It would be a defeatist position to ignore Diebold this election

[Bjorn Against]

It seems like there have been many threads accusing those who worry about Diebold of being defeatists. I believe this position is misguided, and if we were to follow that advice and ignore Diebold it would very likely cost us some key races.

Diebold is not going to go away if we ignore them, nor will any of the other Republican voting machine manufacturers. Let me be clear, the Republicans will steal some seats this year. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. It is up to us to expose them when they do so.

There are two crucial things that we must do. First, we need to educate people about what is going on. Second, and most importantly we need to get out and vote in massive numbers. The Republicans think they can get by with anything, and it is very likely that they will attempt to steal a race in which it was very obvious that the Democratic candidate was the real winner. When this happens, it will be much easier to make a case for election fraud.

As soon as we can prove fraud and overturn just one election result all of a sudden we are no longer labeled "conspiracy theorists" anymore. All of a sudden we have many new allies on our side, and we will get more investigations going. Once this happens their whole house of cards will topple over, and we will see people going to prison.

So please get out and vote, our democracy depends on a high turnout this year. And be prepared, because after election day Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Landshark and Bradblog are all going to need your support. This is the year we take Diebold down and send Republicans to prison for election fraud. Get ready for a big battle, this election is truly our chance to take America back.

[babylonsister]

1. Who's ignoring possible theft? Most of us are aware that

elections have been stolen and it could happen again.
My gripe is that I hate seeing defeatists here who assume it's all over when it hasn't even happened yet.

[slackmaster]

3. Let me tell you my personal gripe

I have a problem with those who attribute all losses to unproven allegations of high-tech theft at the expense of looking inward to see why our party has failed to produce candidates and a platform that are sufficiently superior to the opposition to give us a solid edge.

[BeFree]

13. Aha!

You think Dems are losers!

...."our party has failed to produce candidates and a platform that are sufficiently superior to the opposition....

See, we differ, I think Dems really won the last election and you think we really, honestly lost. Now who is the real defeatist?

[slackmaster]

21. No, that's obviously not what I wrote

See, we differ, I think Dems really won the last election and you think we really, honestly lost. Now who is the real defeatist?

Neither of us. My viewpoint suggests honest self-examination as a solution. Yours suggests looking for hard evidence of electronic monkey business. These are not mutually exclusive propositions. Both are valid ways of looking at the situation. I happen to think mine is more likely to result in success in the future.

[BeFree]

25. Shit, man

I quoted you.

Then I asked you a question which you ducked.

The way I see it, either you think, as you wrote, that we were beat by a superior candidate and campaign, or it was stolen. Easy. Why duck? Is it because you can't honestly debate?

[slackmaster]

46. My statement meant that our candidates haven't been superior enough

To win by a margin sufficiently large to avoid the tedious cycle of unproven claims of stolen elections every two years.

[Bjorn Against]

4. I am not going to accuse specific DUers, but I can assure you I have seen it

Lately there have been a large handful of posters, and I am not going to call them out individually because that would be in violation of DU rules but I can assure you they are here. Probably some of them will show up to comment on this thread shortly.

Many of them may be trolls, just as many of the people you are referring to may be trolls. I don't want people to become complacent however and buy into the notion that it is best to ignore Diebold and focus only on the campaign. Yes campaigning is very important, but ignoring reality is not the best way to go about campaigning.

[babylonsister]

8. My point is we're aware, and that might thwart some

problems, but regardless of what happens, we aren't equipped to deal with discrepancies at this late date.
I don't think Diebold et al will be ignored, but how do we ever know the true votes cast?

[Bjorn Against]

14. We probably can't stop it before the election, but we may expose it afterwards

You are right, it is probably much too late to make the changes we need to make to ensure this election is not vulnerable. What we need to do is to get out and vote to ensure the election could not be close, and then we will be able to get more people asking questions when they do steal it.

We can probably never prove the full extent of the fraud, but if we can prove just some of it we may be able to get a wide reaching investigation going.

[babylonsister]

42. I'm late for this part of this thread, but

I totally agree with you! That's why I'm going to be pollwatching. After I volunteered, I got a bit annoyed with myself because I'd miss all the hoopla on DU and the tube, but I hope once the polls close in TX, I can at least get on DU.
And though I can't do anything to effect the outcome should I see anything shifty while poll watching, I can call lawyers. At least someone watching might discourage people from any untoward actions.
I'm also calling people to try to GOTV. This area is saturated and I think people are tired of hearing it, but it's only going to get worse/better.

[BeFree]

5. Gripe?

You have a gripe?

Take it up with someone who you think is being defeatist, don't bring your gripes into a real thread with a real argument.

And who is ignoring possible theft? Only about 90% of Duers, that's who. Stupidity. I guess they think Dems are actually losers? While we who deal in reality think the Dems are winners.

Quite opposites, don't you think?
What do you think? Are the Dems losers?

[babylonsister]

20. Get off your high horse, I suggested nothing of the kind.

The OP mentioned defeatist and Diebold in the same sentence, and I was responding to that.
I also mentioned no one was ignoring theft, and don't agree with your 90%.

[BeFree]

23. Just answer the question

Do you think Dems are really the losers?

[babylonsister]

26. You don't know me at all if you think I think Dems are losers.

I wouldn't even be here if I thought that.

[BeFree]

29. Just answer the question

Why continue to duck it?

Again: Do you think that Kerry honestly lost the 2004 presidential election?

See, my problem is that people don't think. They go along with the idea that Dems were honestly beaten, and that is just plain idiotic. It was stolen.

[babylonsister]

31. What the hell are you talking about and where did Kerry come from?

This thread was about Diebold.:shrug: Who's not thinking now.
And you might want to lighten up on calling Dems out. Just sayin'. :eyes:

[BeFree]

32. Yes, Kerry came from the last election

And he ran one hell of a campaign, and against all odds won the majority of the votes. Well, against all odds but the diebolds, and that's the one that made most of yall think Dems lost.

Or do you think the Dems actually won?

[babylonsister]

34. Yes, in my heart and mind, I absolutely think Senator Kerry actually

won. Is that what you wanted to hear?
I'm a major Kerry supporter and know mistakes were made, but I honestly think he was rooked because of Diebold.

[BeFree]

36. Thank you.

It is what I wanted to hear.

Now lets get people off their asses and out to vote, eh?

[babylonsister]

37. We went all through that for 'that'? You should have just asked.

I try to be gentle (sometimes) when responding to posts, but I have my opinions.

[BeFree]

43. Opinions are great

But reading the post you are responding too is a nicety that is often found lacking here.

Kerry won, and I will never forget.

[slackmaster]

2. Who is saying we should ignore Diebold?

As soon as we can prove fraud and overturn just one election result all of a sudden we are no longer labeled "conspiracy theorists"...

Best of luck to you in your quest, my friend. I do hope you are open to the possibility that there hasn't actually been any election theft via criminal manipulation of electronic voting machines, but I applaud those who point out the POTENTIAL avenues of fraud that may have been created by their introduction into the mix. We still have plenty of problems with dead people being registered, people registering under assumed names in multiple precincts, and old-fashioned ballot box stuffing.

[Bjorn Against]

9. Something about Al Gore getting negative 2000 votes in a Florida precinct...

really makes me believe very strongly that there has been theft through electronic voting machine fraud. We all know the machines can be hacked, it has been proven multiple times over. So no I am not open to the possibility that there is no electronic voting machine fraud. I am convinced well beyond any reasonable doubt.

[slackmaster]

19. Sorry to learn that you don't have an open mind

How unfortunate for you.

I am convinced well beyond any reasonable doubt.

Propelled beyond reason into the real of faith.

[Bjorn Against]

22. So explain to me with your "open mind"...

a rational explanation for Gore getting negative 2000 votes in one Florida precinct.

This should be interesting.

[slackmaster]

45. I would help if you pointed me to a verifiable source for your claim

Of "negative 2000 votes" as being an official, certified result for a precinct in Florida.

[Bjorn Against]

49. Here you go

"DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."

- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

Sorry I said 2,000, when the correct number is 16,000. Certainly does not harm my case though.

[slackmaster]

50. Once upon a time there was erroneous information posted on a Web site

Based on a flawed count of some ballots.

The count and the Web site both got corrected.

Certainly does not harm my case though.

No, because you don't have anything resembling a "case".

[Bjorn Against]

51. So you admit there was a flawed count...

maybe that count did get corrected, but how many flawed counts did not get corrected?

I suppose you were perfectly fine with the sleepovers of voting machines in the Busby/Bilbray race, and those recent studies from Stanford that show us just how easy the machines are to hack don't bother you one bit.

There are hundreds of threads of DU and many articles elsewhere about voting machine fraud, I have researched this issue thoroughly. Don't tell me I don't have a case because I have barely even begun stating my case. It seems arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall though, you were the one who said in post three that you thought the Republicans were winning because they were producing superior candidates. You are not worth my time.

On edit: I must add when you suggest they were just numbers posted on a website you grossly misrepresent the facts. Those were not just numbers on a website, THEY WERE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS THE VOTING MACHINE GAVE US.

[slackmaster]

52. How do we know that ANY vote count in ANY election was ever accurate?

Seriously.

