Log in

View Full Version : Kerry Won... BBC TV Journalist Greg Palast



Skeptic
8th November 2004, 23:06
Kerry Won. . .
Greg Palast
November 04, 2004


Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes. In the United States, about 3 percent of votes cast are voided—known as “spoilage” in election jargon—because the ballots cast are inconclusive. Drawing on what happened in Florida and studies of elections past, Palast argues that if Ohio’s discarded ballots were counted, Kerry would have won the state. Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports there are a total of 247,672 votes not counted in Ohio, if you add the 92,672 discarded votes plus the 155,000 provisional ballots. So far there's no indication that Palast's hypothesis will be tested because only the provisional ballots are being counted.

Greg Palast, contributing editor to Harper's magazine, investigated the manipulation of the vote for BBC Television's Newsnight. The documentary, "Bush Family Fortunes," based on his New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, has been released this month on DVD .

Kerry won. Here are the facts.

I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry.

Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. At 1:05 a.m. Wednesday morning, CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. The exit polls were later combined with—and therefore contaminated by—the tabulated results, ultimately becoming a mirror of the apparent actual vote. [To read about the skewing of exit polls to conform to official results, click here .] Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.

So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.

Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. [See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten," November 1.]

Once again, at the heart of the Ohio uncounted vote game are, I'm sorry to report, hanging chads and pregnant chads, plus some other ballot tricks old and new.

The election in Ohio was not decided by the voters but by something called "spoilage." Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of the vote is voided, just thrown away, not recorded. When the bobble-head boobs on the tube tell you Ohio or any state was won by 51 percent to 49 percent, don't you believe it ... it has never happened in the United States, because the total never reaches a neat 100 percent. The television totals simply subtract out the spoiled vote.

Whose Votes Are Discarded?

And not all votes spoil equally. Most of those votes, say every official report, come from African-American and minority precincts. (To learn more, click here.)

We saw this in Florida in 2000. Exit polls showed Gore with a plurality of at least 50,000, but it didn't match the official count. That's because the official, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, excluded 179,855 spoiled votes. In Florida, as in Ohio, most of these votes lost were cast on punch cards where the hole wasn't punched through completely—leaving a 'hanging chad,'—or was punched extra times. Whose cards were discarded? Expert statisticians investigating spoilage for the government calculated that 54 percent of the ballots thrown in the dumpster were cast by black folks. (To read the report from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, click here .)

And here's the key: Florida is terribly typical. The majority of ballots thrown out (there will be nearly 2 million tossed out from Tuesday's election) will have been cast by African American and other minority citizens.

So here we go again. Or, here we don't go again. Because unlike last time, Democrats aren't even asking Ohio to count these cards with the not-quite-punched holes (called "undervotes" in the voting biz). Nor are they demanding we look at the "overvotes" where voter intent may be discerned.

Ohio is one of the last states in America to still use the vote-spoiling punch-card machines. And the Secretary of State of Ohio, J. Kenneth Blackwell, wrote before the election, “the possibility of a close election with punch cards as the state’s primary voting device invites a Florida-like calamity.”

But this week, Blackwell, a rabidly partisan Republican, has warmed up to the result of sticking with machines that have a habit of eating Democratic votes. When asked if he feared being this year's Katherine Harris, Blackwell noted that Ms. Fix-it's efforts landed her a seat in Congress.

Exactly how many votes were lost to spoilage this time? Blackwell's office, notably, won't say, though the law requires it be reported. Hmm. But we know that last time, the total of Ohio votes discarded reached a democracy-damaging 1.96 percent. The machines produced their typical loss—that's 110,000 votes—overwhelmingly Democratic.

The Impact Of Challenges

First and foremost, Kerry was had by chads. But the Democrat wasn't punched out by punch cards alone. There were also the 'challenges.' That's a polite word for the Republican Party of Ohio's use of an old Ku Klux Klan technique: the attempt to block thousands of voters of color at the polls. In Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida, the GOP laid plans for poll workers to ambush citizens under arcane laws—almost never used—allowing party-designated poll watchers to finger individual voters and demand they be denied a ballot. The Ohio courts were horrified and federal law prohibits targeting of voters where race is a factor in the challenge. But our Supreme Court was prepared to let Republicans stand in the voting booth door.

