patrick.net

ChrisLA says

did you forget the voter fraud allegations when Bush beat Al Gore?

There was no fraud allegations. There was a serious mechanical reliability problem that favored the wealthier counties, which had optical scanners, compared to the poorer counties, which had unreliable punch machines that produced many spoiled ballots that would have been legally valid with further manual review of voter intent.

The Gore team just wanted some ballots where voter intent was clearly evident -- Florida's legal standard -- to be counted. The Bush team fought this to the Fl Supreme Court and lost, but the SCOTUS decided 7-2 that it would be unfair to Bush if all the votes Gore wanted to recount were actually recounted to determine voter intent.

Later on it was determined that if the SCOTUS had let the Gore recount go on he would have still lost Fl. Gore needed a statewide manual analysis of voter intent to get those 500-odd votes he needed.

Basically it came down to counting partial punches as votes if other votes on the ballot were similar, and also finding multiple votes on optical ballots that still had clear voter intent for one candidate.

"Out of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted statewide, the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore."

HousingWatcher says

Also, I do think Pat Buchanan stole enough votes from Gore to to allow Bush to win.

Due to the confusing "butterfly" ballot design with its sketchy graphic design, yes:

But the real main thing was the 97,488 idiot Nader voters. I would hope we could find 547 of them who wished they could have their vote back.

marcus says

These guys seem slimy to me, please decide for yourself (that is those of you are honest with yourselves, and have integrity)

They hope to prevent poor folk who would vote from voting in recall election if they don’t have a drivers license.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_5aa8adfa-7845-11e0-82be-001cc4c03286.html

And it suggests that that the political duopoly in Wisconsin isn't yet in a conspiracy against the public.

marcus says

They admit that the anti union push is about winning elections. Unbelievable.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/09/scott-fitzgerald-obama/

It would be unbelievable if the public sector unions had been attacked if they had supported both parties.

HousingWatcher says

Why is it that allegations of voter fraud only seem to arise when Democrats win?

I think the 1960 election put a burr under the Republican saddle. Vote fraud in Illinois and Texas may have given the Presidency to Kennedy rather than Nixon.

The Justice department under Reagan took a particular interest in the 1982 elections in Chicago.

"On December 14, 1984, Chief Judge Frank Mc­Garr of the U.S. District Court for the Northern Dis­trict of Illinois publicly released the federal grand jury's report on the 1982 election-only the third time in the history of the court that a grand jury report had been made public.[15] The evidence re­vealed substantial vote fraud in Chicago during the November 2, 1982, election and found "that similar fraudulent activities have occurred prior to 1982."[16]

"What particularly struck FBI agent Ernest Locker was how routine vote fraud was for the pre­cinct captains, election judges, poll watchers, and political party workers he interviewed. They had been taught how to steal votes (and elections) by their predecessors, who had in turn been taught by their predecessors. Based on his investigation, Locker came to believe the claims, hotly debated among historians, that Mayor Daley threw the 1960 presidential election for John Kennedy with massive ballot stuffing in Chicago.[17] This type of voter fraud, stated Locker, "was an accepted way of life in Chicago."[18]"

Oddly enough, the defeated Democratic candidate for Governor was suing for a recount, claiming voter fraud in Republican areas.

Republicans are often accused of voter intimidation. Again, there's a history:

"Most damaging were the charges that in the early '60s Rehnquist intimidated black and Hispanic voters at polling places in Phoenix, where he was then a local Republican activist, by questioning their ability to read."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962033,00.html#ixzz1MOw0Lhto

Oops. Left out a link for the vote fraud story:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/where-theres-smoke-theres-fire-100000-stolen-votes-in-chicago

What was it in Minnesota with the Al Frankin election. He won by a few hundred votes?

I am sure that voter fraud played no role in Al Frankin winning that election.

HousingWatcher says

Didn’t Barack Obama use to work for A.C.O.R.N?”
No, he represented them in court as an attorney. He represented them in a lawsuit with other plaintiffs, such as the US Dept. of Justice and the League of Women Voters, in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois.

Housing watcher, Just representing A.C.O.R.N. in court was not the full extent of Obama's links with that scandalous organization. I just looked it up, but Obama was on the board of several other organizations that had links to A.C.O.R.N and extensively funded A.C.O.R.N.

Troy says

But the real main thing was the 97,488 idiot Nader voters. I would hope we could find 547 of them who wished they could have their vote back.

DO you people even know what a VOTE even is, or what it represents?

