View Story | 21 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Large-scale conspiracy fraud allegations regarding 2004, before it was cool to be dismissive of large-scale conspiracy fraud allegations regarding 2004.
But I'm interested to know what you or (I would) say, if ever confronted with proof we'd accept of decisive fraud. (Because of course no rational person claims no fraud occurs in national elections, however local, indecisive, and for that matter bipartisan.) Name your standard: 55 peer-reviewed journals; reportage on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News; whatever.
by NewDirection on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:02:40 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
but at least something which clearly and convincingly layed out the case, with convincing evidence (either testimony or some type of observational evidence).
Mad Wombat
by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:08:13 PM PDT
And what then?
by NewDirection on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:15:14 PM PDT
then one has a leg to stand on when accusing them of fraud. I'd be the first one to say that no relief is possible as far as past elections (and is one of the criticisms I have towards people who scream 2004 fraud at any little possible indication).
Of course, what would end up ultimately happening would be forming the electoral system, and one doesn't need to prove fraud to have a good argument for that anyway.
by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:12:39 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 21 comments