I am hesitant to post this but I think Duer's should think about this

[saracat]

I heard an operative from a former admin speak recently and it was stated the "the Republican's "knew" what the vote was "going to be" precinct by precinct and we didn't . That is why we lost. I was chilled by that statement. I don't think he intended to admit that. Because if we knew they knew, then we know how they knew it. If that is the case, our own party knows how the election went down. I was also recently told by a diplomat who worked to prevent this war and is a Clintonista, that things are not what they appear with Clinton. This was in response to my displeasure with recent Clinton statements. I hate being obtuse but I don't want anyone to get into trouble. Also look for vote number inflation and the party operatives to place blame on Kerry. He wasn't one of them. The implication was a deal was struck. Any opinions?

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. The freepers

have been saying for months that Clinton would keep Kerry from being elected.

[New Earth]

honestly

i don't understand any of what you are saying :( what does all this mean?

[saracat]

7. How would they "know" before an election what the vote would be?

and If we knew that they had advance knowledge, we would also know how they had obtained that advance knowledge. Basically we would know how they preset the vote . And we( the party) are not doing anything about it. Kerry was not involved. He did not know. Get it?. As for Clinton, he is saying things he doesn't want to but must. I am trying not to sound like a tinfoil hat wearer. This is just what I was told.

[lynintenn]

95. I heard them expalin

that ground workers knew down to each house in each precinct who was voting and if they hadn't voted they went to homes and took them to the polls.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

125. I KNEW it. I think MANY are saying things because they must.

I am glad you told us this much, and I sure hope we all find out more in the not too distant future.

[bluecity]

306. Rove could be sure if...

I always thought when I heard the news on Nov. 2-3 that Rove assured Bush he knew the exit poll #'s were wrong that Rove "knew" because he was confident the tallying was fixed. That would be much more of a certainty than any counts he could be getting from precinct workers on the ground.

[saracat]

2. That wasn't what i was implying.

[intheflow]

4. What were you implying?

Help! I'm lost in this thread!

[intheflow]

3. Can you explain this comment?

i can't stand to go to the Freeper sites. What have they been saying, exactly?

[intelle]

5. I also noticed that when Bush started talking about thinking he will win

Jenna again laughs.

[saracat]

10. I don't go to freeper sites! I was implying that it was said Clinton

is not saying what he wants to say but what he has been told he must say.

[intheflow]

28. My post wasn't for you, saracat.

It was for Proud2BLib, the first poster who was making a connection between Clinton and Freeper gossip.

But your post here cleared up what I asked you in post #4.

Thanks!

[proud2BlibKansan]

262. intheflow, sorry I am just now replying

to your question. I am on several freeper dominated discussion boards and they have been saying for at least 6 months that the Clintons would actively work to prevent a Kerry election, to make room for HIllary in 2008. Their thinking is that the 2008 election will be an easier one for a Democrat than 2004. They of course felt * was a lock this time and Hillary wasn't ready to run and will be a better candidate in 2008.

Of course, I think this is crazy, but this is what the freepers are saying. Hope it answered your question.

[intheflow]

292. Thanks, proud2Blib.

It's a nutty idea, for sure. If a white man from Massachusetts is too liberal for 50% of Americans, there's no way this country will be ready in 4 years for a woman in the oval office.

Peace! :hippie:

[Starlight]

6. Speaking in tongues??

:shrug:

[intelle]

8. So sorry

I was reading another thread, and then thought I had pulled it back up again to make a comment...

:argh:

[Straight Shooter]

14. The Matrix burped

And Jenna's green shoe kicked intelle

[99Pancakes]

19. Read this about the Shrub twins in NYC

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=351

It's a hoot. Only one paragraph. Can't follow this thread too well either but since someone brought up Jenna's evil laugh.........

[shelley806]

36. LOL!! It fir right in with the rest of the thread; can't make sence of it

Now, Jenna laughing...that's sinister. She knew he'd cheat.

[brindis_desala]

9. I get your drift

This fits with my deductions about the silence. I understand that you can't be explicit but do you think there's a way out for us (dems)?

[New Earth]

11. can someone please explain the drift? or at least PM it?

[saracat]

13. Kerry.

[ahyums]

39. well let's keep giving him every support possible then - it explains the

cryptic video to a certain extent too. If something like that did happen it simply cannot be allowed to continue, even and indeed especially if (as I understand the implication) the Democrats are guaranteed victory with Hillary in '08. I find it exceptionally hard to believe that the Clintons would get involved with such things that being said.


Edit just read further down the thread it appears that is not the case.

[saracat]

46. I don't think the Clinton's are involved in the way some say.

[stirringstill]

209. People don't change.

Kerry was always on the outside and remains so. As a freshmean senator he fought against BCCI. As an even younger man he fought against Vietnam. He would never lie down with these same forces.

[BlueDog2u]

64. This fits with my deductions about the silence.

Others have said that here and you know, its true. The Repubs are quiet. They aren't crowing at all. They know in their hearts something stinks.

[dewaldd]

12. I have suspected that the dems knew it was rigged once Kerry folded

Go read the book "Votescam", the first few chapters are at http://www.votescam.com I think both parties screw with the vote.

[New Earth]

16. saracat, do you mean kerry is the way out?

[saracat]

21. Yes.

Look at how Certain Sen. voted on the spending bill. Kerry voted Nay.

[New Earth]

24. i'm so confused tho

the way out of WHAT? and what does this senate bill have anything to do with anything?

[saracat]

30. I PMed you.

[intelle]

33. I PM'ed you, saracat.

[Solitaire]

87. saracat?

can you please PM me too?

I'm so lost!

Thanks :)

[saracat]

169. Delete

[New Earth]

170. this is all the more reason

to send Kerry the 'I BELIEVE" thread.

[New Earth]

174. thank you tho

i saw it

[blackspade]

308. I'm confused as well.

I would appreciate a PM as well.
I would PM you directly but my post count is too low.

Thanks!

[burn the bush]

29. i too have been thinking that whatever is up, the dems are in on it too.

the libs and the greens are the only parties that have stepped up to the plate on this. Now i don't care how meek the dems may be, but somebody has got to see what is going on, and yet they too remain quiet. There is too much shit goin on for them to just sit there.
I suspect that if it ever comes all the way out, that dems are in on at least part of the deal. Maybe not all dems and maybe not all pugs,just some who controls them all.

hey its that bush ring

one ring to rule them all
and in the darkness blind them, how did that go lotr fans? Oh no Bush is Salamon? (can't remember names.) Who is gollum then? Perhaps it's Clinton, slick Willy playing both sides?

most importantly who will be our Frodo?

[saracat]

34. Kerry appears to be stepping up to the plate.

Take another look at his recent video. And he didn't give it to MSM. He gave it to us. We must watch and see. Esp. watch Ohio.

[intelle]

44. Yes, I agree that Kerry does seem to be stepping up

and, I think he is perfectly able to defend himself and get at the truth.

[shelley806]

48. I got the e-mail from Kerry and it cheered me up immensely, but I

only heard the video, and it was the same as the e-mail; verbatim. Someone posted that he was winking! and that suggested something. Anyone know what I'm talking about? I agree that it's interesting that he referred to the help on the internet(s!) (Sinclair and other battles) and didn't go to MSM, and I think it's significant.

[saracat]

67. I don't know a bout the winking. Someone else posted about that and

I honestly didn't see a wink. That wouldn't seem like Kerry anyway.

[ahyums]

74. there was a wink of sorts but I don't think it was intentional it looked

exactly like previous blinks.

[KMG]

350. kerry

kerry is just making sure he gets the democratic vote in 08. He heard people were angry and were starting to demand their money back and had to come up with something. So he did. Hence: the email

[Yuugal]

63. we don't need a Frodo.....

We need a Joe Kennedy. Next time, instead of taking 200 million bux and giving it to the same media that bitch slaps us every day in their reports ....to run ads that are mostly ignored anyway and do nothing to change anyone's vote, lets just divide the 200 mill among the voting machine makers and hope for the best?
Playing fair in a rigged election system is silly and fruitless.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

131. One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,

One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

[ever_green]

182. I 'm equally as suspicious. Who can we trust these days?

I just don't know.

[troubleinwinter]

15. ??? Somebody said something, and somebody else said something"

You want opinions on what?

[intelle]

17. I may be dense

But I am totally confused about all this.
:think:

[checks-n-balances]

20. I'm confused too... saracat said "Duer's should think about this"

How can we think about something this sketchy? I can't tell if you're leaking/reporting/implying good news or bad news, and I don't think it's just me...

[jsamuel]

18. Clinton knew and is getting payed to have his wife elected in 2008, Kerry

didn't know and got screwed. - I think that is what saracat is implying and I think that is rediculous.

Clinton may not be saying what he feels is true, but that is not why.

I don't agree with that at all.

[New Earth]

22. i don't think so

i don't think that's what she's saying. wtf, grrr

[saracat]

27. Nonsense. That is not what I am saying. Apparently some have Condi's lack

of imagination or the ability to read between the lines. Forget about Clinton. You wouldn't get it anyway. Think vote prediction. And Kerry was screwed.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

134. THey might just be playing dumb in hopes of prying more out of you -nt

[Ediacara]

206. Lack of imagination?

Jesus Christ. All I see in this thread is imagination because of your extremely sketchy post.

Look, if you can't post something even marginally specific, then don't post it.

[demodonkey]

32. Every one of my Freeper relatives said exactly this months ago... ho hum

<<Clinton knew and is getting payed to have his wife elected in 2008, Kerry didn't know and got screwed>>

Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, CAN'T they EVER think up somebody new to blame???
UGH!
Dems being chicken and caving to save their own butts from "threats" doesn't fly either, although I hear this crap all the time from Freeper-types, too.

I don't drink this Kool-Aid, though that is exactly what "they" want us to do....

[saracat]

38. I don't know about the other poster, but that is NOT

what I am saying in the original post. Just so you know!

[demodonkey]

45. I know saracat, but that quote IS the crap the Freepers always say...

am not meaning to attack your post...

:-)

[jdj]

354. Hillary will never win. Talk about bringing them out in droves

even she knows that.

That isn't what this is about.

I don't know why they are playing possum, Kerry and Clinton, but they are. They have access to the same numbers that we do. My best hope is they cut some deals with some axed CIA people and skeletons start falling out of closets so fast it's scary.

[grumpy old fart]

23. Freeper? Duh....

sorry, I'll put on my own Reynold's Wrap hat....don't need ya to fit one for me...

[MelissaB]

25. Saracat,

I say tell it and let the shit hit the fans! Let us know. I'm tired of losing sleep and time with my family and wondering if what we are doing here is doing any good.

[alittlelark]

26. I've been thinking in the same vein since a day or so after the concession

I must admit that I am MORE scared by that concept than BBV. I am horrified to think that Nader was right, but on a much grander scale than most believe. I must say, I hope your info is wrong.

:scared:

[mdb]

31. " if we knew they knew, then we know how they knew it".

Everyone seems to be in the know but me :(

But seriously. How would we know that?

[saracat]

35. That is the question.

And the answer, if correct, is not nice.

[MelissaB]

37. So you think that

a few people in the Dem. party knew or a lot of them?

[saracat]

41. That is the implication. I know nothing.

[shelley806]

54. Knew what??? That the election was rigged? And Clinton knew?

[New Earth]

40. so this is what i'm gettinig out of this

Kerry didn't know, but the Democrats (well a good number of them) were in on some kind of deal or 'knowledge' that the vote was going to be fixed so that Kerry would lose - and now Kerry sees what's happened and basically isn't stepping down....and that explains why the Democrats are so quiet....god that is a terrible thing to do to someone in general, let alone when they are trying to acheive their life-long dream. this is making me quite angry.

[intelle]

47. It's made me angry also

and, the media lockdown...it may not be because the press is pandering to the repubs at all, come to think of it.

[peekaloo]

61. the quiet ones will benefit in future scam elections.

sure would hate to have that pesky Anthrax Killer pop up again.


Fascism, love it or die.

[donkeyotay]

203. "Fascism, love it or die."

Damned if that doesn't say it all! Is it too late to start loving it, because from what I'm reading into this thread, a whole bunch of people who haven't learned to be quiet and get a long might be facing the other option.

I repent. Really. No, I love it. I do.

[Verve]

127. Would that explain why Kerry wants to start sponsering bills with

us, the people, rather than other politicians? If so it's a brilliant idea. Kerry is one tough cookie if he's planning to take on all the crooked politicians including ones in his own party! I'll support him!

[verdalaven]

208. I am with you!

I support Kerry

[ebayfool]

144. 'that is a terrible thing to do to someone'

It's a terrible thing to do to us & the country. What can we do to help fight it?

[brindis_desala]

43. truth is painful

I'm a newbie so i know i have not earned my credibility but you guys are smart and committed...do you really think the Dems had no choice but to roll over and let Porter Goss purge the CIA? But! We're not dead if we stay smart.

[RageKage]

50. letting them run wild, and look extreme...

Then when its time to fight, they can say (like Kerry did in the video) that this administration is full of extremists. Its perfect.

[Pirate Smile]

52. So, it isn't about the Clinton's, it is about the voting or counting the

votes? Am I reading between the lines OK or am I crazy?

:crazy:

[saracat]

65. Nope. You are not!

[dweller]

71. not crazy, or not reading correctly btwn the lines???

well, i'm just reading along here. Perhaps the old maxim ingorance is bliss and i'm in heaven applies...

dp

[TennisGuy2004]

42. Quite Frankly...

Yeah, some of that kind of crossed my mind.

It dovetails with Dubya's pronouncement in 2000 that "you can write it down" that he was going to win Florida.

ALSO, Dick Cheney mentioned one week before the election that he and Dubya were going to win 52% to 47%. To my knowledge no Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate in the history of this country has ever stated a predicted percentage of the vote he thought he was going to win.

It also fits perfectly with Hunter S. Thompson's viewpoint on the 2000 election as written on espn.com.

As for Clinton, he was, as usual, trying to "build a bridge" between the divisions in this nation and I can't fault him for that, no matter how much I hate Dubya and his ilk.

[shib]

62. Is it just me

Is it just me or is that entire 'health care' plan about how important our work *still* is encouragement to keep up the vote check? :p

Hmm, maybe I'm reading too much into it.

But, it's like Olbermann says. He doesn't talk at all in terms of context - especially the election. By just watching it you wouldn't be sure if he won or lost.

[BlueDog2u]

72. I'd be interested to know if one can still locate this claim in the record

"ALSO, Dick Cheney mentioned one week before the election that he and Dubya were going to win 52% to 47%. To my knowledge no Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate in the history of this country has ever stated a predicted percentage of the vote he thought he was going to win."

Cause that's pretty spooky if true. How could he possibly know that? -- unless, as saracat says, everything was worked out down the last detail weeks ahead of time, Rove-style?

[bunny planet]

91. I read that Cheney said that, I think I posted about it

somewhere on dailykos right after the election. He said they would win and it would most likely be B/C 52% to K/E 48%. Maybe it can still be googled.

[New Earth]

93. i remember seeing it

it was gross

[DLnyc]

94. Almost located in record

This link:

http://news.google.com/news?svnum=10&as_scoring=r&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&edition=us&q=%22bush%2Fcheney+victory%22+52+47+election&btnG=Search+News&as_drrb=b&as_minm=10&as_mind=22&as_maxm=11&as_maxd=2

comes close: You need a subscription and I can't afford it!

Apparently the article is in:
New York Sun (subscription), United States - Nov 1, 2004

[Duer 157099]

211. Here's what that article said:

"Later, in an interview with NBC's Tom Brokaw, Mr. Kerry said he did not regret invoking Vice President Cheney's daughter, Mary Cheney, who is gay, during a debate with President Bush.

"She's made it a public thing. He's made it a public thing. And all I was trying to do was honor the reality that people are who they are," Mr. Kerry said.

The senator said Mr. Cheney's prediction of a Bush/Cheney victory, 52% to 47%, was "bravado."

"I hope America comes out and votes in record numbers, because this is the most important election of our lifetime," Mr. Kerry said. "And I believe America can do better."

http://www.nysun.com/article/4035

[DLnyc]

234. Thanks. I guess no one has any direct record of Cheney's prediction?

[Bread and Circus]

49. Do I need a decoder ring, or are u suggesting a deal was struck...

to get Hillary then nomination for 2008?

This rabbit hole is going way too deep for my tastes.

But hey, when the vote Fraud really gets in the MSM, they
can blame it on Clinton.

[New Earth]

51. she said a few times

this really has nothing to do with the clintons, that was a separate comment.

[saracat]

66. It is not about Hillary. I shouldn't have said anything about Clinton.

It has only confused things. Clinton is a sepearate issue. It is more about why he has had certain reactions .

[ahyums]

68. but you are saying that Clinton was compelled to say certain positive

things and if that was the case there must have been a reason

[jsamuel]

53. Bush said on election night that they had "strategies" that would make

them win despite the exit polls. Not votes, but "strategies"... that is suspicious all by itself.

[shelley806]

56. Might explain his late night last minute tript to Ohio and Cheneys to

Hawaii.

[riffnraff]

60. This post has sent everyones' imaginations run wild

Vague posts with little concrete information are no help to us. I have been reading this thread and I think I now got "it". But maybe I don't.

Even if it was setup to screw Kerry by Republicans and Democrats, there still is the problem of our election system is messed up. If they can just tweek the numbers to their liking and our votes are only to give them data to play with, then we truely are hopeless.

That is why we should grill these people (politicians) and make them honest, because we hire and fire them.

[jsamuel]

55. I see what you are saying now (I think)

The Dems knew it would happen, but couldn't prosecute the crime until after it was commited. Kind of like a drug deal that the cops are watching.

It isn't time yet so Clinton (one of the cops) is acting like he is trimming some hedges (undercover).

[shelley806]

57. Is this what's being said Saracat? eom

[saracat]

73. Not really. This is more to do with foreknowledge of votes!

and little to do with procecution. If you like a result you are not going to fix it!

[MelissaB]

77. So, at least some of

the dems wanted the election to turn out the way it did?

[IndyPriest]

75. Close, but more like...

SOME in the Dem party at least knew that the election was rigged (if not actual collaborators), and didn't want to stop it BECAUSE they feared Kerry would be as much trouble for them as the Bushies. OTHERS (Kerry, Clinton...) knew it would happen but couldn't prosecute the crime until after it was committed.

[ahyums]

58. Ok so what you are saying is that at some institutional level the

Democratic party has entered into a deal with the Republicans over results in future elections. It would have to be a pretty long term deal too because considering how badly the Democrats did this time round they would need some serious paybacks in the future for it to be worth their while. You might have heard what you might have heard but frankly I find the whole idea almost impossible to believe. For a start there has been absolutely nothing for the Democrats in this election they lost all over the place on the national level.

Secondly even if there was such a high level conspiracy for it to work out in the Democrats favour the whole thing would need to stay both secret and active for a long period of time in order that they have their day in the sun too. Now I know that if there was fraud the perpetrators don't think they will be caught the same can be said of criminals everywhere otherwise crime would no doubt be much lower, but all the same they must be aware of the possibility and being aware of it, entering into a long term deal would be madness even if they did want to entertain it.

The real question is what would be in it for the deal makers, let's assume that the Democrats would have done pretty well this last election without the alteration of the results, with the Presidency and fair few more Senate seats. What on earth could be available to make anyone complicit in taking that away. The only possible motivation would be personal ambition, but I can't see how that could possibly spread throughout an entire organization. So in short, I don't buy it, I don't see what could have been in it for the Democrats.

[saracat]

76. I am not saying this is true. I am saying this is what is said by those

who would know more than me. But I would rethink the term"Democrats". and think perhaps a bigger picture. This is more international in scope and it isn't about waht "democrats" gain. Anyway. It is just a thought. No one has to agree with it. Just think and watch. It is what I am going to do.Don't draw any conclusions yet.

[mdb]

82. I agree. If we can't get to the bottom of this in Ohio or other states...

because of stall tactics or the courts actions (similar to 2000) then I'd look at this topic in more depth.

[ahyums]

83. ok a global conspiracy then. From what I understand about the Bilderberg

group it's basically concerned with globalization, and eventually moving towards a one world government. That being said Kerry's internationalist outlook would surely be preferable to them to Bush's go it alone mentality and both would be perfectly acceptable, why even get involved?