You know it's not 97,488 Nader Voters that voted wrong, it's more like the millions of Demotards, that thought for one single moment that a monumental Douche like Kerry could ever the President of those 97,488 Voters that not only said, "FUCK NO!" but voted accordingly. It was those Democrat Voters that were on the wrong side of History. Because "History", when the history books are written Bush will be dead.

And just so you know, I feel like my vote mattered, Nader lost but just knowing it tears you up that I didn't vote Douche Kerry, I'll take it. You dumb sonoba bitch, you guys don't get it, no Nader, no Voting for 100% of us Nader voters. We would have stayed home on that fateful day. Bush still wins.

Now are you for one god damn minute trying to impose the we, "Us Nader Voters" should have Voted for Kerry?

Well now you're just Full of your self, as most Democrats are.

Tot, do you try to sound the way you do? Troy was talking about 2000, where it's known with certainty that Bush would have lost without Nader in the race. Nader didn't matter in 2004. But Diebold's machines might have.

Voting for a third party candidate is obviously everyone's right. It's also your right to think that Gore would have been no worse than Bush. Nobody is saying anybody should have done anything. But for some of us, it's not hard to know that the world would be a very different place now if Gore had won in 2000.

Tenouncetrout says

DO you people even know what a VOTE even is, or what it represents?

People are perfectly free to vote for who they want, but people also have a responsibility of making sure their vote comports with the overall result of the election they want.

We saw this up in Canada, where the left vote was split in dozens of districts, allowing the conservative to win, in some cases with less than 40% of the vote. That's just dumb.

We also saw this in California's recent attorney general election, where the radical Democrat won over the conservative Republican by only 75,000 votes, and there were over 400,000 voters who chose the libertarian and some other nutjob. That was idiotic, but I'm just glad it broke for Kamala Harris this time, since she seems like a great person and may be the next Obama some day.

Now are you for one god damn minute trying to impose the we, “Us Nader Voters” should have Voted for Kerry?

I'm sure plenty of Nader voters like you prefer Bush to Kerry. That's idiotic, but you have the right to be an idiot. That's what democracy is all about, idiots cancelling their votes out:

"Madison had thought that the greatest safeguard against the tyranny of the majority was the large number of sects and divergences of interests and opinions that divided people in ways that made it virtually impossible for coalitions to form stable majorities."

http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/majorityrule.htm

What I was getting at was there was certainly 547 Nader voters who preferred Gore over Bush but were too stupid to vote strategically in a state where every vote for Gore was needed.

There was also no doubt 547 Buchanan voters in Palm Beach county who thought they were voting for Gore but were too stupid to mark at the arrow, and another 547 Gore supporters who were too lazy to get out and vote in 2000, so Nader voters in 2000 do not hold the monopoly on stupidity.

marcus says

where it’s known with certainty that Bush would have lost without Nader in the race.

That's where you are wrong, again, even in 2000, my vote would have stayed home.
With no Nader in the race, us Nader voters don't automatically convert over to a Gore or Kerry vote.
The Odd part is, up until 2000 I always considered my self Liberal. Just because the DNC puts a Shitbird in a suit out there, doesn't mean I'll blindly just follow that carpet bagger.
I liked Nader over Gore and over Kerry period, party had nothing to do with it.
The constant whining and moaning from the Liberal constituency has made realize what a party of self inflated ass bags Democrats really are.

Sooner or latter we'll all need Nader.

Ooh ooh, no I can do better...

Ralph Nader is not a substitute word for Al Gore, or John Kerry.

I like Nader too -- he's the only candidate who had Georgist land value taxation in his 2004 platform (!) -- but I also know that splitting the vote is self-defeating. You've got to vote your head not your heart in the general.

Just ask the Canadian Left who get to have another 4 years of Harper misrule despite being 60% of the vote (a "landslide turnout" when that happens here), or the ~200,000 radical right twits who voted for Diane Beall Templin for Attorney General instead of the conservative Republican who shared 90% of their policy preferences.

Now, if you honestly think Bush winning in 2000 was better than Gore, for whatever reason, then you are a lesser idiot than a Nader voter who wishes he could change their 2000 vote. But still an idiot, because George Bush and the various policies his administration effected just utterly destroyed this country.

News Flash Harpo!

Obama could have been elected in 2000 and again in 2004 and I say history follows the exact same path. Just as History is following the GWB curve of policy Post Bush.
The actual anointed GOP and DNC candidates are merely the manikins for the corporations and their minion lobbyists. The only way to break the Cycle of bad American policy of Corporate serving policy is to vote outside of the box. Anyone other than the actual GOP or DNC candidates is better than BUSH. See how this works? Bush = Kerry = Gore = Obama = Huckabee = McCain = Clinton = Regan = A huge bag of Money.

