As we learned in 2000, the right to vote for everyone is a prevailing ethos, however, we alo learned that uniform voting was just as tantamount. Ohio had there polls open to voters until almost 11pm Central Daylight Time. They were supposed to be closed at 7pm and I belive that is a part of the new uniform voting standards. When I left around 8pm to see my Congressman Dennis Moore(D) Kansas and his victory party, all the evidence had showed that Kerry was ahead, and even Bob Novak from CNN crossfire had conceded Ohio to Kerry. Karl Rove has stated he wants the Republican Party to have permanent control of this country. I also heard some talk about people being called to come to the polls. Kerry did not lose Ohio, he was cheated out of it. We have problems the next four years, the most importand thing we can do, and obviously there is other things as well is to back the Congress in 2006. This administration has no morals, so the best we can reasonably hopeful is to get by these next couple of years.

Who can legally demand a recount? Is it only the Democratic party that can do it? Can individuals or groups sue for a recount? If they can, will the Supremes shut it down again? We can't allow this to happen two elections in a row! If we let them get away with it twice, how will we ever stop them?

I can’t believe the Democrats are now saying that Hillary Clinton is their leading contender for the next presidential election. To the vast majority of Southerners and Midwesterners, Hillary Clinton is a plague! She is so disgusting to most of us that we can’t conceive why ANYONE would vote for her. Bring her on in 2008! The vote will be even more lopsided and we will gains some more Senate seats. I can’t believe the Democrats are so dumb to align themselves with people like Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Michael Moore. All of those people are so disgusting to most Americans throughout the south and Midwest that we feel living on the coasts in the major cities must cause dementia. We want leaders with morals, an anti-gay, pro-gun owner's rights, and pro-freedom beliefs that are Christian God fearing people.

that's why we regulars at this site fought so hard for John Kerry. the freepers need to deal with it. we are sick of lies and dissembling. we want leaders who will tell the truth and think with their brains.

btw, this thread was about the ohio election being stolen from john kerry. what part of thievery is legal or moral? bush should step down if he is *really* a Christian. i'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. he doesn't mind that he's stolen another election. he rewards the thieves- and also orchestrates lies.

bush is responsible for his hirees and the people he keeps company with. if he accepts anything stolen - in this case, the ohio vote - don't call him Christian. the name does not fit.

btw, i understand that most of the people on your hit list are Christian. even michael moore is doing the Lord's work. is that why you hate them so?

I don't understand why we allow this to happen!!!

These EEEEvil voting machines disenfranchising the African American voter by conVEENiently throwing only THEIR votes away - it's a conspiracy I tells ya!

I have to give hand it to the Republican scum who, through some magical technology not made available to you virtuous and honest Democrats, have been able to develop a MACHINE that, quite frankly, hates the black voter and, somehow, is able to distinguish the color of the skin of the person voting and, if they are black - away it goes!!!

On the other hand, could it be suggested that this Greg Palast is the actual racist by suggesting that a large percentage of Black people just don't know how vote correctly?

Where can we go on the web to find out who is doing what about verify and correcting or acting to correct any discrepancies???

~ Lee of the Wind ~

new member - getting the hang of this board.  Thank you for your patience.

Isn’t it possible that the primary system in this country needs to be changed? With Iowa coming first and influencing all of the press in the country and the momentum of all Democratic candidates, shouldn’t the prejudices of the population of Iowa be weighed before the worthiness of Democratic candidates is projected?

Why don’t the first primaries happen in states that are possible Democratic states or Republican states such as Ohio, Wisconsin or other “swing” states? If the voters of these swing states are going to decide the final outcome of the elections for the future, shouldn’t they help decide the candidates from each party that will be running? It would help if the primaries were locked to the parties so that registered Republicans were not allowed to vote for Democrats and vice versa to help Democrats find a Democratic oriented candidate and not one that the Republicans would like the Democrats to stand.

The first primaries are almost exclusively in Red States and the Democrats end up with candidates that Republican oriented voters can choose. When will American wake up to the fact that Republicans may have an inordinate influence on Democratic primaries with this system? If you reorient the Democratic party to influence the Republicans in this country, you erode the Democratic base with each change or course and weaken the party. If we are going to need the swing states to win, then let’s have the first primaries exclusively in the swing states. The Republicans will be at risk of screwing up their own candidates by voting the Democratic ticket in these swing state primaries. This has to change before the next National election or at least the coverage of primaries has to change to reflect the Republican bias to the early primary results. If the state is red in its voting, this should be taken into account in the planning and strategy of the Democratic Party. If it isn’t, the Republicans will have an absolute powerhouse influence on the selection of all future Democratic Presidential candidates much to the disadvantage of the Party.

Isn’t it possible that the primary system in this country needs to be changed? With Iowa coming first and influencing all of the press in the country and the momentum of all Democratic candidates, shouldn’t the prejudices of the population of Iowa be weighed before the worthiness of Democratic candidates is projected?

Why don’t the first primaries happen in states that are possible Democratic states or Republican states such as Ohio, Wisconsin or other “swing” states? If the voters of these swing states are going to decide the final outcome of the elections for the future, shouldn’t they help decide the candidates from each party that will be running? It would help if the primaries were locked to the parties so that registered Republicans were not allowed to vote for Democrats and vice versa to help Democrats find a Democratic oriented candidate and not one that the Republicans would like the Democrats to stand.

The first primaries are almost exclusively in Red States and the Democrats end up with candidates that Republican oriented voters can choose. When will American wake up to the fact that Republicans may have an inordinate influence on Democratic primaries with this system? If you reorient the Democratic party to influence the Republicans in this country, you erode the Democratic base with each change or course and weaken the party. If we are going to need the swing states to win, then let’s have the first primaries exclusively in the swing states. The Republicans will be at risk of screwing up their own candidates by voting the Democratic ticket in these swing state primaries. This has to change before the next National election or at least the coverage of primaries has to change to reflect the Republican bias to the early primary results. If the state is red in its voting, this should be taken into account in the planning and strategy of the Democratic Party. If it isn’t, the Republicans will have an absolute powerhouse influence on the selection of all future Democratic Presidential candidates much to the disadvantage of the Party.

Unfortunately there does seem to be a major flaw in Mr. Palast's argument. He states:
"CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent."
If you go to http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/epolls.0.h...
it shows that 52% of men voted for Bush and 50% of women voted for Bush. This seems to weaken his whole argument. Am I missing something here? What's the margin of error for exit polls? And how could he have gotten the numbers so wrong?

Bush is a lying moron, he has lied to us for 45 months, I am not sure where anyone came up with the idea that he has morality because he is the most immoral person I have ever seen. Bush is not just a terrible leader, but he is a TERRIBLE person. Hillary Clinton although I don't know her chances would bring back the prosperity from the Clinton years, oh and there is supposed to be a separation of Church and State in politics

President Bush took Ohio by 51%. The only way to say that Kerry would have won if they would have included the "supposedly" 247,672 votes is if Kerry won 100% of those votes. If you break down those numbers by taking 51% of 247,672, you get 126,312 votes going toward Bush. Subtract 126,312 from 247,672 and you get Bush winning Ohio by 10,171 votes! Isn't that great news?
P.S. Probably included in those 247,672 votes are Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy, and Mickey Mouse.

Over 247,000 votes in Ohio this election were invalidated. They came primarily from poor black neighborhoods which went heavily for Kerry. 80% to 20%. Those votes should be photographed and put up on a website for America to see what invalidated votes look like, and see how the fraud is robbing America and Americans of the right to vote. Kerry would have won Ohio and other states if these votes would have been counted. That is why the exit polls showed a completely different result. That is why John Edwards wanted to challenge the vote. (It had nothing to do with provisional and absentee ballots...that is where Karl Rove wanted to keep the focus). I just hope somebody sues for access to show the world how this con works, so it will never happen again.

