Robert F. Kennedy accuses Republicans of election fraud in 2004. - Page 7

Jefferson · 06-08-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenewnoise

That is what he IS saying. He provides a footnote citing where he got the information. A google search for "republicans shred voter registration" also gives further documentation.

This is true.

But WHAT exactly does it mean? Kennedy has jumped to a conclusion that he wanted to jump to. He has NO EVIDENCE that Democrats' voter registrations were being discarded before they were entered into the computer system. In addition, if they WERE discarded, there would be HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEMOCRATS IN ONE AREA who were unable to vote because they were not registered.

This accusation simply does NOT line up with the reality of election day!

What's the next point of the article you'd like to argue?

Jefferson · 06-08-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenewnoise

Show me where I claimed that the republicans were guilty. I dare you. You can't do it because I never claimed that. Please take a reading comprehension class. I have said several times that Kennedy makes a powerful enough charge with enough evidence that warrants further investigation. But I will play along with your american justice system analogy because it further illustrates that you lack a basic understand of what this conversation is. This conversation is not a trial that intends to show republicans are guilty. This conversation is more like a grand jury that shows there is enough evidence to merit a trial. And since you know so much about the American legal system you already know that 1) the standard is lower for a grand jury (ie- it is not beyond a reasonable doubt) and 2) a defendant has the burden of rejoinder (ie- if you don't respond to the arguments you lose). But I guess that is why you are not a lawyer.

Further, I stated on several occasions that I believe this problem is bigger than Republicans and Democrats. Even if you don't believe Republicans did not and would not commit this fraud, you seem to think the perhaps Democrats would. Each of Kennedy's arguments is , at the very least, a potential way that someone could rig an election. If you want to ensure that Democrats don't cheat, it is in your best interest to stop name calling and start discussing solutions- that is completely separate from the question of the innocence of guilt of any particular party.

If we are going to discuss adult topics, let's do so like adults. Please look at what I am saying and if you want to discuss it I would be happy to. But I have no interest in hearing the name calling and off topic rants you continually resort to.

Settle down, junior. I'm talking about Kennedy.

thenewnoise · 06-08-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

This is true.

But WHAT exactly does it mean? Kennedy has jumped to a conclusion that he wanted to jump to. He has NO EVIDENCE that Democrats' voter registrations were being discarded before they were entered into the computer system. In addition, if they WERE discarded, there would be HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEMOCRATS IN ONE AREA who were unable to vote because they were not registered.

This accusation simply does NOT line up with the reality of election day!

What's the next point of the article you'd like to argue?

How about the citation that says several employees of the company accused of shredding democrat's registration forms admitted to personally witnessing the destruction of the forms before they were entered into the computer. Further, it is the government that puts the info into the computer, not the organization. At least, that is why when I worked registering voters we sent the info to the government.

thenewnoise · 06-08-2006, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Settle down, junior. I'm talking about Kennedy.

You have made your feelings about kennedy known. But the point still remains, you can offer no evidence that refutes any of the arguments made by kennedy.

Jefferson · 06-08-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenewnoise

You have made your feelings about kennedy known. But the point still remains, you can offer no evidence that refutes any of the arguments made by kennedy.

Of course I can't! But that's the problem with accusations and conspiracy theories! You CANNOT convince Hevusa that there was NOT a conspiracy to blow up the WTC Towers, and that the jetliners were just a decoy. And you, incidentally, CANNOT PROVE to me that you are NOT a pedophile. I could make the accusation, then say, "You can't prove you're not!" It's impossible to disprove - which is why we operate under the premise of "innocent until proven guilty".

thenewnoise · 06-08-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Of course I can't! But that's the problem with accusations and conspiracy theories! You CANNOT convince Hevusa that there was NOT a conspiracy to blow up the WTC Towers, and that the jetliners were just a decoy. And you, incidentally, CANNOT PROVE to me that you are NOT a pedophile. I could make the accusation, then say, "You can't prove you're not!" It's impossible to disprove - which is why we operate under the premise of "innocent until proven guilty".

If you wrote a four page article with 208 footnotes with citations to news articles outlining your reasons for thinking I was a pedophile, I could explain how those arguments aren't accurate. This is how this conversation is going:

YOU: This is just an accusation with not evidence.
ME: The evidence is the irregularities in the election including gaps between exit polls and the final count, admission from employees funded by the RNC that they were ordered to shred democrats' registrations, mathematicians who support Republicans over democrats who say that simple statistics are suspect and look like fraud...
YOU: There is nothing but an accusation.

How are those things just an accusation? In court, do you consider witness testimony to be just an accusation? I would like to understand how you are processing this information.

alias · 06-08-2006, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenewnoise

Are you for real? He wrote a 4 page article with 208 footnotes, each of which acts as a warrant or evidence of his claim. So far your only responses are ignoring the article all together or name calling. I see absolutely no justification to claim he has presented no evidence.

What are the names of the guilty?

RidinHighSpeeds · 06-08-2006, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Robert Kennedy is a white Jesse Jackson.

haha yes Amen to that!

thenewnoise · 06-08-2006, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

What are the names of the guilty?

No one has been found guilty and you will of course remember that all are innocent until proven guilty. But Eric Russell has reported to the FBI that he personally witnessed his boss destroying and or throwing away Democratic registration forms. One of the Democrats who tried to register but had his form discarded was Daren Gray.

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2421595

Is it your contention that this did not happen?

Jefferson · 06-09-2006, 05:06 AM

More Kennedy article horse crap:

Quote:

The evidence is especially strong in Ohio. In January, a team of mathematicians from the National Election Data Archive, a nonpartisan watchdog group, compared the state's exit polls against the certified vote count in each of the forty-nine precincts polled by Edison/Mitofsky. In twenty-two of those precincts -- nearly half of those polled -- they discovered results that differed widely from the official tally. Once again -- against all odds -- the widespread discrepancies were stacked massively in Bush's favor: In only two of the suspect twenty-two precincts did the disparity benefit Kerry. The wildest discrepancy came from the precinct Mitofsky numbered ''27,'' in order to protect the anonymity of those surveyed. According to the exit poll, Kerry should have received sixty-seven percent of the vote in this precinct. Yet the certified tally gave him only thirty-eight percent. The statistical odds against such a variance are just shy of one in 3 billion.

Once again, we're back to the credibility of exit polls in the United States. This "claim" of Kennedy's simply proves that exit polls are NOT reliable. They are NOT accurate.

I have voted in EVERY election in the past 26 years. NOT ONCE have I been asked an "exit poll". NOT ONCE!

Exit polls actually tabulate a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS.
Exit polls only operate in certain precincts.
Exit polls are skewed by those giving them.
Exit polls are NOT guaranteed accurate, because the people who are asked do NOT have to give an accurate answer.

QUESTION: Why, in god's name, do Democrats think exit polls are more accurate than the election itself?

ANSWER: Because they didn't like the outcome of the last 2 Presidential Elections.

Exit polls are a crock. Only the cry-babies don't realize it!
http://www.eriposte.com/election04/2004_results_1.htm#I

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode