Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What level of fraud occurred in the 2004 election?

  1. A big conspiracy won the election for Bush.

    6 vote(s)
    42.9%
  2. A big conspiracy existed for Bush, but he won the election with or without it.

    2 vote(s)
    14.3%
  3. A big conspiracy happened for Kerry, but it failed.

    2 vote(s)
    14.3%
  4. A lot of small-time fraud occurred, but it didn't flip the election.

    7 vote(s)
    50.0%
  5. A lot of small-time fraud occurred and it did flip the election.

    4 vote(s)
    28.6%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Aug 10, 2005 #1

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In an attempt to clarify previous polls, I'd like to know what level of fraud people think occurred in the election. Since not all of the options are mutually exclusive, you can pick more than 1.

    1. Bush or someone working on his behalf (with or without his knowledge) stole the election for Bush in a large conspiracy*.
    2. Bush or someone working on his behalf (with or without his knowledge) attempted to steal the election for Bush in a large conspiracy*. They didn't have much of an effect, and Bush would have won with or without their efforts.
    3. Kerry or someone working on his behalf (with or without his knowledge) attempted to steal the election for Kerry in a large conspiracy*. They didn't succeed.
    4. A large number of people attempted to illegally influence the outcome of the election on the small scale** and their combined efforts turned the election to Bush.
    5. A large number of people attempted to illegally influence the outcome of the election on the small scale** and their combined efforts turned the election to Bush.

    *"A large conspiracy" is a single effort that had a major effect (thousands to millions of votes). An example would be pre-programming all of the voting machines to give Bush 10% more votes than he should have gotten.
    **"On the small scale" is a large number of individuals doing things that individually had very little effect (dozens to hundreds of votes). This would be things like an election official purposely blocking a person from voting (oops, we lost your votor registration..).

    edit: I realize some people might be uncomfortable with the phrase "large number of people" for options 4 and 5. If you are and you vote one of those options, by all means, specify what you consider to be "large".
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 10, 2005 #2
    I may vote later, I feel like I could check off alot of those boxes ---- In the meantime, here's my take on it. This is from an interview with John Conyers in December? of last year.

    In that sense, I lean towards the latter choices, but I don't rule out the others -

    http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=20041221135434544&mode=print0
     
  4. Aug 10, 2005 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Jeez, that's a doozy:

    "conspiracy: Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action."

    Sorry John, if 2 people take part in the same crime, that's a conspiracy. Gawd, I love politicians. :rolleyes:

    It may be that he meant it didn't require a conspiracy going all the way up to Bush, but if two people took part in it, it was a conspiracy.
     
  5. Aug 10, 2005 #4

    THen why are your options in the poll divided into "big time conspiracy" (headed intentionally, by a single individual), and "small time fraud?"

    Gawd I love conservatives. :rolleyes:

    IOW: You can try to *listen* to what is being said, instead of constantly ridiculing the other side and telling them why they're wrong. You are interested in working for common understanding, aren't you? Do you *at all* recognize that what Conyers said, and what others have said, is *patently different* than the scenarios you keep trying to debunk?
     
  6. Aug 10, 2005 #5
    I think by definition conservatives are rather close minded, and will seek to justify a belief by any number of self enforcing lies, rather than look at the simple facts.

    A small example: Congress tried to block Conyer's (and other's) attempts at an inquiry regarding the Downing Street memo. Conservatives took this as the right thing to do, citing that an inquiry was a waste of time and would slow down the governmental process etc. They still seek to justify the countless lies and misinformation spewn out by the administration by any means necessary, rather than look at the simple facts; outlined clearly in fact by the memo.

    They still seek to vilify anyone who would attack Judith Miller. Here's an interesting fact:

    "NEW YORK The board of The American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA) has voted unanimously to not endorse an earlier decision to give a Conscience in Media award to jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller, E&P has learned.

    The group's First Amendment committee had narrowly voted to give Miller the prize for her dedication to protecting sources, but the full board has now voted to not accept that decision, based on its opinion that her entire career, and even her current actions in the Plame/CIA leak case, cast doubt on her credentials for this award. "

    From: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001008093

    I wonder why they didn't give her the award? Must be because they are FILTHY PINK SHIRT LIBERALS.

    Conservatives in my opinion are not very good Critical Thinkers, or otherwise would rather believe one set of lies that corresponds to their belief system rather than look at the facts (I think there is a word for this but I can't remember it... something like Cognitive Dissonance but I know thats not it).

