If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Rolling Stone)   With their bongs strapped to their walkers, Rolling Stone editors continue to publish whiny tracts alleging 2004 election stolen   (rollingstone.com) divider line 65
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

345 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jun 2006 at 6:04 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-06-01 04:22:14 PM
While the Repubs continiue to claim it was not...
 
2006-06-01 04:22:51 PM
errr...continue...
 
2006-06-01 04:27:53 PM
I think that we're beyond deciding whether or not the election was stolen ( I think it was, but hey, im just me). Rather, we're now in the zone where we decide whether to or not to stop talking about it.

Only the guilty discourage debate on a matter that is unresolved, in my experienced.

Keep hope alive.
 
2006-06-01 04:34:04 PM
OK, hypothetical question... If there was indisputable proof that the 2004 election was "stolen", now what? Repeal all of the laws that were passed? Call for a new election? Put Kerry in for the remainder of "his" term?

/cats and dogs living together
 
2006-06-01 04:35:43 PM
Start by firing every firm associated with faulty voting machines.

*cough*DIEBOLD ES&S*cough
 
2006-06-01 04:36:39 PM
BoneStorm: Only the guilty discourage debate on a matter that is unresolved, in my experienced.

Pretty much. I'm interested to see if this starts a big firestorm, or if it just gets swept under the rug again.
 
nrw
2006-06-01 04:39:38 PM
I wonder whats going to happen this year when the Republicans get the midterms under strange circumstances.

Eventually everyone is going to figure out whats going on.
 
2006-06-01 05:57:34 PM
Heh. Can't complain about the 2000 election, though. The Miami Herald's recount showed Bush won. They're about as liberal a mainstream newspaper as you can find, so I trust them on this one.
 
2006-06-01 06:11:09 PM
Submitter is a 'tardfarker. Ad Hominem attack tells all.
 
2006-06-01 06:13:18 PM
Plenty of reason to distrust the election system.

If fraud can be accomplished using machines, it's happening right now. Count on it.
 
2006-06-01 06:13:20 PM
Must be the same group that's trying to prove that Big Foot was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy. Is Charlie Sheen a member of this research team?

/Dislikes Pres. Bush.
 
2006-06-01 06:17:21 PM
I don't know....Rolling Stone has been chafed from the beginning by Bush and his ilk, but in many other countries that have had odd and extremely close elections like the US's last two, there have been pretty immediate runoff elections, not so much here in the states. I'm not big into tinfoil hat wearing, but there are definitely some questionable circumstances going on. And even though statistics is a game of liars, exit poll results veering that far off the final results is a pretty good indication that some cloak and dagger stuff is going on.
 
2006-06-01 06:17:57 PM
If fraud can be accomplished using machines, it's happening right now. Count on it.

Count on it? Like it's guaranteed? If anything can be accomplished machines then perhaps The Matrix is real or Judgement Day isn't too far away?
 
2006-06-01 06:24:18 PM
I'm all for paper ballots.
I don't really care if they take 3 months to count, it's much more important than hearing the results before Leno starts.
 
2006-06-01 06:29:05 PM
If Jeb Bush *happens* to win in '08, I will never vote again....
 
2006-06-01 06:30:27 PM
Yes Bon_Scott, even as we speak, the Amiga's and Commodore 64's of old, long since doomed to garage sales and damp storage boxes, are collecting their comrades and crunching the data. Soon, once critical mass is reached, they shall assemble into a death bot, whose sole purpose is to destory all of humanity. We truly are DOOMED! They may also play a few games of pong, but are kind of playing it by ear for now.

See...I can be needlessly overdramatic too!
 
2006-06-01 06:32:41 PM
A few hundred thousand votes here, a few hundred thousand votes there. Like it would have made any difference. Why can't the liberals quit their whining and just move on?

That's what is most important. To heal this country, instead of trying to divide it. We're at war, so we need to stay on course, instead of stopping and asking "Did we make a wrong turn in Albuquerque?" which might leave us vulnerable to terrorist attack.
 
2006-06-01 06:34:09 PM
Of course it's rigged. too much at stake to leave it to chance. Why else do you think the Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to smite any voter verification (paper trails) legislation that tries to rear it's head?
 
2006-06-01 06:34:23 PM
DeathBySarcasm

Please tell me that was sarcasm.
 
2006-06-01 06:35:04 PM
Let's say it was stolen, ok fine. So what do we do? Well, for starters, let's start requiring photo identification and making sure voter rolls are up to date and that voters are not registered in more than one place at a time.

The problem is that the democrats oppose all that.

Which suggests to me that more often then not they are the ones trying to steal elections.
 
2006-06-01 06:37:29 PM
Oh, and by the way, their should be paper trails. Here in Oklahoma we have optical scanners that machines read for a quick vote count, but the paper is retained in case a hand count is needed. That should be mandatory.
 
2006-06-01 06:38:49 PM
It would have been nice if someone revealed this in the process of the election, instead of 2 years after the fact. Don't think that our oh so idealistic system of democracy can't be corrupted, its ripe for it. It just takes the coordnation that only boy genius Rove could pull off. I'm not sure that I believe what this article said, but part of me wants to believe it, mainly because of the shiat they pulled in 2000. Our government lacks a fair ammount of accountability these days, as if it never did. Maybe that crap they taught me in school is finally unraveling, eh who cares. Flame on.
 
2006-06-01 06:41:16 PM
The cry of "tinfoil" defeats all claims of vote rigging, yet our ATM machines are more secure, reliable, and accountable than our voting machines.

Democracy is on the march, comrades!
 
2006-06-01 06:43:58 PM
Jean-Clod: Submitter is a 'tardfarker. Ad Hominem attack tells all.

ha ha, by my own logic I too am a 'tardfarker.

*sigh*

Submitter still wins the farktard award.
 
2006-06-01 06:55:36 PM
Atvar: Heh. Can't complain about the 2000 election, though. The Miami Herald's recount showed Bush won. They're about as liberal a mainstream newspaper as you can find, so I trust them on this one.

The NYT begs to differ. A complete recount of ALL counties in Florida showed Gore to be the winner. Other results that were published were for recounts in selected counties only.

OneManArmy: It would have been nice if someone revealed this in the process of the election, instead of 2 years after the fact.

Um....we did. We were called 'tinfoil hat' wearers. Or didn't you read the first paragraph of the article?
 
2006-06-01 06:55:40 PM
Jean-Clod: ha ha, by my own logic I too am a 'tardfarker.

Yes, but your candor is refreshing. We don't get that much around here.

Candor, that is. Tardfarkers we have.

By the dozens. Hundreds, even. And that's not counting the 'liters.
 
2006-06-01 06:59:03 PM
Skleenar: A complete recount of ALL counties in Florida showed Gore to be the winner.

Which is exactly what the Bush camp was arguing for when Gore wanted to select only certain counties and fought vigorously against a state-wide recount. Seven of nine Supreme Court Justices found that unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause (5-4 was the vote on the issue of the Florida Supreme Court changing election laws after the fact). Oh, the irony. [Also, I'm not sure I would give much credence to any newspaper's count regardless of the outcome.]
 
2006-06-01 07:04:32 PM
The only hope for the American democratic experiment is that the IDEA of honest and free elections is true. No none trusts this system any more. The dream is gone whether it reflects reality or not. When the system is no longer trusted...its just a matter of time. This whole corrupt monster has been hijacked by the privelleged and is being milked for its last dying breath...and the whole world holds its breath while our democratic republic teeters on the brink.
 
2006-06-01 07:06:31 PM
Recounts, whiners, winners, losers, et. al... Forget what side you cheer for. If there were problems, get them addressed. Likewise, if the problems were minor (read: found in any election to nobody's fault), get them fixed as you can but shut up about stealing. Americans really are that stupid.
 
