Don’t mistake frustration and institutional helplessness for lack of concern. Meanwhile, it would be interesting to see you attempt a reply to your own question: “[W]hat’s to stop it from being done again, and again?” For that matter, it would be interesting to see you address the question “Does it even matter as long as my guys win?”
Shodan, note carefully that the word “again” was contributed here by your colleague, above. You seem to overlooked that in yet another attempt to leave a bag of shit on the doorstep, ring the doorbell, and run away giggling. Now do you have an actual contribution to make here?
Right, but not just noncitizens voting. It would be people voting who had no legal right to (legal disenfranchisment, nonresidents, voting in multiple jurisdictions, and fictional persons). And the goal would be to increase the number of provisional ballots, both to increase the chance that the ballots are counted improperly and to stoke the flames of disenfranchisement rhetoric if the votes are properly rejected.
It’s not a means to ensure an election everyone can live with, only a means to ramp up a permanent sense of anger.
If you believe that provisional ballots won’t ever be abused in this way, please note the case of the Washington gubernatorial election, where provisional ballots were mixed in with regular ones and then counted. The number that were treated in this manner far exceeds the official margin of victory.
Think that was a little inflaming?
I don’t mistake frustration and institutional helplessness for lack of concern. Apart from hard-core, I-read-Commondreams.org-in-the-shower type lefties, I’m confident that what I see in the general public is lack of concern, NOT frustration and institutional helplessness. I contend, of course, that the lack of concern is perfectly justified in that there is no compelling evidence that the election was stolen. Since I believe there is no problem, I am ill-equipped to answer the “What’s to stop it from happening again?” question. Indeed, I posed it because it seems that IF I believed the election was stolen, I’d be hard-pressed to find a way to stop it, given the general public’s contrary opinion.
Of course it matters. I’d rather have a President Pelosi or President Moore, elected legitimately, than a President Hannnity installed illegally.
Assuming the SDMB is still around, I expect to see a thread similar to this one in 2008. I also expect to see one in 2012, 2016, 2020…
Chicken, meet egg.
You’re claiming it’s a which-came-first-chicken-or-egg scenario – that is, I don’t believe the election was stolen, and therefore I’m not concerned about it, so, therefore, I won’t support changes to the way future elections are handled, and, therefore, another election will be stolen. Right?
No.
The proponent of an idea must offer the evidence for the idea. Before you get me (and, I might speculate, the vast majority of America) on board, you need to supply the convincing evidence. Note that I say convincing evidence, to distinguish it from Commondreams.org circle-jerks. Without that evidence, no outrage, and no support for changing the way things are done.
I’m pretty sure ElvisL1ves meant that without paper records there IS no evidence. This is, of course, not true…you don’t need paper to be able to verify the records, as the few discrepencies found point out. However, its fairly standard conspiracy theory fair to point to the lack of solid evidence as the most compelling reason something sinsister happened.
I’ve yet to see anything non-hysterical that was convincing evidence that a large scale subversion of the voting process took place ‘stealing’ the election for GW. Mostly its of the variety shown in this thread, i.e. implied dark mutterings about Diebold (or other Republican ‘controlled’ automatic voting machines), voter disenfranchisment, threats, etc.
All the various fraud charges or other evidence that various shady dealing took place (and I’ve seen them on BOTH sides of the isle btw) were pretty small potatoes and had no real impact on the election. If such evidence exists that there was a massive and wide scale subversion of the election, I’d be willing to go through it and perhaps change my stance…but thus far I’ve seen nothing even remotely convincing.
Bottom line is this: Just like with the folks who maintained that Iraq had WMD and were made to prove this was the case (which they couldn’t in the end), the onus is on the ‘Election 2004 was stolen…’ crowd to prove their case…or back down. Otherwise you are no better than those folks still claiming that WMD will still be found any day…
-XT
Of course I agree with this statement, but leave it to you to make it really, really hard for me to do so. 
And yet you guys were firmly in the “Get over it” camp in 2000. Go figure.
That’s what I meant, but your assertion that you don’t need evidence in order to have evidence is senseless.
You’re all demanding that the evidence be found, with the case proven to your satisfaction, *before * doing an investigation. Um, no, it doesn’t quite work that way, amigos.
You mean in contrast to the Usual Suspects and their “Yes, the election was stolen, and no, I am never going to come up with any evidence beyond speculation, accusation, and character assasination”?
No, not particularly.
YMMV. If you can show any evidence, mine might too.
Regards,
Shodan
::tears his own hair out:: If they had any evidence, they would be in court right now, and I wish they were!
::Calms down:: It occurse to me that I am let the claim that there is no evidence go unchalenged. I should not. I will now investigate the sites put down, for my own.
The irony. Oh the irony.
Let me reveal it real quick.
However, its fairly standard conspiracy theory fair to point to the lack of solid evidence as the most compelling reason something sinsister happened.
I’ve yet to see anything non-hysterical that was convincing evidence that large scale production of banned weapons took place ‘stockpiling’ WMD for Hussein. Mostly its of the variety shown in this thread, i.e. implied dark mutterings about Saddam (or other Regime ‘controlled’ factories), terrorist links, threats, etc.
Ironically, one was good enough to start killing thousands of people over, and the other won’t even fire up an investigation.
Enjoy,
Steven
Did you take a look at BrainGlutton’s link? http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/ma...upted_election/
It doesn’t fit the description you give above.
-FrL-
The “Count Every Vote Act” was actually a political masterstroke for the Democrats. First by the noise of creating it, it perpetuates the fiction that there is rampant voter intimidation, administrative incompetence, etc.
If the act passes, it will be easier to get around all those troublesome laws designed to prevent voter fraud and make it easier to turn out questionable voters at the polls. “Hello homeless person. SIgn right here. Now take this candy bar and go inside. Yes…right there. Now…look for the big (D) and pull that lever”.
If it fails, it will be presented as more evidence of an evil election-stealing Republican conspiracy.
How? That already happens, and I believe it is on the republican side, largely. Furthermore, if it does count every vote, what’s the problem? I wish legitmate posters could use !?
Exactly…I’ve seen no evidence for WMD either. Agreed completely. Why this is ironic to you I’m unsure of.
I’ve seen this link and others in other threads about this Frylock. I find it no more compelling now than then. Perhaps you’d like to list out what you think is the most compelling case that some kind of massive organized fraud took place stealing the election for GW and then we can debate those. Perhaps you can find some more, er, mainstream, sources as well…something with a bit more credibility.
-XT
Two similar situations, two radically different reactions. Having many of the same individuals who defend extreme action in one situation be so blase about proposals for even moderate action about the other.
Enjoy,
Steven
Sigh, the reaction *is * exactly the same, but it’s not derived from facts.
Bush is The Leader, don’tcha know?
Good point.