[rockedthevoteinMA]

86. What's bilderberg?

Does it have something to do with the PNAC?

[jhgatiss]

130. I had a thought about international involvement....

What if the Republicans/Bush didn't really know anything? Plausible denial and all that. What if someone international did it? Say the Saudis? Or Israelis for that matter? They seem to have spooks running around our government like crazy.

[Cats Against Frist]

154. The Mossad. Only the neocons know for sure.

This is my personal favorite theory -- and I'm not anti-semitic, it would just certainly explain a lot. This theory could tie the spies in the CIA, the Siebel Edmonds thing and a whole lot of 9-11 conspiracy theories, together. Could be why the Pentagon wants to remain out of the eye of a National Intelligence director -- on the "off chance" that someone gets it who isn't "one of the inner circle."

I think all of this shit comes out of the Pentagon, by Dick Cheney and the Neocons, who've struck a deal with the devil over Israeli and oil interests. Richard Perle didn't get the name "Prince of Darkness" for nothing.

[Carolab]

179. Oh NO

Bilderberg/Illuminati wants to cut world population by about 2/3. Members are all old blue-blood families that feel they deserve to control and run everything--and we are just pawns in their global "ownership" game.

When Bush talked about "an ownership society"--did you think he meant US?

[desertalien]

207. Edwards was called to a Bilderberg meeting

just before he was chosen as Kerry's running mate. Is this relevant?
I'm really confused here too. I was under the impression that the New World Order thing was Bilderberg vs. The Trilateral thingy. Like I said it was just an impression. I am not knowledgeable on this topic. Is this a no no topic for discussion? I thought Bilderberg was unhappy with shrub. :shrug:

[Indiana_Dem]

276. I don't know where I got ahold of this but I saved it--

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling2.pdf

It talks about Fabians vs. Leninists fighting over the New World Order. I haven't read it all but what snippets I have read sound like the Dems and the Repugs fighting!

[desertalien]

313. Thanks just read the whole piece

I have to think on this for a minute but my initial reaction is there is no fight. They are all in it together and we are the Whos of Whoville. This paper make me feel like everything is out of our hands and any political differences are only expressed by the powers that be in order to keep us believing we have something to say about our country and the future of the world. If I am to believe this then there is no point in voting or anything because the goal on both sides are the same. It doesn't matter how many millions of decenters you have. :shrug: Funny, I did not see shrubs name on that list of presidents. Shrub senior is on the list of CIA members.

[Indiana_Dem]

319. I felt the same way and that's why I only read bits and pieces

of it. I don't want to feel like I can't do anything about anything.

[desertalien]

324. Neither do I but

Maybe our fight should be redirected. I don't know exactly where but maybe we all need to find a new angle of approach. That is of course if all of this is true. I just read the Economic Armageddon thread. Yikes, I'm gonna go have some chocolate now. :scared:

[Indiana_Dem]

334. Where's that thread?

I'll have to do a search. I'm drawn to doom and gloom--I know it!:spank:

[rockedthevoteinMA]

337. here it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1016145

[Indiana_Dem]

342. I found it! That's where I've been the last 2 hours!

Whew. That was an interesting thread!

[desertalien]

348. Indiana Dem glad someone found that thread for you

I had to take a break from all this but we should never deny ourselves more doom and gloom. :hi:

[leanin_green]

263. Don't forget, Edwards was in Italy.

For the Bildeberger summit, along with Bush.

[yowzayowzayowza]

156. "No territorial intentions in Iraq."

The most far-reaching Kerry debate statement ... yet totally ignored by the press... perhaps there are Dz of (to be kind) religious and resource related interests who had a problem with that and are willing to acquiesce to the Rz electoral "scheme"??????

Also, anyone heard any statements from the other Senator from Ma. on any of this?

[robicat]

191. mmmmmm

Interesting thread. A few responses.

Firstly I do not think any sane person (ie one who believes that global warming is real) would just stand back and let these people take over. This issue alone is apocalyptic-ally momentous and would warrant a one step back and two steps forward approach from Democrat hard heads.

FFS people, we ALL knew this election violation was going to happen. There is no logical reason not to have paper trails. There is no logical reason to have rabid republicans counting all the votes. It's like the WMDs.

This election scam is an open secret. Big media knows. We all know, but most of us don't do anything. Most of us don't discuss it. All the other side need's is plausible deniability for media to bash away with and a rhetoric that sounds good. (Best if the argument is logically incoherent or a direct an inversion of the truth - ie Democrats are sore losers). Everyone knew the elections is Saddams Iraq or Pinochet's Chile were rigged. Why have them then? Plausible deniability. Because fascism always uses the open secret to create despair and crush the dissenter.

Cheney said it when he said "we create reality - you people report it".

My rule of thumb is if I know something is going down using google and email's from friends, then people closer to the pulse than me know. They know. I knew there was going to be a massacre in East Timor. They know. My government didn't?? Get off the grass. I also knew there were no WMD. How? Reading Ritter and Richard Butler. they all know.

Iraqi nuclear program? DON'T BE SILLY! The CIA and Mossad are good at what they do. They know. Bush and Powell's rhetoric was logically incoherent. Show me the weapons you don't have. Negative ontology. Iraq was invaded because it WAS disarmed and didn't have WMD. North Korea is not invaded (thankfully) because they are armed. Pakistan anybody? Bought into the fold. Why? They are armed and dangerous. Anyway I digress. The point is - they know. It's an open secret.

The concept that senior Dems knew this election coup was on and even the details is unremarkable to me. What is also unremarkable is that the open secret is being shared in the cryptic manor of this post - (ie. we know, heres the inside story, but we aren't talking openly about it).

As an aside - open secrets are very powerful as a tool within fascism, because they create a sense of inevitability helplessness and despair. This is why torture and judicial murder in totalitarian states is not kept a secret - the answer for our side is open storytelling, which turns the open secret into a spoken truth. Community story and song reminds us that the surreality of what happened does NOT invalidate that it happened. The Columbus hearings are very important for this reason. All valid left wing politics are local, and are based on coherent narratives.

The logic of fascism is very hard to resist front on. Almost impossible. This is because it is built on raw power as a virtue. Unfortunately we do live in a Nietzchean world. The pragmatists - those who validly emphasize the compromise theory of politics would not attempt this feat. Quite rightly too. And as far as Kerry being out of the loop - once again unremarkable. The last person you tell that the fine print says we get to repossess your daughters if you default on monthly payment is the salesman. Sales people without conviction just don't move product.

Finally - and I think you need to factor this in - this would not be a great election to win, particularly under a cloud, and without the popular vote - gained either fairly of foully. Your economy and foreign policy is going to come apart. And the other side control everything from the supremes down to the county officials. Dole lost Florida with the votes. Kerry would lose Ohio with the votes. Why on earth would you bet big on a losing hand? Poker metaphor - I don't know enough about baseball (sorry) and I suspect life as a metaphor for cricket is not going to wash with you'se blokes and sheilas. (poor New Zealand eh???)

What do you do when you see your opponent bluffing? You fold and play the next hand. Maybe bet small and show. Particularly when you just KNOW the other guy is bluffing you. A good player takes a long view and waits to win a big pot: he uses the knowledge of his opponent. Not lose his shirt for the sake of a principle that was pr oven in 2000 to mean Jack shit. Like I really don't understand why there were not riots in 2000 when the recount was stopped.

A better strategy is to concede the result - let the republican party self destruct under it's own wedges and bad policy. Let the Republicans spin and spin a spiral of woe. O'Neil and the slanderers in a civil case, and attempt to turn the shenanigans of the election into a running sore. Bleed the sucker to death by a thousand cuts, and maybe one big blown whistle.

Use the Internet to create your own narrative of political re-engagement. The potential is there for a Watergate like scandal, a re-energized base and destroying the other side's moral credibility. A big pot to win, and really I just cannot see the upside in letting the supremo's appoint Bush again in a Foxx lead media tirade as if Bush has saved the country from flip flopping, disruptive, sore loser, liberal, osama beloved, French speakers who don't drink cool-aid or feed their fish live dogs.

Now all we need to do is to get a consortium of liberal money people... (and there must be plenty of them) to take a big stake in News Limited's voting shares. Rupert's Delaware listing and his "poison pill" make it impossible to take over - but two liberals on the board would do Fox's cheer squad caper in. Hey? Isn't Kerry and co worth 650? .... you'd only have to get to say a $10 Billion stake to get a reasonable say and lots of access to policy.

But hey maybe this little thing called the interned is actually going to come of age in the next four years. I am sure of it, and when it happens I will be utterly convinced that God has a sense of humor, given that the net was built by the US Military. BTW Jesus is an anarchist.

Okay it's late - and someone's gotta challenge the cordial drinker's theology. If someone reads my post and likes it can you make a thread - i am still a lame ass-ed noob and don't have privileges as yet.

[nashville_brook]

192. i agree with most of what you say

(altho i think you've got a surface understanding of nietzsche -- no biggie)

the thing is, and i think i'm agreeing with you here -- there is too much at stake to pass on this hand and wait for another hand to be dealt.

a rigged vote is a mighty big hand to be dealt. this isn't the time to bluff and pass -- this is where we stand pat and call the hand.

if we prove they rigged the vote, we take them down big time.

[E_Smith]

202. great post.

i'm a newbie here too, but that might be the best post i've read so far... and it gives me a little hope too. letting the republicans suffer another four years of Dubya might be the best long term strategy of all!

[Mike Nelson]

205. robicat -- I enjoy reading your thoughts (nt)

mmmmm

[SmokingJacket]

219. Great post.

Pulled together very nicely.

Now if I only had the $10 billion...

[carolinalady]

274. As I was reading this thread--the response I was going to give

somewhat mirrors at least part of your response. IF the election was known to be rigged in advance by both parties, I see it this way. Either the Dems made a strategic decision to stay silent because as you say (in my own words) "How the hell would you begin to clean up this mess? I don't believe they openly bargained with the Devils for future elections--would you trust them? The one caveat I offer to that supposition would be unless there is a large number of retiring Repubs in the near future. I do believe however that they feel the Right will implode on itself in the next few years and the Dems will be in position to win regardless. The only other conspiracy theory I have to offer is "Revenge is a dish best served cold." (or something like that) Maybe they want the fraud story to play out so they can humiliate the Repubs the same way they did us with Clinton's impeachment. JMO.

[sybil]

333. hmmmm

I'm even a lamer-ass noob or I would start a thread with your post in a heartbeat robicat!

That Bilderberg Summit bothers me...

[stirringstill]

218. We live in a land called OZ!

I encourage anyone who is reading this post to pause and scan down the list of who owns the voting machines. They are largely ALL owned by Republicans. Some have/or had strong links to Democrats as well, so perhaps more than a few people have/had their past sullied.

http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachineCompanies.htm

Please visit this site. It then will become obvious to anyone that there is and has been a systematic attempt over a period of decades to privitize the vote world-wide. If you notice, some of these companies are parapolitical organs like the Carlyle group. Parent companies are invovled in printing money and making passports, etc.

The US government and parapolitical organs often with CIA links have and have had a very strong interest in making sure that friendly governments come to power. Encourage democracy and then rig the vote or at least have the option of rigging the vote.

Some of ES&S machines are yes, capable of wireless communication, perhaps even satellite. Why do some of ES&S personel fly out of Offutt Air Force base? Why are components of these machines made in Belarussia (a pillar of the world's democracies)? Didn't Pakastan just request assistance in updated election technology? It sure is cheaper than fighting civil wars if people think their officials are elected. There is no other explanation for so many former defense, CIA etc to be invovled in voting technologies. This did not occur overnight and did not occur underneath the radar of all Democrats. The question is why are we voting on machines clearly designed for their ability to be manipulated. And it is not just the machines, they have privitized the voting lists. Control the LIST and control the machines.

This would never work in America since we are the world's oldest Democracy! Our media wouldn't stand for it! Intead they echo the chorus--Bush landslide. Mandate. Bush won the moral vote, men, women, blacks, hispanics. He won everyone's vote but YOURS. Of course he did. Look at all those Red states.

Bush and Cheney think Democracy is quaint!

[Alizaryn]

89. The continuation of our current foreign policy...

They need to stay on course with our foreign policy. The goal they are aiming for is the rich get richer, which is not something Kerry would go along with. IMO

[TexasChick]

102. Ahh...I'm finally starting to understand....thanks, Alizaryn!

And, welcome to DU! :toast:

[Alizaryn]

225. Thanks!

Thanks TexasChick, lots of great discussions are going on here. I sincerely hope my conclusions are wrong.

[indigo11153]

59. Couldn't this mean

That the republican's just had a better ground war with more troops than we knew? Troops that were working precinct by precinct. I don't see anything dark here.

[Matilda]

69. i've read much of the secret groups such as the Bilderberg Group.

Many people believe these ultra-secret financial/political groups
are the ones who really pull the strings in the world forum.
I've heard different names over the years; who knows who they really
are? (Churchill seemed to know, and was in no doubt as to where
the real power lay).

Sometimes it all makes perfect sense, and then I figure if it's true
we're all just wasting our time, and that's depressing. But I see
something really big going on here - I believe there was fraud, and
it was on a massive scale - was it beyond Republican/Democrat?

[brindis_desala]

80. You're bright

John Edwards was invited to the Bilderberg's little hush-hush party.
I found it odd (and intriguing) that Kerry as nominee wasn't. Don't forget our man took down both Repugs and Dems when he exposed BCCI. That didn't earn him any friends in high places. But never underestimate people power when organized efficiently. The bigs still need the majority's sanction to sleep tight (otherwise why go to such lengths to suppress certain voters and not others)... Kerry has some big decisions to make meanwhile he needs us fighting like we MEAN it.

[Matilda]

110. I didn't know that Edwards was invited to the Bilderberg get together.

How interesting - he's not yet a real heavyweight, so perhaps they
see something promising?

I've been puzzling over Kerry's quietness - there could be a lot of
reasons why he's not commenting on the election, but one thing I
wouldn't believe is that he doesn't know what's going on. So,
is he waiting for real proof, or is he being leant on? It's easy
to become paranoid, and perhaps he's just too much part of the
political establishment and knows when not to rock the boat. But
perhaps there have been threats - not just from the GOP, but others
we don't know about.

Remember what happened to Kennedy - whoever was involved, I believe
the military-industrial complex was in there somewhere. And they
have a lot to gain from a cowboy president who wants to fight wars
all over the planet. And I don't think they'd care what price the
US has to pay.

[nashville_brook]

116. kellog brown and root'n toot'n

halliburton

[ebayfool]

141. I'm an old welding inspector, we called 'em 'Build & Rebuild' ...

because they did such shoddy work they always had repairs after inspections!

[jdj]

355. that's funny!

that one will stick in my head.

KBR is doing all the work in Iraq for about 3 or 4 times the $$ the iraqis could do it for.

[brindis_desala]

124. Need more like you

Look at Kerry's record. He broke the Vietnam cover up, went after the mob, Iran Contra, Bcci, the guy's a straight-shooter and a fighter, but he knows what he's up against thats why the DU is so important. We have to PROVE that this farce was fraud he can't but with all of us working and NOT giving up even after january we have a darn good chance.

[Indiana_Dem]

281. I knew Edwards was going to be the VP pick the week or two

before they announced it just by seeing his name on the list of the Builderberg meeting. He must be a prospect for something but evidently not for VP. He won't be in the Senate, so I'm wondering why he was invited. Don't get me wrong, I love Elizabeth and John but I was just perplexed as to why he was invited. He has to know something.

[bunny planet]

97. anybody read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman', sheds some light

on the World Bank's real purpose and who's involved and benefits, corporations. It's something both dems and pugs know about and condone if not flat out support.

[leanin_green]

264. That's why. . .

I like what I hear from Nadar. Both parties have been in bed for so long that they are bound to "get together." Essentially, they share power, and our votes only dictate to them how we want the money spent. If we're feeling more generous as a nation to our poor and workers, Democrats. If we're pissed and feeling stingy, Repugs.

[MelissaB]

109. I googled

"Bilderberg" and read with my mouth dropped the entire time. This was all new to me!

[rockedthevoteinMA]

119. yeah I just got lost too...

(f/googling it). Sometimes I wish it weren't so easy to find out so much. If this is true - I think I might be ill.

Palast's the best democracy money can buy - that book opened my eyes to the effects of the world bank, imf, etc. Part of me wishes I hadn't read it. (sad to say that)

[MelissaB]

137. I just don't know

how many more conspiracy theories I can take. I took Tylenol pm 2 hours ago, and I'm still up!!

:tinfoilhat:

[leanin_green]

266. Listen Guys. . .

I've researched this stuff all my life. Hell, at one time I was approached by a Kabbalist that gave me access to some interesting reading in the public library in San Jose, CA. I knew many people didn't get to read this stuff because it was in a small room at the top of the building. I was next approached by a Mason to be what I can only surmise was a possible recruiting opportunity. Apparently I didn't fit the mold and haven't heard from any since.

Just remember, if this stuff is true, and there's no way any of us can be sure; then it's all the more important to be involved. Know your enemies. The best defense against such things is to become totally aware and self-reliant. "Be ye in the world, but not of it."

[Indiana_Dem]

283. I've been ill several times every time I learn something new

like that. Sometimes I wish I weren't so damn curious!

[Pirate Smile]

139. I googled it too. That is one I've never heard of before. I didn't

look through all 513,000 links posted. Did any reputable news sources mention them?

My hair doesn't like tinfoil and it keeps throwing the hat off.

:tinfoilhat:

[Indiana_Dem]

280. I think so.

But I still like to think I'm doing what it is I can do. I had hope this time around and something just is not right. Too many things were looking one way when they went the other. Something is not right.

[mzmolly]

70. Frankly, it probably means they had a better way to track their GOTV

efforts.

Rove oversaw the entire GOTV effort, we had splinter groups and too many cooks in the proverbial soup.

We need the GOTV to be handled at the DNC level going forward.

[saracat]

78. In many states there was no Repug GOTV.

And if the vote count is screwed, what difference does GOTV make?

[Pirate Smile]

85. Did they have any idea about whether screwed vote counts could

be identified or proven? Do they think there is any trail to follow?

[mzmolly]

101. I haven't a clue frankly. I just think were making a huge leap over a

statment that "might" not mean shit?

:shrug:

The GOTV effort was focused in swing states and if you'll recall they got names of church members from church congregations and "marketed" to the fundies.

My rele's voted because of so called "family values." I've seen the stepford Bush supporters ... they're real.

Now, that doesn't mean there wasn't fraud, but I don't think if there were they'd be discussing it in the open.

[saracat]

164. Who was "discussing anything in the open'?

I said I heard something said by accident. The speaker was tired and didn't realize what was said. I am sure that your relatives voted as you say. Many people did. But many of us didn't .The question is, how many votes were cast for each candidate?

[IAMREALITY]

90. cough cough BULSHIT cough cough

No way our GOTV effort was subpar to theirs. No Way In Hell.

[mzmolly]

100. Perhaps ... or perhaps not?

Depends on who you ask doesn't it?

[IAMREALITY]

105. Scuse Me

IAMREALITY...

REALITY says No Chance In Hell Their GOTV effort outdid ours.

:hi:

[lizzieforkerry]

108. I agree! We knew which house was voting which way and we went house to

house to get people to the polls. Obviously some people in this thread didn't do a lot with the campaign and before you start criticizing us you should find out what was done.

[IAMREALITY]

111. Hear Hear Lizzie!!!!

:toast:

[sharman]

152. And did the results match your expectations?

I know you guys fitted every swing state voter with a tracking device. I've been dying to hear from a GOTVer, who could give me some sense of whether the official results did or did not match your predictions? IOW, real results or fraud?

[lizzieforkerry]

155. FRAUD

[MinneapolisMatt]

79. A Kerry loss could mean...

Bill Clinton becomes the Secretary General of the United Nations in 2007.

Hillary Clinton becomes President of the United States in 2008.


*tinfoil off*

[gorbal]

106. That would be nice

I would love to see Clinton as secretary general when Kofi steps down. I am kind of upset with all this oilforfoodgate business with Kofi Annan, I always liked him.

In my opinion, the democrats feel they have the world on their shoulders and they don't want to mess up and screw things up fro everyone. I think what many don't realize is that inaction sometimes screws things up worse.

