Sunday, November 07, 2004

another stolen election?


Uh-huh. Nobody will do squat about it now because Senator John Kwik-vanish! has conceded the election. But it's becoming clear that all over the country, the Diebold voting machines performed exactly as expected: by ringing up lots of Bush votes, sometimes an absurd number:

From Ohio:

Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct.

Bush actually received 365 votes in the precinct, Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, told The Columbus Dispatch.


The article goes on to wonder if this repeated in other counties, but officials "decline to comment," of course.

In Florida, it appears the machines were hacked:

In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.

In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush.

The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the counties where optical scanners were used. Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush.


Why isn't the media reporting on any of this? Probably to support Bush's dreams of "unity" - as if the election gave him a clean slate, as if we were supposed to forget about the bodies in Iraq (which is now, I believe, in a state of emergency), and as if accepting another lie at face value cleaned their consciences of all those they ignored before. More importantly, the fact that all of this hacking benefits only Republicans is more than a little suspicious - and a full, national investigation should be happening as soon as possible. Should bes won't be, of course, But if this is more widespread - if we see it in New Mexico and all the other states Kerry was supposed to carry - we may be in trouble.

And I wonder what, exactly, people said to Kerry that day to make him change his mind from fighting for every vote to that outrageous, undignified "unity."

Update: Story is now on CNN.

10 comments:

DamselFly said...

Why don't you people give it up and just admit that if you could put up a decent candidate you might be able to win the election. But you insist on putting up someone who has accomplished nothing in his entire politcal career, and should rightly have been incarcerated for his actions when he returned from Vietnam.

As for the media, they spent the entire campaign trying to hand the election to Kerry and still he couldn't pull it off.

Get a life, people and try to put a candidate on your slate who stands for something.

By the way, I'll take the flat tax any day. At least John and Teresa would have to pay as high a percentage and I do. As for privitizing Social Security, it's time I had a say in what is done with MY money instead of the government deciding for me.

Joseph Rainmound said...

Why don't you shut up and realize I don't give a shit about John Fucking Kerry? But if the fucking president of the fucking united states defender of democracy is using machines to take votes away from people this is something you should be very concerned about - because one day it may be used against you. So please stop being an idiot and think: how much of the Great White Butthead can you take when hes smearing the face of lady liberty with shit? This ain't about being republican or democrat. it's about facing up to the truth.

DamselFly said...

I mistakenly thought that if you posted an article on a blog and had a place to someone to make a comment that you were sincere in inviting comments. But since the first and ONLY commentor was told to SHUT UP, I wish you all that you deserve.

Joseph Rainmound said...

well, let's see. your comment had nothing to do with my article. you ignored the fact that I insulted John Kerry in the first sentence. You just attacked me. Yeah, I can tell you to shut the fuck up. Anyone's free to post comments here - as long as they make, like, sense. This is my blog. I make the rules. Dig?

DamselFly said...

Ok, where do I begin this time. First I did address your article, not every aspect of it, but I did address some aspects. However, since you deleted a portion of what you originally posted, you can make it appear to be whatever you want. Fortunately, I learned a long time ago that what has once been written can never be taken back.

As to your comment about "make, like, sense." Well.......... you didn't.

It is obvious to me that your blog is not intended for intelligent discourse but merely an opportunity to rant and belittle others who do not hold the same opinions as you. So, with this I will shut up.

Joseph Rainmound said...

Well, let's see what you said:

Why don't you people give it up and just admit that if you could put up a decent candidate you might be able to win the election. But you insist on putting up someone who has accomplished nothing in his entire politcal career, and should rightly have been incarcerated for his actions when he returned from Vietnam.I wasn't talking about kerry at all. I was talking about the fact that voting machines had been hacked. You didn't mention that at all. This isn't a partisan thing. This is an issue of national security.

Then you somehow brought in the flat tax, which i didn't mention at all:

By the way, I'll take the flat tax any day. At least John and Teresa would have to pay as high a percentage and I do. As for privitizing Social Security, it's time I had a say in what is done with MY money instead of the government deciding for me.Again, i was talking about VOTING MACHINES BEING HACKED.

If you can prove anything you said had a connection to VOTING MACHINES BEING HACKED, I will apologize and shut up myself.

Joseph Rainmound said...

By the way, as for privatizing social security, you'd rather have some company deciding what to do with your money rather than the president our taxes pay to serve us? Really?

DamselFly said...

Ok, Joseph, let's assume I confused the tax and social security issues with some other blog I read last night. My apologies.

What I did comment on in reference to your post was the media comment. You wanted to know why the media wasn't addressing the "hacking" incident. So, let me pose these questions to you.

How much media coverage was given to the thousands of votes already on the machines in Philadelphia for John Kerry when the polls opened and before any voters were allowed in? There were thousands.

And how much media coverage was give to the person in Ohio who was being paid in cocaine for registering voters for the Democratic Party? Or how much media coverage was given to the fact that many Bush-Cheney headquarters were broken into prior to the election?

All these things are important but even more important was the refusal of the media to provide information to the general public that John Kerry had met with the Communist Party and was following their written doctrine after his return from Vietnam. These documents are available for all to see and Dan Rather didn't have to create them.

And, how much media coverage was given to the fact that John Kerry would not release all of his military records to the public, because he was hiding the fact that he had received a less-than-honorable discharge and did not receive an honorable one until President Carter's amnesty program?

Talk about national security issues. We were given a presidential candidate who sided with the enemy and that is something we shouldn't worry about?

These issues aren't partisan, either.

Joseph Rainmound said...

Damselfly, that's a lot to cover in a comments section. But I will try.

1] Thousands of votes on machines for Kerry - this was initially part of the Drudge Report on the election. However, the Drudge Report has been known to lie a LOT. But I was curious so I went and read the initial report. What's interesting is that it was REPUBLICANS who "found" the votes on the machines. Not the people running the machines themselves. Is it fair to take the word of a group that hates another group? Why didn't they call the media right away? Trust me, no reporter is going to ignore THAT story.

2] The man with cocaine - if this is true - seems the guy didn't care if he registered democrats or republicans - he just got forms filled out for some kind of scam that doesnt seem to have anything to do with the Democratic party. (Meanwhile, a lot of the things I have mentioned have direct connections to Republican organizations.) Even so, I haven't found this anywhere but Republican websites - not even in the Toledo Blade, the local Toledo newspaper. It's inconceivable that there would be no information on this in that paper.

3] John Kerry is not a Communist. He is a Capitalist. He has lots of money. He doesn't want to share it. He seems to like to collect it. Communists prefer everyone to do equal work and have equal pay (unless youre talking about Russian communism.) John Kerry would not be happy with this system. He's a rich, stupid man just like pretty much every politician in this country.

4] You make a lot of charges about Kerry siding with the enemy. Basically, what I know of what happened, Kerry fought in Vietnam, then he returned to America saying the war was wrong. I think it's pretty possible he had to go through the war to see that it was wrong. I haven't seen evidence that he collaborated with the enemy. Again, he's a rich man. Rich people aren't Communists.

5] Kerry's "Dishonorable Discharge" - again, I haven't seen this on any but Republican websites. This would be HUGE news if it were true. I don't believe for a second the media would let it go. I really don't. Look at the big fuss they made when those people started talking about Swift Boat.

I would like to say to you - I'm not a democrat or republican. I think we should look at the person and figure out if they are best for the position, not vote according to "party lines." But that means I am going to criticize both parties. If you want to hear me bitch about Kerry, just ask - but don't expect me to accept lies from anyone.

DamselFly said...

I'm not asking you to accept lies from anyone. There are good and bad on both sides. I will say this regarding the Swiftees, the only way the mainstream media portrayed them was in a negative aspect. Kerry was assumed by the media to be the side that was right on this issue.

I disagree with your comment "no reporter would ignore that story." Well, unfortunately, if the story doesn't fall in line with what that particular reporter believes, it will be ignored. You can't possibly believe the media isn't biased, can you?

And as for Kerry being a Communist, it is you who didn't read what I wrote. I did not say that Kerry was a Communist, I only stated that he had worked with them regarding the Vietnam war.

Regarding Kerry's discharge. Just research the records yourself. His honorable discharge, dated in 1978, six years past the time it should have been, indicated it was given based on an administrative hearing, something not needed unless there were extenuating circumstances. Also, note that during a Kerry interview with Tom Brokaw, Kerry indicated that all his records had not been released. NBC later expunged that portion of the interview from their records.

As for the last paragraph in your last response. I am a registered Republican. I grew up in an area which was 95% Democratic. But, I have never voted a straight ticket in my life.

I think we've made some progress and are actually having a civilized dialogue now. Would you agree?