In any case, if Kerry had won the EC but unambiguously lost the popular vote, as Bush did in 2000, I would not defend the EC, I would use the results to try to turn conservatives against it.
When I first heard about this, i dismissed it out of hand, the exit polls didn’t impress me much. After all, if I had voted for Bush, I damned sure wouldn’t admit it.
But since then I have seen glimmers of darkness here and there, not enough to convince, but enough to arouse suspicion. Our electoral process is about as sacred an institution as a democracy can have, it is our core principal. I would expect that a party that felt itself besmirched by raving conspiracy loonies would bend every effort to preserve the records and insist strenuously on a full and thorough review. And yet, oddly, this does not seem to be the case.
Gotta wonder why.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
When I first heard about this, i dismissed it out of hand, the exit polls didn’t impress me much. After all, if I had voted for Bush, I damned sure wouldn’t admit it.
But since then I have seen glimmers of darkness here and there, not enough to convince, but enough to arouse suspicion. Our electoral process is about as sacred an institution as a democracy can have, it is our core principal. I would expect that a party that felt itself besmirched by raving conspiracy loonies would bend every effort to preserve the records and insist strenuously on a full and thorough review. And yet, oddly, this does not seem to be the case.
Gotta wonder why.
[/QUOTE]
It’s pretty simple, really: They’re in power, so why should they care?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
In any case, if Kerry had won the EC but unambiguously lost the popular vote, as Bush did in 2000, I would not defend the EC, I would use the results to try to turn conservatives against it.
[/QUOTE]
I was just engaging in some good natured ribbing, BG. I know you don’t like the EC. Guess I should’ve put a smiley there, but I thought the humor content was obvious.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I was just engaging in some good natured ribbing, BG. I know you don’t like the EC. Guess I should’ve put a smiley there, but I thought the humor content was obvious.
[/QUOTE]
I know, I know.
Kerry did so win the popular vote.
I know this isn’t the place for calm, well-reasoned debate, but damn it I like to have something to argue about!
Shodan, if it is true that “Two-thirds of Ohio counties have destroyed or lost their 2004 presidential ballots and related election records” which “violate(s) Ohio law, which states federal election records must be kept for 22 months after Election Day” (quotes from the above-linked OP), do you find that fact concerning? Why or why not? Assuming that these ballots and election records have been destroyed, why do you think they might have been destroyed? Would you agree or disagree that whoever was responsible for their destruction ought to be prosecuted under Ohio’s election law statutes? Why or why not?
I believe in my heart that you’re a smart and principled guy, Shodan. I disagree with you on politics but I don’t hate you. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.
This is virtually the same conspiracy theory/voting machine/Ohio robbery bullshit that was discredited months, or is it years ago now, in several GD threads. Just like last time, it’s complete with cites from questionable sites.
Does the Sore Loser Society never give up?
[QUOTE=Shodan]
These kind of conspiracy theories can’t be argued against. They’re not based on rational thought.
For heaven’s sake, the OP says that this makes no difference. He goes on to say that the records were “essential”, without knowing what they were, that they were destroyed “accidentally”, and then finishes by misrepresenting them as having been destroyed in “contravention of express federal court orders”. Frank has already pointed out that all the senior officials in Ohio are Democrats, which makes the idea of a cover-up more than slightly ludicrous.
The left-wing loonies throw this stuff up there all the time. It never goes anywhere, because there is never any evidence apparent to the reasonable mind.
Of course EC is going to chime in with his usual crap about deep-laid conspiracies and the rest of his shit. It’s all he’s capable of. BrainGlutton is much better off; he can take a joke.
This is not a topic that can be debated reasonably. Therefore, the only chance for amusement is to mock and ridicule the Usual Suspects and their Usual Paranoid Crapola.
“Morons hate it when you call them morons”, I know, but sometimes I like to do it.
[/QUOTE]
High-fives Shodan.
Well said!
As simple a question as you may wish it to be, it isn’t. I am certainly not prepared to declare a guilty verdict, but I am just as certainly not willing to dismiss it out of hand, as I was previously. Since when is it legitimate to pressure AGs to press corruption charges with a timing to sway an election? Since when is it legitimate to hold political briefings for “our” candidates for public employees? If they will do these things, why is impossible to believe they would do others as well? If there some bright ethical line between the reprehensible and the merely repulsive?
Don’t you want to know? Don’t you want every detail to be examined and verified? If it is all found to be stuff and nonsense, splendid! What excellent news, that our worst fears are not realized. Why would you oppose such an investigation, assuming that you are convinced beyond argument that innocent lambs abound?
Unless, of course, you are not quite sure of that… In which case, probably your best tack is to go on the offensive, to suggest that the Dems are merely anxious to besmirch the impeccable honor of the Pubbies. More than they have themselves, I mean. A daunting task, to be sure.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Perhaps the lack of evidence that it is has something to do with it.
Based on what?
It seems the difference is that I do not assume guilt without evidence. The Usual Suspects do, and cling to it well beyond the point where they become laughable.
[/quote]
I hope you will still join me in lamenting the destruction of these records. I’m sure you’re sad that the evidence proving Bush legitimately won is now gone. I’m sure you are outraged every time a vote, even a vote for the opposition, is mistabulated. You just don’t seem to be showing it very well.
[QUOTE=Blalron]
I hope you will still join me in lamenting the destruction of these records. I’m sure you’re sad that the evidence proving Bush legitimately won is now gone. I’m sure you are outraged every time a vote, even a vote for the opposition, is mistabulated. You just don’t seem to be showing it very well.