[dmac]

81. I posted this reply on another thread

but maybe here is a more appropriate place for it. I asked this question:

If they have been manipulating votes since the 70's, as some of the articles I have read suggest, and especially since the late 80's, what does that say about how Clinton was elected, not once, but twice? Are we sometimes "they"?

no one answered in the other spot and perhaps no one will here either but this is really bugging me. Thanks.

[MelissaB]

84. Damn good question!

...and do we live in a democracy or not??

[brindis_desala]

92. Yes...(and no)

BushI was taken to the woodshed because he didn't believe in voodoo economics and raised taxes (the only good thing he did as president) so up popped Ross Perot, in walks Clinton. Poppy is furious. From there on gloves off, no more Mr. "points of light" Patrician. Poppy teams up with the neocons and the fundies he'd abhorred like the plague but the Big Dog is a pet of Pamela Harriman, smart as a tack and the techies have the profiteers heart-rates pumping. Everbody's getting rich, oil is cheap, the Big Dog's untouchable.... but the Democrats get slaughtered. Fair or foul?... who knows? probably both, but if we ever got a 70% voter turnout (with paper trail) the bigs would have to heel... no contest.

[Zan_of_Texas]

166. If we ever got 70% turnout, with paper trail,

properly audited, after a few go-rounds of that, we'd have candidates that actually represented the people voting -- especially if combined with a tad more campaign finance reform.

Why, we might actually be able to choose a candidate who was NOT in favor of the Patriot Act, or who was NOT in favor of free trade and globalization, or who didn't kowtow to Big Pharma, or who did NOT vote for the gd Iraq invasion, or who supported equal rights for all, including gay couples.

Wouldn't THAT be sumpin!

[brindis_desala]

184. You're right of course

The irony about Americans is that we love being citizens of the most powerful nation on earth yet 100 million feel too helpless to vote. What is so important about DU's effort to expose our fraudulent politicians is that we have a chance to show that if united the people can still have a voice in their affairs.

[RevCheesehead]

216. Sounds like you're describing Russ Feingold to me

But I'm not sure on his stand on gay marriage.

IMHO, Russ would make an EXCELLENT president! But perhaps he can accomplish more with Kerry in the senate.

[Razorback_Democrat]

99. "Are We sometimes they?"

It depends who "we" are, and who you think "they" are.

Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas during the Iran-Contra affair.

There's a little airport in a town called Mena, (actually it is a long runway in a tiny airport) that airstrip in Mena, Arkansas was used by the CIA running drugs in the drugs for arms for hostages back in the 80's. (Think Barry Seal)

Clinton had involvment in this at some level. So where does that actually put him? With we, or they? And are we democrats and they are republicans? Or are we American citizens and they are the CIA who have infiltrated every aspect of our society and economic structure in the name of "national security" with and without the knowledge of the people at the top.

So Clinton might have been a "they" but not a "they" in the terms of a Republican, but a they in the terms of a CIA man. And that could also mean that Hillary is too.

I doubt Kerry is given that he busted BCCI which was a big time CIA operation.

or maybe i just need a tinfoil hat?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

194. Remember Clinton at the 1988 convention?

His speech was built up as being the speech of a "rising young star" of the Democratic party, and yet, as speeches go, it was nothing to get excited about. In fact, it was pretty inept. At the time I wondered who had decided that he was such a hot shot.

Four years later he's the nominee and a superb speaker. :shrug:

That's one thing that has never made sense to me.

[Indiana_Dem]

290. You know, I actually thought that, too.

I mean he gained my acceptance and respect and he did become a very good speaker towards the second term. I actually voted for Nader when Perot was running. Nader wasn't even on my ballot and I had to write him in. I think that was '92. That was the only time I ever voted outside of the Democratic party. I felt like my vote never counted anyway in red state so I just made a protest statement that year and Nader was saying things I agreed with. Clinton never caught my attention until after he was elected.

I love to hear him speak now.

[ccarter84]

113. maybe yes, maybe no?

whatever the answer, it makes one question our democracy...which hasn't been accused of being that lately by anyone except the bush admins.
either way, we cannot allow such circumstances surround our vote anymore, the will of the people must be heard, and if they choose someone we don't like...then through education we have to make sure the public isn't so hoodwinked next time.

my 2 cents
-CC

[bklyncowgirl]

187. NAFTA and GATT

I've always believed that the "Powers that Be" neeeded a Democrat to pass the trade agreements.

Once Clinton got those through he was of no more use to them so they threw him to the wolves.

[truehawk]

221. Perot told them to cut it out, put "them" in a tizzy

They painted Perot as a self-agrandizing tinfoil hat wearer, and threatened to "hunt" his daughters the way the hunted Clinton.

[leanin_green]

267. Let's consider that a moment.

Let us say for arguments sake that they have been able to manipulate the vote since then. I'll tell you how Clinton got elected. During the time up to Iran-Contra, when drug shipments we're being used to aid the Contras, many of the military aircraft used a base in Arkansas governed by none other than Bill Clinton. Clinton had the goods on the Repugs messiah Reagan and had a chip to the big game. Naturally the Repugs didn't like how he got there and set about to ensnare and destroy him at every turn. They couldn't kill him because who knew what he planned with the info he had upon his death. I mean, in Richard Clarke's book, the meetings he had with Clinton during the Lewinsky thing amazed him because of how unfazed Clinton was and was able to respond despite what the Repugs may think or say about him in the media. Clinton knows the game.

[Indiana_Dem]

291. Well now, that makes more sense to me.

I've never heard that. That would definitely explain some things.

[Indiana_Dem]

288. "They" I think implies "the powers that be"

whoever TBTB are. I think it goes beyond Republican/Democrat lines. If you remember, Clinton was all for NAFTA and GATT and it went through under his administration without proper trade and environmental laws. That would not be something Democrats would normally agree with as much as I like Clinton. I believe there is a certain agenda and there are those on both sides of the fence that will accomplish certain goals/plans although there may be some variations on the smaller domestic issues of which they don't bother with unless it would affect their worldwide plans. Manipulating votes would be a way to ensure the one who will carry out your worldwide agendas be met. Someone like Nader or Kucinich or maybe even Dean would never go with the flow of TBTB agenda. That's just my own opinion.

[Generator]

88. Oh for Christsakes

The Democratic leadership aren't "in" on anything. They can barely find their rear end. Also, they aren't that kind of "evil". If they were they would certainly be winning elections. And the payoff is? Err..nothing.

Hillary Clinton is never ever ever going to be President.

The Democratic leadership are wussies and fools.

I still feel deep in my heart that Kerry is the real deal.

Of course they are blaming Kerry, they sure as hell aren't going to blame themselves for not making voting transparency and voter disenfranchment their number one issue.

[Silver Gaia]

96. Can somebody post a link to the video being mentioned in this thread?

Or PM it to me? I haven't see it. For some reason, I didn't get a copy of Kerry's letter, either (although I have read it as posted by others), even though I am a party member and contributed to the party and to Kerry. Thanks!

[MelissaB]

98. There is a link on

Keith Olbermann's blogg at MSNBC.

I don't think he winked.

[peekaloo]

112. .....

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/everychild.php

[Silver Gaia]

158. Thanks bunches

MelissaB and peekaloo...

[dmac]

103. Very good and that is my first knee-jerk reaction as well. However

you say "Dem's aren't that kind of evil". I absolutely believe that too but haven't you read any of these articles/books that talk about how elections have been being rigged for years? So in my mind, that just means that it must be whoever rigs best wins? I surely do not want to believe that and I believe Dem's are the party with the heart (and values too, damnit) and I would be very disillusioned to find out otherwise. I have always felt they gunned for Clinton the way they did because he got in the way of their "big plans" and PNAC. But what if Clinton outsmarted them at their own game and that was part of it . . .

nah. I don't really believe that but it has crossed my mind.

[Horse with no Name]

104. Heavy duty Reynolds Wrap

I heard an operative from a former admin speak recently and it was stated the "the Republican's "knew" what the vote was "going to be" precinct by precinct and we didn't .
Narrow down more than likely to Bush or Clinton admin...chances are Clinton.
That is why we lost. I was chilled by that statement. I don't think he intended to admit that. Because if we knew they knew, then we know how they knew it. If that is the case, our own party knows how the election went down.
In other words, we knew and did nothing about it and/or facilitated it. In terms of law, this is called an accomplice. Accomplices are as much to blame as the perpetrator of the crime.
Also look for vote number inflation and the party operatives to place blame on Kerry. He wasn't one of them.
Democrats were in this as accomplices. People close to Kerry, unknown to him, were working hard for him to lose the election. They were in on the vote rigging, machine placement, etc. When this all comes out...they are the ones that will be blamed for fixing the machines to make it appear as if the Republicans fixed the machines, and when the shit hits the fan and the indictments roll...they are all going to say "Kerry made me do it".
I was also recently told by a diplomat who worked to prevent this war and is a Clintonista, that things are not what they appear with Clinton. This was in response to my displeasure with recent Clinton statements.
Clinton has found out the truth and knows that Kerry is the patsy and he is trying to stop it before it gets down to judgement day.

Am I close? Because if I am--I am sick.

[dmac]

114. What?!

I do get what you are saying - and all I can say is, Democrat or Republican - anyone who was complicit in voting fraud, their head needs to roll! Plain and simple.

Could this be why we are meeting so much resistance with the Press and having no party support? Because can you imagine how our country will fall apart if these things are true? And man, I would hate that. I really would. But maybe it has to fall apart before we can put it together again - the way it should have been all along.

Things have been twisted in politics for a long time - on both sides. I do believe the Dem's have more integrity but maybe that is because I am one. I sure know some Repubs who are good people with integrity so you can't judge an entire party by its members. It is the leaders with the power and if politics breeds this kind of dishonesty then the system needs to be fixed and it is time, we the people, who are supposed to be in charge, take back what is rightfully ours. And let the chips fall where they may - if there are Dem casualties among the rep casualties, they asked for it when the stepped off the straight and narrow.

And this makes me sick as well . . . .

[Zan_of_Texas]

167. Could this be why we are meeting so much resistance with the Press

The media silence is puzzling, isn't it.

Actually, I can't prove it. But, there is a growing pile of inuendo and circumstantial evidence that the big press is in on it, and may actually be pulling some of the levers of vote fixing.

[intheflow]

230. I think it's reasonable to assume the press is in on any fix.

After all, they "fixed" the "wrong" exit poll data.

http://www.exit-poll.net/

Exit Polls From Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International:
The Exclusive Source for Election Day Information

The major news organizations hired Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International to conduct the official exit polls for all 50 states and the District of Columbia for the 2004 elections.

We offer exit poll data that was previously provided by Voter News Service (VNS).

[dmac]

121. One other thing . . .

Now I guess you have me worried. But I thought Clinton looked bad when I saw him - bad, like sick. I know he just had heart surgery and perhaps that was all, but now reading all of this makes me wonder if he is under stress from elsewhere . . .

though I have a hard time buying that he is anything but good - I think he is an amazing politician because I think he genuinely cares about people and the country, not because he is a master of deceit.
Some things cannot be faked. And frankly I do not feel like Hilary is as intent on running as she once was. And if she does, I think she may find her popularity has dwindled (at least for me it has).

[saracat]

165. Except for Clinton stopping anything., You are really close.!

[Lerkfish]

197. if he's close to what you meant....

and i have to admit, I did not get that from your first post...

then I have to say I find that bizarre at best, and bogus at worst. It doesn't make sense because it requires coordination of a rather unwieldy beast at such a precise level it seems foolhardy when there are other ways to accomplish the same goal.

it doesn't pass my "amount of energy input and risk required does not match target benefit" test.

[Oak2004]

168. I have had some very serious suspicions that the extreme right

has been infiltrating the Democratic Party. Not in some grand global Bildeberg tinfoil hat conspiracy way, but in the same way I saw them infiltrate and hijack my party, the Republican Party.

In particular, I've been very disturbed by the fact that so many of the Democratic political operatives also work the other side of the fence, and that many of them are good buddies with Darth Rove himself. Donna Brazile (DNC voting rights chair?) reportedly is good friends with Rove and talks strategy with him often.

Now there has long been a strange kind of personal comradeship among political enemies from both sides of the aisle. I've witnessed it and to a small degree participated in it. But the guys on the Republican side of the aisle nowadays are not like the guys who used to be on that side once upon a time ago. Anything you say or do or even seem you might think around them will be used against you.

Another bit of speculation that has crossed my mind about the Dems' absence on the field of battle is that many of the leading Democrats are far more concerned about keeping us unwashed masses under control than they are about democracy. They fear that if they acknowledge what happened, there will be national chaos. (Hint to self-appointed elite: destroying democracy is the single fastest way to get a people to revolt, and no, you can't hide the evidence).

Whatever it is, my predictiona are that A) the Democratic Party is going to collapse and disappear in the next couple of decades, and B) sooner or later, we will win, regardless of what is amassed against us. We have the truth, determination, and numbers; they have lies and a tiny, fearful, circle of insiders.

[carolinalady]

277. Case in point-- Mary Matlain and James Carville n/t

[verdalaven]

193. Imagine how bad the Dems would look

If the Repubs set it up that Kerry was involved in this plot and MSM ran with it, the Dems would lose all kinds of "capital" with the average voter.

If it is true, it is the most evil-brilliant-plot every hatched. They get the White House, they get to claim they are still the "values" party and they strike a death blow to the Democrats. It is a win-win-win situation.

[Lerkfish]

198. but if true, it would make no sense to clamp down MSM, would it?

why would the press cooperate if the finger pointing at the dems was desireable?
wouldn't they be covering it now, with the intention of shifting it later?

this isn't logical, to me.

[verdalaven]

199. If there is a media lockdown

That is up for debate.

I recently corresponded with an editor of the Chicago Tribune and he said that there are reporters from his paper investigating Ohio. Additionally, he said that most of the MSM is investigating the "vote fraud" story. They just don't lead with it because it isn't something that draws ratings, like the Peterson trial. Not to mention that they aren't sure if there is a story there, or not.

Now, if Kerry stepped up, the story would kick into high gear.

[Mist]

316. I don't know if I believe that

"They don't lead with it because it isn't something that draws ratings" ?!?! Huge voter fraud wouldn't draw ratings? Even in our dumbed down trash media, that can't be true. The MSM is on board with TPTB.

[NAO]

303. Ever Seen the movie "ARLINGTON ROAD"

It's a must see. It reveals:

- How they do it,

- How your attempts to stop them help them get it done,

- How your efforts to foil them clear them of any suspicion and totally implicate you in the process.

It all cleans up real nice at the end.

[KoKo]

107. Message Removed by poster

[Doremus]

115. Agreed about Cahill and the other campaign staff...

... but how did the Clintonistas fit in? Carville is said to have literally cried and pleaded to get Cahill to step aside for Lockhart to come in.

If Cahill knew what was going on, can we assume Carville did too? And his actions were an attempt to thwart it? Or what?

[KoKo]

147. But, how could Carvill know? His wife works with Cheney...I really don't

trust the guy, but Kerry's Campaign was much better when he came on board. So, what is going on here?

[Middle Finger Bush]

217. did you see carville on meet the press?

he was completely discombobulated and could only articulate that kerry lost.... never seen him stutter so many times.

[KoKo]

257. I missed that...but I'm "TV Free" since the 2nd Selectionl...If Carville w

discombobulated while his wife is a Cheney Operative, though...it leads me to wonder what the "Truth" of anything is, though...

Either they don't sleep together and their daughters are "tube babies" or something is wrong...

How could you have a bigger disconnect in a marriage than Matalin and Carville...I've been married to the same person for so many years you guys would laugh...but it's because we SHARE....and we've never lost interest in each other...There's NO WAY we could survive with the gulf of Political Differences Carvill and Matalin have and been successful together..which we have... We would have been in battles over finances, ways to raise children, treatment of our parents on Social Security...whatever.

Carvill and Matalin might find their differences "titilating" as an early "sexual encounter," but when the "Family Interaction" hits the fan and the children need your time and you are forced to deal with their questions..then it seems to me that Carvill and Matalin become a "Fairy Tale" Marriage...something that's "Idealistic" but not with what I've seen in practice in my life where "REALITY" somehow steps in and causes the "Divorce" over principles, Irreconcilable Differences, and the rest of it.

There's NO WAY these two aren't working together in some way...or they are both alligned in some way that isn't "traditional" ...yet they say they are in a "traditional marriage." :shrug:

[KoKo]

151. Something was odd about Kerry's whole campaign. He got almost no

air time on the Cables. His Campaign Operatives were so weak that until Carville and Clinton came in I wondered if he wanted to lose! McAuliff didn't start to light up and hit back unti a few weeks before the election and there were those weird photo ops of Kerry windsurfing and with biking gear that was a little ott to most of us, and then the photo with the gun and the dead goose. This just didn't seem real. I know he's an accomplished athelete and hunts, but the photo-ops seemed like he was "playing to the camera." Who advised him on that...who advised him to "tone it down" about the swift boat liars...and the war where he seemed to always be in conflict with what he wanted to say.

I really did wonder about him and wondered why there was so much silence
while we had to watch the Chimp with the waving pom poms and cheering crowds constantly on the cables. Something was wrong about this election and it started with Gore. I've seen many campaigns and the last two Presidential ones have both been quite strange. I thought it was the RW and the Media Lockdown...but what if it's all that and more....

[ahyums]

117. can we take that to mean you've been told you hit the nail on the head?

[KoKo]

148. No....sorry. I meant to PM and posted here by mistake. Thought I caught

it before anyone replied.

[brindis_desala]

118. This is our best and last chance

If we can prove there was fraud democracy wins. But no one
said it would be easy...

"The American people have been socialized into denial.
First about the ruthless and imperialist nature of their 26
intelligence-gathering agencies including the CIA and NSA that
have been involved in rigging elections worldwide and the
ongoing involvement by these agencies in American politics.
What is obviously evolved is a praetorian guard, loyal only to
the Bush family, that some call the "shadow
government."  Bob Fitrakis – The Free Press
November 30, 2003



http://www.ilaam.net/Opinions/YearDemocracyEnded.html

[ahyums]

126. much as I hate to keep entertaining this, the last because in future

they'll be too good at it? and the best because there are so many motivated right now and they did it fairly obviously? I really hope none of this is true in fact I hope the whole fraud thing isn't true. Ideally after the recount Kerry would be seen to have won due to some mistakes, but frankly I would take a fair Bush win over fraud whatever happens because the idea of conspiracies is somehow both depressing and demoralizing.

[brindis_desala]

136. Don't doubt your eyes- fight for your rights

was 2000 a free and fair election? 2002? were those lines 10
hours long in Ohio by some strange coincidence. Registrations
thrown away, precincts locked for phony terror alerts? voters
intimidated for fun? 58,000 absentee ballots vanish in thin
air...the press just yawns because elections are just so
boring? c'mon folks stick together- this takes backbone not
depression

[ahyums]

140. no if they exist you have to fight them no doubt, and it is painfully

obvious that there is still a lot of work to do in ensuring that everyone who wants to vote can vote and that their vote is fairly and properly counted. I am just hoping that no one actually stooped to the level of actually tampering with the votes or how they were counted. Nevertheless I am open to the possibility and am certain that it needs to be investigated and destroyed if such actions did take place. The worst of all situations would be if there was a system for fraud and nothing was done about it.

[merh]

120. You know, I read this post several hours ago, when you first

posted it and I couldn't really understand it. So, I dug through all of my precious belongings and found my decoder ring and have returned to try again to comprehend what you are saying, but not saying, alas I have had no success.

If you want to take the time to clarify this post, that would be great. If you want to give names of your source so that we might be able to ascertain the credibility of the contents, once we understand it, that would also be nice.

If you decide you just want to continue your cryptic game, then that's okay too. Sorry, I cant' give any credence to this type of babble.

[nashville_brook]

122. yeah, this thread has been interesting,

it has my tin foil hat glowing

i have gleened the worldwide military/industrial/complex wanted bush in office and kerry didn't know but his campaign folks knew and kept it from him and now clinton is going to be the secretary general of the UN.

:think:

[dmac]

123. "the Secretary General of the UN"?

Where did that come from? Do I need to read backwards - again?

[merh]

196. Backwards, I never thought to try reading it backwards!

Maybe that will work. :shrug: :tinfoilhat:

[merh]

133. I have to check out the coding in my ring, you did much better than

I did deciphering this mess. UN Secretary General, where did you get that from this babble?

