What is Digg?16 Comments
- alextiming, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5When will we, the American people, realize that America is under attack from within. We have lost, no we've given, are rights away. The Constitution is no longer valid. If you disagree with that last statement, then just look on Digg for Constitution. (http://digg.com/search?search=constitution&submit=Search&area=promoted&type=both&age=60&search-buried=on)
What will it take to push people to the point of doing something about it?
Didn't we just have an event like Pearl Harbor? But unlike in World War 2, our actions were to give up on our freedoms rather then fight FOR them. What about all those over in the Middle East? Those that have died, what did they die for? So that the President could spy on us? So that the NSA could gather intel on the American people?
We don't fight terrorism by letting our government spy on us and by allowing a person, G. Bush, to steal what is one of our most cherished rights. To allow everyone a voice to decide who becomes President. - cheeseron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This has been posted too much. Interesting, nonetheless, though.
- paladin144, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Over the last year or so I have come to believe that this election (and 2000) was probably rigged. It's a horrible realization, not one that I enjoy thinking about. But it's really the only explaination. And once you accept that they had the gall to rig an election (and a presidential election at that), you have to wonder what else they're up to. The Bush Cabal is bad news, people. I hate to break Godwin's law, but we're dealing with a fascist regime here. They obviously have no scruples and are willing to destroy democracy to get what they want. The question is: What Do They Want?
Well, it all boils down to one thing: Power.
These power-hungry trolls need to be removed from office immediately. We've got to open the books on everything -- EVERYTHING they did while in power and re-examine it in light of these allegations.
This is a dark time for America. I pray we make it through with our Constitution intact. - daGUY, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The quote is on the first page of the scan, third paragraph down. "...And an unapologetic liberal Democrat named John Kerry would have won."
Also, the second claim is cited if you continue reading into the next paragraph. Number 191. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If you knew anything about statistics and probability theory"
I actually do know quite a bit about statistics and polling. It was my favorite areas of study for my math degree, and as I taught it to high school students as a teacher.
To say it was a statistical impossiblity is flat out oversimplifying the question. It is easy to achieve "statistically impossible" probabilities when you get to cherry pick the conditions, as this author did.
The early papers I read on exit poll descrepencies were not convincing at all. I have not yet seen any of the newer ones, but plan on reading them. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2uuh there is plenty of substantiated claims. If you knew anything about statistics and probability theory, you would know the exit polls combined with all the other clearly outlined details that are amazing, each with references, is a statistical impossibility.
- Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bush won the battle. He hasn't won the war.
- janeregained1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Scarry stuff.
- daGUY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1RKF Jr. was actually on CNN with Wolf Blitzer recently to discuss this article. Blitzer of course is very skeptical, and describes the article as being "very, very long" (presumably to make it sound like a boring, dry read). His main criticism of it was this: RKF Jr. has no direct quotes from anyone involved that said "I was involved in a conspiracy theory" (or something to that effect). Because people who would do something like this would just freely come out and admit it.
That right there should be proof that RFK Jr.'s article is accurate. He has, literally, hundreds of sources in there. If any one of these sources was inaccurate, quoted out of context, or otherwise used misleadingly, Wolf could have easily called RFK Jr. out on that. The fact that he didn't shows that everything RFK Jr. said IS in fact accurate, and there was no way that Wolf could attack it successfully. So, instead, he resorts to the ridiculous premise that "nobody SAID they were involved in a conspiracy, so it must not be true." - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One possible explanation of the exit polling
"Second, exit polls.
Exits come out in a several batches over the course of the day. Democrats, on average, tend to vote later in the day than Republicans. Not always, but that's the pattern, for fairly straightforward demographic reasons. And for that reason their exit poll numbers tend to get better over the course of the day. That was strikingly so in 2000. So if you see less than perfect numbers plastered around in the early afternoon, don't let that rattle you. " http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_31.php
Or in other words, pollsters *always* have to fudge the numbers. The author rails against exit pollers fudging numbers late to match election results, but he neglects to mention they have to fudge numbers early based on past indications such as Republicans voting early. Also, early numbers are often less accurate as they were in 2000. The author also treats early poll results as accurate data, when past experience has clearly shown they are not. And almost all of these descrepency numbers are for early polls. One good example is here: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm The numbers are for 4 PM. Am I surprised that the early numbers were off but the later ones were more accurate? Nope.
Next, it's important to realize the 2004 election was not like the 2000 election. You had significantly more people coming out to vote. I would suspect you also had more people coming out to vote early, to avoid the lines and to make their voice heard in an election that people thought was much more important.
Now, if the exit pollers treated the 2004 election like the 2000, they would assume that there would be more Republican voters early, and so would "fudge" Republican numbers back to represent what the numbers would be at the end of the day. But, since the 2004 elections were different, if Democrats also voted earlier, then this "fudging" back of Republican numbers would then give Kerry an artificial lead. As the polling continued, and this early Republican fudging was phased out, then the Kerry exit poll lead would shrink, exactly as what was seen.
I can't research it this out too much (as I'm at work). But it's a plausible scenario that sounds much more likely than a vast right wing conspiracy. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I don't think the election was stolen... the American people are just idiots and the system is broken and corrupt.
- daGUY, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1My apologies - I clicked the wrong reply link. See my comment above.
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1daGUY. Thanks for that info. You are definitely correct. Dangit, and I scanned that document three times. Can't believe I missed it.
As for the second, the reference does not support the claim anywhere of someone mentioning the threat being a "10 on a scale of 1 to 10". All you have is one small county that claimed it made vote counting secret for security reasons. The author, without any more facts, spun this as hard as he could, flat out saying GOP members colluded with Blackwell to count the votes in secret, and delay the votes enough to find any extra necessary Bush votes. Of course, he has no proof of any of this. His only evidence is just one small county doing the recount in secret. But that doesn't stop him from stroking his conspiracy theory.
Let me put it another way. This author has detailed a number of interesting scenarios, which, while doesn't constitute hard proof, seems to persuade the reader. Well I remember a similar thing not long ago. A few years ago, countless people had near absolute proof that Iraq had WMD. Nobody had the hard proof, but it seemed good enough. But we all know what happened in reality there.
The moral of the story is, I want hard proof. This conjecture and heresay conspiracy theory stuff doesn't convince me. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Wow, that author flooded his article with references just for the sake of making more references. The first reference I decided to look into had some odd issues. The author felt the need to smear an Ohio government official, Kenneth Blackwell, by claiming that he openly denounced Kerry as ''an unapologetic liberal Democrat,''(50)". Well duh, government officials can have political opinions, what's the big deal about that? It doesn't help anyone but conspiracy theorists. But for kicks, I decided to read the reference for this quote, given here: http://rawstory.rawprint.com/105/blackwell_campaign_letter2_105.php. After reading everything, NOWHERE did it show that Blackwell stated that Kerry was an "unapologetic liberal Democrat". So not only is this reference pointless, it is flat out wrong.
However, I continued reading, and continued to seeing nothing but documented hearsay and conjecture. Then I finally stumbled on something useful. I finally found something that sounded like real "meat" to the story.
"Immediately after the polls closed on Election Day, GOP officials -- citing the FBI -- declared that the county was facing a terrorist threat that ranked ten on a scale of one to ten. The county administration building was hastily locked down, allowing election officials to tabulate the results without any reporters present."
Finally! A real claim with substance, one that can be verified and double checked, and if proven true, can give legs to this conspiracy theory. So, I looked up the reference and...
...oh wait...the author didn't have a reference for this. Typical. - RunnyBabbit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0http://religionandpolitics.ytmnd.com/
- dss311, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Give it up....Bush won.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is