[/QUOTE]
What I find most distressing is that you aren’t even paying lip service to the notion that something went wrong here. You immediately go into “LA LA LA you can’t prove anything” mode. That’s what’s so fucking infuriating. The proof was there, but then it mysteriously disappeared. Fucking fairies must have taken it in the night.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
It seems the difference is that I do not assume guilt without evidence.
[/QUOTE]
Have things changed since Oct. 2002?
[QUOTE=Shodan]
if we destroy the places where WMD are being produced, we take a good long step toward reducing the danger of terrorists using dirty bombs and so forth, both by eliminating current stockpiles, and by reducing the threat in the future.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Squink]
Have things changed since Oct. 2002?
[/QUOTE]
Not very much - I still think that
That was one of my points - all reasonable minds agree that Bush legitimately won. It isn’t necessary to prove it, again, because those who are susceptible to evidence and logic are already convinced. Evidence has no effect on the Usual Suspects, so whether we keep these things around for twenty two months or twenty two years isn’t going to make any difference.
As I mentioned, I am not outraged simply because the Left tells me I should be. There is no evidence that votes have been mistabulated. That is merely something you are assuming, based on the fact that Bush won the election.
That’s because, as mentioned, there is no evidence that something did go wrong.
Reality is so annoying, isn’t it?
Remember what I said earlier about conspiracy theories, and how lack of evidence is taken as proof? That is exactly what you are doing here.
Based on the evidence to date, not. 22 months was up on September 6, 2006. The statement that this “violates Ohio law” is false.
So as to be in accordance with state law.
Because they are not in violation of Ohio’s election law statutes.
The way to demonstrate that a crime has been committed is to show that the records were destroyed after the court order was received. That would be illegal. Of course, then you need to account for the fact that they retained the records for a period in accordance with state law, and nobody found anything untoward. Then the legal retention period expired, and suddenly they realized that the evidence of some massive conspiracy had been left lying around for public inspection for almost two years.
So for twenty two months, they were both stupid and law-abiding. Then they had a chance to destroy the evidence quite legally, but waited long enough to receive a court order telling them to retain the records. Then they broke the law by destroying the records proving that they were engaged in a huge conspiracy of vote fraud.
So, for twenty two months, they could have eliminated the evidence of this huge fraud (at the cost of breaking the law), but they didn’t do it. Then they had a period during which they could have eliminated the evidence without anyone being able to say Boo about it, but they didn’t do it. Then they got a court order telling them that it was again illegal to destroy the records, and then they did it. If they didn’t care about breaking the law, why did they wait two years to do it? If they did, why didn’t they eliminate the records when they had the chance?
One of the great conspiracies in the history of American elections (supposedly), and it is run by folks who leave the evidence sitting there for twenty two months, miss their chance to make the cover-up perfect, and then shoot themselves in the foot by violating a court order. And these are people who can bring off a conspiracy large enough to steal five million votes in a state which turns out to be the one that puts Bush’s election over the top.
Suuuuuuure it is.
Regards,
Shodan
Why destroy them at all? Are they a health hazard? Do they offer some advantage to the terrorists? You are eager to assure us that they are of no consequence, that all “reasonable minds” are in complete accordance, and that the reasonability of those minds is best demonstrated by that self-same accordance. Hence, we assured that they pose no threat, they could be copied and freely disseminated without any unfortunate effects.
Whether it is done legally, illegally, or with malice aforethought, why do it at all? Clearly, if one is seeking to cover up an unpleaseant reality, one has an obvious motive. But if one is as anxious as you that the truth be known, shouldn’t they be preserved? And yet, oddly, this is not your position.
If I understand correctly, there was a very narrow window of opportunity (eight days) during which destruction of the records was legal. Is there any documentation that supports the assertion that the documents were destroyed within that timeframe?
Would there, in the usual course of things, be documentation that a document destruction event took place?
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
If I understand correctly, there was a very narrow window of opportunity (eight days) during which destruction of the records was legal. Is there any documentation that supports the assertion that the documents were destroyed within that timeframe?
Would there, in the usual course of things, be documentation that a document destruction event took place?
[/QUOTE]
I dunno, but there would definitely be witnesses, and in the elections offices of 56 separate counties – no way are all of them gonna stonewall.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
So as to be in accordance with state law.Because they are not in violation of Ohio’s election law statutes.
[/quote]
Cite that Ohio state law required these ballots to be destroyed?
I should have predicted the inevitable attempt to shift from “prove that this was illegal” to “prove that it wasn’t”.
Change the words “So as to be” to “Because it ws, as far as can be determined to date”.
I do not know, and do not intend to bother with a search to find out, if the destruction of the records was compulsory. That is not the point. The burden of proof lies entirely with you, to show that the destruction of the records was illegal, and that it was done in furtherance of a conspiracy.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
The burden of proof lies entirely with you, to show that the destruction of the records was illegal, and that it was done in furtherance of a conspiracy.
[/QUOTE]
Sooner or later we will find out when the records were destroyed. If it was not within the eight-day window mentioned above, it was illegal, and conspiracy would appear to be the most plausible explanation – have you another?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Sooner or later we will find out when the records were destroyed. If it was not within the eight-day window mentioned above, it was illegal, and conspiracy would appear to be the most plausible explanation – have you another?
[/QUOTE]
This is like arguing with a Kennedy assassination theorist.
If you assume that conspiracies are behind everything, then they seem to appear everywhere. Some people reported hearing more than three shots on the Plaza - what possible explanation could there be for that, other than a conspiracy between the CIA, the Mafia, and LBJ?
Regards,
Shodan