Reps Cheated again Voter fraud just didn't work this time
POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Friday, November 17, 2006 19:55
VIEWED: 9623
PAGE 4 of 7
Quote:YOUR tinfoil hat is about the size of a thimble. And there's room left over. Troll.
My suggestion is, if you make the tin foil hat just a little bit bigger than you think it should be, then your aura will more freely interactivate with your bio-waves. Might help with the pounding headaches, too. And oh yeah, there is life after college.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza:
Quote:HUH? The acceptable voting and tabulating procedures, policy, the distribution of voting machines, the availability of voter registration materials and voter rolls etc. are determined by the Secretary of STATE, not some local commissioner.
The electoral districts in question are for the most part run by democrats!
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza,
I thought you were talking about bloggers filing lawsuits when you said this "(are there) no groups in the left wing blogosphere ...?". Remembering that bloggers blog b/c they are by far poorer than the people who own and run corporate media.
Be that as it may - it comes down to lack of evidence. Until an investigation is done, nothing can happen. There can be no criminal charges or civil lawsuits.
----------------------------------------
Let's take Ohio as an example of a potential civil suit. You'd have to have people in say Cleveland file the lawsuit, b/c to have standing you have to have damages. In other words, Soros couldn't come in and file a lawsuit on his own. So somehow the people in Cleveland would have to get a hold of Soros and prevail on him to dish out the cash - a LOT of it.
Because, in order to have evidence of damages, you'd have to fund a ballot study at $50M plus dollars (that was the cost of the limited study a newspaper consortium did on the 'real' 2000 Florida vote.) For that to happen, you'd (probably) have to sue for access to voter registration rolls, emails and other electronic records, original vote tallies etc.
This is no small matter. By the time it was over, the multiple layers of lawsuits and lawyers fees alone could cost roughly $100M plus. Then add to that the cost of actually doing the study.
So Soros would have to agree to bankroll a civil lawsuit to the tune of roughly $150M. Now maybe you think he or Kennedy are rich enough to not miss that much money. I somehow don't think they are.
----------------------
Congress OTOH has the ability to compel evidence.
---------------------
What I don't get is why you would be against the idea of Congressional investigations into electoral fraud? If there was none, then it reassures the voting public. OTOH if there was massive fraud (as shown by the statistics) then it should be cleaned up.
Don't you agree?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh my God!
It's truly insurmountable! We'll never be able to get to the truth! Whoa is me! Chicken Little is right, the sky is falling and there isn't enough money in the world to fix it! (being seriously sarcastic here)
What are you talking about? $150million dollars simply to determine if one individual was denied their right to vote? You are telling me that there is not one individual in a country with a populace of 300million who can come forward with a credible story about being denied their right to vote that can be proven in a court of law without spending $150million? I'll go with Occam's Razor on this one, if you can't produce such a person, then the more likely explaination is that they do not exist. If you would rather believe in some all emcompassing conspiracy theory instigated by right wing conservatives and lead by the Republican party, then by all means have a nut! Don't expect me to waste my time worrying over it, however. I'm done with this line of arguement.
I'd be happy to discuss possible election reform, but not becasue I believe in wacko conspiracies, but because I truly believe we could do better as a nation, and share some of your concerns about the process currently in place.
BTW, I don't have a problem with investigations at all. As I said earlier, when you shine an intense light on an issue it is always a good thing. If you are under the false impression that congressional investigations are particularly effective then I'd have to disagree. They are generally a lot of hot wind and political grandstanding. I prefer a local investigation of a credible plaintiff, even one in a distict dominated by Democrats would be fine with me. Why isn't there one currently ongoing? I'll ask again, could it be that democrats have just as much stake in the current electoral process as republicans? Could it be that Hero was correct to point out that election fraud is systemic and not party specific? These are better reasons in my view for looking more closely at our electoral processes.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza,
"$150million dollars simply to determine if one individual was denied their right to vote?"
If all you are looking to do is win an individual lawsuit it wouldn't take much. You'd have to assign some nominal value for damages (for rights violations the Supreme Court sets the value at $1.00 - that's right, one 1 dollar.) And if that individual won their suit they'd get - $1.00.
However, if you are looking to investigate the election process through a civil lawsuit, which is what I presume you're angling for - after all, we ARE talking about MASSIVE electoral fraud, right? - you'd have to file a class action lawsuit. And that's what would run into $150M. Because you'd have to show an intentional pattern.
Please don't tell me you're stupid enough to make these kinds of bogus arguments, along with a heavy dollop of personal attacks.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
HUH? The acceptable voting and tabulating procedures, policy, the distribution of voting machines, the availability of voter registration materials and voter rolls etc. are determined by the Secretary of STATE, not some local commissioner.
Yep, like the ones around here that win by 18,111 votes, every election.
Weird, innit ?
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meanwhile, Hero is very quiet.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Razza,
"$150million dollars simply to determine if one individual was denied their right to vote?"
If all you are looking to do is win an individual lawsuit it wouldn't take much. You'd have to assign some nominal value for damages (for rights violations the Supreme Court sets the value at $1.00 - that's right, one 1 dollar.) And if that individual won their suit they'd get - $1.00.
However, if you are looking to investigate the election process through a civil lawsuit, which is what I presume you're angling for - after all, we ARE talking about MASSIVE electoral fraud, right? - you'd have to file a class action lawsuit. And that's what would run into $150M. Because you'd have to show an intentional pattern.
Please don't tell me you're stupid enough to make these kinds of bogus arguments, along with a heavy dollop of personal attacks.
Let's forget a civil lawsuit, how about a criminal one? Election fraud is currently illegal, so why aren't there any such cases in the courts? A campaign of "massive" fraud should produce at least one credible criminal investigation, why hasn't it?
What personal attacks? Didn't take you long to start your ad-hominem attack defense I see. Can't be focusing on the basic point afterall.
Must distract the arguement away from the possible line of reasoning that election fraud was bipartisan and thus neither party is interested in actually investigating it, resulting in the complete lack of any court action. Both parties use it as a get out the vote tactic afterall. Democrats to motivate folks by saying they will be denied it, and Republicans use it convince their folks to counterbalance all the dead people that vote. Can't you at least agree that both parties are guilty of it? Or you blind to the possibility?
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza- I seem to recall you starting with "Chicken Little". Before you start calling ad hominem make sure you're not guilty of the same thing.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza - these are quotes from your posts. Please explain to me how they are part of the topic.
--------------------------------------
"Wow, I thought conservatives were supposed to be the wacko conpiracy theorists."
"Oh my God!
It's truly insurmountable! We'll never be able to get to the truth! Whoa is me! Chicken Little is right, the sky is falling and there isn't enough money in the world to fix it! (being seriously sarcastic here)"
And then you wrote this -
"What personal attacks? Didn't take you long to start your ad-hominem attack defense I see ..."
Indeed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME