|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Nov 16th, 2004 12:01 PM | |||||||
| Anonymous |
Truthout, but shut up, it's actually just reporting something. Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing t r u t h o u t | Press Release Monday 15 November 2004 Green Party Campaign Raises $150,000 in 4 Days, Shifts Gears to Phase II WASHINGTON -- November 15 -- There will be a recount of the presidential vote in Ohio. On Thursday, David Cobb, the Green Party’s 2004 presidential candidate, announced his intention to seek a recount of the vote in Ohio. Since the required fee for a statewide recount is $113,600, the only question was whether that money could be raised in time to meet the filing deadline. That question has been answered. “Thanks to the thousands of people who have contributed to this effort, we can say with certainty that there will be a recount in Ohio,” said Blair Bobier, Media Director for the Cobb-LaMarche campaign. “The grassroots support for the recount has been astounding. The donations have come in fast and furiously, with the vast majority in the $10-$50 range, allowing us to meet our goal for the first phase of the recount effort in only four days,” said Bobier. Bobier said the campaign is still raising money for the next phase of the recount effort which will be recruiting, training and mobilizing volunteers to monitor the actual recount. The Ohio presidential election was marred by numerous press and independent reports of mis-marked and discarded ballots, problems with electronic voting machines and the targeted disenfranchisement of African American voters. A number of citizens’ groups and voting rights organizations are holding the second of two hearings today in Columbus, Ohio, to take testimony from voters, poll watchers and election experts about problems with the Ohio vote. The hearing, from 6-9 p.m., will be held at the Courthouse, meeting room A, 373 S. High St., in Columbus. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign will be represented at the hearing by campaign manager Lynne Serpe. A demand for a recount in Ohio can only be filed by a presidential candidate who was either a certified write-in candidate or on the ballot in that state. Both Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik will be demanding a recount. No other candidate has stated an intention to seek a recount and no other citizen or organization would have legal standing to do so in Ohio. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign is still exploring the possibility of seeking recounts in other states but no decision has been made yet. --- More liberal unamerican propaganda here. |
||||||
| Nov 16th, 2004 11:37 AM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Again, I think Kerry speaks in Senate garble that never translated very well amongst the public. But the man wasn't a terrible candidate, and his performance supports that. He lost, yes. But once again, this was no landslide, no mandate, and my only concern is that the GOP will take a close victory and turn it into an excuse to go carte blanche. Quote:
Also, I don't know that it was necessarily a vote against Kerry, but in many ways, it may have been ABABB. Figure that one out! |
||||||
| Nov 16th, 2004 10:51 AM | |||||||
| FS |
I think what abcd means is that even if they threw away all the non-existent votes, Kerry still wouldn't have enough to make a majority. However, if 7 times the amount of actual voters went to one party, then it wouldn't be too farfetched to look into whether some votes didn't go to the wrong person as well. |
||||||
| Nov 16th, 2004 09:58 AM | |||||||
| AChimp |
RTFA, ABCD. Quote:
|
||||||
| Nov 16th, 2004 04:40 AM | |||||||
| Abcdxxxx |
They claim 638 votes were cast. 260 for Kerry. that leaves 378 votes that didn't go to Kerry. These are the numbers being used as supposed evidence that a recount would effect the outcome. That's shabby logic when we know the REAL reason a recount would effect the outcome is because our systems screwy and if you counted the ballots 20 times, you'd get 20 different totals. Being okay with civil unions, doesn't reflect on how people want that "being okay" to be proctored. 11 States do not speak for the nation.... but a Senate majority, and various others bills help it a bit. I think a lot of fairly liberal people cast some very conservative votes this year, and they did so intentionally. By and large, the perception is that our nation took a very Conservative turn this month is a bit misleading anyway. I'm not arguing that Bush has a mandate or not, because it apparently doesn't ultimately matter, but I do think it's foolish to argue that just because Kerry also got a shitload of votes, in an election where a shitload of votes were cast anyway(for a change) can be considered evidence of much. I think a lot of people ended up voting ABK. Anybody but Kerry. The Democrats have all gone on record saying there was no mathematical way to win. Not that I trust them, but most of the articles claiming Kerry should have won, or could have seem to be a little illogical in places. |
||||||
| Nov 15th, 2004 11:24 PM | |||||||
| AChimp |
Quote:
Only in America. 
