Skip to main content

Let me be the first asshole to tell you that bullshit fraud theories and bullshit conspiracy theories are not welcome.

Markos has said it. He means it.

I believe tonight was a great night and a sign that a Fighting Dem Party can and will take back the Congress in 2006.

I don't want to hear baseless theories on fraud and other nonsense. I think, no, I know markos feels the same way.

You want to waste your time, do it somewhere else.

My tip jar will be the fraudster's chance to troll rate me. Cuz once you start diarying your cock and bull fraud theories, markos will show you the door. With my applause in the background.

Originally posted to Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:36 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Last chance (3.55)
    Have at it fraudsters.

    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

    by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:34:38 PM PDT

    •  Fraud. (3.62)
      Just seeing if lightning strikes me down.

      Markos has said it. He means it.

      Link me.

      I believe tonight was a great night and a sign that a Fighting Dem Party can and will take back the Congress in 2006.

      You must mean "fighting" Dem party unless it involves allegations of fraud.

      I don't want to hear baseless theories on fraud and other nonsense. I think, no, I know markos feels the same way.

      Armando, you're bigger than this? - you don't have to say kos's name every other second.  Nobody like baseless anything, much less baseless allegations of fraud - why are you throwing up such an obvious straw man argument to knock down?

      You want to waste your time, do it somewhere else.

      So now you're the arbiter of whether we're wasting our time?  Lemme guess, because kos sez so?

      ...once you start diarying your cock and bull fraud theories, markos will show you the door. With my applause in the background.

      Ooooooo...

      •  I have to ask (4.00)
        are you disagreeing with Armando because you really believe fraud occurred tonight, or because you're being contrary and feel like disagreeing? From your tone and the things you choose to discuss in your post (Armando, as opposed to the OH-02) it's kinda hard to tell.

        You'd better do as you are told-You'd better listen to your radio

        by AnnArborBlue on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:02:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Certainly Have no Knowledge of Fraud. (3.62)
          Nor can I envisage how such a thing could have occurred.  But if someone does know something, or can advance even a bare hypothesis, I'd love to hear it, and I know kossacks would as well.

          It is after all, something to talk about.

          •  Not here (1.80)
            There are other blogs. Go do it there.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:23:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Or What Exactly? (3.62)
              If diaring on a particular subject has become verbotten, and I use German intentionally, don't you think it might be a little important to include this in the Terms of Use?, FAQ?, anywhere?
              •  No (1.40)
                you have been warned here.

                Banning. Purging. Booted. Expelled.

                Out.

                That is the consequence.

                You have your own personal FAQ.

                The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:44:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Good Luck Herding the Cats. (3.00)
                  Better luck in finding any steel to put behind your empty words.
                  •  Banning? (none)
                    that doesn't require steel.

                    You think too much of yourself if you believe it will give me a moments thought to recommend you be banned.

                    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                    by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:13:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not rushing to the other guy's defense (none)
                      But take a GOOD LOOK at your own post. And others.

                      A real good look.

                      •  I know what I am doing (none)
                        Do you?

                        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                        by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:26:39 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You know what you're doing... (none)
                          you're preparing a nice clean slate should anything substantial arise... because you never underestimate the GOP. They're slime. And they're desperate... and they think they can get away with anything. That's when you get very careless. I'm intrigued by the adamancy of Armando's request... nay demand. Apparently in some people's opinion, such "scandals" may very well be in the pipeline... and that's encouraging. Also encouraging as a reminder is that apparently Kos is a place that can break such stories and do so with legitimacy... if only folk will behave and control the TONE of their posts a little. Ahhh... who's to say Kos should be all that respectable... it's just interesting that apparently the potential is there and that this moment is thought to be critical. I'd err on the side of caution if I were anyone else... including myself... which I am. Hmmm...

                          "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

                          King Lear

                          by Norwell on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 12:12:59 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Troll rating me is fine (none)
                  No fraudsters or conspriacy theorists.

                  The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                  by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:46:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  WTF? (3.33)
        Are you denying kos has said so?

        Then you are full of shit.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:07:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ohio Congressional Race Fraud Investigation (4.00)

        CINCINNATI - A Republican former state lawmaker claimed a seat in Congress on Tuesday by narrowly defeating an
        Iraq war veteran who drew national attention to the race with his military service and a series of harsh attacks on
        President Bush.

        With all precincts reporting, Jean Schmidt had 52 percent, or 57,974 votes, compared with Democrat Paul Hackett's 48 percent, or 54,401 votes. Schmidt's margin of victory amounted to about 3,500 votes out of more than 112,000 cast.

        Wide ranging allegations of voter intimidation and potential voter roll purging has tarnished the victory for Schmidt. Reminicsent of the debacle that occured in this very state last November, a potential law suit is now being prepared to challenge the results.

        Eye witnesses have even placed newly selected UN Representative, John Bolton in Ohio, at a polling precint, qouted as saying, "I'm with the Schmidt team, and I'm here to stop the democracy."

        Read it yourself at this Link

        "If the Bush Crime Family were the Corleone Crime Family, then Dumbya would be Fredo Corleone."
        LJ's Blogorific

        by The 1n Only Leoni on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:55:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  J/K... (none)
          I know that someone's finger was just hovering over the BAN KEY on that on.

          LOL.

          "If the Bush Crime Family were the Corleone Crime Family, then Dumbya would be Fredo Corleone."
          LJ's Blogorific

          by The 1n Only Leoni on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:57:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Voter suppression (none)
          is not fraud.

          We have had this one out.

          You newbies need to learn your kos history.

          Write a diary on this. Very important.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 12:07:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  However (none)
          The bold is obviously your joke.

          Good one.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 12:09:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  LOL... (none)
            Close call....

            I almost bought myself a first class ticket to ban land.

            "If the Bush Crime Family were the Corleone Crime Family, then Dumbya would be Fredo Corleone."
            LJ's Blogorific

            by The 1n Only Leoni on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 12:13:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Broke a promise... (none)
              To not post again because you could fool some into clicking on the link excitedly and then they'd read this:

              <quote>"We began this race way back in late March, and no one had thought we'd be the focus of the national media or be the so-called first test of the Republican Party and the Bush mandate. Well, ladies and gentleman, we passed that test," Schmidt said.</quote>

              My internal monologue of liberal bias added "barely" to that quote at the end and that is significant for me in that particular district. Many of the voters in that district will read the same quote, agree, and look forward to 2006. After all, she beat a veteran. Maybe the Republican elite is so contemptuous of their radical fringe that they purposefully give them a long leash while never letting anyone up for a popular vote support them directly. Or at least in a way that can be pointed to without boring your average person.