Repukes want nothing to do with UN and are trying to weaken its credibilty because of Saddam, you know, the oil for food scandal.

[faithnotgreed]

128. it may be best to read her post #76 and

let it go at that, as far as trying to "decode" anything just now. so much is upside down as it is that i know i cant go off in too many directions.

i believe there is horrific corruption and i believe there are many facets we dont know about. but as far as who is on which team, only time will tell..... for me about the only democrat i trust is jimmy carter and they sure arent going to let him inside too far. i was drawn to kerry and want to keep trusting him as i did, but i just dont know what to think right now. i also like clark and dean but again, time will reveal the basics of sanity and integrity, or lack thereof.

[Spazito]

132. Agree!

*

[pacalo]

299. H - A - L - L - E - L - U - J - A - H ! ! !

And did you notice how quickly the original statement about Bill Clinton deteriorated into a Clinton-was-privy-to-election-fraud as the thread progressed? The original statement was that the poster was told that Clinton's post-election comments (let's work together, etc.) were not what they seemed. I completely understood what the poster was talking about, but the poster mentioned her thoughts about Clinton in the same paragraph as the if-we-knew-that-they-knew supposition. It was confusing, obtuse, & it was misleading. I don't think it should have been posted at all.

And this part can be taken any number of ways: it was stated the "the Republican's "knew" what the vote was "going to be" precinct by precinct and we didn't . That is why we lost. I was chilled by that statement. I don't think he intended to admit that. Because if we knew they knew, then we know how they knew it. If that is the case, our own party knows how the election went down.

I would be ashamed for this thread to be read by anyone outside of DU.

[saracat]

323. I am sorry to have offended you. I won't post anymore things that

make you ashamed. I won't ask for anyone's opinion again. I will keep what I hear to myself.And for the last time, this was not about Clinton, and BTW the post election comments I was think of were the ones supportive of Bush. I think you ought to be ashamed that you are judgemental and pretensious.

[peacetalksforall]

129. Anyone who would make a deal with Republicans as implied by

an H. Clinton candidacy in 2008, would be stupid and though I don't want H. Clinton as President, I don't think the Clintons are stupid enough to end up in a deal. If they are still Dems, they would only be betrayed. But, Dems and Repubs at the top levels may all be an altered reality. Who knows anymore.

It sure seems stupid to work for Dems and there not be any Dems. Same goes for Repubs.

As far as the Mena crap - I won't believe it because Scaife and Falwell people said it.

This all may be the perfect Rovian icing. Cast doubts everywhere, because they know they can still get away with their theft for awhile longer.

They want our souls and bodies.

[merh]

138. I agree with you that this sounds like rovey's spin, cast doubt

in the party, make us doubt our own, muddle the water, smoke & mirrors! Then they can mysteriously make an elephant appear in the WH again.

[Stand and Fight]

135. Good Grief, Charlie Brown

:eyes:
I think it is things like this that gives credence to Faux News' and Crappy News Networks' assertions that people who say the election was stolen are conspiracy theorists. We know that this election was stolen, and there is a strong movement to do something about the Republicans machinations. We cannot allow 2000 to repeat itself no matter what the cost, no matter what the sacrifice. However, we are doing ourselves a great disservice by paying mind to theories that are baseless and not supported by facts. I definitely think the Democratic leadership and our "big name" Democrats are putting out the wrong message and I'd say they're making concessions that favor the Repukes, but to say that they are conspirators -- or even a number of them -- is really stretching things. Come on people, let's not waste our time on supposition. Let's focus on the facts as presented by statisticians and credible sources -- not boogie men whispering in the dark about vague backroom deals.


:wtf:

[ahyums]

143. it depends in large part on how much credence you give to saracat about

the source. It is of course true that what is going on in this thread is the very definition of tin foil hat behavior, but I tend to try and keep a pretty open mind. Unlike I'd say the majority on here I'm still not completely convinced that fraud occurred although I would say it's pretty likely, now given that I have no reason not to believe that there was a member of a previous administration who made some comments I have no problem engaging and trying to find out what those comments were related to. Having said that I certainly won't go away completely convinced there was a global conspiracy to ensure that Bush won, but I will accept it as possibility, although not one it has to be said which I will allow to govern my thoughts or actions if that makes any sense.

[nashville_brook]

145. seriously, it kinda sounds like

the dems knew the election was being rigged but didn't do anything in order to let the boy-prez stew in his mess. like, now wouldn't be a good time to have the reigns, anyway.

[grasswire]

157. LIHOP?

Is that it?

[nashville_brook]

159. i think that's what's being said

not that i buy it

[ebayfool]

146. "it depends in large part on how much credence you give to saracat ..."

I give her alot, I have seen no previous posts from saracat that give me tin foil impressions.

[Stand and Fight]

153. Sure There is a Possibility

Sure there's a possibility in this actually being the case -- I am not one to refute the logic behind that statement. However, I would strongly urge everyone to put there energies into seeing what we can do to ensure that the 2000 debacle does not repeat itself. While I see the merits of discussing Saracat's supposition, I cannot reconcile myself to the fact that it smacks of nothing but supposition. That being said, I'm in no way close-minded as to what the possibilities are of Saracat's supposition being true; however, I feel it deflects from what our primary aim should be -- that is, to research and take an activist stand about the election results and irregularities before it is too late. Putting it quite plainly, it is quite unlikely that we will ever be able to prove Saracat's post, but it is infinitely more probable by examining statistical data irregularities, investigating fraud, continuing to push for media coverage, and doing all that we can to help the recount effort will yield tangible results. If you think we've had a hard time getting MSM coverage -- imagine what sort of coverage we'd get for putting forward ideas like that of Saracat's! We must exert all possible energies into the investigation of irregularities and try our damn hardest to move heaven and earth to get this election over-turned. Anything less would prove a disappointment -- even getting rid of the black boxes. So, with that said, I would encourage everyone to pour their hearts and souls into lobbying for a full investigation, full media coverage, and speaking out against Blackwell as a means to overcoming this treasonous nefarious stolen election. Election reform is nice, but it will not serve what is most important in our hearts -- to get Dumb-ass Dubya out of the White House and our rightful president, John Forbes Kerry into it. Aim high and election reform will be an added benefit.

[Matilda]

160. I'm not quite sure what Saracat is saying either,

and you could drive yourself crazy trying to follow the threads of
every conspiracy theory.

BUT that said, I don't believe this election fraud (and I don't have
any doubts about that)is just a matter of Bush trying to stay in
the White House for another four years. Whatever the agenda, and
whoever's driving it, the goals are more long-term than that. It
has to do with things like the PNAC vision of Pax Americana, but
I'm sure it goes even further than that. There are people with
more money and power than you and I can imagine who are content to
remain unseen but who wield enormous power. They do have secret
groups and secret meetings, and we can only guess at what exactly
goes down, but power is what it's about. They can buy and sell
governments, and they can certainly buy and sell individuals.

The election fraud may go no further than the Republicans wanting to
hold power, but it's long-term power they're after, and we're
just beginning to see how ruthless they are. That's why I think the
Democrats have to really fight, otherwise the next election and the
one after that will be rigged, and the Democrats may never hold
power again.

[Catherine Vincent]

142. you folks are talking crazy....

[Lisabtrucking]

149. Here is the 2003 cenus for all states

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/SC-EST2003-02.html

interesting site. maybe we can find that the numbers don't add up with the number of people who voted?

[imaginary girl]

150. I've been pretty annoyed with what Clinton has said recently, too,

but wondered about how much of it he meant when I saw him watching Bush's speech. His body language seemed very cold ... unlike his recent statements.

What makes me wonder about what you've said here about the dems, though, is I don't think there's any way that everybody is in on "it," so what accounts for the amazing silence of all the dems? Wouldn't one or two be calling a spade a spade?

[snot]

161. How wd Dems enforce such a deal if Reps reneged?

I'm late to this thread, but I agree with "Stand and Fight". If you posit the Dems were in on it, everything just gets way too complicated--requiring way more planning, organization etc. than I've seen any sign we're capable of yet, sorry to say. Most importantly, how WOULD the Dems enforce any such deal if the Reps reneged? They'd have to have some kind of huge, sure-fire leverage--and that's pretty hard to imagine given that we've already given up to the Reps just about all the leverage there is.

And I wish Hilary stood a chance for 2008, but I don't think she or any of our other fearless leaders are deluded enough to believe it.

Let me add, I am NOT hopeless, and I AM determined.

And I would REALLY like to see some convictions of some folks above lackey-level.

[New Earth]

162. this is all starting to scare me

if this is all true, then i am really in fear of Kerry's safety if the election ouctome were to change.

[snot]

163. Please. I was trying to say, I do NOT find this plausible.

Good to explore possibilities; but must try to distinguish what's plausible and focus efforts where they can help.

[NVMojo]

340. hard to explain but I watched Kerry with Springsteen in Wisconsin...

before the elections and I got really eerie about the look in his eyes and his weary face and voice. He looked so damn sincere and concerned and tired and honest. I felt fear for this man for a few brief moments. I almost felt he was too honest ...to be our president. Don't rip me too hard on this ...I just really see evil around the controlling Republican leadership and those in bed with them....

[Political_Junkie]

359. I saw the same thing.

eom

[Zan_of_Texas]

172. Exactly.

How WOULD the Democrats enforce the deal in 4 years, or whenever?

The Rs now have the Senate, House. Supreme Court. White House. And, the Big Media. If they get a few more Senators, or go ahead and change the rules, they can ramrod any damn thing they want through, regardless of filibusters.

The only thing they didn't have completely really was the CIA/intelligence community and the military, both of which have had strong pockets of opposition to the Bush/Cheney policies and ideologues who were imported into policy-making spots. Why would those guys oppose Bush/Cheney? Because some of them are patriots and professionals, and do their jobs well. They don't take kindly to having their hard work and knowledge contorted into ideological pretzels to support a war that had no foundation (except oil and delusions of empire) and not even enough troops, and certainly no one trained in nation building, to accomplish anything but death and destruction.

Now, some of the good guys and gals have already left. Porter Goss has announced there will be a purge, and those in the CIA not in ideological lockstep with the administration will be kicked out (okay, his words were SLIGHTLY less obvious, but it was all there).

Think about the military and the military contractors (many of whom are former military) for a minute. Think about the federal budget.

What is the largest single item in there, aside from Social Security? Military spending. #1 military spending in the world, larger than the next 20 countries. $400? $500? $600 billion, maybe more, depending on what you count.

(The US spends 37% of all the money spent anywhere in the globe on military. The US has 725 bases all over the world. The US is the world's largest arms seller, responsible for 47 percent of all munitions transfers between 1996 and 2000. The US has 8,820 nuclear bombs, plus 10,000 in storage, but the government has authorized expenditure of an additional $20 billion for nuclear weapons. Source -- The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson)

So, what is the single largest beneficiary of government decision-making? Military/defense/contractors.

Guess who has a big interest in how elections go? (aside from DU)

M I L I T A R Y. D E F E N S E C O N T R A C T O R S

Guess who has handy dandy programmers, and who knows how to tap into phone lines and modems and satellites and emails and god knows what else?

Guess whose Daddy used to head the CIA, which has ADMITTED stealing elections abroad and assasinating foreign leaders?

Nah, nobody in THIS country would steal a vote, not even one, or would do ANYthing to prevent even one person from casting a vote that was counted. Nah.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

171. Good lord.........

....please folks.......step away from the computer.......deep breaths......DEEEEEEEEPPP breaths.........

This is why the conspiracy train is a dangerous ride to take. Once you you get going, there's no end in sight.....

[saracat]

173. This is why I was hesitant to post this. The old "conspiracy theory"

accusation. I didn't say I "know" anything. I asked what people thought about certain statements, as in "knowing what the precinct vote would be". I don't think it takes a conspiracy buff to think that is odd. As far as the diplomat's statement, I didn't say it was true. That is what I was told. And BTW, They are blaming Kerry and using that argument everywhere I go. And they are inflating the numbers that Bush won by in order to make it look like it would be ridiculous to have tampered with such an obvious victory. All I am doing with this is watching and waiting. Some of what I was told is obviously true. I see it . Other stuff has to be proven.You make your own decisions!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

175. Maybe because we already see the fraud.......

....whoever this person speaking was probably thinks no one pays attention to anything other than the MSM and they are dropping some sort of bombshell about the voter fraud. The Clinton stuff is a red herring. Saying something open ended like that is going to get people's minds to wander. Yeah, maybe Clinton plays nice simply because he doesn't want anything he says to screw up Hilary's chances, or maybe he just doesn't want to hear anymore bitching from the right about him. I just think it's gotten crazy here with people reading into every word Kerry, Clinton, whoever says thinking it means they are investigating the fraud, ignoring it, perpitrating it.......all we are doing is making the media appear correct about being a bunch of tinfoil hatters.....

[saracat]

176. But the mainstream Dems say the fraud doesn't exist!

[rman]

177. because mainstream media say fraud doesn't exist.

and we all know we can blindly trust the media, do't we?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

178. Of course they don't......

......they diddled around and did NOTHING about the problem for four years since 2000, and now don't want to be hung with the label of "SoreLoserman" as they were then. Now if you want to think that's because of some secret deal, go ahead. But I think the party was naive enough to believe that if they based political strategy on winning the states where they could "contain" the fraud, they'd pull it out. They were willing to concede Florida thinking as long as they got PA and OH, they'd be fine. That plan failed, and now the game is over. They should have argued the call while the play was going on, not after the game.

Bottom line, 2000 scarred our party for life because it provided the Repugs with the main ingrediant they needed to motivate their sickening base and 9/11 provided the spice they needed to control the debate. Henceforth, any attempt to claim voter fraud will be labeled as subversive, and an "affront to the war on terror and our troops". That, and the laughter from the men "in the know" like Rove and Cheney, who would revel in the Dems having been tricked again is enough to shut them up.

[Sodium Pentothal]

180. having read all this, and THOUGHT

I believe I am catching the drift. Clinton bothered me too. Kerry's concession bothered me. It bothers me that the MSM does nothing about any story.

Let me try to relate some of this. Basically, the gist of this is, the fight has gone underground. Kerry conceded early to thwart any attempts at smearing him or the Party for contesting results. Clinton has been seen and spoken well of Bush43. This is to promote bipartisanship 'appearance'. There has been no democratic uprising, and one very good reason is becuz it would have been doomed to failure.

When you are getting robbed by the guy with the gun, you wait for him to not shoot you and leave before you act.



The angle of a grand scale is more towards what is discussed in books like The Grand Chessboard and Crossing the Rubicon. Whatever the people of the US want may not be in the best interest of the US. There is a definite positioning going on right now in the financial and energy sectors. I believe a deal was struck to keep the guy who has been doing what is necessary NOW in office, because it has to be done anyway. If John Kerry was president, and he is as 'straight-shooter' as people make him to be, he may not act as ruthless as necessary to keep the US Empire as strong againts its rivals. In fact, if he did do so, the people would know there was a problem when the 2 party system ends up acting like the same party.

If there is a fight, it would be guys like Clinton and Kerry who believe a strong US may not be as good for the world as the neocons think. Basically, what I am saying is, we have to give ground, and accept other nations to being our equal. Face it, our nation is Lord of the World right now, we are the only nation with a navy deployed worldwide year round. The new direction for America may weaken it, not intentionally, or to the point of imminent danger, but enough to have peace in the world with nations who wish to dethrone our reign.

This fight would have to be so grassroots its not even funny. If we do have a liberal media, if Clinton and Kerry are fighting for us by waiting until the time is RIGHT, when the smoke clears and the gun is still warm..... we may win. The neocons believe only in strength and power, and many can understand how the world needs a dictator to keep in line. When the energy crisis hits, if there is not a sheriff, there will be some serious chaos. Others, however, believe we can stave off the energy crisis. It is not a sure thing, its a risk. But its a risk that is well worth taking, much better than positioning ourselves to be King of the Hill.



Sorry if I rambled there, I hope someone gets to read this and understands a little of what I am saying/implying.

[brindis_desala]

185. You got it!

That's the deal. No repug-democrat quid pro quo that's separate. Go back to the Porter Goss appointment. The CIA has always at least masqueraded as being non-partisan for obvious reasons. Now we find the whistleblowers being rounded up and expelled. Think about what went on with the FBI after 9-11. A lot of people are invested in the New Empire. I mean they laid it all out in PNAC. Its not like its some big secret or that there aren't Dems that (have to) agree. WE need to understand what this fight is about and get serious. We'll have to deal with this a some point, my take is why not now when the grassroots is energized and Bev Harris is out there risking her life? The sooner the easier.

[Indiana_Dem]

293. I know exactly what you're talking about.

I need to get that book "Crossing the Rubicon". I would rather take that risk and stave off the energy crisis and not play King of the World. That's why I fought so hard for Kerry to be president. I felt like we could've at least bought some more time.

Hopefully the Republicans will have to harbor the responsibility of all the things that are going to happen in the next four years and maybe America will be ready for a Democratic president again in 2008. Hope it's not too late by then, though. We don't have much time left to get ready for the energy crisis.

[Red State Blues]

181. for thought

"You know, by the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions."

"You may find you can get away with virtual presidents, virtual prime ministers, virtual everything."

-- Bill Clinton September 4, 1998

[eowyn_of_rohan]

190. Big Brother

just a little later than predicted

[Red State Blues]

200. We want you Big Brother.

Actually the title of the book was meant to be 1948. But that hit too close to home and the publishers refused, so: 1984.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

201. Aha! I didn't know that.

Thanks for educating me. Now I can be the smart one next time it comes up at a cocktail party B-)

[Red State Blues]

302. Sorry

Just for the heck of it I went looking for a source for that little tidbit and while I'm positive that I had read it from a fairly reliable source (and it makes sense to me considering Orwell's unhappiness and views of the time) I could not find that particular anecdote but found opposing views. I still personally believe there is some truth to the story but you might come under fire at the cocktail party. Sorry if I've passed along bad info.

[Trahurn]

183. A Deal Between Whom?

[Dem2theMax]

186. All I can say is

:tinfoilhat:

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[angrydemocrat]

188. OK I'm Lost To But .....

I think what I am getting out of all of this is that there was fraud. which we already know right? Next that not only republicans knew about but some dems did to. But Kerry didn't know. And the dems that did know were some that use to work for clinton.

Now someone tell me am I getting close or am wrong or what?

[angrydemocrat]

189. saracat- this is going to bug the crap out of me till I figure it.....

.... out. So tell me if i'm getting close.

There was fraud (which everyone pretty much already knows)

Republicans were in on the fraud (which we already suspect)

There was also Dems involved but Kerry didn't know

It was someone that was working on Kerry's campaign

The dem had alot more to lose by Kerry winning

This person was involved in a goverment scandel that they are worried that Kerry will uncover especially if he is in the White House

They can'ttake a chance on Kerry even coming close to the White House do to his back ground of bringing down corporate scandal even when it involves someone in his own party as he did with bcci

[ahyums]

195. actually having had another look at this one detail is really important I

think. How certain are you saracat that when the "operative" told you what he did, that he didn't mean to say it, that it was an accident. Did he look shocked or guilty that he said it or did you infer that it was accidental through other means?

[genieroze]

204. ???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:wtf:

[Kellis]

212. This is frightening

I would rather just believe there was no fraud and that the "chosen one" was voted into office by evangelical idiots than to believe this stuff.
If its true then there is no Democracy.There is no America and we are all just pawns in an enormous scam.

[genieroze]

215. Look, I don't care if it was democrats that were involved in this

crap or not. Who ever was involved should be prosecuted. The point is voter fraud...PERIOD. This is an assault on our democracy, and if I have to say Nader was right, then I will. I really don't want to believe that the democrats would allow our civil rights to be stomped on. These Bush people and their REICH WING FASCIST followers have gots to go! I will not live in a theocracy, where the only difference between them and the Taliban is the God they follow. I'm a Christian not a fascist. Christ is a choice and shouldn't be used in this manner. It's disgusting. A real Christian with real morals would see that! I don't know what these snake handling, tongue speaking, apocalypse wanting nut's are but they are not following Christ. Maybe they should stop listening to the Moonies and their brainwashers and pick up a Bible and read it.

[sportndandy]

210. Great Conspiracy Hoax for JFK Anniversary

But I think I will wait for Oliver Stone to make a movie.

