Why there should be a recount of Ohio

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 22, 2004, 2:41 am

Rekaar. wrote:Why is this bad? What a stupid question, seriously. If it turns out that Kerry really did win Ohio by some miracle (or fantastic cheat or whatever), it throws not just our nation but the free world into varying degrees of turmoil.

Unlike the general growing feeling of disenfranchisement by millions? What about the consequences of letting it go if it in fact was cheating? What about democracy? If it was in fact cheating, we would be setting ourselves up for a dangerous precident of disenfranchisement. I'd rather have a year of recounts than a lack of democracy at least.

So let's say we recount Ohio and Kerry won. Well now we're recounting Pennsylvania too. Now Florida. Now NH. Now NM. Etc etc. 2 years later, after we've completely degraded and eroded the prestige and effectiveness of a sitting fucking President (not to mention the position itself), we've finally got it officially right...well, that is after the lawsuits end up in the Supreme Court and the entire election is invalidated thereby PROVING TO THE WORLD that the US doesn't know wtf its doing.

With all due respect, I think we've proved it already.

No no just kidding, put your gun back down.

Again, that's all the more reason for us to get it totally right. We are right now stepping into new territory with electronic voting, and it would definitely benefit the world as a whole to show that America, where modern democracy was started can get it right. If not, it kind of sends the message that democracy is just a charade, and no better than any other form of government really.

OR HEY we could all recognize the painfully obvious conclusion that everyone already knows - that our polling system needs an overhaul - and act on it without destroying the fabric of our government.

I agree we need an overhaul, but I disagree with your last sentence. If in fact cheating did occur and we let it go, we are already eroding the fabric of our government, and even our core ideals.

Seriously, do you even think about consequences? You embarass yourself asking that question with a straight face.

I think the consequences of not dealing with it are far worse.

-=Lohrno

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 22, 2004, 8:37 am

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 22, 2004, 12:31 pm

Rekaar you stupid shitbag, even if Bush won a recount it's more important that the concept of democracy is fullfilled OTHERWISE IT'S NOT A DEOMCRACY.

That whole destroying credibility to a President is a bullshit argument. You think it's more important a corrupt man is seen in a positive light than the legitimate winner being crowned? (Again, to point out I really am not referring to Bush/Kerry here, more a general democractic situation)

Timmmmmmeh

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » November 22, 2004, 12:42 pm

Teenybloke wrote:Rekaar you stupid shitbag, even if Bush won a recount it's more important that the concept of democracy is fullfilled OTHERWISE IT'S NOT A DEOMCRACY.

That whole destroying credibility to a President is a bullshit argument. You think it's more important a corrupt man is seen in a positive light than the legitimate winner being crowned? (Again, to point out I really am not referring to Bush/Kerry here, more a general democractic situation)

Timmmmmmeh

No it is far more important to satisfy the conspiracy theorists, and cry baby liberals by recounting a state, where the extra votes most likely would split the same way as the official count.

Live, learn how to conduct a fucking foolproof election and get it right the next time.

oh and STOP FUCKING WHINING, shit you sound like the magician in frosty the snow man.... It isn't faaaaair.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » November 22, 2004, 12:58 pm

The only thing this shows is that we need a new way of counting absentee ballots.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 22, 2004, 1:20 pm

Oh nos Atokal flamed me.

I am not talking about the most recent election specifically as I stated.

Ragarding pandering to conspiracy theorists......If, for example, we look at the 2000 election which was clearly a sham (hi) it would not have been a "conspiracy theory" at all. Granted it would show a trail of retardness and corruption through both sides but I do not debate that point....

All I am saying is that if you are going to have so much fucking pride in democracy make sure you are in fact democratic.

Only an idiot like you would have failed to have seen that.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » November 22, 2004, 1:38 pm

Teenybloke wrote:Oh nos Atokal flamed me.

I am not talking about the most recent election specifically as I stated.

Ragarding pandering to conspiracy theorists......If, for example, we look at the 2000 election which was clearly a sham (hi) it would not have been a "conspiracy theory" at all. Granted it would show a trail of retardness and corruption through both sides but I do not debate that point....