In the end, the challenges were not overwhelming, but they were there. Many apparently resulted in voters getting these funky "provisional" ballots—a kind of voting placebo—which may or may not be counted. Blackwell estimates there were 175,000; Democrats say 250,000. Pick your number. But as challenges were aimed at minorities, no one doubts these are, again, overwhelmingly Democratic. Count them up, add in the spoiled punch cards (easy to tally with the human eye in a recount), and the totals begin to match the exit polls; and, golly, you've got yourself a new president. Remember, Bush won by 136,483 votes in Ohio.

Enchanted State's Enchanted Vote

Now, on to New Mexico, where a Kerry plurality—if all votes are counted—is more obvious still. Before the election, in TomPaine.com, I wrote, "John Kerry is down by several thousand votes in New Mexico, though not one ballot has yet been counted."

How did that happen? It's the spoilage, stupid; and the provisional ballots.

CNN said George Bush took New Mexico by 11,620 votes. Again, the network total added up to that miraculous, and non-existent, '100 percent' of ballots cast.

New Mexico reported in the last race a spoilage rate of 2.68 percent, votes lost almost entirely in Hispanic, Native American and poor precincts—Democratic turf. From Tuesday's vote, assuming the same ballot-loss rate, we can expect to see 18,000 ballots in the spoilage bin.

Spoilage has a very Democratic look in New Mexico. Hispanic voters in the Enchanted State, who voted more than two to one for Kerry, are five times as likely to have their vote spoil as a white voter. Counting these uncounted votes would easily overtake the Bush 'plurality.'

Already, the election-bending effects of spoilage are popping up in the election stats, exactly where we'd expect them: in heavily Hispanic areas controlled by Republican elections officials. Chaves County, in the "Little Texas" area of New Mexico, has a 44 percent Hispanic population, plus African Americans and Native Americans, yet George Bush "won" there 68 percent to 31 percent.

I spoke with Chaves' Republican county clerk before the election, and he told me that this huge spoilage rate among Hispanics simply indicated that such people simply can't make up their minds on the choice of candidate for president. Oddly, these brown people drive across the desert to register their indecision in a voting booth.

Now, let's add in the effect on the New Mexico tally of provisional ballots.

"They were handing them out like candy," Albuquerque journalist Renee Blake reported of provisional ballots. About 20,000 were given out. Who got them?

Santiago Juarez who ran the "Faithful Citizenship" program for the Catholic Archdiocese in New Mexico, told me that "his" voters, poor Hispanics, whom he identified as solid Kerry supporters, were handed the iffy provisional ballots. Hispanics were given provisional ballots, rather than the countable kind "almost religiously," he said, at polling stations when there was the least question about a voter's identification. Some voters, Santiago said, were simply turned away.

Your Kerry Victory Party

So we can call Ohio and New Mexico for John Kerry—if we count all the votes.

But that won't happen. Despite the Democratic Party's pledge, the leadership this time gave in to racial disenfranchisement once again. Why? No doubt, the Democrats know darn well that counting all the spoiled and provisional ballots will require the cooperation of Ohio's Secretary of State, Blackwell. He will ultimately decide which spoiled and provisional ballots get tallied. Blackwell, hankering to step into Kate Harris' political pumps, is unlikely to permit anything close to a full count. Also, Democratic leadership knows darn well the media would punish the party for demanding a full count.

What now? Kerry won, so hold your victory party. But make sure the shades are down: it may be become illegal to demand a full vote count under PATRIOT Act III.

I used to write a column for the Guardian papers in London. Several friends have asked me if I will again leave the country. In light of the failure—a second time—to count all the votes, that won't be necessary. My country has left me.



http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php

Rasta Sapian
9th November 2004, 00:24
oil won and ketchup lost, the BBC wishes Kerry won but the American people voted for the Bush "crusaider yankee superstar"

but when in doubt, do what swartzeneger would do!

Fidelbrand
9th November 2004, 09:01
So is the white house goanna do anything? I don't quite understand....

refuse_resist
9th November 2004, 09:07
Probably not.

commiecrusader
9th November 2004, 10:28
Why would it? The oil-man won and that's what they wanted. The only good thing about Bu$h winning is that it means my signature is still relevant lol

h&s
9th November 2004, 14:55
Regardless of whethwer or not Bush won this election by dirty tricks, the voters struck off by Jeb Bush in 2000 still didn't vote so I rekon Kerry should have won it if it were 'fair.'

Pawn Power
9th November 2004, 14:59
It does not matter who won we are still fucked.

Voting for a president in the U$ is like choosing if you want to be killed by drowning or in a fire, it doesn’t matter you’re still dead.

h&s
9th November 2004, 15:22
The thing is (in my opinion) that if Kerry had won the anti-Bush anti-war people would have seen that the Democrats are just exactly the same as the Republicans (as Michael Moore would put it, he is a Republocrat). Maybe then all confidence in the 2 party system would have been dealt a lethal blow, or maybe not. Just a thought...

Blackguard
9th November 2004, 16:29
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 10:01 AM
So is the white house goanna do anything? I don't quite understand....
hm... Bush is in the white house! do you think he´ll act against himself?

Fidelbrand
9th November 2004, 16:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 12:29 AM
hm... Bush is in the white house! do you think he´ll act against himself?
Wanna see how well the U.S. equates itself to "democracy". :P

Severian
9th November 2004, 18:05
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 05:06 PM
Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes. In the United States, about 3 percent of votes cast are voided—known as “spoilage” in election jargon—because the ballots cast are inconclusive. Drawing on what happened in Florida and studies of elections past, Palast argues that if Ohio’s discarded ballots were counted, Kerry would have won the state. Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports there are a total of 247,672 votes not counted in Ohio, if you add the 92,672 discarded votes plus the 155,000 provisional ballots. So far there's no indication that Palast's hypothesis will be tested because only the provisional ballots are being counted.
It only would make a difference in the result if the great majority of them are for Kerry. Perhaps Palast's arguments are reason to think somewhat more than half are for Kerry. But not sufficient reason to think they would be likely to affect the outcome of the election.

And as the paragraph quoted says, discarded ballots are a normal part of voting in the U.S. They're discarded because it's not clear who the voter intends to vote for, so counting 'em ain't so simple. They are noticed in Ohio 2004, and Florida 2000, only because these elections have been so close, not because some exceptional level of fraud is going on here.

Gore's four-county recount in 2000 was an attempt to steal the election, or steal it back if you prefer, by having these ambiguous decisions made by Democratic county officials. Which is why Gore neither challenged the exclusion of Black voters nor called for a statewide recount.


Answer: the exit polls are accurate.

No, they're not, and for Palast to say so he must be either dishonest or completely ignorant about polling and statistics.

Any poll has a margin of error of several percentage points. The smaller the sample, the larger the margin of error. When the candidates are only 3 points or so apart, exit polls can't reliably predict the outcome.

And they're not intended to; rather the polls give info about which groups voted for who, what reasons they gave for their votes, etc.

"Skeptic" seems remarkably unskeptical about anything that is or seems anti-Bush, including tripe put out by liberal capitalist forces.

Skepticism is a method not a position. It means evaluating claims based on evidence, not depending on whether you want to believe them. It's a useful skill. "Skeptic" in particular could benefit from learning it.

I recommend Skeptic magazine. (http://www.skeptic.com/) You can click on the "Skeptic manifesto" link on that page for starters.

Skeptic
9th November 2004, 19:59
Severian I am Skeptical that Elections are fair and ethical, whether its a Democrat or a Republican doing the dirty tricks. I've been skeptical since I've heard about the book Votescam. Here are some excerpts:

"A Brief History of Computerized Election Fraud in America (Excerpts)
By Victoria Collier

Squadrons of shiny new touch screen Trojan horses are being rolled into
precincts across America. Not, as we are told, to make voting easier or more
accurate. The real reason America is being flooded with billions of dollars
worth of paperless computerized voting machines is so that no one will be able
to prove vote fraud. These machines are not just unverifiable, they are
secretly programmed. Their software is not open to scrutiny by election
officials or computer experts. They are also equipped with modems accessible by
computer, telephone, and satellite.

We the People are responsible for taking back the control of our democratic
process. No one else will do it for us. We cannot afford to be naive, or
uneducated at this time in history. In order to fully understand the extent of
the corruption we are dealing with, and to avoid making dangerous mistakes
based on ignorance, we must understand the history, and the power structure,
behind vote fraud in America.

I grew up with two men who spent twenty-five years investigating vote fraud
in America: James and Kenneth Collier, my father and uncle. Their book,
Votescam: The Stealing of America was published in 1992 and immediately banned
by the major book chains, which listed the book as "out of print" and actively
worked to prevent its sale. Votescam chronicles the Collier brother's
groundbreaking investigation into America's multi-billion dollar election
rigging industry, and the corporate government and media officials who control
it. [First five chapters available free online]

The Votescam investigation began in 1970, in -- surprise! -- Dade County,
Florida, where Ken ran for Congress (with Jim as his campaign manager). Ken was
rigged out of the election through a vote scam, which the Colliers later
discovered was used throughout the country for decades. It went like this: The
local newscaster would announce during the broadcast of election returns that
the election "computer has broken down." Instead of giving official returns
from the county courthouse, the networks would be running vote "projections"
for the rest of the night.

Jim and Ken, who had garnered 30 percent of the vote, noticed that when the
vote totals came back on the screen after the announcement, they had
mysteriously lost 15 percentage points. They didn't get another vote for the
rest of the night. When they examined the "official" election results from for
the September primary, October run-off and November final election in Dade
County, the record listed a total of 141,000 votes cast for the governors race
in each election. The exact same number of total votes were cast for three
elections with a different number of candidates running each time. The same
identical figures were listed for the Senate race in the primary, run-off and
final election. This, of course, is a statistical impossibility.

When they compared the "official" vote results with a print-out of the vote
"projections" broadcast by the TV networks on the final election night, they
found that channel 4 had "projected" with near perfect accuracy the results of
40 races with 250 candidates only 4 minutes after the polls closed. Channel 7
came even closer; at 9:31 pm, they "projected" the final vote total for a race
at 96,499 votes. When the Colliers checked the "official" number . . . it was
also 96,499.

The networks then made the astonishing claim that the results from a single
voting machine somewhere in Dade County were run through a computer program in
order to get these vote projections. Elton Davis was the computer programmer
responsible for the magic formula that could convert one machine's vote results
into near perfect projected vote totals for 40 races and 250 candidates. When
Jim and Ken confronted Davis in his office at the University of Miami, he
responded: "You'll never prove it, now get out."

Finally the networks claimed that members of the League of Women Voters were
out in the field on election night, calling in vote totals to channels 4 and 7.
When the Colliers confronted the head of the League, Joyce Deiffenderfer, she
admitted that there were no LWV members out in the field that night. She broke
down crying, saying "I don't want to get caught up in this thing.

When the TV networks claimed that the courthouse computer had broken down,
and they would no longer be reporting actual vote totals, they were lying. They
had never been reporting actual vote totals. The final shoe dropped months
later when an official press release appeared from Dade data processing chief,
Leonard White, which stated emphatically: The county computer at the courthouse
was never down, and it was never slow.

This was the beginning. The Collier brothers had slammed their boat into the
tip of a giant iceberg. As they continued to investigate, they were horrified
to discover vote fraud collusion among key individuals in every branch and on
every level of the American political system. Those who were not benefiting
from the fraud were too afraid to fight it. Their search for justice led to
dead-ends. Their lives were threatened. They were vilified as conspiracy
theorists by the mainstream press . . . and yet they persevered.

The next quarter century was spent compiling a wealth of FBI documented
evidence proving that elections in the United States have come under the tight
control of a handful of powerful and corrupt people. Jim and Ken both died
young during the 90's, as heroes to many thousands who heard them speak on the
radio and at political meetings across the country. They helped to guide
individuals and groups working for clean elections in their communities. The
Collier's last hope was that Votescam would be used as evidence in a serious
Congressional investigation into election fraud.