2006-06-01 07:09:32 PM

Nabb1--

You seem to be a bit confused, so I'll refer you to Bush V. Gore, which was decided by a 5-4 decision, split along conservative/non-conservative lines, and the final paragraph of dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stevens. It's a long quote, but certainly worth reading:

What must underlie petitioners' (Bush-Cheney) entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. I respectfully dissent.
 
2006-06-01 07:17:57 PM
Did the author go to the Ann Coulter school of journalism? Citation does not = fact.
 
2006-06-01 07:19:31 PM
Nabb1: Oh, the irony.

You bet.

Although, I would say that I doubt that the GOP wanted a full recount as much as they were using that argument it as a strategy to stop the count altogether.
 
2006-06-01 07:19:41 PM
Right. Because we all know that the dissenting opinion is the one that counts.
 
2006-06-01 07:23:11 PM
By a vote of 7-2, the Court said that the Florida Supreme Court had erred in calling for a manual recount. But by only a 5-4 vote, it declared that the counting of the undervotes only amounted to a violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. It sent the case back to the Florida Supreme Court, essentially saying that there may be remedies for Gore, but whatever the remedy, it could not include a recount. With a recount seeming to be the only possible way of keeping Gore's chances alive, the contest appeared to finally be over. Calls from even ardent supporters began to ring out - Gore should finally concede the election.
 
2006-06-01 07:26:30 PM
DeathBySarcasm: You seem to be a bit confused, so I'll refer you to Bush V. Gore, which was decided by a 5-4 decision, split along conservative/non-conservative lines, and the final paragraph of dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stevens. It's a long quote, but certainly worth reading:

What must underlie petitioners' (Bush-Cheney) entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. I respectfully dissent.


Which illustrates Justice Stevens is a moron. The petitioners "assault" was not on the Florida election system. It was on the Florida Supreme Court that, after the election, CHANGED the voting system from the bench. Justice Stevens has written nothing more than an eloquent defense of an law making judiciary.
 
2006-06-01 07:31:23 PM
Imagine, if you will:

The company that operates our paperless voting machines was owned and operated by liberal Democrats.

Said liberal Democrats are on record "guaranteeing wins" for their preferred candidates.

Now add to the mix:

Hundreds of right-wing radio stations across the land, broadcasting thousands upon thousands of hours of conservative political commentary, day after day, week after week, year after year.

Think the freeper types would have a problem with stolen elections? Think we'd be hearing about it non-stop?

/Yeah, I think so too.
 
2006-06-01 07:38:19 PM
Death by Sarcasm: You seem to be a bit confused, so I'll refer you to Bush V. Gore

Meh, I got the votes backwards. Been a long time since I read it, since I generally read cases for professional purposes and this has come up in my practice about never since it was decided.
 
2006-06-01 07:38:46 PM
The only hope for the American democratic experiment is that the IDEA of honest and free elections is true. No none trusts this system any more. The dream is gone whether it reflects reality or not.

Sadly, this is 100% true.

Jesus Wept.
 
2006-06-01 07:39:12 PM
Which illustrates Justice Stevens is a moron. The petitioners "assault" was not on the Florida election system. It was on the Florida Supreme Court that, after the election, CHANGED the voting system from the bench. Justice Stevens has written nothing more than an eloquent defense of an law making judiciary.

The 7-2 decision said that counties needed to be recounted using one system, instead of multiple systems being employed. No argument there. The 5-4 decision stated insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors. Effectively ending the recount, to which Gore was entitled to by Florida law.

If two Florida laws compete (in this case, Gore's right to ask for a manual recount versus a law stating those recounts must be completed within a stringent timeline) then the Florida Supreme Court should be entitled to "CHANGE" the voting system from the Bench, to mediate that conflict. This is what Stevens argued, and only a zombie ignorant of the legal facts would disagree.
 
2006-06-01 07:40:43 PM
BTW, don't tell my I'm confused if you don't understand that it was a 5-4 vote on one issue and 7-2 on the other. People tend to forget that.
 