    Why else would they go to such lengths to vilify the "theory" of evolution? (The word "theory" in itself means a well outlined hypothesis supported by many many facts and observations - many would simply gloss over that.)

    Why else would conservatives deny any evidence of pollution or global warming? Of erosion and deforestation?

    Why else would conservatives hold the belief that since THEY managed to work hard and go through higher education to get a well paying job, why can't others do it? They fail to realize many never get the opportunity to do so.

    Why else would conservatives find no fault in a one party system? They fail to understand the very basic principles of the Democracy they so cherish.

    Conservatives in general make me sick.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2005
  7. Aug 10, 2005 #6
    Actually, no. If 2 people plan to commit the same crime together, it's a conspiracy. If 2 people just show up and commit the same crime it's not a conspiracy.

    Sorry to nitpick
     
  8. Aug 10, 2005 #7
    You should be a hack with all these seriously loaded and closed questions you ask...
     
  9. Aug 10, 2005 #8

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Wow, and they call conservatives ignorant :rolleyes:

    Think you've been attending too many Bush-effige burnings by cocaine addicts.
     
  10. Aug 10, 2005 #9

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well since many people in the US, many on this board, think there was such an obvious and blatant fraud, getting the answers to those questions shouldn't be that hard!

    Unless of course there just simple crybabies who only say what they are told to say and don't care to find reasonable information about it.
     
  11. Aug 10, 2005 #10
    I liked the options here better. Thank you.
     
  12. Aug 10, 2005 #11

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Actually patty, even you should be able to realize the poll is looking for actual names. Everyone loves throwing out stats and figures and opinions with the utmost confidence that they are right, but no one can seem to bring up actual names.
     
  13. Aug 10, 2005 #12
    When are you going to stop with the 24 inch wide roller you use and start proposing answers or at least identifying problems in the system and not imagining people imagining conspiracies?

    When are you going to stop with the ad hominem and post something of value?
     
  14. Aug 10, 2005 #13

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What answers are required? Can't prove a negative. These nuts need to propose some actual factual information to support their claims that someONE obviously tried to rig the election. We have some glitches and some peoples opinions. The glitches are glitches, what more can be said. But these opinions that someone was actively out to steal the election NEED clarification. Please stop appologizing for the people on this forum who refuse to stick up for their accusations.
     
  15. Aug 10, 2005 #14
    Heck, I sent you to the IDG website and the data they collected on the 59 gliches in the system at the same time reporting evidence of those gliches after the election.

    You merely pointed out I was 'biased' because my article included no data from the Kerry errors.

    It was in fact YOU in your own silly twisted litle way (Trying to prove my bias) THAT PROVED THE NEGATIVE by supplying information of the Kerry errors.

    I still discount this because it was a disengenuous submission merely supplied to prove I had some for of 'bias' in this discussion and not to contribute evidence of machine problems and vulnerabilities.

    It's YOU who is being so damned PIG headed and not reading what is written while reading your own interpretations of conspiracies.

    I don't know if this thing is public or not but if it is, you will note I have not voted in any of these silly little polls.

    I have merely commented on procedure and systems flaws.

    You then pop in to inflame the posters and fail to address the problems of gliches which MAY have had a factor in altering votes and having maybe even your vote voided.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2005
  16. Aug 10, 2005 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Because by "small time fraud", I really do mean individuals working alone. Don't read into it something I didn't say. Pattylou, what you are think you see in me, you really should look for in your mirror.
    Pattylou, I already responded to the Conyers memo and you didn't address my response(edit: actually, there wasn't much to address, since I didn't disagree with the Coners memo - its just that there wasn't much in it relevant to the discussion). Again, what you are think you see in me is actually in your mirror.

    And I do not ridicule people. If you can provide a specific example of me ridiculing you, I'll apologize, but I think you are seeing a debate and misinterpreting it as ridicule.

    Pattylou, I disagree with you. That means I'm going to argue my point, argue against your point, and look for you to argue against my arguments. That's the point of a debate. You seem to be taking this personally - there isn't anything personal about this: since I know nothing at all about you, its pretty tough to make it personal.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2005
  17. Aug 11, 2005 #16
    Not taking it personally, and not looking for an 'argument.' I don't think this is a "debate" topic. I certainly don't think arguing should be a goal for something as important as to whether America is a Democracy! (Or a republic. You know what I mean.)