Many people still in power have yet to be held accountable for their role in
aiding and abetting vote fraud. I'll give you two important examples. Famous
Miami lawyer Ellis Rubin brought the original Votescam evidence to the Florida
assistant State Attorney at the time, Janet Reno. The evidence included the
shaved wheels of lever voting machines, forged canvass sheets, and pre-printed
vote tally sheets. Reno refused to prosecute, claiming falsely that the statue
of limitations had run out on the crime. Years later, Rubin would tell my
father that behind closed doors Reno had stated that she could not prosecute.
Why? Because she would bring down many of the most powerful people in the
state.

Another notable Votescam criminal can now be found sitting on the bench of
the highest court in the nation. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, while
still a Federal Appeals Judge, single handedly destroyed what would have been
an historic lawsuit filed against Justice Department lawyer Craig Donsanto, who
had refused to prosecute the extensive vote fraud evidence brought to him by
the Colliers. The evidence included videotape of the League of Women voters
tampering with ballots in a close door vote "counting" session. The women were
illegally punching holes in already cast ballots.

I'd like to offer a brief list of important lessons learned from twenty-five
years of fighting vote fraud in the trenches.
Secret vote counting is illegal. Counting faster is not a justification for
counting secretly.
Lever machines were the first to appear, and they were riggable in a number of
ways. One could rig the lever machine itself, or the electronic scanning
machines that counted the ballots. (See the Votescam video for footage of
ballot rigging).
Computerized voting machines are the easiest to rig. Their software is not open
to public scrutiny, or the scrutiny of Election Supervisors. There are nearly
infinite ways to program the machines to count votes fraudulently. Since they
are accessible by modem, they can be controlled from a remote, centralized
location.
Voting machine companies operate with no federal oversight, certification
process, standards or restrictions. Just two companies -- Election Systems and
Software (ES&S) and Diebold Voting Systems -- now control about 80% of the vote
count in the U.S.
Both the Democratic and Republican parties have been complicit in vote rigging
for decades, to their mutual benefit. Vote rigging is NOT a partisan issue.
The corporate major media networks play a vital role in perpetrating and
covering up vote fraud.
Election Day media polls are untrustworthy at best.
The gravest error of judgment these days comes from those vote reformers who
honestly believe that the answer to the butterfly ballot and hanging chad
problems in the 2000 election is to embrace the ballot-less computerized voting
machine. With the ballot-less computer, there is no way to recount, no way to
prove any discrepancy, inaccuracy or fraud. Just the fact that companies like
ES&S and Diebold would even make a ballot-less machine should be cause for a
Congressional investigation. (There are also many other reasons to investigate
them. For a detailed examination of these sinister corporations, check out
http://www.blackboxvoting.com )

A most grave error of judgment also comes from those who think that returning
to a hand-counted paper ballot system is somehow impossible. An MIT/Cal Tech
study done in 2001 shows that manually counted paper ballots are the most
accurate system out of the 5 systems used in the last 4 presidential elections.
They are totally verifiable, and first-world nations across the globe still use
them, including Canada which counted their last presidential election in four
hours.

The bottom line is that a computerized vote count is a secret vote count, and
that's illegal. Technology cannot supercede the constitutional and mandatory
provisions of election law, which require open and verifiable elections. There
is no way to do a public vote count with computers. The count must be done by
hand, in public, video-taped, aired live on television, and the results posted
on the precinct wall -- just like they used to be. Ballots should be counted
on the same day as the voting takes place, making it much more difficult to
alter ballots. Hand counted paper ballots and eternal vigilance are the only
hope left for us.




A long time writer and political activist, Victoria Collier continues to
educate the public on the subject of vote fraud in place of her father and
uncle. She is the editor of http://www.votescam.com Victoria is available for
interviews and can be reached at 1-866-280-9090 and at [email protected]


For reliable, verifiable information on other major cover-ups which directly
affect our democracy, see www.WantToKnow.info The WantToKnow.info team is a
group of dedicated researchers from around the world who are deeply committed
to revealing information being hidden from the public, and to designing ways
that we can work together to build a brighter future for us, for our children,
and for our world. To join our mailing list (one email every two days on
average), send an email to [email protected] Together, we can and will
make a difference. Thanks for caring and have a good day."


Elections aren't the way the people control the Government. Elections are the
way the Government controls the people. Democracy? Can't we do better than
that?!--Skeptic

Funky Monk
9th November 2004, 22:47
Despite conspiracy theories about certain states the truth is that about 3 million people more voted for Bush than Kerry, the American people have got what they deserved.

