even if we can prove fraud, won't shrub still win?

[unblock]

pretty much the same scenario as in 2000.

even if we can prove fraud, republicans will claim enough uncertainty, will find at least one insignificant anomoly that worked in the democrats' favor, and have enough state control that ohio and/or florida will send two sets of electors, best case scenario.

then the constitution lets the house decide, and of course they'll go for shrub.


now, all this is well worth doing, not only to undermine shrub's legitimacy, but also to highlight the need for an proper election system in the first place.

but i don't see any scenario that actually gets kerry in the white house in january....

i suppose it's possible the supremes might step in again, and if they do, there's a good chance o'conner will try to redeem herself by giving it to kerry this time. but i think more likely, they'll stay out of it and let the house take the heat.

[restorefreedom]

1. only if it can be proven before the coronation

no matter what the truth is, if it comes out after Jan 20 it doesn't matter.

Unless * were directly involved and they had irrefutable proof then they could impeach him.

But I'm sure KKKarl kept the master's fingers clean.

So basically, yes. The 4th Reich retains power.

[codegreen]

2. perhaps, but for the sake of future elections we must expose then reform

the voting system.

[Turn CO Blue]

4. Yes...we must expose if only...

for the sake of watching Rove, Cheney and Bush squirm like worms!

[gordianot]

3. Of course.

We are teaching Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Middle East, and the myriad of other countries the value of democracy and voting.

Bush is the great nation builder of the 21st century. Sarcasm off

[OneThirty8]

5. You may be right.

We're probably stuck with Dubya for another four years. I don't think that those with the power to make enough of a stink have the guts to do it. There's something more important at stake, though. If they can win by cheating and we don't call them on it, we've effectively given up our right to vote. It's bad enough living in Bushworld. It'll be even worse if my vote becomes truly meaningless.

On edit - by 'those with the power to make a stink,' I'm mainly thinking about the media. For the most part, I don't think they've got the balls to cry foul on this. I know we've got people on our side working hard to prove fraud. The problem becomes getting the message out there.

[restorefreedom]

6. agreed.

Even if we have to put up with the boy king and his string pulling veep, at least it will be somewhat satisfying to know and to see that the world knows he is not a legitimate president. Four years of being constantly reminded that you LOST the election. That could be useful.


Of course, that blows Dik's plans for democratizing the entire world through military force....

[Prisonerohio]

8. Its over!

Lets face facts it over. Even if there is fraud it will be nearly impossible to prove it. With the lost election there is also the loss of democracy in America. The only thing we can hope for now is bloody revolution or civil war. I don't think that the American people are ready for that. A couple more lost elections may change that.

[Senior citizen]

10. Things could escalate quickly.

I read that Bin Laden had received permission to use nukes on the U.S. I don't think he has any nukes, but that means that the neo-cons could do it and blame it on Bin Laden. Would they? LIHOPs aren't sure, but MIHOPs think they might. If the election is PROVEN to have been stolen and the chimp's legitimacy is called into question, my guess is that would be their reaction. It would silence us, and, at the same time, give them an excuse to use nukes on other countries.

There was an economist on NOW with Bill Moyers last night who said that this country is bankrupt and in debt to the tune of $51 trillion dollars. The value of the dollar is falling. I know that we do have foreign debts. What do people like the Japanese and the Saudis do if we miss a payment? Kneecap us?

I get the sense that the chimp would like to start another war, and we can't even afford this one. But we don't seem to be doing too well in Iraq, and the old wag-the-dog strategy says that people will support a war president. Even if the war is based on lies and, (didn't Colin Powell say this?) we're losing it. Somebody mentioned Xerxes, who had the biggest army in the world and still managed to overextend them and therefore lost. I don't know what world reaction would be to a second foreign invasion.

If we really are bankrupt, the dollar continues to lose value, inflation hits hard (there wasn't much buzz about the recent Fed interest rate hike), and the economy collapses, the middle class would mobilize. They wouldn't have to go out on the streets because if they can't meet their mortgage payments, they're already there.

My best hope at this point is proving that the election was stolen. I believe that it was, and I also believe that it can be proven. If we can accomplish that, many countries might withdraw recognition from the chimp's illigitimate regime. That alone could force a change.

I think we are suffering the ancient Chinese curse of living in interesting times.

[mostly_lurking]

13. "Permission" to use nukes? From whom?

[unblock]

14. supposedly he never had religious permission for nukes

but recently some saudi religious leader(s?) said americans had been given sufficient warning and millions of muslims had died at american hands, so retribution permits million of americans to be killed at islamic hands.

sorry no link, but it was on yahoo and many other sites a few days ago.

[Prisonerohio]

18. I found a link to the Osama nukes thing.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/252390p-215993c.html

[intelle]

23. I really liked this:

"My best hope at this point is proving that the election was stolen. I believe that it was, and I also believe that it can be proven. If we can accomplish that, many countries might withdraw recognition from the chimp's illigitimate regime. That alone could force a change."

I think there is a very good possibility that this could occur. Bush is so unpopular, that, if we can prove election fraud, recognition by many other countries would be withdrawn in a heartbeat.

Thanks for posting this!


:thumbsup:

[newyawker99]

24. Hi Prisonerohio!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[life_long_dem]

42. Even if fraud is proven

there are alot of people that still wouldn't believe it happened.

I mean, look at all the people that still think Saddam was connected with 9/11 and that he had stockpiles of WMD's.

This country is really screwed up, well only half of the country.

[NOWMDNOGWB]

7. I'm digging

it was posted either last night or this morning that if the recount in Ohio favors Kerry....then Kerry's President by law

[genieroze]

11. Who's law

Gore should have been president in 2000. According to Florida law there should have been recounts, but the supreme court made it's own law. What makes you think they won't butt in again?

[kerry2win]

17. this is where I saw it

basically says a recount in florida with blackbox would be under"freedom of information act" and wouldn't carry weight but the Ohio recount would have to be certified.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111304V.shtml

[tridim]

9. I'm starting to get a bit upset at this attitude.

If FL or OH flip during the recounts, Kerry wins. If Kerry wins, he's the President. It's certainly important to get to the bottom of exactly how the fraud was carried out, but if the voters voted for Kerry, he should be inaugurated. It's really that simple.

[unblock]

16. i'm trying to engineer a way to get kerry into the white house

if possible, and i'm sorry if this upsets you, but i'm tired of the naive attitude that merely proving fraud and/or kerry got more votes in ohio is sufficient to get kerry into the white house.

it SHOULD, and it's worth doing in any event, but there's MORE needed for kerry to become president, and we need to find a scenario that achieves that.

if we can't find one, we need to set our goal on proving fraud in order to undermine shrub's legitimacy and set the stage for victory in 2006 and 2008.

[MarkusQ]

22. I strongly disagree

but there's MORE needed for kerry to become president, and we need to find a scenario that achieves that.

if we can't find one, we need to set our goal on proving fraud in order to undermine shrub's legitimacy and set the stage for victory in 2006 and 2008.

I strongly diasagree with this. Our goal should be to get to the truth and deal with it honestly, no matter what it turns out to be. Setting out to "prove fraud" (presumably, even if there actually wasn't any) is, in and of itself, fraud.

The truth is more important than winning. It's bad enough that one side may have forgotten that; let's try to keep it from becoming both sides.

-- MarkusQ

[unblock]

30. lighten up and give me a break

i can't put twenty clarifying caveats on every post.

by "prove fraud" i never meant to imply we should proclaim or taut fraud where none exists. in fact, i would think the word "prove" should be clear enough, after all, how can one "prove" fraud where none exists? but i guess i was wrong.

so let me clarify, that where i said "prove fraud", i think we should "find out what actually happened and, should fraud turn out to be the case, amass sufficient genuine evidence to demonstrate that fraud convincingly to the public." clear enough? please let me know if i need to spell out in even more minute detail how i'm not actually thoroughly evil?

my point, which you've completely missed, was that THE TRUTH IS NOT ENOUGH. even if we find fraud, and can prove it, that, in and of itself, is not enough. there are strategies and tactics and power and laws involved, and the truth is a key weapon but it is not, in and of itself, everything needed to achieve any political goals.

[Verve]

35. It will be imperative that if fraud is found and Kerry did win Ohio

(and possibly Florida), *'s "popular vote" will need to be discredited ASAP. Although, common sense tells me most people would believe that if there is fraud in one state, there could be fraud in others, therefore discrediting *. However, I am uneasy with this assumption because of the great spins * and karl put on stories. Such as WMD and the Iraq war being connected to 9/11. How they got 1/2 of America to believe in these lies and to continue to believe in these lies is unbelievable! If Bush turns out to be illegitimate, KKKarl could spin this so fast that we would never be able to prove it.

[MarkusQ]

40. I can do better than that

I'd like to give you something better than just "a break."

I'd like to give you what you actually want. The key at this point is to focus on getting to the truth, NOT on getting Kerry in or even Bush out. After all, it may turn out that Kerry was "in on it" or at least has done (as some have suggested) some fast footwork in the primary to squeeze out Dean. True, he doesn't have all the Watergate-gang ties that Bush does, but who knows? On the other hand, if it can be established that nobody cheated, and things can be set up in such a way that these sorts of doubts can be resolved more transparently next time, there is still a great deal of work to be done. But it will be very different work than will be needed if substantial cheating is uncovered.

So the first (and only) thing to focus on at this point is: was the election rigged, and if so how and by whom. If we can get those questions answered we'll be in much better shape to decide what to do next.

If the focus is on "who won" it will be an uphill battle all the way. The majority of people will say "Bush won, get over it" or words to that effect.

But if the focus is, as it should be, on answering legitimate concerns about the integrity of the process, who can reasonably object? The only people who could rationally do so are those who either cheated (and don't want to get caught) or those who think cheating may have been done on their behalf, and don't want to lose. Anyone who thinks Bush won fair and square should be more than willing to have all the cards placed face up on the table, and chortle "read 'em and weep!"

Anyone who objects to getting the questions resolved, should be pressed to explain what exactly they are afraid of.

-- MarkusQ

[mahina]

41. Remember Jan 2000,

and all the talking heads saying that * would run the country from a moderate place. Bullshit. I'm tired of the naive attitude too, as well as the national amnesia.
I think this whole fiasco is a consequence of our ostrich-like behavior while our country was running amok in South and Central America among other places. We let them do this shit all over the world.
Ready to lose these creeps!!!

[Nordic]

19. It's the "throw up your hands in despair and say 'we're fucked' attitude"

all too common among Democrats.

I ask you this:

If the situation were reversed:

What would THEY do?

They'd have angry mobs all over the place, that's what.

If an angry mob is what it took to get this covered in the mainstream news, that's what would happen.

Where the hell are we?

I am appalled that so many people even on DU would have this attitude.

"oh well, we lost, we suck"

[tortfeasor]

21. I agree...

that if the situation was reversed, there would be angry Republican mobs all over the place, just like in FL in 2000. In 2000, the perception was, the Democrats rolled over and the Republicans were fighting like crazy for their candidate.

I'm ready to fight for an investigation...but for some reason, and no offense, but organizing liberals can sometimes be like herding cats. And I'm a liberal!!! Where is the Democratic leadership on this? Where is the $$ the DNC set aside for this type of situation?

That's why I've begun to write letters...to my Senators, Representatives, DNC, and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, etc... If we all speak up by calling, writing, emailing, faxing, they can't ignore the mob forever!!

[newyawker99]

25. Hi tortfeasor!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Zookeeper]

27. Did you know...

the Rethugs protesting, yelling, beating on doors during the attempt at a recount in Florida during 2000, were actually staffers for Rethuglican members of Congress? That was such a sneaky way to make it look like "The People" were outraged and concerned that the Dems were trying to steal the election.

Welcome to DU!

[Nordic]

37. exactly. It was a media stunt! They know how to use the media and

our side doesn't.

We need to learn to use the media, as it exists, to get our stories out.

Part of this is pulling media stunts such as "angry mobs".

[DELUSIONAL]

26. We have been treated to an example of what they do when

they know the vote isn't going their way.

Exit polling is a valid predictor of the vote. They saw what was happening and then "suddenly" the votes started going bushie's way.

Their side will do what ever it takes like import DC staffers to intimidate clerks counting the vote in Florida.

The circumstantial evidence is there all it will take is determined examining of equipment, ballots, tallies -- from precinct to county to State level. Forensic accountants do this all the time -- as do Statisticians.

If the stink from around the corner smells like a dead animal -- look around the corner and follow your nose -- more than likely what you are smelling is a dead animal -- or the dog that rolled in the dead animal. The dog will lead you back to the dead animal -- 'cause he was having way too much fun to give up his prize.

The criminals that pulled off the caper this time -- are going to do this again and again until they are stopped and brought to justice. Follow the stink and then find the rotting corpse and bury it.

All future elections will be tainted -- and you can be damned sure if one of our guys does get elected THEIR side just might start yelling vote fraud. WE gotta follow the trail to the end -- so that our guys can be elected and not have to fear that THEIR side will taint the election just so they can get it thrown out.

[Nordic]

36. exactly. This mess has to be cleaned up, and NOW

or we are kissing democracy goodbye.

[bluestatewannabe]

20. Impeach for fraud

This is the second time. They didn't learn by getting caught the first time.

[dkofos]

12. Even if this does not change the outcome of this election

I would hope that the 2006 elections will give us the house and senate.
Then we can IMPEACH the criminal and send him to the Haig.:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[unblock]

15. "the hague" not "haig"

and yes, that would be a lovely and fitting retirement for shrub, though i'd prefer even better levenworth.

[The Flaming Red Head]

28. He won't have his mandate or political capital n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

29. Pff! He didn't have it in 2000 either, but it didn't stop him, now did it?

Face it. * don't care whether he's got political capital or not. He showed us that in the past 4 years! What makes you think he'll care now?
No. * has to go, and short of getting a dominating Republican Congress to start any kind of impeachment process--think illegal war in Iraq--an impeachable offense-- and nothing being done, for starters!-- the ONLY way to get him out of office, is to ensure he doesn't GET IN to begin with!

[shib]

31. As long as..

As long as the recounts in NH and Ohio go through and they are done correctly, with the correct inquiry they plan to - we should be able to find out with some definity what happened.

[BlueCaliDem]

32. And if California can get it's act together and get those 2m votes...

...counted (I'm certain the majority will go Kerry's way) then we can continue to chip-chip-CHOP away on that less-than 3.5 million popular vote * had "won".
....Still, not winning the popular (or the electoral, for that matter) votes in 2000 didn't stop this corrupt, inept administration from bullying through their disasterous policies, and sending America into an illegal war without so much as a peep from the press, both print as well as broadcast.
.....It's imperative we fight our best to keep Bush from elbowing his way back into the WH for another 4 Years, is what I think.
.....Once he's in...it's over.

[The Flaming Red Head]

44. It may slow his ass down. Remember what they did to Clinton's second term

[RUAWHACKO]

33. At this point

All I am thinking is..... if they stole 2000. And now they stole 2004.
Whats the point of even voting in 2008? I got my hopes SO FAR UP this year. I really felt like we had done it. And they came in and stole it right out from under us- again

WHAT CAN WE DO?????????????????

[momzno1]

34. Bush deserves poetic justice

maybe he can end up on Texas death row where he executed all those disenfranchised people.

[txindy]

39. Welcome

Nice name, R U A Whacko.

:hi:

[sandnsea]

38. The House of the People

I really wouldn't underestimate the power of the people if fraud is proven beyond doubt. And we only need 35 people from any of the states to do the right thing in the electoral college. If there was fraud, getting the right President is certainly doable.

[unblock]

43. the electors themselves are the LAST people who would rescue us

electors are specifically chosen for ONE TASK, namely to vote for their party's candidates.

these are fiercely loyal people, more so than the usual party members, even for republicans. republican electors would NOT vote for a democrat even if there was OVERWHELMING evidence of fraud. if you're REALLY LUCKY you might peel off one or two, but no way in hell you're getting anything like 35 (not that you need quite that many, actually, but still).