I suppose you were perfectly fine with the sleepovers of voting machines in the Busby/Bilbray race, and those recent studies from Stanford that show us just how easy the machines are to hack don't bother you one bit.

I suppose you haven't bothered to read what Stanford professors Feldman, Halderman, and Felten had to say about that.

...Have the vote-stealing methods you discuss ever been used in real elections?

Probably not, but we don't know for sure. We haven't seen evidence that these attacks have been used, but one lesson of our report is that the design of these voting technologies makes attacks relatively easy to cover up.

Do you think any recent major U.S. elections were stolen?

No. We know some people are claiming this happened, but we don't find their evidence convincing....

Source: http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/faq.html

They are experts on the technology. I'm inclined to take their opinion over yours.

But to answer your question, I'm glad that people are scrutinizing the potential vulnerabilities of the machines and the procedures, but I am much more concerned about old-fashioned trickery like registering dead people, voting in more than one precinct under different names, ballot-box stuffing, voter suppression, intimidation, etc.

There are hundreds of threads of DU and many articles elsewhere about voting machine fraud, I have researched this issue thoroughly.

Well that certainly proves, uh, nothing.

It seems arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall though, you were the one who said in post three that you thought the Republicans were winning because they were producing superior candidates.

Have you even read reply #3???

That's a pretty heavy distortion of what I actually wrote. In fact, it's completely WRONG.

What I actually said was:

"I have a problem with those who attribute all losses to unproven allegations of high-tech theft at the expense of looking inward to see why our party has failed to produce candidates and a platform that are sufficiently superior to the opposition to give us a solid edge.

My statement actually says that Democratic candidates and platform are superior, just not superior enough. Shame on you. You should read more carefully before flinging mud at your fellow DUers.

THEY WERE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS THE VOTING MACHINE GAVE US.

Numbers that were obviously wrong, and never certified as the actual vote.

[mmonk]

6. Not ignoring. Everyone should be vigilant, but not paralyzed.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Name one person/thread that suggested we "ignore Diebold"...

... else admit you're making shit up.

[BeFree]

10. Got one right here

Now what are ya gonna say? I say too many people are ignoring the dieblod threat. Mind you diebold is the catch all term for the computerized voting machines.

Want an honest debate.... here I am.

Note that in a post above there is a real ignorance displayed.

[BlooInBloo]

12. Um, where? Missed the link...

[BeFree]

15. Link?

Its me, bloo. Me! Right here. Want an honest debate? Debate me. Give it your best shot. C'mon!

[Bjorn Against]

18. don't even need to leave this thread

Read posts two and three.

On edit: I realize the poster does NOT say we should ignore Diebold, but he does suggest that Diebold may not be a problem at all. I have seen many other people on other threads suggest similar things. Hell my own Democratic Senator Mark Dayton slammed people who questioned the 2004 election results.

[slackmaster]

47. Blasphemy!

...he does suggest that Diebold may not be a problem at all. I have seen many other people on other threads suggest similar things. Hell my own Democratic Senator Mark Dayton slammed people who questioned the 2004 election results.

Then Senator Dayton must be part of the Conspiracy, eh?

:hide:

[originalpckelly]

11. We should think of that the night the votes start coming in...

until then it is a discouraging thought. There are going to be strike teams of lawyers already, so there you go.

*I'm with you though, they seem to have a fucked up voting in our country so bad we may not know who won!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Completely Misguided Premise In This Thread.

From what I've seen here, the complaints about defeatism have had NOTHING to do with acknowledging the flaws inherent in diebold or the potential for compromising elections. What I HAVE seen are complaints about those that speak of the issue in a doom and gloom manner while putting forth an attitude that we're already screwed and we've already lost because they're just going to steal it again anyway blah blah blah. That sort of defeatism is absolutely worthy of condemnation. To play chicken little with not even 2 weeks to go, with an attitude of "oh, it's hopeless, so so utterly hopeless, they're just going to steal it, wah wah" is just totally unproductive and annoying, especially during a time we need to be focusing as much positive energy on the election as possible. We are aware of the Diebold issues and most of us here take it seriously. But there is definitely a distinction between words of caution while reminding us of the flaws in the machines, and outright declaring in a weak and defeated manner that we're fucked before we even play the final quarter because our votes aren't going to count anyway. That is quite simply just defeatist bullshit, and I'm proud of any DU'ers who have stood up against it during this final stretch.

So basically, to twist that into a thread trying to portray that those frustrated with that level of defeatism or those who complained about it were in fact desiring to ignore diebold altogether, is a gross misconstruction of reality. We just don't want our teammates in the huddle saying "don't even run this play, the ref's just gonna call a penalty anyway, there's no way we're going to win this game, why are we even bothering huddling and trying?". Would you want a teammate saying such shit in the final minutes of the fourth quarter, when that one single play could be what wins the game? Hey, make your own choice. I'd want to bench the shit out of that player, tell em to sit down and shut up till after the game, and while he's at it, go get me a fuckin cup of gatorade.