Pawn Power
10th November 2004, 02:03
The thing is (in my opinion) that if Kerry had won the anti-Bush anti-war people would have seen that the Democrats are just exactly the same as the Republicans (as Michael Moore would put it, he is a Republocrat). Maybe then all confidence in the 2 party system would have been dealt a lethal blow, or maybe not. Just a thought...
Moore openly supported Kerry and the Democratic party.


Despite conspiracy theories about certain states the truth is that about 3 million people more voted for Bush than Kerry, the American people have got what they deserved.
yea, its scary thats the way things are going :(

Severian
10th November 2004, 06:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:59 PM
Severian I am Skeptical that Elections are fair and ethical, whether its a Democrat or a Republican doing the dirty tricks. I've been skeptical since I've heard about the book Votescam.
My point is, that actual skepticism would require you to be skeptical of everything, including that book and the various conspiracy theories you buy into. Skeptical in the sense of carefully examining the facts.

Posting lots of spam is not a substitute.

h&s
10th November 2004, 15:26
Moore openly supported Kerry and the Democratic party.
I know, I only said that it was his phrase I was using.

Pawn Power
10th November 2004, 16:36
Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 10 2004, 10:26 AM
I know, I only said that it was his phrase I was using.
Yea, i understand i just think it is silly that Moore said that when he supports the democratic party.

Skeptic
10th November 2004, 18:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 06:39 AM
My point is, that actual skepticism would require you to be skeptical of everything, including that book and the various conspiracy theories you buy into. Skeptical in the sense of carefully examining the facts.

Posting lots of spam is not a substitute.
Severain, now we are talking more about the scope of what I was trying to do. I was bringing up the facts and evidence of electoral fraud. You responded quite well to one of my posts with your well thought out response. I also posted 5 other articles on Che Lives about U.S. electoral fraud. These facts should not be readily dismissed out of hand because they go against established conventional wisdom, crush cherished belief systems, or they haven't appeared in the 'Skeptical Inquirer'
Magazine. The subject is so important that this matter should be thoroughly wrangled over. As to the point that Liberals have made the argument so the subject is automatically invalid or that voting is not revolutionary. I am a communist, so you don't catch me voting, and I realize elections are bullshit on about a dozen different levels. The Revolutionary Worker Newspapers says on the subject: "At the same time it is NOT in the interest of the proletariat to have bourgeois democratic rights crushed, and it is in the interests of the proletariat to FIGHT the crushing of bourgeois democracy. It is an irony of history that it often falls to the proletariat--and has historically been part of the proletarian revolution--to fulfill certain tasks that sections of the bourgeoisie are incapable of fulfulling--such as the fight to prevent the elimination of certain bourgeois rights. And then it falls to the proletariat to take that up and make it part of going somewhere else--that is, part of preparing the masses for revolution."

Severian
10th November 2004, 19:34
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 12:35 PM
Severain, now we are talking more about the scope of what I was trying to do. I was bringing up the facts and evidence of electoral fraud. You responded quite well to one of my posts with your well thought out response.
Gee, thanks. You didn't seem to feel any need to make any serious response to that post, but simply continued posting spam in support of that conspiracy theory (the claim that terrorist attacks attributed to al-Qaeda are really organized by the U.S. government). From which I concluded that it's a waste of time to make a detailed rebuttal of each and every piece of spam, and that it was necessary to address the root problem - your complete lack of skepticism and critical thinking.


I also posted 5 other articles on Che Lives about U.S. electoral fraud. These facts should not be readily dismissed out of hand because they go against established conventional wisdom, crush cherished belief systems, or they haven't appeared in the 'Skeptical Inquirer' Magazine.

In reality, not everything that appears in an article is a fact. Your uncritical acceptance of claims as facts is precisely the problem.

I linked Skeptic magazine not in regards to any particular claim or fact, but because of their explanation of the skeptical method, an explanation you could benefit from.. Your comment about dismissing alleged facts because "haven't appeared in the 'Skeptical Inquirer' Magazine" shows that you've completely misunderstood this point.


As to the point that Liberals have made the argument so the subject is automatically invalid or that voting is not revolutionary.