|
||||||
| Nov 15th, 2004 10:43 PM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
As far as "how the nation voted," a lot of that is complicated and circumstantial. If you're talking about the gay marriage amendments, well, frankly, Americans don't want it. But as David Brooks pointed out in his recent column, most of America seems to have a pretty broad perspective on that issue. Most folks, at least according to polling data, seem okay with civil unions. Otherwise, Senate/House seats that went "red" tended to be in places that should be "red." Like Charlie Cook points out in his analysis, a lot of this has to do with the realignment of the South, so this isn't necessarily a blow to the Democrats in 2004, but it's one they should've more so seen coming a few years back. Quote:
However, with that said, I think it's important to point out again that despite Kerry's short-comings, despite the fact that his campaign shifted gears too often, despite the fact that he was "ABB," he STILL received a shit load of votes. The GOP's attempt to turn this in to Nixon/McGovern is cute, but it's also waaaay off. Over 50 million Americans, nearly half of the electorate, voted for the guy who simply wasn't George W. Bush. A mandate that does not make..... Quote:
And I doubt it was ever very comfortable being gay in Kentucky. 
|
||||||
| Nov 15th, 2004 10:21 PM | |||||||
| Abcdxxxx |
Now I'm not the best at this funny new math you kids do, but even in that case example of the 600 and some odd votes, Kerry got less then a majority win according to their estimate. Put aside the Presidency, and just look at how the nation voted on other candidates and issues, and things should be pretty clear where the countries head is at. Let's face it, Kerry wasn't a great candidate which is why one of the biggest advocacy campaigns was "Anybody but Bush".... not a real endorsement of kerry now is it? Years from now, we'll view "Anybody but Bush" as being far more damaging then Nader ever was. The left took such a bombastic approach to spreading their message that they ended up setting their cause back at least ten years, maybe more. It's just like the gay weddings issue. You can't force it under the books... if you believe it should be legal.do it right, and ammend the laws properly because if you don't, the Right will. So now because two mayors in progressive States acted as civil dissobediants when they damn well knew it would get over turned, being Gay in Kentucky got a whole lot less comfortable. |
||||||
| Nov 15th, 2004 07:41 PM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Bump! | ||||||
| Nov 14th, 2004 12:56 AM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Also.... .....it's also worth noting that you're assumptions on why Bush won, because he's somehow more "in touch" with the "mainstream," are just flat wrong. Most polling shows folks went out and voted overwhelmingly along party lines, with self-proclaimed "moderates" swinging towards Kerry. The GOP did a better job of getting out their base, but please Ronnie, don't have any cracked ideas about this being some "middle American mandadte" or whatever for Bush. This was good old fashioned GOTV, and the GOP are better at it (I'll admit it!). According to the Cook Political Report, "85 percent of liberals voted for Kerry, 84 percent of conservatives voted for Bush, and moderates went for Kerry by nine points, conservatives outnumbered liberals, 34 percent to 21 percent, making the difference." The link to the full article is here: http://www.cookpolitical.com/column/2004/110904.php It's actually quite favorable and congratulatory towards the Bush campaign. |
||||||
| Nov 14th, 2004 12:26 AM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Just because you work at an airport and fancy yourself "straight blue collar," or whatever crap your profile said, doesn't mean you speak for real, hard working Americans. I think plenty of them went out and voted for Senator Kerry, too. Quote:
I'll say it one more time: Over FIFTY MILLION Americans thought that the "most liberal senator eve....blah blah" was a better choice than this president. The fact that a wartime president now serves over the most ideologically divided nation since 1860 says a LOT. Quote:
Quote:
There WILL however be a push to retool the DNC, which is fine. It's probably necessary. But there will be no "black party" or whatever the heck you're talking about here..... Quote:
Furthermore, this victory could be potentially bad for the GOP. Those "strains" you mentioned will arise in two or more years, when talk of who will run in 2008 comes up. Folks like Karl Rove will want to stay in the ballgame, and undoubtedly they'll push to run some neo-con hack that will make you blush and cheer. But then you might see a real conservative, perhaps a John McCain, step up for the spot. Like I said, in-fighting and third party activity often come when one (or both) of the major parties simply lose message and get wrapped up in winning, taking power, and maintaing that power. This is the state of the modern GOP. Look for more third party growth from the Libertarians, too. On paper anyway, they are already the largest third party in the country. The Constitution Party continues to grow in certain states as well. The strain may come from the Right when real conservatives begin to get tired of Politburro Republicanism. Quote:
|
||||||
| Nov 12th, 2004 03:53 PM | |||||||
| ScruU2wice |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
| Nov 12th, 2004 02:49 PM | |||||||
| Ant10708 | I dunno. I think Hilary could win for the Democrats. She is extremely popular with Democrats and I think she could get alot of people who just want to see a woman president to vote for her. But it really depends on her opponent and weather the Republican party can keep getting more support from Hispanics. | ||||||
| Nov 12th, 2004 02:38 PM | |||||||
| Ronnie Raygun |
"Considerably less votes are what separated you from an electoral college loss." - Kevin What you really want to say is that Bush doesn't have a mandate....Well, that MAY be questionable...I tend to think not. But if Bush doesn't than Clinton never did either which makes your point moot.... Dems have simply punched themselves out... "and nobody is thinking third parties right now" - Kevin Yes they are!!! Blacks are pissed about the election and they blame **GUESS WHO** the democratic party...Look into and you'll see..... Also, you will soon see strains in the democratic party...those who want Dean to run the party and those who feel democrats must move to the right in order to swing moderate votes....If the party moves to the right, you'll see a third party arise once more on the extreme left....which means a loss in 2008...If you remain on the left, the same thing will happen in 2008 that happend this year...you lose.... Unfortunatley for you, you are fresh out of Bill Cintons...and it would probably take more than another Bill Clinton to win a national election for the dems...I would say that you'd need another JFK only he'd be a republican by today's standards..... |
||||||
| Nov 12th, 2004 02:10 PM | |||||||
| sspadowsky |
Whatever! The left has been losing power election after election after election while the right has has been stealing power election after election after election... WHY?!? Because the seats of power hav been take over by right wing fundamentalist zealots and wackos. Average Americans cannot relate to billionaires and it will be years before the American people can scrape off the stink put upon us by their depraved and immoral policies of war profiteering, lying, theft and redistribution of American hard earned money into their own pockets, spitting on soldiers by praising them in public and then cutting their pay and benefits, lying about American war crimes, bestowing death upon our soldiers and the breeding of our nations enemies... It will at least be another 20 years before The United States will elect another liberal. And as soon as Bush's judges get through, we will truly control all three branches of govt. and THAT'S when you'll start seeing REAL fascism and reform that runs this country into the ground....and when that happens you may never see another democrat anywhere in the country, because by that time their party will be outlawed.... 2006 will be fun....just look at the dem senators that are up for reelection.....How many of those seats do you think the neo-cons will try to steal through illegal or unethical redistricting? |
||||||
| Nov 12th, 2004 01:46 PM | |||||||
| glowbelly |
did you get all red-faced and start spitting while you were typing that? if not, could you please videotape yourself reading that statement and make sure to get all red-faced and spitty? then post it here? please? |
||||||
| Nov 12th, 2004 01:24 PM | |||||||
| Ronnie Raygun |
"50 million + Americans are not pushing away from the mainstream." - Kevin Whatever! The left has been losing power election after election after election while the right has gotten stronger and stronger... WHY?!? Because the democratic party has been take over by left wing zealots and wackos. Average Americans cannot relate to your shrills and it will be years before the American people can scrape of the stink put upon us by your depraved and immoral policies of race baiting, lying, theft and redistrobution of American hard earned money, spitting on soldiers, lying about American war crimes, wishing death upon our president and the support of our nations enemies... It will at least be another 20 years before The United States will elect another liberal. And as soon as Bush's judges get through, we will truly control all three branches of govt. and THAT'S when you'll start seeing REAL change and reform that works in this country....and when that happens you may never see another democrat as president.... 2006 will be fun....just look at the dem senators that are up for reelection.....How many of those seats do you think your going to win? |
||||||
| Nov 12th, 2004 12:40 PM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
50 million + Americans are not pushing away from the mainstream. Nader, although a good man who has worked very hard for the American people for years, does not entirely represent the other perpective in this country. John Kerry did NOT lose because he was some kind of "left wing kook." You know this, but you play this game for the same reason that you try to demonize Howard Dean....you live in a dream land, and you're scared. John Kerry, who I'm certain you'd admit wasn't an amazing candidate, won more votes than any other presidential victor in history, with the exception of two men-- Reagan in '84, and W in '04. 3.5 million votes are what separated you from a popular loss. Considerably less votes are what separated you from an electoral college loss. The Republicans most certainly won the battle, but the war ahead is loooong. There's a Democratic base unlike ever before, and nobody is thinking third parties right now (if you studied the history of the party system, you'd see this pattern a lot). 2006 will be fun. |
||||||
| Nov 12th, 2004 08:44 AM | |||||||
| Ronnie Raygun |
HAHAHA! Nadar is DEAD!!...or at least he might as well be... He is in no position to make demands. He's a leftest kook who's been rejected by the American people on numerous occasions. I'm glad he's in the news though, the extreme left that controls the left is moving away from the mainstream and pushing the more moderate wing of the party towards the republican party.... Keep it up guys!!!! Go Hillary 2008!! |
||||||
| Nov 12th, 2004 02:25 AM | |||||||
| sadie | so you're saying you believe it to be untrue? | ||||||
| Nov 11th, 2004 05:06 PM | |||||||
| ScruU2wice |
Quote:
|
||||||
| Nov 11th, 2004 03:38 PM | |||||||
| AChimp |
Quote:
 Only in America.
|
||||||
| Nov 11th, 2004 02:53 PM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Re: Nader demands a recount http://www.blackboxvoting.com/ |
||||||
| Nov 11th, 2004 02:48 PM | |||||||
| Miss Modular |
Nader demands a recount http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...3&sid=96378801 Nader calls for US election recounts Thu Nov 11,10:31 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Ralph Nader (news - web sites), an independent presidential candidate this year, has called for recounts of November 2 voting results saying that amid allegations of irregularities, he wanted to ensure that every ballot was counted. Nader, who this year drew about one percent of the vote nationally, told a press conference Wednesday he was speaking out for the "thousands" of US voters asking for recounts and not on his own behalf. "Over 2,000 citizens including voting rights advocates are urging in writing the Nader Camejo campaign to help make sure every vote is counted and counted accurately. The Nader Camejo campaign does not view the election to be over merely because concession speeches, which have no legal effect, have been given. Rather they are over when every vote is counted and legally certified," Nader said. He urged recounts particularly in the hotly disputed states of Ohio and Florida, which went to Bush, New Hampshire which went to Kerry, and North Carolina, which went to Bush. Nader highlighted irregularities including one reported earlier in an Ohio polling station where 638 voters cast ballots but results showed 4,258 voted for Bush, and 260 for Kerry. "Striking inconsistencies exist between the vote as reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines and exit polls and voting trends in New Hampshire. These irregularities in the reported vote count favor president George W. Bush by five to 15 percent over what was expected. "Problems in these electronic voting machines and optical scanners are being reported in machines in a variety of states," Nader added. |
||||||