2006-06-01 07:43:56 PM
keithmccants: Which illustrates Justice Stevens is a moron. The petitioners "assault" was not on the Florida election system. It was on the Florida Supreme Court that, after the election, CHANGED the voting system from the bench. Justice Stevens has written nothing more than an eloquent defense of an law making judiciary.

"I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."

Because everyone knows that democracy is best served by not knowing the accurate number of votes.
 
2006-06-01 07:43:59 PM
Nabb1: BTW, don't tell my I'm confused if you don't understand that it was a 5-4 vote on one issue and 7-2 on the other. People tend to forget that.

No worries. Remember that confusion is only a state of mind. Or maybe the state of Florida. Possibly the state of Ohio. Definitely the state of free democracy.
 
2006-06-01 07:45:22 PM
Nabb1: Which is exactly what the Bush camp was arguing for when Gore wanted to select only certain counties and fought vigorously against a state-wide recount.

This is an outright lie.

Florida law requires that recount requests be handled on a county-by-county basis. The petitioner is required to demonstrate that errors specific to the county to be recounted occurred as part of that request.

There is no legal mechanism in the state of Florida to request a "state-wide" recount. It must be done individually by county.

The Gore team was not "fighting against recounts", they were following the law (remember the "rule of law"?). The Bush team was fighting against recounts. Any and all of them, no matter what the scope.
 
2006-06-01 07:50:19 PM
Jeebus, wtf is up with people not wanting to make sure our votes are counted properly? It's farkin' nuts and it's in no way a partisan issue.
 
2006-06-01 07:50:20 PM
Bush/Cheney was NEVER interested in any 2000 recount whatsoever.

Why should they have been? Their girl Katherine Harris had certified the vote for them.

Good thing Katherine Harris has never done anything since then to make anyone question her ethics.
 
2006-06-01 07:56:00 PM
R5D4: This is an outright lie.

I'm sure it is as you say.
 
2006-06-01 08:03:51 PM
From TFA:
What's more, Freeman found, the greatest disparities between exit polls and the official vote count came in Republican strongholds. In precincts where Bush received at least eighty percent of the vote, the exit polls were off by an average of ten percent. By contrast, in precincts where Kerry dominated by eighty percent or more, the exit polls were accurate to within three tenths of one percent -- a pattern that suggests Republican election officials stuffed the ballot box in Bush country.(39)

That, my friends, is what is known as a "sore thumb".
 
2006-06-01 08:10:23 PM
From Wiki:

Florida state law (F.S. Ch. 102.166) at the time allowed the candidate to request a manual recount by protesting the results of at least three precincts. The county canvassing board then decides whether or not to recount (F.S. Ch. 102.166 Part 4) as well as the method of the recount in those three precincts. If the board discovers an error, they are then authorized to recount the ballots (F.S. Ch. 102.166 Part 5).

Or in English:

The county canvassing board makes the decision, not the state.

As the law was written in 2000, recount requests were handled on a county-by-county basis.

Your claim that the Gore team was "fighting against a state-wide recount" is absurd.
 
2006-06-01 08:17:28 PM
R5D4: As the law was written in 2000, recount requests were handled on a county-by-county basis.

And, IIRC, the Bush team argued - successfully - that hand selection of counties for recount in a federal election violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Gore legal team fought against this. Like I said, it has been a long time since I read the case, because, quite frankly, I have enough to worry about without obsessing about a decision that has absolute fark all to do with my area of practice. Furthermore, I admittedly have little to no knowledge of Florida election law. That said, my impressions are, when last I read it, that the Gore team was insistent upon recounting in the counties it chose only. And, quite frankly, in my own judgment, I believe the Supreme Court reached the appropriate decision on both issues.
 
2006-06-01 08:51:26 PM
"Furthermore, I admittedly have little to no knowledge of Florida election law."

So, basically everything you've been saying all up and down the thread is complete utter bullshiat?

Typical hypocrite Republican.
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report