candidate, question, or issue choice at the particular position on the ballot, and a vote shall not be counted at that particular position on the ballot in the recount. Ballots shall be handled only by the members of the board or by the director or other employees of the board. Witnesses shall be permitted to see the ballots but they shall not be permitted to touch them, and the board shall not permit the counting or tabulation of votes shown on the ballots for any nomination, or for election to any office or position, or upon any question or issue, other than the votes shown on such ballots for the nomination, election, question or issue concerning which a recount of ballots was applied for.
------------------------
Nothing here about running then through machines - hand count ONLY!! Nothing about 3%!!!! Blackwell is a criminal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pgh_dem]

48. Executive orders have remedies and ramifications too

when they aren't followed.
Maybe someone more familiar with Ohio law can answer whether SoS Directive would be more accurately called 'SoS If-you-feel-like-it'.
Kinda hairsplitting, though, isn't it?
The reason the avoidance random selection of precincts to recount is considered OK with you is that they didn't technically break the rules, on account of the rules weren't really "rules" so much as hopeful guidelines...
Pretty much sum it up?
(on edit: just realized this could mean the BoEs could also have decided to just handcount less than 3%, not to mention redefine what 'matching' means, and/or request new counting machines when current ones fail to 'match'...oh wait, they did that too! man...blackwell should just call his directives 'Feel Free To Ignore')

[bemis12]

51. I have no quarrel with what you're saying

I agree with you pretty much across the board. It's inexcusable that BOE's were apparently free to ignore parts of the manual when it was inconvienent for them.

I was only disagreeing with people saying it was the "law" and that prosecutions should follow. That part is incorrect.

[Chimpanzee]

56. Why do you say it's not against the law - I posted the law above

No 3% rule, manual recounts ONLY!

[bemis12]

57. Because

what you're quoting doesn't require a hand recount. That's merely your interpretation of it. Recounts can be done by machine or by hand. That law does not require either one.

[Chimpanzee]

64. Well this sounds like hand-recounting to me!

If a county used punch card ballots and if a chad is attached to a punch card ballot by three or four corners, the voter shall be deemed by the board not to have recorded a candidate, question, or issue choice at the particular position on the ballot, and a vote shall not be counted at that particular position on the ballot in the recount. Ballots shall be handled only by the members of the board or by the director or other employees of the board. Witnesses shall be permitted to see the ballots but they shall not be permitted to touch them, and the board shall not permit the counting or tabulation of votes shown on the ballots for any nomination, or for election to any office or position, or upon any question or issue, other than the votes shown on such ballots for the nomination, election, question or issue concerning which a recount of ballots was applied for.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 80% of Ohio ballots are punch cards, it seems to me that they are talking about hand-counting. There is NO MENTION of machine recounting!

[Chimpanzee]

42. The concrete evidence is not the vote count if the vote count

was altered. Or if 100,000 people were disenfranchised (against the law) then the vote count is meaningless. Kerry would have won a fair election. The fact that the election was not fair is what most of us are upset about. You apparently think the election was just fine. So does Blackwell.

[SmokingJacket]

59. Since you are so confident of the validity of the election...

why not go spread your wisdom elsewhere?

This forum is **about** not gettting over it.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

5. there's only one forum where they'd so foolishly use the word "tsumani"

right now, and it's not this one. Say "hi" to Vader when you get home.

[thoughtanarchist]

8. Thanks, I needed that ...

:eyes:

[New Earth]

6. hmm

that's a hard one. let's brainstorm.


:hi:

[seito]

12. Hi Faye :)

I like brain-storming :hi:

[thoughtanarchist]

53. caught your thread Faye and it's a good one...

don't wave at me dammit.

look me up I'm a good 'un

:D

[Der Blaue Engel]

43. What divisiveness?

I don't see any divisiveness. :shrug: :hi:

[Chimpanzee]

52. I just see alot of pissed off people

[Der Blaue Engel]

55. I don't see 'em at all!

That's what I'm sayin'. Ignoring is a lovely thing.

:smoke:

[moggie12]

62. Apology to Der Blaue Engel from Moggie re: Freeper-phobia

You asked me a question on yesterday's "Hints for Spotting a Freeper" thread. Yesterday's thread has since been "locked" and I wanted to respond to your question and apologize (coincidently, someone named "Freeper-finder", or something like that, re-posted the thread right below yours here..). I didn't mean to sound rude last night but I was extremely upset about getting called a freeper in response to a post I wrote. I didn't at all mind people telling me they thought my opinions were wrong, but several people (at least a dozen) were very rude about it (one wrote an anagram of F-U and implied I was a "retard" and then others piled on, saying I was slow on the uptake and things like that). Clearly, last night I lapsed into sarcasm and behaved immaturely and rudely: Oversensitivity on my part, and perhaps too much coffee yesterday, caused me to get nutty when I saw that "Hints" thread. To me, as a "newbie", I thought that bullet point about "freepers going away" after a few posts was a "bad thing", not a good thing -- long-time DU denizens may be inadvertently driving away people who they could convert to their viewpoint -- isn't that partly a goal of DU?? The point I was trying to make last night is that not everyone who expresses a contrary view is automatically a freeper. There may be some out there, but there are also some very earnest, sincere people who simply see things in different ways who are being automatically branded freepers (like me!). I am glad I got the opportunity to explain myself and, again, I'm sorry for my behavior last night.

[Der Blaue Engel]

63. No problem, Moggie; thanks for answering

Things are very touchy all around. I'm relatively new, but have been here long enough to see that the disinfo activity right now is very high. It's hard to come into the middle of that and not feel attacked. Just hang in there. I'm sure things are gonna get worse before they get better, but it only makes me more sure that there's a reason for the flurry. :)

[FreepFryer]

11. Some post new threads, some kill or redirect current ones,

See Faye's great (re)post of the Freep categories.

I find two things let you know whether you're having an honest discussion around differences of opinion, or being manipulated:

1. Respect level
- Most folks who are interested in the issues will listen, respond and discuss, and not misstate you, nor will they attack you personally.

2. Blanketing
- Ill-intentioned freeps and moles will often hit every topic in their 'area' of coverage. You'll see them blanket these threads' interesting posts with redirects, or abuses.

There are some folks who behave exactly this way who aren't moles and freepers, but merely intolerant and abusive. In either case, banning is the result of extreme displays of this behavior.

:hi:

[thoughtanarchist]

18. that kinda helps...

thanks...

[MsAnthropy]

16. Post-holiday boredom

[Der Blaue Engel]

41. And 8 minutes later, your answer arrives

So happy that I can't read the tired and transparent poking of some anymore. :)

[Silverhair]

44. That is totally normal around here. Also healthy. NT