[carolinalady]

286. My last thought for the night on this subject was going to be..

Sadly we may never know the truth as in JFK how many years ago.

[barbaraann]

213. What about the Dem voter databases?

I haven't seen any concern about these proprietary databases that the campaigns use to mount the grassroots efforts, although I could have missed it. I believe most of these various databases are in MS Access and cover every precinct in the country. If somehow people who needed to be contacted for GOTV were deleted, mischaracterized, etc. then a serious problem could result.

I keep wondering what the goal of the breakin at the Dem office in Ohio was and there might have been other instances where the GOP could gain access to the Dem voter databases.

Years ago I worked on the Proctor and Gamble database and there were four levels of security and I was working in a secure room at a P&G office--it was like Ft. Knox. The Dem voter databases have nothing approaching that level of security and thousands of volunteers, by necessity, work on them.

[saracat]

214. They did get into our databases. That is a fact

We had websites you could register on to get call lists and request a password to call from home and they(repugs) did it. There was no security. When I asked about it it was fluffed off. I reported the breaches in other states as well, and the Dems were unconcerned. The breach is mentioned in the news somewhere.

[barbaraann]

220. Oh, yes, now I remember that.

Well, gee, if they could corrupt those databases they didn't even need to tamper with the voting machines!!!!!

Please tell me I'm wrong. :scared:

[Helga Scow Stern]

223. Heard the GOTV database MoveOn was using was really bad...

Last night at a house party here in CA, someone who had spent a lot of time calling voters in Ohio before the election said she had to make many, many calls to get a voice. Someone else who volunteered for MoveOn agreed that the GOTV databases were pretty bad.

I don't know. Just what I heard.

[saracat]

227. The rupukes used our database to push poll and presuade.

[Helga Scow Stern]

295. What does that mean?

"push poll and presuade"?

[troubleinwinter]

222. Your original post: "I am hesitant to post this..."

Perhaps you shouldn't have. "The implication was", (according to you?), "Don't draw any conclusions yet."

"an operative" said... What "operative"? This person may be a complete nut, for all any of us can know.

Why not come out and say WTF you're talking about, and quit playing the silly guessing games.

[saracat]

226. Because it is clear what I am saying if you read to comprehend.

I am not going to name names and get either myself or other people in trouble. I am hesitant to post this beacause of some of the reaction I have gotten. I am not a tinfoil hat waering conspiracy hound.And I didn't want to be taken as such. I did not state anything as a truth because I DON'T KNOW. I asked for opinions. And I am using the word "operative" in the political sense. And the person is not a "Nut" . Another reason not to reveal identities. There are people that I know that read this board who would figure out who these people are. Another reason I can't give details . Sorry.

[Lerkfish]

229. well, ok, but this method is wearying in the extreme for anyone else

to make sense of...

going " read between my lines and decipher my big mystery" is aggravating, especially as you appear to be waiting for someone to do just that and then you say "yes, you got it!".

effectively, you're accomplishing the same thing as you would if you had just come out and said it, but in the meantime you're annoying a lot of people trying to puzzle it out.

If your intention is for the information NOT to be told clearly, then coming later and cheerleading those who are is counterproductive.

If your intention is for the data NOT to come from your own lips (keyboard), then coming later and cheeleading those who are getting it defeats that purpose as well.

Either way, there is no apparent advantage to being cagey, after all, if the information comes out anyways and then you verify it. It just seems to be an excercise in pointless frustration, at which you get to laugh while we are all frustrated.

really, what is the point?

[saracat]

231. You know ,actually my original post is very clear.

Some people told me things. I told everyone what they said and asked for opinions on those staements. If you don't think the statements mean anything fine.Don't give one. I didn't play a coded guessing game. I just didn't tell anyone who said what. And I am not going to . You don't need to know who someone is in order to think there might be merit or lack of it in a statement. I have my own opinions and that is all they are, opinions. When someone has the same interpetation of the story, I have agreed with them. So ,what? The point was exactly as I stated. I wanted to know others reactions to these statements. Some people have come to some plausible conclusions that I had not considered.Good for them. I believe that it is only by sharing what information we have that we will be able to come to any conclusion regarding this election. And we can't fix a problem until we know what it is. I am grateful to those posters who responded in the manner asked. I appreciate their feedback. I am sorry you feel wearied in the extreme. Just don't think about it anymore.

[Lerkfish]

256. you're being intellectually dishonest, here, sorry.

when you said "I didn't play a coded guessing game" that's simply untrue. That's exactly what you did. You in fact waited until people guessed what you were trying to say. look back over the thread...
I'm confused how you don't see it that way. I was not the only person who found your method cryptic. Many, many people asked for clarification.

I didn't mean you had to say who told you these things, you simply weren't clear about the content of what they related to you. If it offends you for me to point this out, then I apologize if you feel offended, however I stand by what I said.

to wit: I'm confused why you picked a frustrating method to impart information cryptically if you later intended to confirm that information. It would have been clearer and less irritating to simply and CLEARLY explain the content of the message instead of playing a coded guessing game.

in fact, you admit it in your first post when you say "I hate being obtuse"

[saracat]

327. Repeat of post 326 And many understood and others read into it.

I can't help help that!The content was the content. I couldn't have been clearer.That is what the content was! I tried to clarify in my other threads.

Post 326-

"I hate being obtuse but I don't want anyone to get into trouble."
I was merely protecting the identities of the speakers.


I say the "implication was a deal was struck.
Any opinions?"
I am clearly asking what do other people think?

" if we knew they knew, then we know how they knew it".

If this person , and our Democratic Party "knew" that the Republicans "knew" what the precinct count was going to be, The Dems who also have to have known that A. They Republicans knew in advance what a precinct vote was going to be,and B. The Democrats would have to have known that fact because they were either told or discovered that fact. We can only guess one of those scenario's as to how the Dem's knew. If they knew that the repugs had advance knowledge, I am sure they know how they got it. That is what I am guessing the informant's remark meant. I won't even guess rather this means before or after the election. You can see it anyway you like.

As for my PMing someone, is that is now a sign of being coo coo as well?
I wasn't aware that an indication of either sending or receiving a PM was now a suspect action.

[meganmonkey]

224. Bigger picture than Dems & Repubs

Okay, I have read this entire thread, and there is a very important point that has been made a few times but I think people aren't grasping.

This is bigger than the bipartisan US context that keeps being referenced by many posters. Yes, there are folks from both parties 'involved', but not as members of their parties. The are working for a much more significant and global 'party' than US dems and repubs. This is where it seems to become 'conspiracy theory' to some, who sort of shut off to the rest of it. But if you really want to know who the powers-that-be are, you have to dive into the abyss of the unknown, and recognize that this is a huge and ominous thing. Assuming that what is being implied and drawn out in this thread are accurate.
Check out this link:
http://www.parascope.com/mx/articles/bilderberg.htm

This is a real thing. This is one example of how huge this all is, and who may really be behind it. Read more about the World Bank and the IMF too - good books on these organizations have been mentioned in this thread.
Is this shit a little scary - uh, yeah. But pretending it doesn't exist doesn't help. And remember - we only worked so hard on this election because we knew something huge and scary was happening - trust yourselves. Ignorance is bliss but it's too late. We've taken a bite of the apple.

End of rant. Whew.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

232. So that chapter in Palast's book on the world bank

and the IMF - they want to do that to us here in the states? That's what I'm drawing from this.
A really respectable older gentleman told me last year that our water was going to be privatized soon - and most of us wouldn't be able to afford it.
I have a hard time wrapping my mind around any of this.

[meganmonkey]

233. I haven't actually read Palast's book yet - plan to

but if it's anything like what I do know about the world bank & IMF, well..
It is difficult to know what the ultimate goals of these sorts of powerhouses are. I do think, though, that the US is just another factor in the bigger equation, despite the general US mentality of running the world, or at least fully running ourselves. But a lot of the big players are either US or have common interest with certain people/business in the US. Those things are not necessarily the least bit in line with the common interest of the US people, or the ideal of US democracy.
Think about the budget deficit right now, how indebted we are to the rest of the world financially, and how the dollar is steadily getting weaker. Who owns our debt, and therefore, us? These are things I can't stop thinking about. I am not an expert on this at all - I am sure there are DUers who understand this better than me. I do feel like I have some sense of the big picture.

for the record, I don't know what saracat's original intentions were with this thread, this is just my interpretation of the direction the thread is going.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

239. well what you are saying about the budget deficits is

exactly what Palast's chapter on the world bank and imf is about.

"We saw how the World Bank's secret June 2001 "Country Assistance Strategy" progress report ordered Argentina to pull out of its economic depression by increasing "labor force flexibility." This required cutting works programs, smashing union rules and slicing real wages. Contrast that with Chavez's first act after defeating the coup: announcing a 20 percent increase in the minimum wage. Chavez's protection of the economy by increasing the purchasing power of the lower-paid workers, rather than cutting wages, is anathema to the globalizers.
Chavez moved to renationalize oil and rejected the sale of Venezuela's water systems, while Argentina sold off everything including the kitchen-sink tap. Economist Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic Policy Research calculated that the loss of income from state businesses accounts for 100 percent of Argentina's cavernous fiscal deficit. Argentina followed World Bank and WTO directions and sold off the banks and water companies owned by the state or Argentines to Citibank, Enron, Bank Santander and Vivendi of the United States, Spain and France. These swiftly vacuumed up Argentina's hard currency reserves, setting the stage for the national bankruptcy at the first hint of speculator-driven currency panics. Imagine if Argentina had not sold off its oil companies on the cheap, or impoverished Ecuador had not dropped out of OPEC-they would today be wealthy, not wanting.
Chavez took the path exactly opposite to the guidance given, and ultimately imposed, on Argentina by the World Bank and IMF. To pull out of the downturn threatened by a corporate embargo of investment in his nation, Chavez taxed the oil companies and spent the money-the "bricks and milk" solution, old-style Keynesianism. This is none too revolutionary despite his rhetoric. Chavez is no Fidel-in fact, he's not a socialist of any sort. With Marx discredited as the philosophy of the "losers" of the Cold War, "Chavismo" is as radical as it gets. Chavez is an old-style social democratic reformer: increased investment in housing and infrastructure, control over commodity export prices and land to the landless-an attack on the "landlordism" that Professor Stiglitz places at the heart of world poverty. Had Chavez won office in the time of Jack Kennedy, he would have fit in nicely with the old "Alliance for Progress" development model, JFK's kinder, gentler answer to Communism. Today, Chavez's redistributionist reformism offers an operating, credible alternative to the IMF's corporate-friendly free market nostrums."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Palast_Greg/Sell_Lexus_TBDMCB.html

Excerpts from the chapter titled "Sell the Lexus and Burn the Olive Tree"

Sounds eerily (sp?) like what they are trying to do here. Unfortunately I read this book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" right before the election. I thought we would be safe from this.

[meganmonkey]

243. We won't be safe from this until we stop calling it a 'conspiracy theory'

things this real aren't conspiracy theories. And here at DU, I see most people being open to all these realities in bits and pieces, but when we talk about the big picture the tinfoil remarks come out. We have to face this stuff and realize it IS infiltrating our elections, our interest rates, our gas prices, our food safety laws, everything. Including our national democratic party.

Thank you for posting that excerpt - and you're right, it's way too familiar. And we are adopting "labor force flexibility" quite effectively - isn't Walmart the biggest employer in the US (aside from gov't maybe? I remember reading this somewhere)? And their employees are paid crap, most work part-time or just under 40 hours a week with no benefits, no union, etc. And this is perfectly acceptable to most Americans. This is being manipulated into our economic structure without the obvious, outward desperation and corrupt leaders that most 'third-world' countries have...Um..wait..corrupt leaders? ;)
I really need to read that book.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

249. I agree ...

I thought we were the exception to the rule - but it appears not.
Looks like Chavez is pretty intelligent, despite what our media tell us.
You should check out Joseph Stiglitz - he was the planner behind all of it and defected. Now he speaks out against it.

[meganmonkey]

252. Yeah, I have read about him a bit - good for him

And I agree about Chaves. I don't have TV, so I didn't hear too much of the spin on him. (I don't miss the TV at all)

[ahyums]

250. but the thing it is a conspiracy theory, it's a theory about a conspiracy,

maybe there should be an effort to rehabilitate the term, conspiracies do exist, and to be discovered they need to be theorized upon.

[meganmonkey]

251. I questioned my wording on that, actually, I was thinking the same thing

Isn't a conspiracy defined as 2 or more people doing anything together, or something simple like that?
It is a conspiracy, and a pretty well-established one, and we do need to investigate it and learn its real impact. It is almost completely done (IMF, World Bank, Bilderberg, etc) behind closed doors and with no accountability. That is a conspiracy. And if some of these institutions, or the leaders of them, are threatening our democracy we need to try to expose that.

[jdj]

356. one thing I have noticed is that the people who are most

obnoxious about calling things "conspiracy theories", is that about the only times I see them post are when they are calling things conspiracy theories, or making cracks about tinfoil hats. They just pop up and are gone. But they don't seem to "socialize" much on the board, or banter with people that much. I like to think they are trolls that have their 'puters rigged to beep when someone posts something that is an "open secret" like a previous poster said.

There are a bunch of people who post like this on Bev Harris threads. They are hateful as hell, but I rarely see their posts anywhere else (not people who've been involved in BBV and had conflicts w/it or her, but people who from the get-go have called the whole thing tinfoil lunacy; it's weird these folks never post on any other threads, hardly).

[leanin_green]

268. Did anyone notice. . .

on the current list of attendees to this years festivities, John Kerry wasn't present? He's the kind of guy that causes these types problems. He's been working his whole life to become president(let's not deny that)which is okay with me. He had a goal and set about accomplishing that goal. Swift Boats ala John Kennedy, okay. But he still had to go and perform. He still had to put himself in harm's way. Then he picks a running mate that attended the meeting. Coinsidence? Perhaps, but a very interesting one, I must say.

[meganmonkey]

271. I think that may be what gives Kerry the potential

to be aware of it all yet not part of it. I am very optimistic about Kerry because, frankly, I may as well be. He has done some great things, not the least of which is coming back from Vietnam and protesting the war. And BCCI and the various other investigations he tried to throw into light. Despite all his other connections to the bigger system - education, Yale, S & B, etc I still believe in him. As for Edwards, I don't know. It is interesting that he was invited, but maybe he is seen as a future president, or whatever.
It is important to realize that a lot of the big players in the democratic national party are probably in the thick of this. Many might say the Clintons are. (note: I do not mean to 'bash' anyone here, I am just speculating - I know there are a lot of Clinton fans around).
I am sure there are lots of holes my logic on these posts, but I am jsut typing what I'm thinking, and I am fascinated by this topic.

[Matilda]

270. A quote from Woodrow Wilson's Book "The New Freedom":

"Since I entered politics I have chiefly had men's views confided to
me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the
field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know
that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful,
so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not
speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

Winston Churchill was reported by Lord Denning in his memoirs as
referring to a group he called "The High Cabal" as being the real
power in driving the world into WWII, for their own reasons. He
never said who or what they were, or why they did what they did,
but he appeared to be in no doubt as to their existence or their
power.

From various readings, the group appears to include major banking
and industrial families such as Rockefeller, Morgan, Brown, Harrriman
and Rothschild, the Dutch and British Royal Families, and today the
Saudi Royal Family.

There are those who believe the "Cabal" to be involved in some way
behind all major wars of this century, as well as the assassinations
of JFK, Dag Hammerskjold, Martin Luther King and RFK and who knows
who else.

I don't know, but there's one big question bugging me: why are
the Democratic Party leaders and elected politicians being so quiet
about this election result? The only one to speak up at all is
the usual suspect - the wonderful Dennis Kucinich. There IS
something going on.

[meganmonkey]

273. My response to your question is this:

as saracat alluded to in post #76, this is more than a dem vs. repug issue. It's more than US bipartisan issues. This is international, and there are people in both parties who tow the line of this power, and there are people in both parties who don't. Edwards was at the Bilderberg meeting this year. Does that mean he is into this? Is he seen as a future dem president who will help the agenda? Is that what Clinton was? Some would say yes. Is Kerry? I sure as hell hope not. But I bet a lot of the big players in the national dem party are. I'd like to track down a history of annual Bilderberg guest lists.
on edit: Here are several years worth:(Terry McAulliffe was there in 2002...)

http://www.bilderberg.org/2004.htm

Thank you for posting that excerpt - this is another example of how long-term this whole thing is.

btw, some of the names you listed are on the Bilderberg Group list, too, which began in the early 60's.

[ahyums]

287. Soros attended in 2000

[ahyums]

282. now that's a few steps too far for me, I won't believe that any clique

allowed the holocaust or Stalin's massacres, I simply won't because I don't believe any human being aside those in their thrall in any sort of control could allow that, otherwise we really would be talking about the very manifestations of the devil on earth and I don't believe that.

[Matilda]

289. The "High Cabal", the "Bilderberg Group", the "Power Elite"

all different names for the same group of people, are strongly
anti-communist - obviously, since they come from big-money echelons,
business, banking, manufacturing, so communism would be anathema to
them. Hence the blinkered, knee-jerk reactions we saw in the past
to any left-wing governments that sprang up, and still see today in
the US and amongst the British Establishment. Stalin would have
been right outside their sphere of influence.

As for the holocaust, I imagine that was driven by Hitler's personal
beliefs, but the war itself was certainly driven by organisations
such as Krups in Germany, who made a fortune out of both World Wars,
as did other armaments manufacturers. (As did bankers - look at
Prescott Bush and the fortune he made, and he was just a minor
player).

You can see a parallel with Bush - he's the ideal frontman for an
organisation such as this - an insecure and foolish man who is happy
merely to strut centre stage and reap the perks of his office, but
there's no doubt the main thrust of his agenda is driven by others,
and we know who at least some of them are. But the religious aspect
of the agenda is all his own work, and would be quite immaterial to
the powers behind the scenes who are only interested in the financial
profits and the political control.

[ahyums]

294. 30 year cycle of evil? I've been thinking about this some more

and came up with a pattern which seems to fit disturbingly well. Now it could just be statistical rubbish because I have not seen this mentioned anywhere ever it most probably is just coincidence, but did you ever notice that some of the worst times in this world seem to be separated by intervals of 30 years. The connection started when I was thinking about World Wars one and 2 , the start of which was separated roughly by 30 years, you can take 1910 and 1940 and move up or down from there, around 1970 you had Vietnam, a lot of corrupt governments and dictatorships springing up all over the place, 2000 obviously can be linked to 9/11 and what is still happening now. Going backwards now to 1880 and you end up with a lot of rapid colonial expansion as well as a few colonial wars - that's one link which could break that link, around 1850 you have the Crimean war among other things, 1820, the last years of the Napoleonic wars, 1790 is a big one for me because that coincided with the French revolution and terror and so on. The thing is it does coincide with some major events even if you go way back 1340 - the black death for instance which hit Europe in 1346. Or 1070 for the Normandy invasion of 1066. Now I really doubt there is anything in this and even if there was what would knowing about it be good for? It also misses a few bloody events like the US civil war and others. I did think it was quite interesting though.

[Indiana_Dem]

296. Funny you should mention that--look here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0767900464/qid=1101192976/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9275398-2194323?v=glance&s=books

Here's a book called "The Fourth Turning" by William Strauss and Niel Howe. Actually, I've never read the book but someone recommended it on another forum. It looks at events occuring in cycles over time over history. You might like it.

[Red State Blues]

312. Strauss And Howe

You really should check them out, you can find the basic gist of their generational theory on the web.

[Red State Blues]

304. ???

"I won't believe that any clique allowed the holocaust or Stalin's massacres,"

So it's easier to believe that someone ELSE allowed these things to happen. If someone else was pulling the strings (and I'm not saying they were) you don't think they would be under the thrall of power?

As I see it, the "I don't believe that because it would make me feel bad if it were true argument" isn't valid and helped a lot of people vote for B*.

[ahyums]

309. it's complicated to my mind those years represent the very worst humanity

was capable of, it's partly to do with my own history, my father is a holocaust survivor, having survived the Warsaw ghetto. While I might be open to the possibility that there is some sort of network interested in power concentration or for the largest part the maintenance of the status quo, and even that there was a certain acquiescence towards Hitler and the Nazis (which there clearly was in the early years) it won't stretch to the conclusion that he was being controlled and that these things were allowed to happen, unless I see some evidence of that, to be honest the whole thing seems nothing more than supposition upon supposition and I'm willing to accept a fair bit of supposition as possibility but to that far, reaches my personal limit.