Naders and the like is the only way to break this cycle. And just one Liberal chastising voters for voting outside of this broken mold does far more damage and has greater ramifications than all of the Nader voters combined.

How in the hell can we clean house, if your just going to bitch at every one with the broom, mop and bucket?

Tenouncetrout says

the constant whining and moaning from the Liberal constituency has made realize what a party of self inflated ass bags Democrats really are.

It's all relative. What I hear you saying, is that you used to be a liberal, but now you see democrats as no worse (or worse in some ways) than republicans. We all know, going back much further than 2000 that the system is corrupt and broken, dependent far too much on the money it takes to run, with lobbyists and the concern for winning the next election etc.. Nobody is denying that politicians are almost all "assbags" as you say.

If and when you hear me voicing a liberal viewpoint on taxes or war or the environment, or on protection of the middle class, or on more focus on what matters and less focus on non-issues like gay marriage or gun rights (a legit issue - but there is no slippery slope challenge), it's about what I want democrats to be, not what they are.

We know where republicans stand on all these issues, and that they think somehow they have a mandate for their social issues and for further benefit to the super rich and the corporations.

It's about the relative differences. I too am extremely disappointed with many democrats, including Obama.

WE all understand the point of a protest vote. It is certainly a legitmate point of view. But Troy's point is valid too.
Troy says

What I was getting at was there was certainly 547 Nader voters who preferred Gore over Bush but were too stupid to vote strategically in a state where every vote for Gore was needed.

Yes Gore would have been a corporate tool too. But Gore is not = to Bush. That's what the disagreement comes down to. You say they are the same. Tell that the families of hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq (I'm not even saying whether it was right or wrong, or worth it or not - only that it's it's pretty hard to argue that it's no different).

Tenouncetrout says

How in the hell can we clean house, if your just going to bitch at every one with the broom, mop and bucket?

the way I see it, we have defective politicians because we have defective voters. Take a look up in Wisconsin -- the topic of this thread -- where the voters booted out Feingold and replaced him with some Republican teaparty cock who got rich making medical devices that Medicare patients used.

The Republican smeared Feingold for the Democratic move to start defunding Medicare Part C -- Medicare Advantage, something created by Republicans back in the 1990s that was an industry boondoggle just like their Medicare Part D, so they booted the Dem that would save Medicare as single-payer and put in a guy who would turn it into a voucher program if not worse.

"Cleaning house" means changing the mindsets of voters so they don't fall for this shit.

I don't think it's really possible.

We go to Iraq with or with out Bush.

If BP's actions in the last 2 years doesn't prove who's in charge, then nothing does.

Pollute the Gulf,
Cry Poor mouth,
Cost of Oil Production rises(supposedly)
Oil Comps post record Profits.

And we're still going after Oil countries for minor offenses, while we give resource poor countries a pass on humanities greatest atrocities. And you do remember who is president now right?

Tenouncetrout says

We go to Iraq with or with out Bush.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But the morons Bush sent to Baghdad -- Paul Bremer and all the Heritage Foundation interns etc. -- were the bigger mistake. The Marines were building election booths in 2003 for local elections when the brass in Baghdad told them things weren't going to go that way.

And you do remember who is president now right?

This nation is split 40-40-20. The president has very very little power and very little runroom to be liberal these days. The current occupant has to win Virginia, or Colorado, Iowa, NH, MN, PA, NV, WI, NM, and NJ.

40% of this country hates Obama, hates liberals, and wants a return to the 19th century. It's not our politicians that are the problem, it is the people.

Troy says

where the voters booted out Feingold and replaced him with some Republican teaparty cock who got rich making medical devices that Medicare patients used.

Well that proves my point, the Tea Party was trying to break the mold, to get away from the two parties.
It was the Democrats that villainized them, as racist monsters, because it just might have been possible they could have gained momentum, giving other options to the voters. I'm sure there were backroom Bipartisan meetings in Washington on how they could squash the movement and render them ineffective.
Liberals will hit the teaparty with a smear barrage assault, with doctored photoshop pics on the internet, or just random racist people and say they were from a teaparty rally.
While the Republicans will infiltrate the teaparty and marginalize them as the Republican status quo.
At this point I think Liberals will deserve every bit of collateral damage they may have created by meddling with party making process.

Tea party is synonymous with racists and anyone that disagrees with the Liberal educated elite.

Much like the tone of chastising Nader voters for the Democrat party's failings, people don't like it when condescending pricks try to make them yield to their bidding with skulduggery.

Tenouncetrout says

We go to Iraq with or with out Bush.