On the contrary, the point is that you shouldn't automatically or uncritically accept claims made by liberals.

As to the importance of vote fraud: a certain level of vote fraud is normal in bourgeois democracy. As bourgeois democracy has survived for centuries despite this fraud, clearly the fraud does not threaten the existence of this democracy.

Additionally, which aspects of bourgeois democracy are most important for workers? Freedom of speech, of the press, assembly, etc. Bill of Rights stuff, in the U.S. Normal levels of vote fraud are clearly not the greatest threat to these rights. Really, there's no reason that ordinary vote fraud, like "corruption" generally, should be considered an issue of great importance to working people.

It should also be pointed out that the Republican administration is not a greater threat to democratic rights than the Democrats. Many of the greatest abuses over the past couple years have been carried out under Clinton-era legislation, not the "PATRIOT Act". And the Democrats, and even the ACLU, do not call for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act, but only the fine-tuning of some of its provisions.

Severian
10th November 2004, 20:15
I should amend that post a little: the disenfranchisement of Black voters, as by falsely including them on lists of felons in Florida 2000, is something we should oppose. The problem is when this is done in such a way as to tail after the Democrats.

For that matter, why should actual felons be denied the right to vote? Efforts to restore their voting rights should be supported...year round, not just one November every four years.

Skeptic
11th November 2004, 07:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 07:34 PM
Gee, thanks. You didn't seem to feel any need to make any serious response to that post, but simply continued posting spam in support of that conspiracy theory (the claim that terrorist attacks attributed to al-Qaeda are really organized by the U.S. government). From which I concluded that it's a waste of time to make a detailed rebuttal of each and every piece of spam, and that it was necessary to address the root problem - your complete lack of skepticism and critical thinking.



In reality, not everything that appears in an article is a fact. Your uncritical acceptance of claims as facts is precisely the problem.

I linked Skeptic magazine not in regards to any particular claim or fact, but because of their explanation of the skeptical method, an explanation you could benefit from.. Your comment about dismissing alleged facts because "haven't appeared in the 'Skeptical Inquirer' Magazine" shows that you've completely misunderstood this point.



On the contrary, the point is that you shouldn't automatically or uncritically accept claims made by liberals.

As to the importance of vote fraud: a certain level of vote fraud is normal in bourgeois democracy. As bourgeois democracy has survived for centuries despite this fraud, clearly the fraud does not threaten the existence of this democracy.

Additionally, which aspects of bourgeois democracy are most important for workers? Freedom of speech, of the press, assembly, etc. Bill of Rights stuff, in the U.S. Normal levels of vote fraud are clearly not the greatest threat to these rights. Really, there's no reason that ordinary vote fraud, like "corruption" generally, should be considered an issue of great importance to working people.

It should also be pointed out that the Republican administration is not a greater threat to democratic rights than the Democrats. Many of the greatest abuses over the past couple years have been carried out under Clinton-era legislation, not the "PATRIOT Act". And the Democrats, and even the ACLU, do not call for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act, but only the fine-tuning of some of its provisions.
What serious response was made on your part? What you did Severain was flippantly dismiss the articles I was posting on three issues. The first being the Al-Zawqari 'super villain' mythos being created by the United States. You seem to have made a snap judgment on that issue, as well as the issue of possible Govt. complicity in the attacks on 911 and the possibility that last weeks elections could have been fraudulent. These subjects have planet wide implications and are by no means settled. When I post articles about these occurrences and journalists opinions I am not obligated to automatically state the opposite argument. These details can be wrangled out by entering debates with people bringing up counter arguments if they occur to them. You use loaded words like 'spam' to describe the efforts I have made to post these articles on Che-Lives. From your quick dismissals and flames concerning the articles I've posted I don't get the impression that you read much of what I post. Skepticism does not require that I follow establish orthodoxy, and I don't shy away from an issue because it is labeled a 'conspiracy theory.' None of the points you have taken the time to bring up so far have convinced me that these issues could not be conspiratorial. I am going to continue posting on these issues which I find interesting and important. Feel free debate the issues. It would be refreshing if you didn't do so with such a superior and arrogant attitude. Critical thinking is not the problem. I don't agree with your conclusions.