[Red State Blues]

311. I'm still a little confused.

I agree, this was definitely the worst period in modern western history. I'm not trying to push you in one direction or other, I'm just looking at the logic. Clearly the Nazi's had outside financing; the Swiss, as well as accepting large amounts of gold tooth fillings were basically allowed by the world to become Neutral so war criminals would have a place to stash their loot. There is no doubt that Western leaders had a much better idea of what was really going on than they let on. But these things don't really add up to the sort of conspiracy we're discussing, which I don't believe in BTW.

What I don't understand is this bit of logic:

1. No clique of people could do something so despicable and evil as the Holocaust or the Stalin purges.

2. But you have no problem accepting that the cliques surrounding Hitler and Stalin did.

3. What's the diff?

[ahyums]

314. a good question: I think it's because I've studied the period in quite a

bit of detail and as despicable as those acts were I can understand to an extent the though processes that occurred in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, to massively oversimplify Hitler really believed that Jews were some kind of threat to humanity (actually using exactly some of this global elite conspiracy stuff to support it) and Stalin was paranoid power crazed megalomaniac, who unfortunately was granted far too much of that power. I could not see a motivation for anyone who was in some sort of overall control to allow those things to happen. Having said that the whole idea of a global clique is slightly offensive due to the Hitler connotation mentioned above, and I think the existence of such a thing is hugely unlikely, but I am not keen on discounting possibilities generally speaking.

[Red State Blues]

315. OK

I think I've taken that line of questioning about as far as I want to. Thanks for considering and answering my questions.

I would say that of course there are global cliques. The questions are: how many? do we have to fight them any differently than we would fight their local manifestations?

In the case of Hitler: were they trying to actually bring about the Holocaust or were they simply trying to make money by war profiteering and rebuilding for both sides? Is Hitler a sign of the worst of the power of the global elite OR is he a sign that sometimes the things they engineer for a profit spin wildly out of their control, exposing that they aren't as powerful as they would have us believe?

[wrate]

228. This thread sounds like a Sienfeld show!

IMHO you are all riding the democracy bus. Kerry is driving and since he is at the front of the bus, he can see better, so he knows what is the better road to take. Which does not mean that you all cannot be attentive to the window on your side :)

[saracat]

235. Anyone notice that OBAMA has come out of his breakfast with the Pres

and said we should "get over the election"?

[brindis_desala]

236. although it did not surprise me seems to be party line,

it struck me that he like all the other democrats seem suddenly chastened. Something is not right and it bears watching closely.

[MelissaB]

237. What the hell

is going on???

I can understand "laying low", but this behavior from many democrats pisses me off and makes me question even more....what the hell is going on??

[brindis_desala]

238. saracat is trying to tell you

but this is not all that new. Read: "LIBERTY UNDER SEIGE" by Walter Karp but remember we have the truth and the numbers what we need is to build on what we've organized.

[MelissaB]

240. I've spent the entire

day reading and researching. I'm convinced we DON'T live in a democracy!! I'm afraid to say that out loud to anybody. I live in the deep south, and I'm afraid even my family will think I am crazy.

One of the most frightening things I came across today was this interview with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I've posted it in other threads, and I'll post it here. I want to know what people think!!

I'm posting this everywhere I think it is appropriate today.


http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs20041108.htm

Interview with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

snip

Q: Is nothing left of it?
K: All that is gone. And just because of the monumental arrogance and incompetence of this one president. The USA is the most hated nation of the world. 5.5 billion people around the world fear and despise us. That's for me the most bitter pill of the Bush presidency. And Americans have no idea about it, how much they are hated around the world. They just won't get informed.

Q: The free American press withholds such information?
K: The media today are the result of a thirty year old strategy of the American right. In the seventies an unholy alliance was built between the environment destroying industries and the right-wing ideologists. First they created right-wing think-tanks in the shadow of the capitol. Then they overtook the media.

Q: Mr. Kennedy - You exaggerate!
K: You think? I tell you: Right-wing, almost right-wing extremists are controlling all 5000 US TV-stations, the 15,000 radio stations and 80% of our print media. The free press, invented in the USA, is now controlled by a Christian taliban. By right-wing extremist, fundamentalist heretics!

Q: Do you know that the people all over the world see CNN?
K: And do you know that 72% of the Bush-voters still believe that it was Iraq that was behind 9/11? This is the kind of information that will always be distributed by, for example, Fox news. Owned by Rupert Murdoch, this broadcaster distributes such news into US broadcasts. With only the "Los Angeles Times" on the West-coast and the "New York Times" on the East-coast, you can't hold against it. It's just impossible.

Q: And what are the consequences of this situation?
K: You know, I'm at the point of hating radio in the US. In the United States of America today it is like the twenties of the past century in Germany, Italy or Spain. A true brown-shirt attitude takes over. Whoever criticises the government will be branded as unpatriotic. But without a free and critical press the survival of our democracy is very difficult to imagine.

Q: Now you've gone to far!
K: Also in Europe there were the right-wing industrialists who made a pact with fanatical fascists, which until then just existed on the edge of civil society. But with the money of industries... Don't forget - also Hitler was elected democratically - from the people of the most educated nation of the world. And as with Hitler, so also Franco and Mussolini. In the USA we see today a similar pattern. This is pretty scary for those who believe in progress and democracy.

Q: That's strong tobacco - The USA like the pre-nazi Germany!
K: Look at the composition of the cabinet of the Bush government. There are three times more CEOs as in any other previous American government. And they will continue in the levels below of this administration. Everywhere are sitting the lobbyists of the most greedy and destructive industries in the political top-positions.


at the end of the article:

Q: But you are the heir of the president John F. Kennedy and Robert, his minister of justice, your father. Where is your engagement for the American democracy?
K: Of course I fight back. I do nothing else but fight those guys. I don't know yet what I will do in four years. First the dust has to settle down. But whatever happens - the following four years I will be in a direct fight with these guys. And probably a long time after that.




-----------------------------------------------------------------

I think we have a friend. Anybody want to call him up and ask what the hell we do next??

Melissa

[MelissaB]

241. Please, somebody tell me I'm crazy

for believing this!!

[New Earth]

244. uh

Robert Kennedy Jr. died in a plane crash a few years ago.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

245. no he's still alive it was another kennedy n/t

[saracat]

246. JFK Jr.

John John dies with his wife and siter in law self piloting himself to Martha's Vinyard.

[saracat]

247. Bobby Jr. is an eviornmenetal lawyer with a show on AAR

[MelissaB]

248. Saracat,

do you think he would be of any help with anything that is going on? He seems to have "balls" and is willing to speak out.

[saracat]

255. Maybe. He does buck the system a bit.

[Indiana_Dem]

301. He might get killed like most of the rest of his family if he does. nt

[Red State Blues]

305. Bilderberg et al.

MelissaB, this is not a response to you per se. It is to the whole thread, replying to your message seemed as good as any.


Yes, Bilderberg, Tri-Lateral Comission, the Aviary, and many more really, really exist. Don't buy into the hopelessness of it all though; I don't know if that's what they want but it certainly cedes power to them that they might not have otherwise. And you fight them the same way you would fight against injustice even if they didn't exist. Yes there are very powerful people who sometimes work together who's goals do not match your own, didn't we all know that already? I've done quite a bit of research into all this and frankly I wish I'd been reading Chomsky and figuring out the Federal Reserve instead.

Having said that, some thoughts for those who still can't wrap their head around it:

Nixon despised Kissinger, it's well known. Kissinger was definitely a Rockefeller man, Nixon certainly was not. Why was Kissinger the second most powerful man in Nixon's administration?

Ever notice on the MSM they frequently mention "The Council on Foreign Relations". There are TWO well known Council's: one is "The Senate Council on Foreign Relations" and the other is an elite social club/think tank. Why do they almost never distinguish which one they are referring to? Why does a social club have essentially a direct hotline to the media?

John Hinkley Jr., the man who attempted to assasinate Reagan, probably was a crazed "loner" with an unhealthy interest in Jodie Foster but what he definitely was was the son of a wealthy oil man with close ties to the Bush family. Now, this is probably one of histories craziest coincidinces, nothing more. But doesn't it strike you as newsworthy? Can you say "media blackout"?

Reagan had a strong dislike of Bush, Bush had called his economic plan "Voodoo". Yet somehow Bush still wound up on the ticket. Hmmm?

There is a bigger picture out there, it's undeniable. I don't claim to have all the answers. Don't give mysterious forces more credit than they deserve and don't forget to focus on the things you can actually affect.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

[brindis_desala]

242. Fight for the ballot

This won't be won overnight but despite the right wing's disgusting smear campaign without the dirty tricks, supression and mistabulations Kerry would be president elect. The people GET IT but we have to convince the 100 million plus who think its hopeless that it isn't. We are NOT NAZI Germany- for one thing they didn't have the internet. Democracy is not a privilege to be bestowed you have to fight for it. That's what Americans are about to learn. But we're up to it...we're lousy Germans.

[intelle]

254. I have a connection as

my stepson (also an environmental attorney) works with him (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.). Not sure what we want to ask him? What I can do is speak to my stepson over Thanksgiving...but I need to have suggestions from the group about what we need.

:think:

[MelissaB]

258. Outstanding, intelle!

We need to come up with a list of question. Should we start a new thread or do you guys want to do it here? I'm afraid it will be buried.

[intelle]

260. Maybe a new thread would be good!

[MelissaB]

272. I'm not sure how to word it.

Who wants to give this a shot. If nobody does this by tomorrow afternoon, I will. I'll have time to think about the wording while I am at work and DU is blocked from there. :(

[barbaraann]

253. Oh, no.

You posted:
227. The rupukes used our database to push poll and persuade.


THE NIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION WE GOT A ROBO-CALL FROM THE GOP SAYING THAT BUSH WOULD NOT BRING BACK THE DRAFT BUT THAT KERRY WOULD. WE HAVE A DRAFT-AGE SON, WHO IS REGISTERED TO VOTE.

We also got several other miscellaneous GOP robo-calls before the election and we are CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE as Dems.

[Jose Diablo]

259. OK, I think I got it

Kerry and none of the leadership can come-out slugging on the voter fraud thing. This would set them up by Rove and company.

The ones behind the vote fraud are extranational. They have plans to Argentinize the USA.

Seeing how the leadership within this country cannot fight the extranational forces, it is up to us to fight them. Through DU and other grassroot efforts up to and including force if necessary.

Is this the gist of it?

[New Earth]

261. lol

i think you do, except for the 'extranational' part.

[meganmonkey]

265. Saracat implies otherwise up in post #76

"But I would rethink the term"Democrats". and think perhaps a bigger picture. This is more international in scope and it isn't about waht "democrats" gain."

This isn't just about the US political parties. It's not about dems vs repubs or deals being made between dems and repubs. Those acting are not acting as members of political parties.

[Clinton Crusader]

269. Good GOD am I confused!

Try coming into this thread at like 260! lol. I dont know what this means, Ive tried, but I dont get it.

Anyone?

[mirrera]

275. This is the discussion we need

I am finishing Vote Scam by the Collier brothers, read Greg Palast in 2002, and finished Bev Harris's book Black Box Voting. This discussion is what is needed. People have to understand, THEY KNOW. What they are busy doing is managing our perceptions. It is not about Democrats or Republicans, but the elite of the planet. We are running out of oil. It has peaked and the last remaining stores are in unstable parts of the world. I fear we are being "managed for our own good." Voter manipulation has been perfected over 30 years. The unpredictable vote was the only missing piece and now is in place, unless we decide how much it is worth to us. I think as Bev Harris says it is going to take swarms of us at a local level working to follow our votes to their final resting place. Relentlessly! I also wonder if it isn't fitting that so much of this started with the election of JFK which was fixed by the dems, and is exploding here over another JFK. He certainly is the person to fight this, along with Kucinich, Dean,
Badnarik, Cobb,and I hate to admit it, Nader. There are so many voices on our side. Bill Moyer, Arundahti Roy, Robert Kennedy Jr. the list is long, and we have the Net.

[meganmonkey]

278. Well put, mirrera!

And welcome to DU :hi:

[99Pancakes]

284. Yes, started with JFK

and ended with a JFK. Good observation.

[stillcool]

279. Why is it so difficult?

for thinking people, to understand what is being said here. We've zillions of books, articles, along with inconsistencies and bait & switch games bombarded on us for the last 2 years. Though I've tried I have not yet put a dent in my 'to read' list, and there is way too much for me to get my head around, but alot is logical. If you start with Nixon, thats as far back as I can go for now. If you study the players, their goals, (which are never obvious), the consequences, (which are always disputed), the type of discussions we should be having are exactly this. Its obvious to the whole frigging world and yet we have people right here in our midst that need all the dots connected and irrefutable proof. It will never happen. It is not about red and blue, its about world power positioning. The problem I have is that it appears to me that we are a sinking ship, and I'm not really sure who is best able to keep us afloat anymore. I don't have the wits to understand China, Russia, the euro, Peak-oil, etc., and companies like Haliburton, BP, and the Carlyle Group. It certainly appears that our government is bankrupting us for some reason, and maybe thats where the answer lies. Its as if the place is on fire and their trying to grab everything they can while rushing out the door.

[99Pancakes]

285. Wow!!

You said:
"It's as if the place is on fire and they're trying to grab everything they can while rushing out the door."

That is a REAL good point and a great way of saying it. Otherwise, why would a repug be hell bent on putting us so far in debt?

[SoCalDemGrrl]

297. So one of the questions is how are THEY protecting their assets??

After all if they bankrupt the US and most of their assets are here, aren't they shooting themselves in the foot since they have consolidated so much of the U.S. wealth amongst themselves in the last decade or so?

[99Pancakes]

310. Their $$$$$ is everywhere

Isn't the Shrub empire International? Business at the level his family operates at doesn't give any allegiance to any one country. (Yes, I said they "don't give any allegiance to any one country"). Spooky when you're talkin' "He's our freakin' President!" SH---!!!!

[KatieB]

329. U.S. debt is $7 trillion, we borrowed 10% from Japan and only 3% fr China

Just heard this on the radio. Japan has financed 10% of our debt and China only 3%. Japan has no oil of its own and China is consuming oil at tremendous rate. Other countries benefitting from our economic demise? Just look at the Euro - dollar is so weak on the Euro right now $1.00=@1.30Euro.

[KatieB]

331. The The Question to ask is who gains from our economy tanking like this?

Then you can connect the dots. Even a Repub Secretary of Treasurer knows BUsh is driving our economy completely into the ground.

[Zan_of_Texas]

300. still cool - you got it.

You said, "It's as if the place is on fire and they're trying to grab everything they can while rushing out the door."

I believe that is a piece of it. I spent a lot of time researching the collapse of Enron. After that, I said half-jokingly that Bush would do in Washington, to the US, what Ken Lay did to Enron. I never really believed that completely, but I am getting a lot closer to believing it.

The thing about the modern world is, money can be moved in seconds to various countries. Corporations don't really "live" anywhere, they "live" EVERYwhere. Same with the very wealthy -- they can live anywhere they please. They don't need to have a sentimental affection for a particular country, aka patriotism -- it's just something they sell us.

The US became an importer of fossil fuels in the early 1970s, because our production peaked. We are now letting lots of our manufacturing jobs go away. We are personally and nationally in deep debt. The brightest intl students are no longer automatically coming to the US to study -- too much terrorism hassle and too little economic opportunity. So, how exactly will be pull ourselves up economically? We don't have beans to sell, all we have is muscle and weaponry. That's not a recipe for a happy world, or a happy U.S.

[bleever]

298. Anyone else thinking of the movie "Network" right now?

Howard Beale becomes a teller of truth. So they have to reign him in.

Ned Beatty, as a jovial industrialist, is assigned the task, and takes Howard into a giant board room and BANG the lights go off and Beatty delivers a sermon about how nations don't really matter anymore, because the only reality that matters anymore is that of the multinational corporations?

...and ultimately, notwithstanding the best efforts of centralized power, the "reality-based" community prevails?

And face it, reality has a lot going for it.

Like, the "reality" part.

[AmerDem]

307. what a pile of horseshit!

You pass along hearsay and gossip that implicates Clinton in the most unbelievable light and if that weren't enough you talk in riddles and pm others rather than speak openly as if you are holding information that is so critical to national security that countless will be dead.

LSD has been shown to cause flashbacks, how much did you use to take?

[saracat]

322. I am not implicating Clinton in anything. Stop it ! I am not

implying that I know anything other than the identity of some speakers that I don't want to share with you. Are you nuts or what? I asked for opinions on statements that had been made. How often do I have to say I don't know anything?

[AmerDem]

325. now you're asking if i'm nuts?

What follows are your quotes and you have the nerve to ask if i'm nuts? I don't think you're nuts you just sound like you're coo coo for cocoa puffs!


"I heard an operative from a former admin speak recently and it was stated the "the Republican's "knew" what the vote was "going to be" precinct by precinct and we didn't . That is why we lost. I was chilled by that statement. I don't think he intended to admit that. Because if we knew they knew, then we know how they knew it. If that is the case, our own party knows how the election went down. I was also recently told by a diplomat who worked to prevent this war and is a Clintonista, that things are not what they appear with Clinton. This was in response to my displeasure with recent Clinton statements. I hate being obtuse but I don't want anyone to get into trouble. Also look for vote number inflation and the party operatives to place blame on Kerry. He wasn't one of them. The implication was a deal was struck. Any opinions?"


"I was implying that it was said Clinton is not saying what he wants to say but what he has been told he must say." .... :crazy:

" if we knew they knew, then we know how they knew it". ....riddle me this Batman

"I PMed you"....wow what are the other world secrets you are withholding from the general public?:crazy:

[saracat]

326. I do not say anywhere in that post imply I am withholding ANYTHING.

"I hate being obtuse but I don't want anyone to get into trouble."
I was merely protecting the identities of the speakers.


I say the "implication was a deal was struck.
Any opinions?"
I am clearly asking what do other people think?

" if we knew they knew, then we know how they knew it".

If this person , and our Democratic Party "knew" that the Republicans "knew" what the precinct count was going to be, The Dems who also have to have known that A. They Republicans knew in advance what a precinct vote was going to be,and B. The Democrats would have to have known that fact because they were either told or discovered that fact. We can only guess one of those scenario's as to how the Dem's knew. If they knew that the repugs had advance knowledge, I am sure they know how they got it. That is what I am guessing the informant's remark meant. I won't even guess rather this means before or after the election. You can see it anyway you like.

As for my PMing someone, is that is now a sign of being coo coo as well?
I wasn't aware that an indication of either sending or receiving a PM was now a suspect action.

[Duncan]

317. Stop kicking this or edit to clarify please.

Whats with all the PM stuff? Why does this thread keep getting kicked? If you know something, describe it clearly and reference it please.
I'm amazed how many have responded to this. I'm amazed I'm responding to it.

[Razorback_Democrat]

320. Maybe we all know more than we think we do.

Just read through the threads

suspicion, yes

conspiracy theory? maybe

are we at the mercy of corporate interests that know no boundaries?

yes

so maybe it's less of a hush hush thing, and more of just the way things are now

what can we do to take back our country?

[madfloridian]

341. You can always ignore it.

.

[kitp]

318. my two cents

Okay, I am attempting to get my mind around this issue and I have a few thoughts to share.

I have gathered together all of saracat’s postings and replies. I won’t include them all here, they are at my site if you want to look at them. I think I have the statements/replies correctly correlated, please let me know if I do not.

I have some questions regarding the original post. It is difficult to tell what was told to saracat and what are speculations on saracat’s part. Quotation marks are used incorrectly which make it hard to know what is a direct quote and what is not.
Here are the main points saracat has made that I wish to respond to.

I heard an operative from a former admin speak recently and it was stated the "the Republican's "knew" what the vote was "going to be" precinct by precinct and we didn't.

Also look for vote number inflation and the party operatives to place blame on Kerry. He wasn't one of them. The implication was a deal was struck.

Think vote prediction. And Kerry was screwed.

This is more to do with foreknowledge of votes!
and little to do with procecution. If you like a result you are not going to fix it!

