A MUST SEE.....for Kerry voters!!!!

POSTED BY: Anarko
UPDATED: Friday, January 7, 2005 00:13
VIEWED: 9417
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Saturday, December 18, 2004 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The most accurate map I saw was a cartograph (Expandings areas of large populaiton, shrinking areas of smaller population) by county of the PERCENT of voters who voted one way or another. (If the percentage was near 50% it was purple). What I saw was a whole lot of purple and SOME areas of read and SOME area of blue.

Besides... and I know I'm going to take flak for this- Bush didn't win. I think he stole the election again. There are some pretty compelling statistical irregularities out there in the e-votes in "contested" counties. Unfortunately, since the Diebold machines leave no paper trail, it's extremely difficult to verify the vote. It seems we care more about our ATMs than we do about our vote.

If it makes you feel better to believe this, go right ahead. I'd think that if there was as much evidence of vote fraud as has been claimed on the internet, the Democratic Party or the Kerry campaign would have been all over it. In fact, there was less complaint from them than in the 2000 election. Why?

Many of the "statistical irregularities" I've seen seem to start with the "Bush Cheated" premise and then pick and choose info to support this. They seem more like wishful thinking than objective research.

This is not to say that the voting process couldn't be improved. I spent a good bit of my working life testing software applications, and know how even the best written and tested systems can throw you a curve. Add to that the partisan election boards, voter registration organizations that cater to one party only, and just general dumbness of some folks, and problems are bound to arise.

A solution to these problems is going to take some serious time, money, and thought.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Saturday, December 18, 2004 8:33 PM

"Many of the "statistical irregularities" I've seen seem to start with the "Bush Cheated" premise and then pick and choose info to support this. They seem more like wishful thinking than objective research."
The problem is that the obvious statistical irregularities (Bush gained in count over exit polls in ALL of the contested states) do not seem to be triggering the necessry studies. No one would like to snuff studies more than the Bush admin.

BOJESPHOB

Saturday, December 18, 2004 10:18 PM

I agree with Rue on this. I am not a Bush supporter, neither am I a Kerry supporter, but there were irregularities going for both of them, it's just the ones that helped Bush that are in the news. Why? Cause he won! If he had lost (Like Kerry did), you wouldn't hear about the stuff that helped him out. If you look at ANY election we've had for the last 200 years, you'd find a lot of "irregularities". Know why? Because nobody is perfect (no matter what the Democrats say about Hillary), and errors and problems happen because of it. I almost expected people to say "It rained, which the Republicans used to keep voters from the polls". The only proof people have procured to prove anything has been that we have a flawed election process. Chalk that up to human nature.

CREVANREAVER

Saturday, December 18, 2004 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bojesphob:
If you look at ANY election we've had for the last 200 years, you'd find a lot of "irregularities".

That so true. In fact, the 1960 Election had some irregularities in Illinois. That state went to Kennedy and therefore he won the Electoral College, however it has been investigated and some (but not most) historians believe that Nixon won Illinois and was the legitimate winner of the presidency. They believe that the election was stolen by a Democrat mayor in Cook County who messed with voting machines.

GEEZER

Sunday, December 19, 2004 1:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The problem is that the obvious statistical irregularities (Bush gained in count over exit polls in ALL of the contested states) do not seem to be triggering the necessry studies. No one would like to snuff studies more than the Bush admin.

But if the Democrats or the Kerry campaign thought they'd result in calls for a re-vote, why aren't they doing something? If they believed they had a good chance of overturning the results, why not try? Leads me to believe that they did their own analysis and don't thinK there is enough possible fraud to challenge to do them any good.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CREVANREAVER

Sunday, December 19, 2004 4:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The most accurate map I saw was a cartograph (Expandings areas of large populaiton, shrinking areas of smaller population) by county of the PERCENT of voters who voted one way or another. (If the percentage was near 50% it was purple). What I saw was a whole lot of purple and SOME areas of read and SOME area of blue.

Here is one of those maps that shows a "Purple America."

You gotta admit there is still a lot more red than there is blue!

CREVANREAVER

Sunday, December 19, 2004 4:57 AM

Here is another map similar to the one you wrote about SignyM.

UNICORN

Sunday, December 19, 2004 5:46 AM

I'm having a lot of trouble with the website in the initial post of this thread. Can anybody let me in on the 'Kerry vs. Kerry' thing?

Thanks!

There is no such thing as a weed.

SKYWALKEN

Sunday, December 19, 2004 8:00 AM

It's a few minutes from a radio talk show on November 3, 2004.

This is another link to the same audio.

http://www.peteandrews.net/site/2004/gloat.htm

If you still can't hear that, then respond so I'll tell you exactly what is said in the audio.

SIGNYM

Sunday, December 19, 2004 5:06 PM

CR- Thanks for the link. The map is much clearer on-line than in a smudgy newspaper!

And now... really... 'cause I'm flying out on Monday and will be w/o a 'puter for two whole weeks WHAAAAHHHH!!!.... But I'm taking my FF DVDs with me ....

HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

MAY THE NEW YEAR BRING YOU HOPE AND JOY.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE