Skip to main content

View Diary: Harpers Magazine cover story: "How to Rig an Election" (68 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  re: not even discussed... (0+ / 0-)
    The most depressing part of the article is how the subject of election counting integrity is not even discussed, by either the press or progressive politicians.
    Well I've suffered through years of being called a CT, but I haven't given up waiting for the discussion. So a couple years ago I asked a Poli Sci Prof. at my college why we weren't looking at this- in fact we were looking away from it deliberately. This professor was a person who specialized in election demographics. That's why I asked him the question. He said that he 'hadn't heard' about election irregularities (yeah, right) but I had him pinned in his office and continued dumping on him all of the known evidence and encouraged him to watch Hacking Democracy, which amazingly enough was actually running on HBO. At that point he admitted that perhaps there had been problems...So I asked him directly, then why aren't YOU out there saying something about it? He said, and I quote, "I'm an 'academic.' I don't have to." He was basically scared shitless that America would descend into some kind of chaotic madness if we were to look ourselves in the mirror on this issue.

    Meanwhile, lotsa people remember "Don't Taze Me, Bro!"
    But do they remember that the reason he was carried out of there?
    [according to wiki the student: "entered into a planned line of questioning and was escorted away from the microphone."] And I'm sure that it was "a planned line of questioning," because he put Kerry on the spot by getting him to admit that he had read Armed Madhouse. Good for you Andrew Meyer.

    •  Problems yes, but conspiracy? Ehh, probably not. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nuclear winter solstice

      Part of the problem with conspiracy theories is that all that can be demonstrated is anomalous information exists.  The idea that the evidence can fit together in some sinister way is just hinted at.  Exactly how it all fits together with specific details and a clear timeline is left out.  Because that's where the idea breaks down.

      I've never seen either of those sources you talk about, but I wonder, what would the motive of John Kerry possibly be to have people like this dissociated from his campaign?  Is he trying to prevent election fraud evidence from going mainstream, or is he trying to not be associated with a conspiracy theory?

      I know which one I'd believe.

      (P.S. I know I'm implying you're a CT, but that implication is unintended.  There's just no way to respond to the thing you've said without the implication.  Remember, it is usually better to assume incompetence instead of malice.)

      •  Sure thing. Now the "source" that Kerry did NOT (0+ / 0-)

        want to discuss in public refers back to the irregularities in a campaign in which Kerry conceded his "loss" in less than 24 hours after election day. On Nov. 3rd,

        "I would not give up this fight if there was a chance we would prevail," he told supporters in Boston.
        snip- (link)
        With Ohio, Mr Bush now has 274 Electoral College votes, four more than needed for victory. Mr Kerry has 252 votes.

        US President George W Bush watching the results with his family, including former President George H Bush
        Mr Bush has a stronger mandate than in 2000
        Results are still awaited in New Mexico and Iowa but they cannot affect the outcome.

        The delay in declaring Ohio a win for Mr Bush came about because the Democrats said there were a substantial number of uncounted absentee and provisional ballots that could still have clinched it for Mr Kerry.

        But in his concession speech, Mr Kerry said it was clear that there were not enough outstanding votes to win Ohio.

        He said it was vital that every vote must count and be counted, but the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal process.

        my emphasis- yeah, right, Kerry. Thanks fer nothin'.

        Meanwhile, my house in NH had been inundated with Massachusetts Kerry campaigners. I told them each that I would invite them in and listen to them if they could first tell me what was BCCI, and what did Kerry know about it. He had the perfect time and way to educate all his young supporters about who did what evil things back in the day. Instead, the former Freshman Senator with balls dropped them big time. Not a one of them had ever heard of it. Only a couple of his supporters looked troubled and said they would check it out.
        So apparently, at less than 24 hours for that decision, it requires more time, testing, and accountability to abort a baby in this country than to abort a whole election process.

        Please pardon the harshness of my comparison, but how many more people died [of Bush admin wars] due to Kerry's "decision"?

        •  The Supreme Court decision in 2000 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nuclear winter solstice

          was more to blame IMO.

          I don't think Kerry won in 2004, dirty though the election was.  And I have yet to read a non-self-contradictory case that he did.

          •  interesting. but Kerry sure didn't give any of us (0+ / 0-)

            any time to find out for sure. I will never buy the push to have a president- any president - immediately from a bunch of lawyers who know perfectly well the value of stalling or expediting towards their goal.

            •  Yeah, I wasn't happy with Kerry's early concession (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nuclear winter solstice

              either, given the prima facie evidence of those appalling lines to vote in Ohio urban precincts, especially of black voters.

              He should have stuck up for his black supporters, as a matter of principle, whatever the cost to his amour propre as a "sore loser".  It wasn't about him, it was about democracy.

              Thank goodness for John Conyers, and the people who forced a debate as the electors cast their votes.

              IMO, it was a very great shame that the focus shifted to fancy electronic fraud, for which there was little evidence, to widespread disenfranchisement that disproportionately affected Kerry's voters, for which there was plenty.


              •  I suggest you read the Harper's article. (0+ / 0-)

                Ohio vote tally was even more fradulent than reported.

                Voting machines are controlled by various companies owned/managed by a few very ideological Republicans, all of whom are in bed with each other.

                A closed mind believes the future and the present will be the same, attempting to counteract an underlying fear that the future will be worse than the present, which inhibits the tendency to question at all. (Paraphrasing "A Course in Miracles.")

                by ceebee7 on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:52:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Read the Harper's article. You may change (0+ / 0-)

            your thinking.

            A closed mind believes the future and the present will be the same, attempting to counteract an underlying fear that the future will be worse than the present, which inhibits the tendency to question at all. (Paraphrasing "A Course in Miracles.")

            by ceebee7 on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:47:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Can't find it online (0+ / 0-)

              Tell me what argument and/or evidence presented in it that persuades you that more voters cast votes for Kerry in 2004 than cast votes for Bush.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (55)
  • 2016 (43)
  • Environment (38)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Elections (34)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Climate Change (22)
  • Education (22)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Media (21)
  • GOP (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Affordable Care Act (18)
  • Texas (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site