[Bjorn Against]

24. If you recognize the problems with Diebold this post was not targeted at you

There are a few posts on this very thread that suggest that Diebold is not even an issue, post three even suggests that it is not Diebold but rather Democrats who have failed to put platform superior to the Republicans. That is the type of attitude my post is targetting.

I know there are some people who gripe endlessly for no good reason, and I have no problem with you condmening them. I would likely agree with you that some of those people are defeatist. I am just saying we can not ignore Diebold, and there are many who do so. I know there are many others who take the threat very seriously as well.

Just realize that if you are concerned about Diebold then this thread is absolutely not targeted at you.

[BeFree]

27. I understand

But you are going about your desire in an ass-backwards way.

If you have a problem with a poster debate them and convince them there is no doom, don't come here and tell someone they are "twist(ing)" anything. The OP states a reasonable case that people are ignoring diebold and are caught up in some fantasy world that diebold doesn't matter.

But you attack the OP person and, as far as I can tell, aren't trying to convince the folks who feel doomed that they needn't feel that way.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. .

:eyes:

:rofl:

:crazy:

:silly:

:freak:

[BeFree]

30. That's your debate?

Nothing? Oh, I see, you butted out with just pics.

No debate, huh? Gee, your no fun, you fell right over.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. .

:rofl:

:spray:

:crazy:

:nopity:

:freak:

:boring:

:cry:

:yoiks:

[BeFree]

35. Wise move

...your edit, I am sure.

So, I take it you learned your lesson, and will now try to be better at convincing people they have nothing to worry about?

Good for you, that is much better than trying to argue a case you will never win.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. The Edit Was To Remove The :hurts: Smiley. I Didn't Like It.

But you just cracked me up with your ridiculously false assumption of what the edit would've been! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Wouldn't it be obvious, in the context, that the edit would've been either to correct a smiley, add a smiley or delete a smiley? :rofl:

So tell me, was it a wise move to remove the :hurts: smiley, or would you have found it wiser to have been left in?

:rofl:

[BeFree]

39. My mistake

I was giving you credit for actually trying to debate, but I beleive you that all you were doing was posting smileys.

BTW, it just looks like a blank post on my screen. All I see is text, so if you were trying to say something it wasn't apparent, and I though you might have finaly got up the courage to say something but your emotions carried you away and you had to edit.

I see now you really have nothing to say.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. .

:rofl:

:crazy:

:crazy:

:crazy:

:freak:

:freak:

:silly:

:nopity:

:eyes:

:spray:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. .

:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

[William769]

17. Never mind, some people just don't get it.

[babylonsister]

44. Try us.

:party:

[meldroc]

48. This is exactly what I've been saying in other threads.

I've been accused of being a troll or a defeatist, but the OP's right - it would be incredibly stupid to ignore the prospect of widespread wholesale election fraud, not just through electronic election systems hacking, but through vote suppression, old fashioned techniques like ballot box stuffing, ballot tampering, bribery of election officials, intimidation, buying of votes, bringing the dead back from the grave to vote, etc.

It will be widespread, and it will be very serious.

Does this mean we've already lost? HELL NO!!!

Kudos to all the DU poll watchers and volunteers out there. I was thinking about becoming a poll watcher this election, but I'm not sure how to go about doing it, and it may be too late for this election for me. I'll be protesting this Saturday though.

Like I said, everyone, and I mean everyone who's interested enough in politics to be on this board absolutely needs to vote if at all possible. If you're being subject to vote suppression, raise all sorts of hell. Call your local Democratic party offices, call the national offices, call 1-866-OUR-VOTE - the hotline of the Election Protection Commission, which was set up specifically to protect voters from fraud and disenfranchisement.

After the election's over, we keep fighting. Obviously, we need to get the lawyers as much ammunition as possible so fraudulent elections can either be fixed or annulled and redone, and so the assholes perpetrating the fraud can get the civil judgements and felony convictions they so richly deserve.

On top of that, after the election, we need to start a huge protest and civil disobedience campaign. I'm personally more than happy to get myself arrested if it helps us take our country back from the criminals in power. But I'm not experienced in the protesting and civil disobedience business - I've been to a couple war protests, but I've never organized them, and I've never participated in civil disobedience, yet. Anyone who can organize these sorts of things and get the word out needs to do so, quickly!

If we give up after the fix is in, we lose by default. If we can create such a huge outcry, and get the word out so every American not living in a cave knows what happened, there will be no stopping us.