    I think this is an *important* topic that needs to be addressed. That means discussed. That means some social lubrication from time to time.

    Your approach of polarising the discussions *hurts* the process - and the only thing I can figure is that since you want this to be "debate" style, you have no intention of agreeing with the "other side."

    I know I'm doing the same thing. :tongue: You're bringing it out in me!

    Re: ridiculing people: You clearly ridiculed John Conyers in your earlier post on this thread. I didn't say you ridiculed *me.*

    Re: Responding to your response about Conyers: the words "stolen" and "conspiracy" are extreme words. :rolleyes: (I can't believe I have to spend time spelling this out.)

    [begin spelling it out]

    If I say "bush stole the election, there was a conspiracy" that implies people scheming in dark dusky back rooms, cackling with one another at 2 in the morning and rubbing there hands together ala Monty Burns.

    But take this example instead:

    One of the campaign ads for Bush showed a person going into a private curtained polling booth. Then a whisper came on the screen as this person debated their choice. The whisper said: "Go ahead. No one will know." And she (or he) voted for Bush.

    That ad was *approved* by the reelection campaign. That ad was completely uninformative wrt issues, etc. That ad was one of the dozens of "cues" that any way for Bush to get votes is okay. (Swift Boats is another example. Etc. (This is not sour grapes, show me a list of similar Kerry tactics before making such a claim.)

    So if I say there were "cues" to do whatever it takes to win, and that Bush is delighted to have these legal cues work for him, and he can plead plausible deniability to people actually taking it upon themselves to act illegally to get a few votes here and there ---- This is a conspiracy! But it is nothing *nothing* like what the word conjures up!

    [/end spelling it out]

    Do you appreciate the distinction here, and what it means when Conyers refuses to say "conspiracy?" And why I do, and why I am asking that you acknowledge the subtleties here??

    This is another way of sayiong what I asked above, which you didn't answer:
    I'd appreciate a response.

    Also, you still haven't told me how to replicate your "bush rig election 2004" google in order to get 10 hits, which I asked for twice on the other thread. I'd appreicate a response on this as well.

    I'll be away til monday. By then, I assume there will be so much discussion to catch up on, that I won't be able to read through it all. If you (or anyone) has something you'd like me to see or address, please pm me. I *will* definitely look through this thread for the answers to the questions that I just posed.

    Thanks Russ!
     
  18. Aug 11, 2005 #17
    Another conservative who thinks their ideas are so self evident that they neglect to add them to their post.

    Sorry Penqwuino, I fail to see your point once again.

    BTW. Why would Bush and his buddies burn him in effigy?
     
  19. Aug 11, 2005 #18
    There was a concerted effort by Kenneth Blackwell to disenfranchise likely Kerry voters in Ohio. With all the voter registration drives by progressives, democratic registration was far outpacing republican. He instructed his staff to disallow any voter regisration cards if they were not on 50mil paper. An obscure law, put on the books when records were all kept on paper. If the secretary of state, in charge of the election is working to disenfranchise American citizens, something is wrong.

    What are you trying to prove Russ?

    Are you simply trying to keep us divided like the president has done so effectively?

    Are we in the first stages of the end of the great American experiment?
     
  20. Aug 22, 2005 #19
    Politics will always be rigged... politicians are conspirators by nature...

    they get business done for their supporters as repayment for a vote...

    citizens stand divided... but divided we fall... and the politicians divide & conquer... the last election was a farce... bush or kerry... kerry didn't even try... i think almost anyone in his place with the same campaign could have run harder and made a better presence.

    I don't support bush, but voting for kerry was like voting for a statue.... plus they never intended for him to win it anyway. They are both part of "skull & bones". Club members of a brotherhood. When u win, i win, we win.

    You can say whatever you want against me... i don't expect many people to agree or realize what a joke american politics have really become. i just know that it is... and it seems to be getting worse. I don't have any real respect for the most recent few US Presidents... anyone who is still towing the rope for the Bush Admin is gonna eat their words one day and they know it. Let go of your pride and listen to your inner intelligence... you know things are not going good... you can't just follow blindly anymore... i'm gonna take a break from PF... so have at me or support the ideas as you will...
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: What level of fraud occurred in the 2004 election?
Loading...