(saracat says this is “really close”) Democrats were in this as accomplices. People close to Kerry, unknown to him, were working hard for him to lose the election. They were in on the vote rigging, machine placement, etc. When this all comes out...they are the ones that will be blamed for fixing the machines to make it appear as if the Republicans fixed the machines, and when the shit hits the fan and the indictments roll...they are all going to say "Kerry made me do it".

And BTW, They are blaming Kerry and using that argument everywhere I go. And they are inflating the numbers that Bush won by in order to make it look like it would be ridiculous to have tampered with such an obvious victory


My first comment is that I am unsure of what exactly was said to saracat. If all the speaker said was "the Republican's knew" what the vote was "going to be" precinct by precinct, this is not very much. If this statement came from a DU’er I would assume they were speculating that the Republican’s fixed the vote and did so on a precinct level and therefore the Republicans knew beforehand what the outcome would be. I would not assume that the DU’er saying this was in on the conspiracy. The important point is, did anyone other than the fixer’s know for a fact that the fix was on? I cannot tell from this short quote if that was the intent of the statement.

Vote number inflation – this is speculation. However, it is accepted by most of us that the Republican’s inflated their numbers even in areas they knew they were going to lose in order to get the large popular vote margin.

The implication was that a deal was struck. Who is doing the implying here? If we assume that the speaker meant that we – the Democrats – knew before the election that the fix was on (and we assume that the silence on the part of the Democrats is because they are not going to do or say anything about the fix being on) then we can infer that a deal was struck between the Democrats and Republicans regarding the election. Or could infer that the Democrats are wimps and won’t do anything because the machine arrayed against them would destroy their careers if they did say anything, or so they believe. We could also infer that the Democrats are really Republicans who have infiltrated the Democratic party for just such a purpose.

This, of course, all hinges on assuming the original statement was that the Democrats knew beforehand that the fix was on.
However, that raises the question that if the Democrats knew, how could the speaker say “the Republican's ‘knew’ what the vote was ‘going to be’ precinct by precinct and we didn't . That is why we lost.”? We couldn’t lose because we didn’t know what the vote was going to be if we did know. We seem to be inferring something from the beginning of the speaker’s comments that is contradicted within his comments. Either ‘we’ knew or ‘we’ didn’t know.

Think vote prediction. And Kerry was screwed.
Vote prediction is different than vote inflation. Vote prediction is different that foreknowledge. So, I am thinking about vote prediction. It seems to me that vote prediction, up until early evening of election day, indicated a Kerry victory. If the vote was indeed rigged, and the vote predictions were accurate, then Kerry did indeed get screwed. Screwed by whom, though? Screwed by the Republicans, very likely; by the Democrats, why?
However, I don’t see how this fits in with a deal struck between Democrats and Republicans.

The foreknowledge of votes.
Yes, if you are rigging an election precinct by precinct, you would indeed have foreknowledge of the vote outcome. The next statement though, “If you like a result you are not going to fix it!”, just doesn’t make any sense. Who is the ‘you’ in this statement? It cannot be the fixer’s as they did fix the results. The only inference here is that the word ‘fix’ is used in the sense of correcting the rigging of the election. This implies that the Democrats, who were in on or at least aware of the rigging, liked the outcome of the election and therefore have no desire to correct the rigging.
Further speculation would be that, it’s not really the Democrats (think international) but is a consortium of people in both parties whose goal it is to ‘fake’ elections in the U.S. so that, regardless of outcome, they retain control. Faking the elections, as is indeed done in totalitarian societies, gives the patina of public support to regimes that have none.
So we have a group of people who have control of most, if not all, of the government, control the voting machines and control the MSM. Why then wouldn’t the exit polls have indicated a Bush victory? Why would machines be breaking down and screwing up? Why would they leave paper trails of tampering especially knowing that there were a great many people watching and looking for this? Why wouldn’t you drum up some bogus charge and put Bev Harris in jail and shut down BBV.org?
And, why wouldn’t you let some Democrats win? If the Democrats had gained seats in the Senate but not gotten a majority, it would serve your purposes just as well. Actually, it would serve your purposes better as you would further remove doubts about the outcome. If the Democrats are really part of your group, let them win a bunch of high profile seats and ‘gain’ a little on the Republicans to give the appearance that all of the political activity actually had some effect. You would still be in complete control and could do anything you wanted.

Next, we have the speculation that the Democrats were in on the actual rigging of the election so that when they got caught faking a Republican theft they could blame Kerry. I’m not sure I buy this at all. Why not just have the Democrats attempt to rig the election to favor Kerry? In fact, go all of the way, have the Democrats rig the election and then have the Republicans prove that they did this. It would be much more effective. It would be more the style – totally discredit your opponents accusations of your wrong-doing by making appear that they are the ones doing it. This was the technique used in FL in 2000, Gore is attempting to steal the vote. This is being used in WA today, the Democrats are attempting to steal the vote by hand counting.
If you have this large of a conspiracy, have ‘Democrats’ attempt to fix the election and then catch them at it. Think of the effect that would have on Democrats in general. It would be devastating. It would also put the Republicans in the position of having Saved Democracy from those Liberals who would steal from you your Sacred Right to Vote.
It makes no sense to have the Democrats fake a Republican theft. That’s way too convoluted. If the Democrats were faking a Republican theft – if this is actually the plan – why aren’t these Democrat’s now crying out that the Republicans stole the election? Why aren’t they bringing their (faked) evidence of a Republican theft to the MSM?

“They are blaming Kerry”
Who is blaming Kerry? And what are they blaming him for? What argument is being used everywhere saracat goes?
Has anyone else heard anyone anywhere saying that Kerry was faking a Republican theft of the election?

Are we attempting to say here that the Republicans stole the election using Democrats to do the dirty work so that if it came out that the election was stolen the Republicans could prove that the Democrats did it and the Democrats could then say the Kerry made them steal the election for the Republicans? This is a second tier strategy for protecting themselves should the truth of the theft come out? Inflate the numbers so that even if it comes out that the election was rigged you can say that the Democrats were playing with the numbers in an attempt to make it look like the Republicans did it, and also say that it doesn’t matter because we won by so much the outcome wouldn’t change?

This is remotely possible, very remote. Why not come out now, during the recounts, and accuse the Democrats of tampering? If you have ‘proof’ that the Democrats did indeed rig the outcome, bring it out now and shut down the ‘recount’ operation.

Finally, I have many Dem friends who are just stunned at the election outcome. They are shocked, not because they believe that the election was stolen, but because they believe that there really are 3.3 million more of them than of us. The really believe that the Republicans and their philosophy are more popular than the Democrats. They really believe that it is hopeless, not because the Republican machine is thwarting free elections, but because most people in the country support the Republicans.
In this light, I can understand people like Al Franken and Michael Moore not coming out and screaming ‘theft! theft!’. I can believe that more than I can believe that they are being paid off or are in on the scam.

I will say, though, that the silence of certain other voices is mysterious. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two that come to mind. Actually, Jesse isn’t silent, he’s claiming the President won ‘fair and square’. This is an interesting phrase. He didn’t say that the President won the election and we need to move on, he didn’t say that Bush beat us, he used the phrase ‘fair and square’.
In fact, there have been many Democrats who are being particular in making sure that they say that there was no fraud.

If I were into conspiracy theories (in the proper sense, not meaning ‘loony’) I would rather believe that the Democrats knew the Republicans would try to steal the election and this global silence, actually global open acceptance of the ‘truth’ that the Republicans won ‘fair and square’ and that there was ‘no fraud’, is coming out because behind the scenes they are gathering the evidence of the theft and once they have that evidence, the Republicans are going to be brought down and brought down hard.

Now, I have no proof of this, and I am certainly not going to begin reading the facial gestures of the Kerry sisters to try and get clues that this is going on.

To me, there are three very strange things that have taken place.

1. Kerry conceded very very quickly.

2. None of the Democrats are talking at all about possible errors in the election, in fact, they all are going out of their way to say the exact opposite.

3. The republicans are in the Ukraine screaming about the rigged election and using things like exit polls and polling place intimidation and disenfranchisement as their proof.


I really have no idea what is going on, but I have a strong suspicion that something is going on. I sleep better at night believing that the Democrats are preparing a bombshell to drop on the Republicans. I may be deluding myself, but it is the more palatable scenario.

[saracat]

321. Fine some of what you say is correct and some is not.

I wish people would stop reanalyzing this. I PMed several people and clarified my position. I am tired of explaining. I think my original post is clear.I asked what people thought of the statements I have been told. I wanted reaction and opinion. I got that from some posters. Thank you,
For further clarification "blaming Kerry" means for losing the election, for, in their world, being a lousy candidate. If you paint the candidate as the losing factor there is no reason to count votes. As for the inflation of vote count numbers, it has been inserted in many speeches. This is to make the divide impossible. The range of votes we need in Ohio per Kerry is 50,000. Per others it is 90,000. One number looks a lot more depressing and "why bother" than another. That is what I meant. I agree with your last three statements. I too believe that is the more palatable scenario. But like everyone else , I presume, I don't know.

[mirrera]

328. Saracat, Thank you for being so patient!

I just want to say, I admire how you have kept your cool under attack. It is very brave of you to share something a little creepy and get some feedback. We all have to share stuff, and bunk will have a way of filtering out. Lets not fall for the spin, that we are "conspiracy nuts". What you heard was real, and what we are witnessing is criminal. Conspiracy means a plot, usually illegal. Theory, is just some ideas about how it might have gone down. We are not "The News" thank god, and can actually hash things out this way. I am sure Sherlock and Watson sounded a little far fetched at times. We are definitely on to something, and like some others I find it comforting to think this scam will be broken in my lifetime. Anyone read the book "This perfect Day" by Ira Levin? When the protagonist finally breaks free of the controlled world, you almost at times wonder if he didn't have it better living in the prozaced population. All my Main Stream liberal friends look stunned, depressed, tired, and old. I am allowing myself to feel hopeful because at the least it is better for my health.

[saracat]

335. Thank You. I was getting a little depressed and that means a lot!

[smurfygirl]

330. It wasn't the bilderberg group. It was...

the JASON Society. That's who did it. They do everything. It was all calculated years ago. It's a formula. I understand the original post, but even those in the know, know nothing. That's how the system is designed. You have to beat the formula of the system to understand it. That's all I can say about this thread. I will not elaborate any further. Research the JASON Society and learn for yourself. Thanks for posting this saracat.

[Matilda]

332. One group under different names, or many groups with the same aim.

Who knows, except the people involved? But I defer to people like
Wilson and Churchill, who were in a position to know whether or not
ultimate power rested with them, and both seemed to believe that it
didn't.

We'll very likely never know the answer to that, but what is
important is not just whether this election (and the last) were
fixed, but to what end? I think it looks like more than just the
short-term election of a puppet president who will do his bit for
corporate America and then move on - it really could be the start
of a long-term fix, because we're also looking at the fixing of
Senate elections, a stacked judiciary, and now the subjugation of
bodies such as the CIA and Defence personnel to the political body,
and that is beginning to look quite sinister.

My fear is that if the main person who can make a fight of this,
John Kerry, chooses not to do so, the fix will be well and truly in
for a long time to come. There will be no fair ballots, and no fair
trials, and an even greater erosion of people's liberties, and we
are already seeing how a compliant media is making it so easy for
Bush, it's hard to believe that the major proprietors aren't also
in on it.

And if you're wondering what the hell it has to do with an Aussie -
look at how the media blackout has spread to Australia, to Britain,
and the rest of the world. No mainstream media is discussing this
anywhere - we're hearing all about the Ukraine, but what about the
US? Silence, nothing happening, just move on and forget about it.
I've tried to get stuff out to journalists who are left-wing - not
even a thank you in reply.

We should all be worried.

[saracat]

336. Those are also my fears .Thank you for posting that.

[madfloridian]

338. Hang in there, saracat.

Don't let the attacks get to you. We should all be willing to think outside the box on this. We have to. I have been reading this, but too tired of being attacked to post. I too have been suspicious of the lack of response of our party....and have felt there is more to it than meets the eye.

:hi:

[MelissaB]

343. I agree, too, Madfloridian!

Hang in there, saracat! The silence is frightening.

[Helga Scow Stern]

339. Thankyou, saracat. It takes courage and I for one really appreciate it.

[KoKo]

346. I agree with you Matilda....The Brit Papers/Australia...it seems we are

all being "controlled." I've never understood why Blair supported Bush unless it had something to do with GB being hesitant to join the EU...and we know Howard is Bush Buddy....we also have Italy in the mix..with the forged Niger Documents.

All our media including the Brits who were "hot" before Iraq Invasion are like old Soviet Union "Pravda."

Something is wrong out there...but there are so many "angles" and "connections" to follow it's mind boggling.

[mirrera]

344. Brief History of Election Fraud

Computerized Election Fraud in America: A Brief History

By Victoria Collier
Editor of www.VoteScam.com
October 25, 2003

America's Wake-Up Call

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" --Thomas Jefferson

In the 2000 election, George W. Bush stole the presidency by
combining various forms of vote fraud, not all of which could be
concealed from the American public. The month-long battle in Dade
County ended with open slaughter of the democratic process, and the
occupation of the country by a regime of what may be accurately
described as corporate fascists.

That's the bad news.

The good news is, the 2000 election also marked a turning point in
American consciousness. Or, I might venture to say, an awakening.
Before W's coup, most Americans were, for lack of a better
metaphor, asleep at the wheel. This metaphor works just fine,
because our electoral process is the wheel that guides our nation,
the mechanism that allows us to control the engines of power, and
to turn our country in a new direction if, for instance, weíre
nearing the edge of a cliff.

Nothing is more important to an American citizen than the right to
cast a ballot.

But modern Americans have been abandoning the voting booth in
droves. Over the past fifty years, less than half of all eligible
voters went to the polls, sometimes less than 25%. However, far
more astounding is that those who voted rarely bothered to wonder
if their vote was counted accurately.

A vote cast but not counted is meaningless. The only way to know
that your vote is properly counted is to watch the entire counting
process, which is why election law requires an open, public vote
count, and makes secret ballot counting illegal. However, most
voters have eagerly abdicated the responsibility of overseeing
their vote count to a handful of extremely dubious "experts" and
"officials." Human nature is largely to blame. November election
night in most states is cold -- and often wet. Those who manage to
make their way to the polls after work want only to go home, turn
on the TV, and let their local newscaster tell them who won. And
yet, our natural instinct to curl up on the couch cannot be wholly
to blame. Recent history has shown that the most avid political
junkies -- even candidates themselves -- have demonstrated a
profound disinterest in how the gears and levers work behind the
scene on election night, or who is controlling them.

It should not surprise us that vote fraud has flourished in this
vacuum of electoral vigilance. Criminals of every stripe have
slithered through the unwatched gates and into positions of power
in America. It has not taken them long to corrupt the entire
electoral process itself, securing for themselves the gates of
power. As I write this article, America is on the verge of losing
the last shreds of its democracy, with the rise of ballot-less
computerized voting machines.

One Machine to Rule Them All

Thanks in part to the recent Bush approved Help America Vote Act
(HAVA), squadrons of shiny new Touch Screen Trojan horses are being
rolled into precincts across America. Not, as we are told, to make
voting easier or more accurate, or to help disabled people vote
privately, or to save America from the dangers of hanging chad and
butterfly ballots -- no. The real reason America is being flooded
with billions of dollars worth of paperless computerized voting
machines is so that no one will ever again be able to prove vote
fraud.

These machines are not just unverifiable, they are secretly
programmed (their software is not open to scrutiny by election
officials or computer experts), equipped with modems, accessible by
computer, telephone, and satellite. They are the final product of
decades of work by the election rigging industry. When they are
installed in every precinct in America, our elections will finally
become completely meaningless, nothing more than charades behind
which criminal thugs will wield the power of this nation.

That is the plan for America. But there's a glitch.

The blatant and multi-faceted fraud of the 2000 election -- in
which the ultimate poster boy for corporate corruption stole the
highest seat in the nation -- woke the American people from their
dangerous slumber. The issue of election fraud is now smoldering in
the minds of millions. Of course the Touch Screens were immediately
offered as the solution to all our voting problems, but thanks to
the wonderful work of many new computerized vote fraud researchers,
most notably Bev Harris (author of Black Box Voting), Americans are
quickly recognizing that the ìsolutionî is worse than the problem.

Despite the best propaganda efforts of corrupt voting machine
corporations like Diebold and ES&S, even those with the worst
butterfly ballot jitters are coming to understand that destroying
the ballot altogether, erasing any verifiable record of the vote
count and making a recount impossible, is not the answer to our
problems. And, as the Touch Screen systems continue to openly
malfunction, increasing numbers of voters will begin doubting their
safety and accuracy.

It's becoming clear to Americans that, just like the aftermath of
the Enron scandal, no real government reform is forthcoming in the
area of election security. The news is out that the same company that
was used in Florida to falsely purge voter rolls of thousands of largely
poor, black and Democratic voters is being hired by other states across
the country for the same job (read "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"
by Greg Palast).

As you will soon see, many of our Boards of Elections and Secretaries
of State will continue to blindly defend their collusion with shadowy
corporations, and spending billions of tax-payer dollars on unreliable
machines that patently subvert the democratic process. Why? Because
they have sold out. They have been bought by corporate interests. It
happened a long time ago.

As political events at home and around the world continue to unfold
in one devastating disaster after another, our cry for honest
elections will only grow louder. The movement toward real election
reform, and what will, in the end, amount to a revolution by the
American people, is only just beginning.
We the People are responsible for taking back the control of our
democratic process. No one else will do it for us. We cannot afford
to be naïve, or uneducated, at this time in history. In order to
fully understand the extent of the corruption we are dealing with,
and to avoid making dangerous mistakes based on ignorance, we must
understand the history, and the power structure, behind vote fraud
in America.

Votescam: The Stealing of America

"One of the most mysterious, low-profile, covert, shadowy,
questionable mechanisms of American democracy is the American vote
count."- Votescam

I grew up with two men who spent twenty-five years investigating
vote fraud in America: James and Kenneth Collier, my father and
uncle.

Their book, "Votescam: The Stealing of America" was published in
1992 and immediately banned by the major book chains, which listed
the book as "out of print"and actively worked to prevent its sale.
Votescam chronicles the Collier brother's groundbreaking
investigation into Americaís multi-billion dollar election rigging
industry, and the corporate government and media officials who
control it.

Before the 2000 election, Votescam was widely read (thanks to
independent bookstores and the Internet) by the minority of
Americans still engaged in the political process, mostly members of
independent and third parties trying to break the chokehold of the
two party system. The corporate media will not give their causes or
their candidates adequate press coverage -- if any. This censorship
alone effectively controls the first stages of our political races.
If a candidate canít get T.V. coverage, he or she has little chance
of even making it out the gate. These citizens were not surprised
to learn that the media has been complicit in rigging the final
stages of our elections -- our vote counting and the reporting of
results -- for decades.

Down the Rabbit Hole

The Votescam investigation began in 1970, in --surprise! -- Dade
County, Florida, where Ken ran for Congress (with Jim as his
campaign manager) against Claude Pepper, the ìFather of Social
Security. The Colliers were researching a book they were writing
for Dell Publishing titled: ìRunning Through the System: Ballots
Not Bullets,î an idea born from their involvement in the social
upheaval of the sixties.

Jim and Ken proposed that if our Declaration of Independence,
Constitution and Bill of Rights were indeed the rule of the land,
real change could be made in America by working within the system
-- more effectively, and much more safely, than waging bloody
revolution in the streets. Putting their ideals, love of country,
and political savvy to the test, the Colliers began their
grassroots Congressional campaign -- and discovered exactly why the
bullet, not the ballot, was being used to change the power
structure in America.

Ken was rigged out of the election through a vote scam, which the
Colliers later discovered was used throughout the country for
decades. It went like this: The local newscaster would announce
during the broadcast of election returns that election"computer
has broken down." Instead of giving official returns from the
County courthouse, the networks would be running vote "projections"
for the rest of the night.

Jim and Ken, who had garnered 30 percent of the vote and were
excited about running again, noticed that when the vote totals came
back on the screen after the announcement, they had mysteriously
lost 15 percentage points. They didn't get another vote for the
rest of the night.

This piqued their interest.

When they examined the "official" election results from the
Secretary of State's office for the September primary, October
run-off and November final election in Dade County, the record
listed a total of 141,000 votes cast for the Governors race -- in
each election. The exact same number of total votes were cast for
three elections with a different number of candidates running each
time. The same identical figures were listed for the Senate race --
122,000 votes cast in the primary, run-off and final election.

