VOTE: Kerry: Trickery Kept Voters From Polls

GET OVER IT KERRY! Geeeeeeeze! You lost because
you were WORSE than G.W. ... Which by some people's
standards is very hard to do... but you did it! Whine,
whine, whine.

Oh ... and if Kerry were serious about looking into election
fraud, he'd go check into all those republican vans that had
their tires flattened by democrats on election day! Republican
vans that were getting people to the polls to vote ... and
the radical dems got in the way. THAT's election interference!

Originally posted by ServoHahn
I think there are plenty of people who are, for lack of a better word, stupid. Stupid enough to be duped into believing election day is on some other day than the first Tuesday of November.

People that stupid should not be allowed to vote and therefore help choose the direction of this country.

Others who also shouldn't have a vote: illegal immigrants, convicted felons, people who need their ballots printed in something besides English and dead democrats.

Originally posted by ServoHahn
Even if people were duped into thinking they need to vote on Wednesday, I don't think it could be called "fraud".

I don't think that telling people to vote on the wrong day could be considered fraud.

Sure. Systematically misinforming and disenfranchising voters is not fraud, it's just a practical joke.

And manipulating vote tabulations untraceably in voting machines is not fraud, it's just software error.

And preventing legal public scrutiny at polling stations in Ohio is not fraud, it's just national security.

Fraud is systematic throughout, no matter how you try to sanitize the smell of it.

Originally posted by FredT
In a speech before a League of Women Voters event, former presidential candidate John Kerry stated that a pattern of trickery and intimidation effected the vote.

More vote fraud?

Nah, It is called damage control since no one wants him to run in 2008, so he trying to get people to change their minds by making false claims.

news.yahoo.com.../ap/20050407/ap_on_el_pr/dean_supporters_poll_1



[edit on 4/11/2005 by shots]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Sure. Systematically misinforming and disenfranchising voters is not fraud, it's just a practical joke.

And manipulating vote tabulations untraceably in voting machines is not fraud, it's just software error.

And preventing legal public scrutiny at polling stations in Ohio is not fraud, it's just national security.

Fraud is systematic throughout, no matter how you try to sanitize the smell of it.

MA, I thought that you'd have agreed with that statement. Shows what I know!

Ok, so you've pointed out that it's hard to prove when there's fraud, but don't you think that telling people to vote on the wrong day and actively preventing them from voting by force or threats are to separate things?

Manipulating the votes is fraud, yes. Can it be proven? Rarely. Manipulating voters isn't fraud (in my humble yet loud opinion) if all you're doing is lying to them. I mean, poloticians lie all the time... doesn't mean that if we vote for them they've committed fraud. Ah, the freedom of speech. It can be used to such terrible ends, no?

Hey, I'll admit it. I'm biased. I wanted Kerry to win... well not so much for Kerry to win but for Bush to lose but what're you gonna do? I DO hope that if there has been voter fraud that it can be exposed but I think that
1. Everyone has been desensitized to Kerry's whining and,
2. Telling people to vote on the wrong day is dirty but not fraud

Please disagree with me, I'm bored.

-S

If there is a systematic campaign by any group with a vested interest in the outcome of the election to misinform people about official aspects of the election, that is illegal and it is fraud.

If there is a systematic campaign by electoral officials to deliberately under-resource polling stations to create congestion and deter voters who cannot wait in 8-9 hour long queues, then that is not illegal as it is official and even officially explained as 'bungling', but in my subjective view it is even worse fraud.

When you go to vote at a polling station, you are not obstructed, you cast your vote the way you intended and you can check that your vote has been cast the way you intended, then that is not fraud.

The fraud may come later if your candidate does not deliver on the fundamentals that prompted you to vote for him/her.

But there is little democracy in the US election process, only corruption.

[edit on 11-4-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
If there is a systematic campaign by any group with a vested interest in the outcome of the election to misinform people about official aspects of the election, that is illegal and it is fraud.

If there is a systematic campaign by electoral officials to deliberately under-resource polling stations to create congestion and deter voters who cannot wait in 8-9 hour long queues, then that is not illegal as it is[/] official and even officially explained as 'bungling', but in my subjective view it is even worse fraud.

When you go to vote at a polling station, you are not obstructed, you cast your vote the way you intended and you can check that your vote has been cast the way you intended, then that is not fraud.

The fraud may come later if your candidate does not deliver on the fundamentals that prompted you to vote for him/her.

But there is little democracy in the US election process, only corruption.

Ok, my neck hurts from turning my head sideways to read all that.

I think that Bush probably didn't orchestrate this "fraud". It was probably one of those "special interest groups"... but when does a lying politician's statements stop being voter propaganda and start being fraud? If these lies weren't systematic or by a group? Say I just decided to tell people to vote on Wednesday? Or, what if I think the election happens on Wednesday and I spread my ignorance? Then it all happened on accident.

Look, the fact that voter fraud is systematic probably means that there were sufficient legal loopholes. I'm assuming that's why Kerry's case got thrown out. Don't get me wrong, I think it's too bad, but I also think that Kerry is trying to stretch the legitimacy of his complaint.