All I am saying is that if you are going to have so much fucking pride in democracy make sure you are in fact democratic.

Only an idiot like you would have failed to have seen that.

So lets not call it a recount, lets call it an inquiry, set up a commission to investigate a better way to count votes, and track the eligible voter. But the premise of this post was to recount Ohio obviously to remove the sitting president or at the very least cast dispersions on the legitimacy of his win.

I agree that all democratic countries need to ensure that the process they use is valid and the results above reproach. But the fool who started this thread had a different agenda than improving the process. Improving the process is what working together is about.

Cheers

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 22, 2004, 2:19 pm

Atokal wrote: I agree that all democratic countries need to ensure that the process they use is valid and the results above reproach. But the fool who started this thread had a different agenda than improving the process. Improving the process is what working together is about.

What are you basing this one? Where did he suggest he had a different agenda? And BTW don't you want to know beyond a doubt that Bush won?

-=Lohrno

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » November 22, 2004, 4:43 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Atokal wrote: I agree that all democratic countries need to ensure that the process they use is valid and the results above reproach. But the fool who started this thread had a different agenda than improving the process. Improving the process is what working together is about.
What are you basing this one? Where did he suggest he had a different agenda? And BTW don't you want to know beyond a doubt that Bush won?

-=Lohrno

First Bush did win.

Second Karae is a self professed Bush hater.

Third:

Karae wrote: The Republicans are so BUSTED.
I think the only possible alternative is to invalidate the entire Ohio election, if not the entire national election. I'd say the game's up.

America, it looks pretty much like you've been had.
That's 93,000 votes more than there are registered voters. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that 60%, roughly 149,000, of the registered voters in those precincts actually voted. If you subtract that from the total number of votes counted, roughly 342,000, you're left with 193,000, almost 60,000 votes more than Bush's margin of "victory" for the entire state. Speculating that the pattern is similar to this Ohio precinct where Bush received 4258 votes when only 638 people actually voted would mean, yep you guessed it, Bush lost Ohio and the election.

That was his first arguement to invalidate the President. He followed it up with the "we need to fix this for future elections"

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 22, 2004, 4:47 pm

Atokal wrote: First Bush did win.

You are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that he won and that there are no discrepancies that need to be looked at? I mean I can understand "He won, Kerry conceded." But I'm having trouble with the beyond a shadow of a doubt part.

-=Lohrno

Karae · Post by **Karae** » November 22, 2004, 5:54 pm

Atokal wrote:
Lohrno wrote:
Atokal wrote: I agree that all democratic countries need to ensure that the process they use is valid and the results above reproach. But the fool who started this thread had a different agenda than improving the process. Improving the process is what working together is about.
What are you basing this one? Where did he suggest he had a different agenda? And BTW don't you want to know beyond a doubt that Bush won?

-=Lohrno
First Bush did win.

Second Karae is a self professed Bush hater.

Third:
Karae wrote: The Republicans are so BUSTED.
I think the only possible alternative is to invalidate the entire Ohio election, if not the entire national election. I'd say the game's up.

America, it looks pretty much like you've been had.
That's 93,000 votes more than there are registered voters. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that 60%, roughly 149,000, of the registered voters in those precincts actually voted. If you subtract that from the total number of votes counted, roughly 342,000, you're left with 193,000, almost 60,000 votes more than Bush's margin of "victory" for the entire state. Speculating that the pattern is similar to this Ohio precinct where Bush received 4258 votes when only 638 people actually voted would mean, yep you guessed it, Bush lost Ohio and the election.
That was his first arguement to invalidate the President. He followed it up with the "we need to fix this for future elections"

Uh, why are you quoting the article I quoted and my own words like they're one big quote? You're really a dumbfuck.

Once again, you post your inane opinion without a leg to stand on. You claim the extra votes would split down the middle when the only evidence so far is entirely to the contrary - read again, the ONLY precinct that has investigated had EVERY SINGLE EXTRA VOTE go to Bush. No, I am not suggesting that this pattern would continue, as I've already said. I made it explicitly clear that was not my position but, as usual, you only read what you wanted.

The simple fact is that we don't know what would happen or who the extra votes are for, and that is why we need a recount.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » November 22, 2004, 6:02 pm

Hi Karae,

Do you hate George Bush II
Would you like to see the election results invalidated and Kerry sit as President?

I guess the answer to the above questions is yes. I also suspect it has nothing to do with your altruistic nature.

If you quote something and then get on your soap box to support the quoted material it stands to reason that you back these words as your own.

Cheers Jeff

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 22, 2004, 6:08 pm

Shhhh! He's dodging the question, leave him alone. =P

-=Lohrno

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 22, 2004, 6:08 pm

The same can be said about you Atokal, you obviously have the hots for Bush and I wouldn't be surprised if you took a trip to Ottawa to kiss his ass.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » November 22, 2004, 6:09 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:I voted for Kerry. He lost. Stop the BS please, this kind of shit pisses me off. Can the freakin Dems lose one election with class? Do you realize how stupid you look when you want to freakin investigate and contest every single election you lose? Stop trying to turn "Republicans steal elections" into your mantra, it's well beyond old.

Given that Gore would have won Florida if there had been a recount, no, I don't think the Democrats should give up the election.

In the greater pictures, there are just far too many anomolies ranging from negative vote counts to excessively high vote counts to just let things stand as is. The fact that almost 80% of the votes cast have no paper trail and can be changed by editing a text file on a PC should at least be enough to spark demand for election reform.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » November 22, 2004, 6:20 pm

Lynks wrote:The same can be said about you Atokal, you obviously have the hots for Bush and I wouldn't be surprised if you took a trip to Ottawa to kiss his ass.

Yep and while I am there you can kiss my ass.

I suppose you are one of the witless wonders that voted for Paul Martin and won't admit it?

Karae · Post by **Karae** » November 22, 2004, 6:23 pm

Atokal wrote:Hi Karae,

Do you hate George Bush II
Would you like to see the election results invalidated and Kerry sit as President?

I guess the answer to the above questions is yes. I also suspect it has nothing to do with your altruistic nature.

If you quote something and then get on your soap box to support the quoted material it stands to reason that you back these words as your own.

Cheers Jeff

Actually, my distaste (hate is far to strong, I just think he's a horrible President and a criminal) for Bush is because of my altruistic nature. It's because he circumvents the rule of law, human rights, and democracy whenever convenient, because war is his first option, and because the world becomes a more frightening and hate-filled place every second he is in office. I have similar issues with many of the things Kerry has done, but simply do not feel he is nearly as egregious. Bush is Satan, Kerry is some lesser, mortal evil.

It doesn't stand to reason that I back the comments as mine when I specifically disclaim that I do not.

Regardless, you clearly misinterpreted what I was saying. I hope it is sufficiently clear now.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 22, 2004, 7:25 pm

Atokal wrote:
Lynks wrote:The same can be said about you Atokal, you obviously have the hots for Bush and I wouldn't be surprised if you took a trip to Ottawa to kiss his ass.
Yep and while I am there you can kiss my ass.

I suppose you are one of the witless wonders that voted for Paul Martin and won't admit it?

No, I voted NDP dipshit. What else do you have?

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 22, 2004, 8:44 pm

The fact that almost 80% of the votes cast have no paper trail and can be changed by editing a text file on a PC should at least be enough to spark demand for election reform.

We can save ourselves untold amounts of drama by just agreeing on that point and not going through an arduous and ultimately fruitless attempt to invalidate our own election. You invalidate your own request right here anyway - if there's no paper trail then there will NEVER be proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » November 23, 2004, 10:51 am

Lynks wrote:
Atokal wrote:
Lynks wrote:The same can be said about you Atokal, you obviously have the hots for Bush and I wouldn't be surprised if you took a trip to Ottawa to kiss his ass.
Yep and while I am there you can kiss my ass.

I suppose you are one of the witless wonders that voted for Paul Martin and won't admit it?
No, I voted NDP dipshit. What else do you have?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA now that is fucking funny.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 23, 2004, 11:18 am

So lets see, your against Paul Martin, laughing at NDP, you don't live in Quebec, so that leaves the conservatives.

You're obviously a US fanboi, why don't you pack up your shit and get the hell out?

Edit: And I'm aware that anything I said would of resulted in your lame ass flame.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » November 23, 2004, 11:54 am

Lynks wrote:So lets see, your against Paul Martin, laughing at NDP, you don't live in Quebec, so that leaves the conservatives.

You're obviously a US fanboi, why don't you pack up your shit and get the hell out?

Edit: And I'm aware that anything I said would of resulted in your lame ass flame.

Look at the NDP's record at the provincial level junior. You would rather of had Smilin Jack Layton as the PM?

Paul Martins liberals have participated in more scandals than any other Federal Government I can remember. That left only the Conservatives who happen to have a great many policies I agree with.

Still would rather have a Liberal Criminal Government in power than the fucking NDP with all the damnable social programs, unfair Union Laws and the incredible stupidity of Jack Layton.

But that either speaks to your youth or ignorance or both.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 23, 2004, 12:18 pm

You sound as if I thought the NDP would win. I voted for them knowing the Liberals would be in power but maintain a minorty gorvernment.

Conservatives would of been alright if it wasn't for privitized health care, which is something I'm strongly against.

And OMG, I didnt vote for who you voted for therefore I am ignorant. Go fuck yourslelf.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » November 23, 2004, 1:33 pm

ballots don't count the votes, counters count the votes. keep counting!

seriously though...let's say the recounts happen, if they haven't already, and it turns out kerry wins...

he conceded the election. he gave up. he quit.

this isn't something he did in his 20's or as a young punk kid. he did it just earlier this month. that's not a kind of person i want running my country.

recounting the ballots is really retarded.

here's what you do. you provide a better way to vote for the president. you have your people call their people, you do lunch and by 2008 you have an election with 0 problems.

recounting these ballots is a waste of time and money. find a better way to count ballots. you got 4 years.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » November 23, 2004, 1:50 pm

They had 4 years already.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 23, 2004, 2:20 pm

Spang wrote:this isn't something he did in his 20's or as a young punk kid. he did it just earlier this month. that's not a kind of person i want running my country.

And if he didn't concede, you'd be saying he is hurting the country by not letting it go.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » November 23, 2004, 2:23 pm

no i wouldn't. the election wasn't over yet.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 23, 2004, 2:25 pm

Ok, I take the part back where I say 'you', but other reps would and were.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 23, 2004, 6:30 pm

Atokal wrote: Paul Martins liberals have participated in more scandals than any other Federal Government I can remember.

Yeah but see, getting your knob polished is a scandal, fabricating a justification for war apparently isn't. Ya'll have some fucked up values.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · November 23, 2004, 8:23 pm

Still splitting hairs eh? Good....good. I hope your side stays this deluded so the reps have another victory in 4 years. Way not to take the positives from a situation and grow. At least you tools are consistent.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » November 23, 2004, 8:44 pm

Don't you usually preach to others to be less negative or something?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · November 23, 2004, 10:17 pm

Lynks wrote:Don't you usually preach to others to be less negative or something?

RIF

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » November 24, 2004, 1:30 pm

Update to the initial thread.

I personally recounted all the Ohio votes and Bush won by 16.

Carry on.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » November 24, 2004, 2:42 pm

counting absentee votes?

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » November 24, 2004, 3:11 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Atokal wrote: Paul Martins liberals have participated in more scandals than any other Federal Government I can remember.
Yeah but see, getting your knob polished is a scandal, fabricating a justification for war apparently isn't. Ya'll have some fucked up values.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » November 24, 2004, 3:13 pm

clinton and bush, although i have no idea what that has to do with recointing votes in ohio.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 24, 2004, 6:46 pm

Atokal is an avowed Bush fanboi. The government in power is the one that can most easily rig a vote. Bush has acted more scandalously than anyone since Nixon, but no one gives a shit because there's no sex involved.

To say that a president that claims to be annointed by God to lead at this time, would be above rigging a vote to save you from yourselves, is just a little naieve.