This, of course, is a statistical impossibility.

When they compared the "official" vote results with a print-out of
the vote ìprojectionsî broadcast by the TV networks on the final
election night, they found that channel 4 had "projected" with near
perfect accuracy the results of 40 races with 250 candidates only 4
minutes after the polls closed. Channel 7 came even closer; at 9:31
pm, they "projected"the final vote total for a race at 96,499
votes. When the Colliers checked the "official" number . . . it was
also 96,499.

"In hockey, they call that a hat trick," the Colliers write. "In
politics, we call it a fix."

The networks then made the astonishing claim that the results from
a single voting machine somewhere in Dade County were run through a
computer program in order to get these vote projections.

Elton Davis was the computer programmer responsible for the magic
formula that could convert one machine's vote results into near
perfect projected vote totals for 40 races and 250 candidates. When
Jim and Ken confronted Davis in his office, he responded: "You'll
never prove it, now get out."

Finally the networks claimed that members of the League of Women
Voters were out in the field on election night, calling in vote
totals to channels 4 and 7.

When the Colliers confronted the head of the League, Joyce
Deiffenderfer, she admitted that there were no LWV members out in
the field that night. She broke down crying, saying "I don't want
to get caught up in this thing."

But there's more.

According to the print-out of the TV network's election night
ìprojections, the networks were not receiving any actual voting
results at any time during their broadcast, but had been using
their own projections from the moment the polls closed. When they
claimed that the courthouse computer had broken down, and they
would no longer be reporting actual vote totals, they were lying.
They had never been reporting actual vote totals.

However, the final shoe dropped months later when an official press
release appeared from Dade data processing chief, Leonard White,
which stated emphatically: The county computer at the courthouse
was never down, and it was never slow.

This was the beginning.

The Collier brothers had slammed their boat into the tip of a giant
iceberg. As they continued to investigate, they were horrified to
discover vote fraud collusion among key individuals in every branch
and on every level of the American political system. Those who were
not benefiting from the fraud were too afraid to fight it. Their
search for justice led to dead-ends. Their lives were threatened,
they were vilified as conspiracy theorists by the mainstream press,
Dell publishing cancelled their book contract . . . and yet they
persevered.

The next quarter century was spent compiling a wealth of FBI
documented evidence proving that elections in the United States
have come under the tight control of a handful of powerful and
corrupt people: Secretaries of State, Election Supervisors, Judges,
owners and editors of the major media outlets, voting equipment
corporations, and assorted key members of the elections
establishment, including the League of Woman Voters. These groups
have assured the dominance of the two party system, unfettered
corporate control over government, and media censorship of issues
most important to the American people, including the cover-up of
vote fraud evidence.

"Now we understand why things have gone so terribly wrong in this
country. It's due to the corrupted vote. It is the stolen vote that
perpetuates corrupt city, state and federal governments. When those
corrupt power brokers in your town weed out that up-and-coming
politician, they are looking for a person who is willing to "play
ball.
"Politics is 'playing ball.'
"Suddenly you find property decisions going against nature; land
and water needed for the perpetuation of life on our earth suddenly
disappear. A handful of developers get richer while the land, and
the quality of life, get poorer." -- Votescam

Jim and Ken both died young during the 90's, as heroes to many
thousands who read their book and heard them speak on the radio and
at political meetings across the country. They helped to guide
individuals and groups working for clean elections in their
communities -- some of them fighting against the first wave of
computerized voting machines.

The Collierís last hope was that Votescam would be used as evidence
in a serious Congressional investigation into election fraud, if we
should ever see the day. Many people still in power have yet to be
held accountable for their role in aiding and abetting vote fraud.
Iíll give you two important examples.

When the famous Miami lawyer Ellis Rubin agreed to be Ombudsman for
the original Votescam evidence, he brought it to the Florida
assistant State Attorney at the time, Janet Reno. The evidence
included the shaved wheels of lever voting machines, forged canvass
sheets (the sheets that poll workers sign to verify the final vote
count), and pre-printed vote tally sheets that were used in
conjunction with a lever machine vote rigging device called the
Printomatic.

Reno refused to prosecute, claiming falsely that the statue of
limitations had run out on the crime. Years later, Rubin would tell
my father that behind closed doors Reno had stated that she could
not prosecute. Why? Because she would bring down many of the most
powerful people in the state.
Would the 2000 election fiasco in Florida have been avoided if Reno
had agreed to do her job thirty years earlier and root out the
vote fraud thieves?

Another notable Votescam criminal can now be found sitting on the
bench of the highest court in the nation. Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia, while still a Federal Appeals Judge, single
handedly destroyed what would have been an historic lawsuit filed
against Justice Department lawyer Craig Donsanto, who had refused
to prosecute the extensive vote fraud evidence brought to him by
the Colliers. The evidence included videotape of the League of
Women voters tampering with ballots in a close door vote "counting"
session.

The women were illegally punching holes in already cast ballots.
When confronted by Jim and Ken, just minutes before the two were
bodily thrown from the building (which they had snuck into), the
women claimed they were only trying to remove . . . the hanging
chad.

Votescam states, "Because the League of Women Voters has about it a
perfume of volunteerism and do-goodism, the fact that it is
actually a political club with a political agenda and a hungry
treasury is shrouded by the false myth that it is a reliable
Election Day watchdog."

It's no surprise to me that the League of Women Voters has recently
come out strongly in favor of the diabolical ballot-less Touch
Screen machines.


And even less shocking was the role Antonin Scalia played so
willingly in the selection of George W. Bush to office.

The Rise of Resistance/ Knowledge is Power

"Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong."
--- Thomas Jefferson

Thanks to the 2000 fiasco, election reform is now growing as a
public battle cry . . . but who is leading the army?

This is a question that every American has the responsibility to
ask.

Various individuals and groups are seeking to guide the reform
process, including politicians, government officials, voting
machine companies, computer experts, activists, and members of the
elections establishment. It is very safe to assume they do not all
mean well. Many have agendas of their own, some obvious, others
hidden.

Many are corrupt, others are ignorant.

And some, who have the very best interests of America at heart, are
in the difficult position of having to make serious and potentially
damaging compromises in their quest for safe elections, in order to
push the issue in Washington.

Before I explore this issue in more depth, I'd like to offer a
brief list of important lessons learned from twenty-five years of
fighting vote fraud in the trenches.

* If there is any conceivable way to tamper with or rig an
election, someone will attempt it. This includes average citizens
as well as officials charged with protecting the process.


* Every voting system is open to tampering, but paper ballots
counted in public are the easiest system to protect and monitor.
(It's estimated that only 2% of Americans still vote on a
hand-counted paper ballot).


* Secret vote counting is illegal. Remember : counting them faster
is not a justification for counting them secretly.


* When machines began to take over our vote counting systems,
election rigging became an exciting new national industry.


* Lever machines were the first to appear, and they were riggable
in a number of ways. One could rig the lever machine itself, or,
much more easily, the electronic scanning machines that counted the
ballots. (See the Votescam video for footage of ballot rigging
under the supervision of both parties and the Dade County Election
Supervisor).


* Computerized voting machines are the easiest to rig. Their
software is not open to public scrutiny, or the scrutiny of
Election Supervisors (rendering their title meaningless). There are
nearly infinite ways to program the machines to count votes
fraudulently. Since they are accessible by modem, they can be
controlled from a remote, centralized location.


* Voting machine companies operate with no federal oversight,
certification process, standards or restrictions. Controlling
members of some of the most powerful voting machine corporations
are convicted criminals, some are politicians with obvious
conflicts of interests, others are not even American citizens. Just
two companies -- Election Systems and Software (ES&S) and Diebold
Voting Systems -- now control about 80% of the vote count in the
U.S.


* Vote fraud on a statewide and national scale is not possible
without the complicity of (among others) corrupt Election
Supervisors, Secretaries of State, Judges, voting machine
corporations, and top officials of the major media outlets.


* Both the Democratic and Republican parties have been complicit in
vote rigging for decades, to their mutual benefit. Vote rigging is
NOT a partisan issue (though recent evidence suggests Republicans
might be gaining the upper hand in the race to control our
elections).


* The corporate major media networks play a vital role in
perpetrating and covering up vote fraud. Media methods of vote
rigging are explored in the Votescam book, including the role of
Voter News Service (VNS). (VNS was a consortium of all the major
media outlets. It recently closed up shop and scurried off into the
shadows, but for decades, under two different corporate names, it
controlled the compilation and dissemination of national vote
totals, with the power to alter the reported results. The networks
have actually not competed for vote totals, as they claim to have
done, since 1965. They got all their numbers from VNS , which
operated behind an iron curtain of secrecy. Any questions regarding
their operation were met with the ubiquitous response: ìThis is not
a proper area of inquiry.î Most people erroneously thought they
were simply a polling organization, though no evidence of their
supposedly massive polling operation could be found by
investigators). See my interview with Bill Headline, former head of
VNS, at http://www.votescam.com/articles.php


* Election Day media polls are untrustworthy at best, and very
likely fabricated to influence voter decisions and to support phony
vote results.

Now that I've provided the minimal context for understanding the
current threats we face, we can begin to talk about strategies to
win back the control of our government.

Not all strategies currently on the table are acceptable. Do not
take anyoneís word on the reform that is needed. Do not cede your
power to government officials and so-called experts any longer.
Educate yourself. It's up to us, the American people, to decide
what strategies to support, and our goal must not fall short of
what will truly restore democracy to this sinking nation.

The Nuts and Bolts of Computerized Voting

The gravest error of judgment these days comes from those vote
reformers who honestly believe that the answer to the butterfly
ballot and hanging chad problems in the 2000 election is to embrace
the ballot-less computerized voting machine.

Let's make this clear. These machines are nothing but Trojan horses
built by and for election thieves. With the ballot-less computer,
there is no way to recount, no way to prove any discrepancy,
inaccuracy or fraud. Just the fact that companies like ES&S,
Diebold, and Sequoia would even make a ballot-less machine should
be cause for a Congressional investigation. (There are also many
other reasons to investigate them. For a detailed examination of
these sinister corporations, check out
www.blackboxvoting.com.)

That said, the next error of judgment comes from those who believe
that all we need to make computerized voting machines safe is a
paper receipt.

Many intelligent, well-intentioned and hard working vote reformers
are supporting HR 2239, proposed by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ),
requiring all computerized voting machines to produce a receipt for
each individual voter. While I support the effort that has gone
into creating this bill, and I recognize the monumental struggle it
will face in Congress, I am unable to support it at this time, for
many reasons. The first of which is that, while calling much needed
attention to the dangers of ballot-less machines, this legislation
does not require actually hand-counting the receipts altogether in
each election.

Why is this a serious problem?

First of all, individual receipts are meaningless. They're worth
nothing if not counted altogether. A personís vote might be
verified by the slip of paper, but that person has no idea whether
the computer accurately tallied her vote along with all the other
votes. The final count still takes place inside the infamous
computerized "black box," beyond the reach of public scrutiny. An
individual receipt in no way guarantees the safety of the final
vote count. It is at best a meaningless gesture that I am deeply
afraid will provide an extremely false sense of security for
voters.

As for recounting disputed elections, the obvious question is,
which ones? Every election is in dispute when counted by a secretly
programmed, modem-equipped computer!

Most of the supporters of this bill agree that the receipts should
be counted across the board in each election, which would be the
equivalent of a good old-fashioned paper ballot count. But so far
there is little incentive to demand that the provision be added
because it wonít get any support in Congress. What does this mean?
Are we interested in actually making our elections safe, accurate
and verifiable, or are we willing to play political ball to the
point where we lose sight of our goal completely?

I am told that perhaps, over time, the legislation will be
strengthened. But history has repeatedly shown that as a bill makes
its way through Washington channels, its effectiveness is more
often than not watered down. Whatever teeth it might have to begin
with get filed into nubs that have no strength to tear into
corruption.

HR 2239 proposes surprise "random" recounts, where a small
percentage of jurisdictions are chosen for verification in each
election. Unfortunately, this is completely inadequate. Individual
machines can be manipulated, and election thieves can buy off the
people in charge of the random recount. Anyone who thinks that is
far fetched or impossible is very new to this issue.

And what if discrepancies are found? Then everyone will call foul ?
rightly so -- a glut of confused and disputed recounts will ensue,
and the entire elections machine will become hopelessly tangled in
its own mechanized parts. Meanwhile every election criminal in the
country will descend like vultures on the chaos.

Folks, let's look at this honestly. We are already deep into a
horrible and expensive mess that could all be avoided by skipping
the computerized middleman and simply counting paper ballots.

Paper Ballots -- A Radical Idea

The last, and to my mind, most grave error of judgment comes from
those who think that returning to a hand-counted paper ballot
system is somehow impossible, that we can't go back to a simple
process that works once weíve stupidly and recklessly abandoned it.

I don't know about you, but that strikes me as an extremely
dangerous perspective.

An MIT/Cal Tech study done in 2001 shows that manually counted
paper ballots are the most accurate system out of the 5 systems
used in the last 4 presidential elections. They are totally
verifiable, and first-world nations across the globe still use
them, including Canada which counted its last election in four hours.
And yet I am told repeatedly by vote
reformers that there is no hope of America ever returning to paper
ballots because too much money has been spent on the machines, and
because the public is being sold on their benefits. My argument is
that the public must be immediately educated on their dangers --
that should be the top priority of every serious vote reformer in
the country.

My argument is that we should stop playing ball with these corrupt
voting machine corporations and the sold-out government officials
who support them.

My argument is that we should remember we're Americans -- we don't
ask for permission to secure our own freedom. We should take these
Trojan horses and burn them in the public square before our whole
damn country crumbles before our eyes!

But all this debate is misleading.
The bottom line is that a computerized vote count is a secret vote
count -- and that's illegal. Technology cannot supercede the
constitutional and mandatory provisions of election law, which
require open and verifiable elections. There is no way to do a
public vote count with computers.

Listen, here's my idea. After the public Touch-Screen bonfire (we
really need more community minded events, donít you think?), we
should march to our Secretary of Stateís office and demand the
restoration of a hand-counted paper ballot system.

Picture it. Millions of citizens marching on the gates of power,
demanding their keys back. It would be a quick, effective,
non-violent, American Revolution. And I think itís long overdue.

The fact is, with a well-designed ballot and see-through boxes (to
prevent stuffing) the paper system can be simple, user-friendly,
and fosters community-based democratic participation. High school
kids, even children, used to count the ballots in America. We must
have a strong, diverse presence of citizen watchdog groups to
oversee the count, along with poll workers. The only election
officials who are truly independent, who represent the interests of
all parties in an election, are the poll watchers. The count must
be done by hand, in public, video-taped, aired live on television,
and the results posted on the precinct wall -- just like they used
to be. Ballots should be counted on the same day as the voting
takes place, making it much more difficult to alter ballots.

But that is not enough to ensure the safety of the election.

Intense, multi-faceted scrutiny and public awareness must surround
every step of the process, not just the activities at the precinct.
Otherwise ballot boxes tend to disappear on the way to the county
courthouse, or arrive with their locks broken. Election ìofficialsî
will be waiting with new locks, to replace the broken ones (ballot
box seals are also made by multiple suppliers, making duplicate
numbered seals easy to obtain).The reported vote totals tend to
change mysteriously when a secret corporate media consortium is in
charge of reporting them. If anyone disputes the numbers, the same
centralized media can assure the charges are never investigated or
reported by the press. Election officials and Secretaries of State
can manipulate or withhold the final election results to prevent
citizens from proving fraud, and rotten Judges can throw out vote
fraud lawsuits.

I promise you, all of this can and will happen -- it has been
happening for decades -- if the public as a whole is asleep and
only a few good men and women are on the watch.

Hand counted paper ballots and eternal vigilance are the only hope
left for us. The corporate fascists are taking over, and we will
never depose them non-violently as long as they control our
elections.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Victoria Collier directs a non-profit organization focused on
building sustainable living systems that work on the personal,
community and global levels.


A long time writer and political activist, she continues to
educate the public on the subject of vote fraud in place of her
father and uncle. She is the editor of www.VoteScam.com


Victoria is available for interviews and can be reached at
1-866-280-9090 and at [e-mail]

[From the south]

345. Having read quite a few of the above posts...

I am starting to get paranoid.... maybe I should lock my doors and windows...

Seriously.... There was a quote about secrets "the only way to keep a secret is if only two people know....and one of them is dead"

To perpetrate a fraud on this scale.... to involve so many people. I just cant buy into it.

[KoKo]

347. What you need to remember is that it's been in place since the "Cold War"

and, yeah...none of us want to believe this...but many of us have seen to much info the past four years not to be alarmed. But, just remember, we've lived with this for decades and we've survived more or less...this is now our opportunity to clean it up...because these folks have finally "OVER-REACHED!" It's time they learned that "Balance" is what keeps our old planet going...and when things get "out of balance" the pendulum swings back to the middle.

[jdj]

357. Read "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler

it's essentially the same kind of system he's talking about, but with votes instead of weapon manufacturers.

[NAO]

349. Was Foreknowledge of the Election Fix Acquired with PROMIS software?

"...the Republican's "knew" what the vote was "going to be" precinct by precinct and we didn't"
"Because if we knew they knew, then we know how they knew it. If that is the case, our own party knows how the election went down."

Was this alleged forknowledge gained by use of modified PROMIS software? The claims of detailed advanced knowledge sound like the claims made of PROMIS or it's modifications.

PROMIS
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/052401_promis.html

[ebayfool]

351. Good catch - has all the players w/the exception of Diebold.

Very interesting piece, it's gonna take some time to wrap my tiny mind around it though. Smarter DU people - take a read here & see what you think. NAO has posted something here that could maybe cast a few more lines of research. Make certain to read the whole piece, it gets more relevant the more you read.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/052401_promis.html

/snip
The essence of those documents was that, not only had the Republicans under Meese exploited the software, but that the Democrats had also seen its potential and moved years earlier. Nowhere was this connection more clearly exposed than in understanding the relationship between three classmates from the U.S. Naval Academy: Jimmy Carter, Stansfield Turner (Carter's CIA director), and billionaire banker and Presidential kingmaker (Carter's Annapolis roommate), Arkansas' Jackson Stephens. The Tyree diagrams laid out in detail how Promis, after improvement with AI, had allegedly been mated with the software of Jackson Stephens' firm Systematics. In the late seventies and early eighties, Systematics handled some 60-70% of all electronic banking transactions in the U.S. The goal, according to the diagrams which laid out (subsequently verified) relationships between Stephens, Worthen Bank, the Lippo Group and the drug/intelligence bank BCCI was to penetrate every banking system in the world. This "cabal" could then use Promis both to predict and to influence the movement of financial markets worldwide. Stephens, truly bipartisan in his approach to profits, has been a lifelong supporter of George Bush and he was, at the same time, the source of the $3 million loan that rescued a faltering Clinton Campaign in early 1992. There is a great photograph of Stephens with a younger George "W" Bush in the excellent BCCI history, False Profits.

[NAO]

352. Just FYI, I found that bit on PROMIS in the book "Crossing the Rubicon"

Which is a MOST remarkable book.

It included that piece on PROMIS, as well as dozens of other pieces from Michael Ruppart's newsletter, "From the Wilderness". Ruppart constructs an astonishing, well documented narrative on the factors and forces that are driving the agenda of the elite multinational powers.

Highly recommended.

Crossing the Rubicon
by Michael Ruppart

[ebayfool]

353. It's going on my Xmas list ...

need to work on my 'edumacation'! Cripes, I wish that I had found this site sooner! The more I read, the more I find out how ignorant I am. However ... I AM smart enough to acknowledge it & seek remedy. Thanks for the eye openers!

[proudbluestater]

358. Gosh, I'm very late to the conversation, but...

will we ever find out the truth? Since you seem to imply that things are not as they seem, will the evidence be brought to light? Must we live under this regime for another four years because the election was stolen again?

Must we all smile happily, then, while CNN and OTHER media outlets scream "FOUL" at the exit polls in the UKRAINE and ignore ours here? Should we just be expected the "grin and bear it" another four years, until which time they steal another election?

Do you have any knowledge of how this turns out? Will the truth win out, perhaps at a later date?

Does the government think we are just going to shut up about this and accept it? I will NOT. EVER.