The media is afraid to report, under the guise that the nation needs to come together. BTW, the spoiled votes primarily occurred on Diebold machines. The same machines that caused problems in Florida last time. The maker of the Diebold machines which were primarily deployed in the poorer areas, publicly commented that we would deliver the election to Bush. You can't tell me that after what happened last time, that people weren't going to make damn sure (especially after waiting hours in line to vote) that their vote would count. Here is one of several links reporting the spoiled votes.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php

These are neither sour grapes that I am squeezing,... or some ridiculous conspiracy theory, it is well documented in history. If it didn't happen last time, I would feel differently, but it is verrrrry disappointing. P.S. Their is not getting over being robbed or cheated. Losing legitmately is hardly a problem

Here's another one
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23580-2004Nov3.html
New Woes Surface in Use of Estimates

Excerpt:

After the survey is completed and the votes are counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to reflect the actual vote, which in theory improves the accuracy of all the exit poll results, including the breakdown of the vote by age, gender and other characteristics.

Sore loser!!
It is okay to go to war, only if a Democrat is in the White House. We didn't get support from the UN with Bill Clinton. Where do you get proof to make the accusations that President Bush is a TERRIBLE person? You have no proof. Don't come back with the WMD's either. If you use that in your argument, then you are also saying that Clinton was lying as well. Why do I say that? Because Clinton said that Iraq had WMD's. You have nothing to back up your argument. You say that Bush is the most immoral person you have seen? How?? He is Pro-marriage, Pro-life, he is a Christian, he lives by the Ten Commandments, he is faithful to his wife, unlike our last President....wait what was his name again????? Oh...Clinton...That's right! He is using our military to protect you and your freedoms. The prosperity is greater than it was when Clinton was being re-elected in 1996. The unemployment rate is lower than it was in 1996. You imply that he is combining the church and state.. If you liked Carter, you should know that Carter used God more times in his speeches than Bush has.

I can't get this website up right now, probably because it is busy with complaints, but try to direct complaints to verifiedvoting.org, or the the ACLU.... www.aclu.org

Weather or not Kerry won Ohio does not matter at this point. Kerry conceded the election for a reason and that reason is that he could not win.

This is a sad day but we must look forward and prepare for the future. The G.O.P. has closed its grip on our country and we need to put an end to it.

To do this we cannot complain about the past but must start educating our fellow Americans. The sooner we accept that Bush is going to be in office for four more years, the faster we can mobilize an effort to win the presidency in 2008.

It is a sad day when you realize that the majority of your country has beliefs that are in stark contrast to your own values but let us be hopeful. Let it be known that the massive support of George W. Bush is not indicative of Americans but only indicates that America needs to change. America must educate its citizens to avoid an election as pathetic as the one we are leaving behind. Bush may be a born again Christian but no one should ever again have the opportunity to be a born again president

Okay you communist, hence your name Karl Marx, No where in our Constitution is there anything that says that there should be separation of Church and State....Just so you know...No where...

I was not saying that Bush should not be allowed to run for president because of his Christianity or "born again" status. I'm saying that while Bush can and did start over in regards to religion, we ought not give him the freedom to start over as a president.

But that is what America did. America allowed Bush to become our first born again president. While he screwed up so many things in our great country, he is ready to serve a new term. It is a new day for Geroge W. and changes in his cabinet will reflect the president's "born again" status.

I understand what the Constitution says, but where does it say there must be separation of church and state.
What Thomas Jefferson wrote is not the law. There is a difference. The establishment clause means that no law shall be made favoring a religion. Because the President believes in Christianity is not making a law establishing a religion

I see what you are saying... My apology

I misunderstood jmeyers, but since I started this, I obviously have to support my thoughts. Okay mojo, I am having fun chatting with you. Seriously..Anyways.. Since you are quoting Jefferson, here is my quote.
James Madison - The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis and the source of all genuine freedom in government....I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form cna exist and be durable, in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence.

Thomas Jefferson's "wall-of-separation letter" was a letter to Danbury Baptist. No where in the First Amendment does it mention separation of church in state.