On the topic of our democracy being so corrupt... my goodness, this can of worms can take this thread to unbearable new lengths. Try to examine communist philosophy: ideally it's everyone helping everyone else out. Basically, it is the negation of greed in the government and people... looking at Communist countries though... well I mean there's corruption everywhere, neh?

Too bad human nature is so destructive. Too bad only the people that are ambitious and power hungry enough get power... because those are the people most likely to abuse power. The people who are likely to declare war without anyone's support and then bullying a rag-tag band of nobodies into helping out with the dirty work.

Maybe we don't need a president? I think that the title of "President" has obviously proven to be too much power for one person... if only we had some kind of group that gave more equal representation... like some kind of "congress" or "senate"...
-S


[edit on 11-4-2005 by ServoHahn]

Sorry about the unique slant that my previous opinion took.

The lesson is that if I leave "I" out of it, it starts leaning to the right, but if I bring "I" back into it, then it is all balanced again.

By the by, what is the true purpose of having a voter registration card with a party affiliation recorded on it? That is unique to communist countries and the USA...

Regardless, did anyone expect Kerry to say that he lost, fair and square?

Please!

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Thomas Crowne]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Sorry about the unique slant that my previous opinion took.

The lesson is that if I leave "I" out of it, it starts leaning to the right, but if I bring "I" back into it, then it is all balanced again.

By the by, what is the true purpose of having a voter registration card with a party affiliation recorded on it? That is unique to communist countries and the USA...

That i know of in communist countries there are no other parties registered....there is only one party, and that is the communist party...

I know in Cuba there is one party.....that is fidel castro's....

Originally posted by Muaddib
That i know of in communist countries there are no other parties registered....there is only one party, and that is the communist party...

... hence the term "card-carrying member", which aligns neatly with the communist philosophical variant of the Bushism "you're either with us or against us".

But what is the purpose of having any political affiliation on a Voter Registration Card in the bastion of freedom and democracy that is the USA? Quite intersting that when you carry your credentials to a desk, your voting intention is presented with you... what a great vehicle for selective misinformation and fraud.

[edit on 11-4-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

The difference is, MA, if you vote against Bush, you do not die.

Also, there are no "credentials" to carry to the desk. You go and vote; that is all.

A point that has already been made is that there isn't a penny's difference between the two parties, and there hasn't been for years. That, by the way, is an incrimination of ytour boy, Billy, as well. Were you not so blinded by crap you'd realize that. Don't tell me I don't know you're blinded; I've been unfortunate enough to read your extremely biased garbage for a long time, now.

Regardless of which party you belong to I think it's high time everyone realized that no matter who wins the other side is always going to have some gripes. While it's poor form to simply disregard these claims, they should also be taken with a grain of salt.

Additionally, as TC said, it would be foolish to forget certain candidates and their universal appeal.

[edit on 4-12-2005 by Djarums]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The difference is, MA, if you vote against Bush, you do not die.
...
That, by the way, is an incrimination of ytour boy, Billy, as well. Were you not so blinded by crap you'd realize that. Don't tell me I don't know you're blinded; I've been unfortunate enough to read your extremely biased garbage for a long time, now.

Wow, buddy. Take it down a notch. I disagree with MA on a great many of things but I try to do it civily at least... when I don't I make an effort to apologize. If you don't agree with him, that's cool... just don't try to discredit him Double Jeopardy style.

As for being biased? Let he who is not biased cast the first vote... or something.

If you watch the news, you're biased. I mean, you'd be biased unless you have heard no one else's opinion on the subject and if you have personally investigated the matter at hand. Do you live in Ohio, by any chance? I bet this stuff will have made the local news... maybe there are other stories about it?

Bias is inescapable, say you neh?

Off topic: We've PO'd a great many number of nations with our foreign policy lately. Let's not forget that we, the U.S. are not invincible. I don't think a war made on us is all that unlikely. And I will blame no one but Bush if that happens. However, if our foreign relations repair themselves, I will write the President a letter of apology saying "I'm sorry that I thought you'd be the end of our country."
-S
Buck
Fush


[edit on 12-4-2005 by ServoHahn]

lets just say the voting in Iraq and Afganistan was probly less corrupt then the presidential election in the US. If you can prove to me that ther was no fraud or corruption in the election, then Kerry should stop complaining. Otherwise, this country also has a thing called freedom of speech, and Kerry can safly say the more corrupt side won

Of course there was voter fraud in 2004....good god people, just look back into the ATS threads on it!!!

You idiotic Republicans are getting your "stop whining" ya yas , without ever once seeing what was clear as day. Paper patriots everyone of you.

You idiotic Democrats never stopped to notice that the "party" power brokers made a deal, selected a candidate that would win ( but not by much ) and took a blind eye, "we ain't saying nuthin" approach to "fixing" vote problems before the election, and a hands off afterwards.
All fuss to the contrary is purely to feed the allusion that the Democrats are really not with the Republicans.

It's class warfare folks.....the parties do nothing but defer the focus.