So you are saying that you know that Gore was beholden to the oil companies and the neocons in exactly the same way Bush was?

You are familiar with the neoconservatives right ? Cheney was a charter member.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

So all the raicst Tea Party signs were photoshopped? Come on now.

HousingWatcher says

So all the raicst Tea Party signs were photoshopped? Come on now.

Yes, and somehow even if the republicans can benefit by the racist vote (via the tea party) lets deny that racism exists or that racists if they do exist might be attracted to the group that is showing some pretty strong hatred toward Obama. Also let's hold that racists don't convince themselves that they aren't racist, and they don't ever have political opinions outside of their denied racism.

So TOT when you abandoned your liberal views, did you by any chance also coincidentally become an evangelical Christian? Did you find Jesus?

No I found Bejesus,

as in "The Democrats annoy the Bejesus out of me!"

Tenouncetrout says

the Tea Party was trying to break the mold, to get away from the two parties.

a ha ahaaha aha hah ahaha. Not after it was coopted by DeMint, Palin, etc. The Tea Party is just the GOP extremist vote in drag. They were the Birchers in the 1950s and the Goldwaterites in the the 1960s.

The racists in the Tea PArty are not racists because they all have "black friends" and they have a great relationship with "the blacks."

To imply that the Tea Party is somehow independent of the 2 parties is laughable. Look at the special election in NY. There is a Democrat, a Republican, and a 3rd party Tea PArty candidate? Who is the Tea Party endorsing? The Republican. It's also common knowledge that many Tea PArty heads are Republican operatives, such as Mark Meckler, the head of the Tea PArty Patriots:

Tea party strategist a longtime GOP operative

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/mobile/?type=story&id=2011426936

Aside from the racist thing, which is really neither here nor there, the Tea Party is also like the Perot vote in 1992.

Clinton: 44,909,806
Bush: 39,104,550
Perot: 19,743,821

Democrats thank you, Perot voters! Clinton wouldn't have taken California if 2 out 3 Perot voters had held their nose and voted for Bush.

HousingWatcher says

So all the raicst Tea Party signs were photoshopped? Come on now.

You are very bigoted and don't even realize it. Just because a few racist types showed up at the tea party rally does not mean every tea partier is a bigot. The fact that you generalize people into groups and think all tea party members are racist says a lot about your character.

There are plenty of racists out there and they are in every party.

Yo Chris. It's clear that nobody said that all tea party members are racists, nobody even said or implied that most are.

But I think someone suggested that no Tea Party members are racist (i.e. photoshopped racist signs).

ChrisLA says

You are very bigoted

ChrisLA says

The fact that you generalize people into groups and think all tea party members are racist says a lot about your character.

HW referred to "the racists in the Tea Party," which only implies that there are racists in the Tea Party, nothing more.

I know you aren't even embarrassed, and are unlikely to apologize. What does that say about you?

marcus says

Yo Chris. It’s clear that nobody said that all tea party members are racists, nobody even said or implied that most are.

But I think someone suggested that no Tea Party members are racist (i.e. photoshopped racist signs).

You're "double talking out your ass" style Kungfu is no match for my "Bullshit proof" Kungfu style.

Remember grasshopper, all things do not fit into either back or white. There exists an in between which the relativists refer to as "grey."

marcus says

Remember grasshopper, all things do not fit into either back or white. There exists an in between which the relativists refer to as “grey.”

you are still double talking.

ok, your right Chris. Not all tea partiers are racist. Just 52%:

"Fifty-two percent believe too much has been made of the problems facing black people."

"But one in four believe the administration favors blacks over whites, an opinion shared by just 11 percent of Americans overall and seven percent of non-Tea Party whites."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html#ixzz1MX0fQqrn

And only 1% of the Tea Party is black.

Hahahahaha!

I remember when the left staged rediculous signs at tea party rallies or said racists things, carefully videotaped themselves as "right wingers", and then posted them on blogs as evidence of stupid, racist people in the tea party.

Boo hoo! Life is so unfair when it's fair.

In the meantime, good luck with getting "poor" people (illegals) to be able to conduct voter fraud. If only the left could admit that they don't mind illegals driving down wages because it means them being able to win more elections.

Tee hee, kiss this Party benefit goodbye, Comrades!

Those commies at the rally are Republican plants meant to discredit unions. IN fact, I don't think the sign says "Fight for Communism." Sarah Palin personally Photoshopped it onto the sign to discredit the unions.

PolishKnight says

If only the left could admit that they don’t mind illegals driving down wages because it means them being able to win more elections.

Hmmm. Or it could be that the right can't admit they don't mind illegals driving down wages because it's more profits for the CEOs...