              Maybe that's why Republicans are so successful right now in controlling the national government when any "reasonable person" would think that's a "bad thing" (the CW on here but not provable... I hope we allow such statements from either side if honestly presented) and the reason they get away with it is they purposely obfuscate their true priorities.

              I don't think Democrats "want" to do that, but some do in order to compete. I also don't think it will work for them as much as messy public debate followed by competently performed action that has at least grudging support. I also think a blog is too messy and irrelevant beyond turning out the base in its current general incarnation for lawyers that have to write a lot of words to explain very few to people who can quote a very many more references than I. (Or just allude to it and then jump on someone that hasn't read that particular book)

              So I have no credentials or evidence to support this unproductive speculation. If I truly want to continue it, I should write a good essay on it and diary it, but for real this time I think I see what's going on here and even though Armando kind of scares me I kind of like him, too.

    •  The fraudsters (none)
      been gettin their asses whupp'ed. And not just them, the whiners too. I've been enjoying it. But still, I'm not thanking you for this diary.
      •  So (none)
        I am not here to be thanked.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:21:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, really? (none)
          But I do agree, unfounded fraud accusations are counterproductive.

          What you dare to Dream, dare to Analyze

          by MarkInSanFran on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:47:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unfounded Anything is Unproductive. (4.00)
            The problem with the Armando directive is that hypothetically, they guy who breaks the real-deal fraud story is not welcome here, or much worse, that the people who would have connected on dailykos to break the real-deal fraud story never meet, communicate, and put the pieces together.
            •  Fair point (none)
              I would hope (and do believe) that actual information sharing would be allowed. Armando and Kos are not the jerks some seem to think they are.

              What you dare to Dream, dare to Analyze

              by MarkInSanFran on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:09:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Point me to the info sharing (none)
                Let's be honest, there is none.

                It is all crackpot bullshit.

                The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:12:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I (none)
                think the problem is that SOME really like that audience of 60,000 or so that is provided by Daily Kos and have come to think of it as their own personal entitlement to be able to use that pulpit for whatever their heart desires.

                And when standards are enforced by the people who provide that forum they then cry CENSORSHIP!

                My heart goes out to those poor, downtrodden souls....

                •  I know, right? (4.00)
                  Personally I think it's a structural problem with the site design and atmosphere. Perhaps Scoop is just too kind about it all, probably reflecting the original Kuro5hin values (that didn't work out so well). Anyhow, as long as you're posting in your alleged 'diary', doing your own thing, talking to people who share your interests, and enjoying the 'community atmosphere', then you'll suddenly be shocked when some perceived jackbooted thug from the thought police jumps in and metaphorically cuts you off at the knees. Of course, if you're writing diaries about potential election fraud, then it would seem ten times worse... I can see it now: "WHY IS DAILYKOS SUPPRESSING GOP FRAUD?!?!?!" etc.

                  My problem is, where does the legitimate discussion and 'keeping and open mind' stop, and the 'fraudster conspiracy' and black helicopter alien abductions start. I personally quite enjoy discussing and debating the merits of just about anything, but that is quite different from believing everything you read. Also, how is this any different from, say, redstate or freerepublic banning anything they don't like or consider 'dissent' or 'unproductive' or whatever. In some sense, it's not just about whether or not the people at the top can do it (of course they can), but about what sort of (alleged) community we really want to have here.

                  Then again, it's hard to know just what to believe when the CIA might actually be abducting people, flying them to undisclosed locations, and allowing them to be tortured. (The only difference between this and the black helicopter crowd--replace 'aliens' with 'CIA', or 'black helicopter' with 'private airliner'. Still sounds like a nutzo conspiracy theory, doesn't it? Hmm.

                  Could someone have hypothetically have been banned for breaking that story on Daily Kos before it had made it into the media? Given Armando's standards here, I think it's quite possible, and that's the sort of thing that really worries me, quite above and beyond said stifling of discussion and obvious ill will.

                  •  Then leave (1.50)

                    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                    by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:45:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Is that the standard? (4.00)
                      Do you really want to say that you would have banned someone who had broken a legitimate story here before anyone else got it because you personally didn't believe it, and thought it sounded too much like a conspiracy, when in fact it was the God's honest truth, and you would in fact have been the one not living in the reality-based community?
                      •  Yeah right (none)
                        That fraud story is which one? This apucryphal story that was broken?

                        Stop with the bullshit. My point is prefectly clear. Act as if you don't understand it if you like.

                        I could not care less.

                        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                        by Armando on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 12:10:43 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes indeed. (4.00)
                          If you missed the reference, it goes back to the current 'extraordinary rendition' practices that have recently been uncovered. Those, on the face of it, sound quite cloak-and-dagger and conspiratorial. Until you look into it, and find out its veracity.

                          Your point might be clear, but I don't know that I find it to be very defensible, and apparently a lot of other people here are unfamiliar with it, or uncomfortable with its implications, perhaps to the point that they question whether that's actually the point that you intended to make.

                          And yes, I also know about your dismissive attitudes on this topic and many others.

                          Cheers.

                          •  Based on your rating... (none)
                            Of my only other comment in this thread, and if you guys are good cop, bad cop, y'all should have sigs about not taking things personally.

                            There's got to be a way to keep it kosher as far as discourse goes and preserve the fun factor. My conspiracy theory in a post is that some have decided to separate the wheat from the chaff through capacity for outrage over not being acknowledged (by certain celebrities whose time is better spent than replying to every single post) as the underlying reason for said outrage. Non-acknowledgment of this could be confirmation of my theory. You two would think a diary on it would be a waste of time. I agree, I can't sleep, hence posting at all and to prove it I ain't gonna post again in this diary because I'm not the one generating clicks.

                          •  hmm? (none)
                            Who are 'you guys' (or 'you two'), and what's this about 'good cop bad cop'? My ratings are my own, and most of the time I don't like sigs, but I have been known have them now and then, even about comment moderation issues if need be. However, yes--don't take too much here seriously if you can help it, it might not be.

                            Also, I gave you a 4 because I thought you were right on about your comment that the old guard feels like those that want to gossip and dish (satisfying but unproductive) are cluttering up the space for those that want to talk shop and come up with something that might convince that mythical perfectly objective citizen to vote D etc. And in fact it seems that most cultural conflicts in blogs stem from this dichotomy between the 'old-timers' who hold so much respect and power, and the 'newbies' who may now massively outnumber them, and aren't all necessarily that 'new'. Then come the 'restrictions' to make it like 'the old days', and then it all goes to shit and people flee elsewhere. I've seen it happen a few times. (so have others here)

                            Many diaries are a waste of time, indeed many never get noticed (I submit, as evidence, my three diaries). Posting them late at night doesn't help either.

                            I'm not quite sure about what your theory is or what it relates to, but it seems to have something to do with attention whoring and/or a desire to be noticed. I'm sure that is a factor--people want their ideas to be noticed, and as I have mentioned that can be hard to do around here when you aren't a Daily Kos celebrity. It involves some combination of luck, timing, good writing, topicalness, catchy headlines, web traffic, and/or celebrity status.

                            Feel free to post, here or elsewhere; it should all be about the discussion, anyhow.

                          •  OK, screw it (none)
                            No allusions. My theory is that Armando and Kos talk quite often and trust each other as being honest and open to difference opinion more so than any of us could (or rather, should) be. The barrier of entry for posting a diary is so low that things said on here could possibly bite us on the ass because it makes us feel superior in our political leanings, were a blog to ever be recognized as serious discourse.

                            So they're the "elite" and since I'm new and not a lawyer or connected I'm part of the "masses." To be perfectly honest, I mistook you for one of the elite, because you were arguing very honestly with Armando on a viable point... his being so short and such an "asshole." I agree more with your posting style than his and thought that since you remained so playful with him that you guys have history, so you're just teasing out what should be obvious: ground-breaking evidence will come out if you have it even if you posted it on Kos first and got banned for being a "fraudster." And you'll have finally scored on him. Big time. He's trying to piss people off to get them to go do it rather than clutter up this blog.

                            So even if I don't like Armando's style, I think it's great for him. I would only reply to a post of his if I didn't feel like I had something to add, or if I thought I had a valid "big picture" criticism. I mean, to come right out and say "this is what I think he's doing" is stupid because he wouldn't reply to posts like this.

                          •  that's better. (none)
                            I think you're right that Armando and Kos have a good friendship and/or working relationship, and they've said as much; they don't always agree, but yes they're open to having a difference of opinion. And you're right that the barrier for posting a diary is low--also the chances of it getting on the 'recommended list' can be pretty random, AND that entirely depends on the masses. So if Kos (and Armando and whomever) don't want certain diaries showing up there in a prominent place on the site that they think could potentially harm us if given prominence, banning such diaries entirely would make a certain amount of political sense, perhaps.

                            Now I'm not sure that's the argument they're making, at least openly, (and I could be wrong there, who knows) but it does make a certain amount of sense. However, I reject it because most people don't know Daily Kos from Adam, many journalists included, and are just as likely to quote any old out-of-context snippet from a random user in the comments or anywhere else, if pointed to it. Then Kos or Armando or whomever can decry that or say it doesn't reflect their position, which is fine--it very well might not.

                            Maybe I'm not 'elite' (I've been here for a while but I'm no celebrity) but I do try to argue honestly with people. I don't know if Armando knows me from anyone else, really (I'm sure he sees a lot of posts) but in the past I have agreed and disagreed with him, like many others. And as for his posting style, well, I see you've met Armando.

                            Armando is like that, yeah. On the one hand he won't tolerate any shit, which I admire. On the other, if you disagree with him, more often than not he almost seems to take it as a personal attack, which tends to make any rational back-and-forth discussion with him impossible. However, he does seem to try not to take himself too seriously; he's no hypocrite, and he doesn't care if you attack him right back. But he does seem to let his emotions get the best of him sometimes.

                            In summary--Armando writes some great stories, but he often does more harm than good to his cause in the comments section, at least in my opinion. If the comments section were all snarky knife fighting and backstabbing and cordial fuck-yous all around, he'd be fine--but it often isn't. Anyhow, he is who he is, I know this, and I don't really expect anything else.

                            You're right about me "just teasing out what should be obvious" (at least in my--and apparently your--opinion). However, Armando is serious about the position he takes, and I don't think he really cares if a few innocent people get caught up in his anti-fraudster zealotry. Heck, he admitted to being overzealous about it. Seems like the attitude here is, "they must have been crazy fraudsters anyway". I don't find that to be a reasonable or defensible position, but I don't think he cares--he just wants the 'fraudsters' out. Apparently it's like pornography, or art--"I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it". I, on the other hand, take the position that "it is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one".

                            As you've seen, once Armando gets pissed, he doesn't really reply substantively to any criticism. And I'm not about to explain myself further to anyone who can't do that, because it's a total waste of time. I guess in that respects my posts are more for everyone else than for Armando, but hopefully he'll read and process it all, and perhaps one day get some inkling of an alternative point of view that deserves some respect. Otherwise... well, otherwise, I bet he'd ban Voltaire in a heartbeat. That guy is just a born troublemaker, you know?

                            Cheers!

                    •  okay (none)
                      Bye!!
                      I've been at dKos daily for about 2 months now. I thought at first it would be a place to find the truth, ideas, speculations about "How we got here and where we're going" BUT it is in its own way as restritive as BushCo. Unless you alow freedom of speech you have a problem. I know you will call me a "Tin Hat" But the Dem's and now the blog are too weak to seek the truth.  

                      Some may fall but in the end we will be free, free free once more.
                      Yestermorrow

                  •  Jesus, pb - Well Put. (none)
                    What he said.

                    I think Scoop is excellent but am interested in looking behind your "Kuro5hin" comment - over my head - have a handy link or sugest some search terms?

                    •  Sure! (none)
                      Check out kuro5hin.org (and their obsolete mission statement and FAQ) and Scoop, the software that runs it. Scoop was created as a reaction to Slash and the degredation of the Slashdot 'community', mostly due to perceived flaws in the moderation system ($3 crack) and the site administration (CmdrTaco and friends). Rusty (and friends, but originally I think it was mostly if not all his code) built some great software, and then mostly wandered off like some irresponsible Deist God. But at least the code was Open Source, which allowed it to morph into the version of Scoop that now runs Daily Kos (and many other sites).

                      In fact, I have watched the rise and fall of groups and open discussion at different large 'blogs' (before they were called 'blogs') for years, and I've learned my lesson--if Daily Kos goes the way of Slashdot, Kuro5hin, Red State, and many others, then I will silently mourn, but I will eventually move on, and likely spend more of my time elsewhere--as Armando has said repeatedly, there are many other political blogs out there, and indeed some of them are very good and even contain many of the same excellent members.

                      Fortunately, I don't consider Armando to be wholly representative of the community here (as perhaps much of the diary comments here indicate). But hey--it's Armando, he gets worked up like that. Of course it's a double-edged sword, we all love it when he's posting the incisive, productive diaries lambasting others for their faults. :)

                    •  Scoop. (none)
                      Google.  "scoop".  go.  Third link.
                      Scoop is a "collaborative media application". It falls somewhere between a content management system, a web bulletin board system, and a weblog. Scoop is designed to enable your website to become a community.
                      'kos' uses a customized version to run 'Daily Kos', but you can use it for other things too.  "kuro5hin" is the name of the programming group that created 'Scoop'.

                      'The conspiracists' by 'kos'.  'Search'.  'Find:' Diaries, 'Containing:' "purge".  'Search'.

                      Not as obvious as I thought (I looked in stories first (default still...) because it was a front page post).

                      A parting word- I'm a great believer in doing nothing.  If you're taking on Emmet the last place I want to be is between you.

                      •  Thanks for 'The Conspiracists' (none)
                        I entirely missed that diary--I was in vacationing in Maine for that week. If that was the diary/story (or one of the diaries/stories) that Armando was referencing, then I entirely missed it. There are some great quotes there too.

                        I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community.

                        [...]

                        This is a reality-based community. Those who wish to live outside it should find a new home. This isn't it.

                        I entirely agree. In addition, I also am willing to defend against those who would run out actual card-carrying members of the Reality Based Community. I'm not sure if Armando qualifies, but judging from his responses so far, it's a possibility.

                        As for your other link, I believe I've covered that one, so, no real need for that. As I've said before, I'm perfectly willing to elucidate on the things that I reference in my posts, to those earnestly interested. I'm even willing to provide a bit more commentary than "Google for word X", to explain how it relates to my point(s). Hey, it's just common courtesy, and a lot of people on here really seem to know nothing of K5 or its history; maybe I could have made a link in the first place, or explained further in my original post. :)

                        •  Thank you. (none)
                          I entirely bow to your superior scoop knowledge.  I am not the fastest poster in the world and overlooked your reply.  Just another instance were comment editing would be handy- or would it?  One of many discussions at Soapblox, details here.

                          Not my best work, I constantly struggle with the (back)slash translations for the text tags.

                          •  no problemo. (none)
                            Ah, I thought that might have been it. And I'd support more of a model of comment revision than editing--that is, all the various changes and incarnations should be readily available for viewing, chronologically if desired. Looking at your post now, it seems you had the same idea.

                            Hey, are you the Soapblox guy? I saw that and mentioned it to the people in #scoop on SlashNET (and a few others) a while back. A scoop clone in Java is at least notable, I guess. :)

                            If so, we should talk sometime; I've had quite a few ideas about 'blogs' and the like over the years, but haven't had the wherewithal to try to implement it all yet, nor really the resources to float a free and public server that may become popular etc.

                          •  So not the man, (none)
                            I am Sam. 'pacified' is the shizzle.  He and 'pyrrho' noticed my compulsive MetaBlogging tendencies and recommended therapy.

                            But I'm much better now.

                      •  Great Find! (none)
                        But the Emmett comment is beyond me - regional saying?
            •  Right (none)
              The real deal fraud theory is bubbling up with the nonsense we read.

              Suuuure.

              Let's  be honest - the fraud theories are pathetic pieces of crap.

              Sure we have alot of that, I offer much of it myself, but fraudsters get in the way of the poltical work.

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:11:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Stranger things have happened... :) (none)
                Sure, many if not all of them are. 90% of everything is crap, and that goes tenfold for the internet, etc. However to dismiss them all out of hand without even the most cursory review is to risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

                Now I can understand if you don't want to spend all your time debunking 'crap'--who does? Personally I don't think you have to most of the time--this place is largely self-policing in that regard. However, once you stop trying altogether, then who knows what you might end up banning.

                Also, I don't think 'fraudsters' "get in the way of the political work" in any substantial sense. However, if they did, then I can see why you would be concerned about that.

    •  i hope armando, that you mean (none)
      fraudsters about THIS election (I agree it wasn't stolen).

      Do you mean this about the 2004 election??

    •  I'm usually the first one to call bullshit on (none)
      censorship.

      Here, I actually think you're in the right.  Not just in your policy, but in posting this diary.

      Fraud without EVIDENCE is just spinning our wheels.  It needs to be kept out of this site.

      Did I ever apologize to you for telling you to go eff yourself over at MLW?  Consider this my apology.

    •  It was stolen (none)
      by Wes Clark. Watch the footage of them carrying out the ballots from Clermont. He's hard to see because he's so damn short, but he's there.

       I always told you he was a Republican.

    •  rating (none)
      Just to be clear, my '1' wasn't for this policy, but for the completely belligerent tone used in many responses to posts in this diary, some thoughtful and some not. This has been as uncalled for as the more baseless electoral astrologizing to which Armando takes offense.  
    •  what a pathetic display n/t (none)

      There ought to be a science of discontent.

      by dreamsign on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 12:39:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes indeed (none)
        But no fraud diaries right?

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:02:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that made me laugh (4.00)
          i think your taking credit for an absence you didn't effect.  you really think georgia10, for example, would be scared off by your chest-thumping?

          There ought to be a science of discontent.

          by dreamsign on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:16:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No (none)
            But Georgia10 is utterly superior to the whole lot of you and would not write the utter silliness that would surely result if I did not write this.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:26:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the whole lot of you (4.00)
              ah, what a prick you are.  guess it's easier than being thoughtful.

              anyway, it's interesting that you admit the possibility of a valuable fraud diary.  or am i misreading?

              my impression was the Georgia10 authored by far the most popular fraud diaries.  if we were to imagine a fraudster topography, with area defined by pageviews, her work would constitute a large portion of that domain.  to exclude that domain entirely, then, is not only ugly but stupid.  it is, as Kepler put it so well five centuries ago, to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

              There ought to be a science of discontent.

              by dreamsign on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:43:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  You shouldn't have mentioned them (none)
    Now they will come out of the woodworks.

    --Liberate your radio--

    by Sam Loomis on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:35:59 PM PDT

  •  well said. n/t (none)

    I HATE REPUBLICANS, HATE HATE HATE THEM!!!!!!!!! UGHHHHH

    by michael1104 on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:36:10 PM PDT

  •  well, i think we should keep our eyes open (none)
    but i agree, i rather dislike the "there was fraud!!!! now help me prove it!" people

    "Democrat" is not synonymous with "liberal" - My Blog (TN-1)

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:37:18 PM PDT

    •  asdf (4.00)
      I agree, I don't think you should need a videotape of vote rigging along with a notarized certificate of authenticity to ask just what was going on in Clement county. If you ask me, Armando is being a bit overzealous in chasing out what might be called baseless conspiracy theories. It seems to be getting to the point that anything regarding vote fraud that falls short of iron-clad proof falls under this global ban.

      This reminds me a bit of the legal arguments regarding the application of the death penalty. We know intellectually, and aggregately, that the death penalty is applied more to minorities than it is to white people. Yet the courts usually don't accept that argument because a bias can't be proven for each specific case. I wouldn't want it to turn into that sort of thing here, where we know intellectually that funny vote counting is going on somewhere, but we can't bring the topic up unless we have signed confessions for a specific case.

  •  Heh (4.00)
    You love being the first asshole, dont' you? I'm with ya, and I'm with worthy evidence too. Here's to a good day.

    Anything by Loudon Wainwright III

    by Earl on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:39:15 PM PDT

  •  Armando, surely you aren't saying (4.00)
    that my comments BLOWING THE ROOF OFF THE ALIEN CONSPIRACY are nonsense? I have ALIEN FECES in a jar that proves my case. OHIO has been overrun by MARTIANS from MARS who have MIND CONTROL RAY GUNS and also RADIOACTIVE FECES obtained from the TRILATERAL COMMISSION. Also they are SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMISTS. Your only defense is CAPITAL LETTERS and also SUBSCRIBING TO MY NEWSLETTER which will BLOW THE ROOF off of VARIOUS THINGS.

    TRANSMISSION ENDS

  •  I must know the answer (4.00)
    Why in the hell would anyone vote for Jean Scmidt?  After Taft, Noe and all the Bush scandals...what the hell is wrong with people?  Are they stupid?  Are they evil?  What?

    We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. -MLK

    by JLFinch on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:42:01 PM PDT

    •  she's a republican (none)
      period.  that is all that is necessary for some people.

      "Democrat" is not synonymous with "liberal" - My Blog (TN-1)

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:43:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not supposed to call the GOP "stupid" (4.00)
      remember?
      It insults them.  They don't like it when we elite lefties talk down on them.

      No, only they are allowed to insult.
      Like the way they insult our teachers, nurses, college professors, college students, non-radical churches, democratic veterans, police officers, firefighter unions, CIA analysts, journalists, scientists, and people who happen to be just a little more gay than they secretly are.

      --Liberate your radio--

      by Sam Loomis on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:46:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you know how we go in (none)
      and PUNCH Democrat..no matter what...they go in and punch Republican..no matter what...it's their Base..and it is crumbling...going BYE BYE.

      *"We are a Nation of Laws"-11th Circuit*

      by Chamonix on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:47:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i dont go in an just punch democrat (none)
        its just that there has only been one republican since i started voting in 2000 that i've ever felt compelled to vote for (state representative in 2002)

        "Democrat" is not synonymous with "liberal" - My Blog (TN-1)

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:50:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  To be honest (none)
        I go in and vote for all the Democrats individually, instead of voting "Straight Democrat"

        It's called exercise.

        :D

        "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

        by RBH on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:34:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I thought I was... (none)
        the only one.

        There was something about purging colored dogs in some other thread, but there's one type of dog you can't get rid of- that old smelly yellow one.

        Slam.  Vroom...
        That's ok.  So I'll find my own way home then... (crickets).  I needed exercise anyway.

        Woof, woof.

    •  they're fucking POD people (none)
      Why in the hell would anyone vote for Jean Scmidt?

      I thought Yuppie scum were bad, but those evangelicals and repuglicans, whew, they're pretty low on the brainwave scale

      It could be the inbreeding (my own favorite theory), or it could be the lack of iodine in the water (my HS Geography teacher's theory), but there is something seriously wrong in the heartland

      Inbreeding, it's what fucked up the Royal Family too

      •  I thought Pod people... (none)
        ... is the name for those who watch Al Gore's new TV station "Current". The programing is in 2 to 7 minute shorts called "pods." It's getting mixed reviews so far (mostly for not being a left-wing Fox), but it is cutting edge rather than "Leave it to Beaver", so I doubt many right-wingers are watching.

        "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government" - Teddy Roosevelt

        by mrboma on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:37:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  why? (none)
      People who voted for her are sick of A) yet another social program that will raise taxes.  B) Talk of National Health Insurance, which will raise taxes.  C) Anything that will raise taxes.

      A Republican gets elected, he may or may not raise taxes.  A Democrat gets elected, you can almost guarantee taxes get raised.

  •  ok, so... (4.00)
    what will you say about a non-baseless theory?
  •  Fraudsters Anonymous. (none)
    FA for short. I have been fraud free for four months.

    To all the fraudsters: get help. You can do it. Come into the light... I did.

    "I am not a crook" - The Honourable Richard M. Nixon

    by tricky dick on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:44:58 PM PDT

  •  We cannot become (none)
    "The boy who cried wolf"...besides we don't want to tarnish our true victory...We fucking took over part of Ohio...these are the people John Kerry had to put his Camo on for. Remember that. Hackett showed us and them...They all want a straight shooter, that says what he means and stands behind it 100%. "Chicken Hawk" Fuckin A. President is full of BS...Right On. Please don't take away from our awesome night. I agree no fraudsters...if there were irregularities they will work it out on the ground in Ohio. We have a Winner and we will create a lot more. Look out Dobson/Frist/Delay and BUSH/CHENEY cause we are commin for ya and you're all Goin DOWN. Go get em Armando...

    *"We are a Nation of Laws"-11th Circuit*

    by Chamonix on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:45:10 PM PDT

  •  I don't understand this knee-jerk reaction (4.00)
    Why are you so convinced that there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that fraud could have happened tonight?

    I am not saying that it happened. I am saying that the Ohio GOP is a corrupt cesspool, and I do not doubt that they might try to steal an election. Did they need to in this case? I have no idea. It's a solid Republican district.

    I need to see more evidence. What is the harm in double-checking the result to make sure it is genuine?

    If we don't insist on verifying all election results, in all 50 states, we could be stuck with permanent minority status.

    •  I'm guessing (none)
      this is the important part:

      I don't want to hear baseless theories on fraud and other nonsense. I think, no, I know markos feels the same way.

      I assume "baseless" is the most important word there.

      •  how can we know (4.00)
        if fraud allegations are baseless or not if there is no recount?

        There have been so many reports of electoral shenanigans in so many states that I want recounts every goddamn place.

        I worked my butt off for Kerry in Iowa. I think we got outhustled. I think that there's a 95 percent chance there was no fraud in Iowa. However, I wish there had been a full recount, just so there could be no doubt whatsoever that the results were genuine. The margin was extremely close (but, as in OH-02, not close enough to trigger an automatic recount). I would like to be 100 percent sure.

        •  Here's how (4.00)
          before you make the chagre have something to base them on.

          A RECOUNT is not charging fraud.

          You want a recount? Ask Hackett to ask for one and raise the money.

          Have at it.

          No fraud unless you have something to base it on.

          Capiche?

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:53:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ok, we are not as far apart as I thought (none)
            I thought you were slamming anyone who asked for a recount or further investigation of the results.

            I would like Hackett to ask for a recount.

            Unfortunately, I think most people will tell him to declare victory and move on. If by chance there was fraud, moving on now could crush our chances of taking back Ohio and Congress in 2006.

    •  Well (none)
      If you were stealing an election, would you do it in a way to be exposed on a second check?

      Basically, the one theory I heard was "Schmidt's percentage went up in Clemont", ignoring that if she won 57-43, then she would have still won the election

      "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

      by RBH on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:49:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  playing devil's advocate (4.00)
        But perhaps if her percentage had stayed at 57-43 in Clermont, her victory would have been narrow enough to trigger an automatic recount across the whole district, possibly exposing shenanigans elsewhere.

        I am not saying that this definitely happened. But if I were trying to steal an election, I'd try to cheat a little bit in many different ways, so that if one or two of the anomalies were discovered, I could claim that it didn't affect enough votes to swing the election.

        That's why I support full recounts everywhere across the country, not just in a few counties here or there that look suspicious. This would be money well spent even if no fraud were ever uncovered, because it would increase confidence in our electoral system.

        Obviously, if fraud were uncovered, then the money spent on recounts and investigations would be even more worthwhile.

      •  by the numbers... (4.00)
        Basically, Clermont county won it for Schmidt. Compared to the other counties, she had a huge numerical margin of victory there. However, as near as I can tell, turnout was actually somewhat depressed there compared to (say) Hamilton county (which leaned Schmidt, but not by much). You could then perhaps conclude that the higher turnout helped Hackett, but that doesn't hold up when you look at the smaller counties--which tended to go to Hackett by larger than typical margins for a Dem as compared to the larger counties, but with somewhat depressed turnout. So what does that all mean, if anything? 'Tis a muddle, but it doesn't scream 'fraud' to me.

        Now, the recent delays and the stories about Clermont county's voting machinery breaking down and having to hand-count votes at the last minute in (apparently) very Republican precincts, to greatly widen the margin of victory... that sounds very suspicious on the face of it, and therefore should be investigated. It probably also doesn't help that Clermont and Warren counties were suspected of fraud in the 2004 elections due to alleged election irregularities, or when coupled with the current Ohio GOP corruption stories.

        Now, that's all (or mostly) innuendo, but at the least, one question we should all be asking is, why can't these particular areas get their act together when it comes to voting? Was it just another fluke? Maybe they should be using the other counties in Ohio as a model instead? And why is it that they can funnel all this money to themselves, and yet they can't get voting working? Is it just not a priority for them?

        •  And illogical (none)
          Schmidt didn't need any help in those 91 precincts.

          Motive shouild mean someting  and you have none.

          So the implication is that there is no fraud cuz it was not necessary.

          End of story.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:20:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  eh? (4.00)
            First, let me be clear--if you think that I'm saying that there was fraud--I'm not. I'm also not discounting it out of hand. That's what sane people do given a lack of evidence. And, I don't claim to know what their motives would have been given your hypothetical implied fraud. I've seen a ridiculous amount of shit go down from the GOP at all levels, and sometimes their dirty laundry has been out in the open. And I don't always see a motive for what they do, or know what it is. That, however, doesn't mean that it didn't happen or couldn't have happened.

            Given that track record, and the need to have unimpeachable election results in a free and fair democracy, I see nothing wrong with investigating irregularities, especially when they crop up more than once. If it turns out to be nothing, or some honest mix-up, so be it. If there are problems exposed that we can prevent, great--let's go fix the system. And if we did turn up massive corruption and fraud--well, that'd need to be fixed as well, hopefully in the next election.

            But basically what it comes down to is, I don't put anything past the GOP nowadays, I don't know why they do what they do, I don't trust them even as far as I can throw them, and I know they aren't doing the right thing for the country. So when they screw things up--repeatedly--I want to know what the hell is really going on, implied motives be damned.

          •  motive (4.00)
            I'm not saying it was fraud, but there was some motive.

            It was Clermont County brought the margin out of the automatic recount range, after a mysterious website crash & "humidity problems" with the optical scan cards. Don't you agree that it would have been a far worse situation for the GOP to have mere hundreds separating the candidates, rather than thousands, and a mandatory hand count?

            Also--Clermont does not have a very good track record for "clean" elections. Clermont county was the one where poll workers filed affadavits about stickers being place over the Kerry votes on punch cards. And they were one of the top three counties that had the anomolous "down ticket" (democratic judge candidate) votes outnumbering the Kerry votes. This was documented by John Conyers in the post election investigation.

            I don't understand why you are so vehement about banning discussion of this. I can understand being against unfounded allegations. but what about fact based ones? isn't it important to maintain the integrity of the voting system?

            this is a great forum, but this tone really freaks me out.

            yeah, i know--go somewhere else.

            love it or leave it i guess

            •  Not that I know much about the personal politics (none)
              that go on around here, but I think the old guard feels like those that want to gossip and dish (satisfying but unproductive) are cluttering up the space for those that want to talk shop and come up with something that might convince that mythical perfectly objective citizen to vote D. That's not nearly as fun or easy as freep style BSing under the guise of being "open" as long as you pass the ideological groupthink compatibility test.

              I'm thinking this is for diarists, cuz they can get recommended. If its for posts and this is the horrible cracking down of Authority on us, I might get banned for gossiping and dishing about gossiping and dishing. But I sense there's a tolerance for that, it's just that when diaries that do that about fraud they can get to the recommended list (ooohh... controversy!) and they're totally unproductive.

              I don't write diaries because they'd probably be frivolous and I'm afraid Armando would read one. Everyone likes to argue with the resident asshole, so this'll get like 400 posts trying to score a point on him. Lots of people will read it, too.

    •  I'm with you but... (4.00)
      Armando is right.  I myself have thrown around some comments tonight about the need for ES&S investigation, as the delay and inconsistencies in their story tonight concerns me.  However, to spend too much time on it out-foxes the real story - our solid shocking "victory" in a heavily Republican district.  

      Consider me "Fraudster Free".

      My book Growing Up Red is now available at bn.com, amazon.com, and iUniverse.com.

      by ColdFusion04 on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:03:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ok... (none)
      Kos, Armando, and all the anti-fraudsters on Daily Kos are NOT BANNING FRAUD SNIPE HUNTS blogosphere wide. The request is merely that such snipe hunts don't occur on Daily Kos. There are billions of other blogs for that sort of thing, and if you don't find one to your liking you can even start a new one. It's so very simple.

      Can someone please start a group called "Antiwar Liberals Against Jane Fonda..."

      by Addison on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:26:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How about spam? (4.00)
    Can we talk about spam now?  

    When you are going thru hell, keep going! Winston Churchill

    by flo58 on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:47:53 PM PDT

  •  Funny you should say that (none)
    But who counts the ratings, huh? Where's the paper trail? WHERE'S THE ACCOUNTABILITY, ARMANDO?! What's stopping kos from hacking his own server and loading your post up with zeroes just to prove you right? Huh? How convenient that a new server was installed just before the election results came in!

    Seriously, the key word in the diary is "bullshit." Fraud can happen, and does (not least in Ohio!). Conspiracies can happen, and do. But the fact that Hackett lost does not in itself mean anything more sinister than that he lost. The precincts that turned out most for Schmidt were exactly the ones that were expected to. Any credible investigations made into this election will not release results any time soon, anyway. Good investigations take time.

    •  social democrat and jotter stop KOS (4.00)
      What's stopping kos from hacking his own server and loading your post up with zeroes just to prove you right?

      hacking the server to downrate Armando's comments is social democrat's job, and jotter fixes the ratings on diaries, so KOS doesn't have to waste his time with the little details anymore

      KOS doesn't interfere when his minions are handling matters in a satisfactory manner

      besides, Armando is an experimental computer simulation of an Anti-Markos persona that went bad, escaped the lab, and is currently kidnapping actors on the east coast, making public appearances, and claiming the DailyKOS is about HIM

      since actors are so shallow, and Armando doesn't seem that crazy in person, nobody cares. we told the cops, but they already had a too many wackos to worry about 1 more

      how's that for baseless theories ???

      •  ARMAAAAANDO (none)
        He's an augment mirror-universe version of Kos.

        Now who the hell is Social Democrat?

        •  A technologically gifted KOSSACK (none)
          Now who the hell is Social Democrat?

          uh, small s, small d, please

          social democrat is the keeper of the list of Today's 17 best rated comments, a place where narcisistic KOSSACKS can measure their popularity through superficial comparisons of mojo on a daily basis

          jotter is the master of High Impact Diaries, a place where diary challenged people such as myself do not even dream of appearing

          bet you didn't know DailyKOS was a competetive sport

          •  Seemingly Very Labor Intensive. (none)
            They must have some firefox sweetness going on to assimilate all that data?  No... human would collect data like that would they?  Those diaries are impressive from the data management standpoint alone.
            •  they use offshore slave labor (none)
              political prisoners in an foreign accounting sweatshop compile all the data for them

              and KOS runs his servers off of captive gerbils that are forced to run on treadmills to generate power

              and Gentle Johnny Famous Crooner makes a delicious kitty shake too

              I know all the KOSSACK dirty laundry. I'd tell you where the skeletons are buried, but RFTR ate the bones

          •  no minion here (none)
            Just doing my part to make the site more accessible.

            The lists purpose is not to feature "winners" but to make it less likely to miss a diary that many people that worthy if you say, take a half day off from the site.  But people love sport, apparently.

            And it's not done with slave labor.  Other than mine.

            And the details of how it's done are available via a link at the bottom of every summary.

            Thanks for the reference.  I wish more people, knew about these resources.

            •  sorry jotter (none)
              it's an inside joke from the 17 comments list

              somebody asked, and social democrat didn't provide an answer for hours, so I vollenteered the slave labor info

              besides, I just like the idea of an offshore accounting sweatshop

              we need something to counter the Crimson Permanent Insurance company

  •  In the realm of quantum physics (4.00)
    there is a phenomenon known as Quantum Tunneling.  Using a tennis court as an example, it's how electrons get from Side-A to Side-B without crossing over the net.

    Now, it just so happens that OH-2 is exactly 2,000.0000 miles from Area 51 in Nevada, and a geologic formation ideal for tunneling between the two areas....arghackkkkk...click...buzz.

    I'm sorry, I've lost the train of thought.

    The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

    by MoronMike on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:53:12 PM PDT

    •  quantum tunneling (none)
      That's a mindfuck if I ever heard of it.

      First time I took a quantum mechanics course (the undergrad version), we touched on the topic of tunneling, but didn't really delve into it.

      When I took hardcore quantum in grad school, I thought my brain would explode.  But I liked it... and the tunneling part finally kind of made some sense.  Kind of.

      I worked with a dude who did lots of STM, so the practical application made more sense.

      •  I think it's like "hide the sausage" (none)
        always use protection.

        BUSH LIES, PEOPLE DIE

        by seesdifferent on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:16:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  One time... (4.00)
        ...I ate Schroedinger's Cat Food.  Half of me liked it, half of me hated it.

        The funny thing is, I'm reasonably certain it wasn't even in the bowl until I looked at it.

        "The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats." Wesley Clark

        by The Termite on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:17:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You've just given me a great idea, PP. (4.00)
        The next time anyone suggests that "Intelligent Design" be put on par with evolution, just say, "You obviously don't understand Quantum Tunneling."  

        And leave it there.  No explanation, no hint as to what the hell it is you're talking about.  And if they question you, just say, "Hey, look it up.  You'll see."

        End of discussion.

        The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

        by MoronMike on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:25:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Except that ... (none)
          ... most people (to say nothing of most Republicans) would look at the Introduction to Quantum Tunneling Handbook and start crying and leave convinced that it's all just a bunch of squiggles.

          I'd stick with something simpler like "You obviously don't understand arithmetic", but that would make me sound mean-spirited and bitter.  Which I often am, but that's beside the point.

          On the other hand, I freaked someone out the other day by explaining to them (nb, I am not a physicist of any sort) that if you were to stand perfectly still at the same altitude at which the ISS orbits, not only would you not feel "weightless" but you'd feel about the same weight you feel down here.  This person responded, indignantly, "But it's weightless up there!  I've seen pictures!"  Rather than explain the whole business of freefall, I went down the asshole route and asked, "Weightless?  Why the hell does the Moon hang around then?  Affection?"

          I honestly wasn't trying to make the person feel dumb.  But it's irritating when people decide they can't know things (which is a variation on what it seems like Armando is pissed about in this diary: we need rational inquiry, not baseless conclusions).

          Progressives live for the future. Conservatives dwell in the past.

          by socratic on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:43:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  quantum tunneling is NOT related to the B3 Bomber (none)
          so let's stop those rumors quick too

          you have to throw in shiny toys to get the attention of the freepi

  •  I am neither. (4.00)
    As I commented prior, I think that the data available show the following (with some additions):

    1. That we pulled of a 30 to 40 point swing in a massively republican district. This is the most important finding.

    2. That the final results tally from the final 91 precincts in Claremont were "funny" - a jump from 140 to 170 voters per precinct, and a jump from 56-44 to 60-40 (in other words, in counting 12% of the votes, the margin between Hackett and Schmidt went from 0.8% to 3.5%).

    The last point comes directly from the available data.

    I am not suggesting fraud. I do, however, think that we should look closely at those numbers and try to understand why they came out the way they did.

    First, are the numbers accurate, and do you have a better source?

    Second, are those numbers in line with the demographics, population and past patterns in those precincts?

    Third, how do we address these patterns in terms of strategizing for the future?

    IF (huge, provisional, NONconspiratorial IF) there was any gameplaying, then, of course, such strategizing is moot.

    However, as is MUCH MUCH more likely, this represents the GOP strength in the so-called "exurban" strategy, then how do we combat it?

    AGAIN, PLEASE, I am not shouting fraud, I am saying that the numbers breakdown indicates that we need to pay attention to particular patterns. If those patterns are a result of fraud, then that should come out as we analyze the voting results. I do not think they will show fraud on any scale worth considering.

    In paying attention to those patterns and numbers, we need to USE the data to craft strategy for the future.

    Do we need to keep our mouths shut, and run more "stealthy" campaigns?

    Would Hackett have won if there had not been such a buzz in the blogosphere that prompted the RNCC to dump a million dollars of last-minute money into the race?

    Do we need to specifically target the exurban communities and gated communities surrounding our urban strongholds?

    Do we need to start figuring out ways to suppress the exurban GOP vote?

    Again, pay attention to the numbers, use them.

    "Funny" numbers are telling us SOMETHING.

    I think that something is NOT fraud on any significant or important scale, but anomalous patterns need attention and explanation.

    If you want to ban me for that, fine - I think that would be a huge loss for all concerned, considering the amount of time, money, effort, contribution, and work I have put into this site and this community over the last 3-4 years.

    The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

    by RedDan on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:54:51 PM PDT

    •  The numbers are not funny (4.00)
      Let's talk absolutes -

      How many precincts in Claremont?
      How many precincts prior to the last 91 in Claremont?
      How many votes counted in Claremont prior to the last 91 precincts?
      What was Schmidt's margin in Claremont prior to the last 91?
      What was the margin for the last 91?

      Answer those questions and tell me what was funny?

      BTW, do the same analysis in a Hackett county.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:01:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutes (4.00)
        Number of precincts in Claremont County = 191

        Precincts counted prior to the last 91 = 100

        Votes counted in Claremont prior to the last 91, with Schmidts margin in numbers and percentage:

        Schmidt: 7869 (56.35%)
        Hackett: 6095 (43.65%)

        Total prior to the last 91 precincts = 13,964

        Votes counted in Claremont's last 91 precincts, with margins in numbers and percentages:

        Schmidt (R) - 9,451 (60%)
        Hackett (D) - 6,344 (40%)

        Total for the final 91 precincts = 15,795

        Results for the entire county:

        Schmidt: 17,320 votes (58%)
        Hackett: 12,439 votes (42%)

        Total voters = 29,759

        About 140 votes per precinct prior to shut down, and about about 174 votes per precinct after.

        A 56-44 split before shutdown, and a 60-40 split after shutdown.

        Now, as I said previously, and will emphasize again:

        1. Are these data accurate, and are the numbers correct?

        2. If these data are accurate and correct, are the results in line with the demographics and population statistics for the precincts in question?

        If the answers to 1. and 2. are both yes, then we need to study the results to try and craft future strategies in "exurban" areas.

        If the answer 1. is NO, then I will slink away and hide.

        If the answer to 1. is YES, and the answer to 2. is NO, then we need to look more deeply and find more evidence.

        That's all.

        Does that satisfy you?

        The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

        by RedDan on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:21:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No (none)
          Motive for fraud would be what?

          Posit how Hackett would have taken 53.46% of the remaining votes in Clermont and then you would have a reason to wonder.

          You know you can not. So this is all bullshit.

          no motive thenwhy the fuck do it?

          Common sense tells you that you are talking nonsense.

          Moreover, since your REAL problem is the disparity in turnout in the remaining precincts, compare this result with all other counties and see if there is any real variation.

          Otherwise more nonsese.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:26:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Absent the vicious tone (4.00)
             - to which I am inured (and also guilty myself in other conversations), your questions are excellent.

            We can posit two possible motives for fraud

            1. is to win elections that are in doubt, of course...and

            2.  in this case, I suppose the motive for fraud could be to avoid an automatic recount (which would be triggered by a 0.5% or less margin of victory, and Hackett was close at 0.8% before the last 91)...

            How could Hackett have taken 53% of the remaining votes in Clermont?

            I dunno, how about the same way that he won three counties that were overwhelmingly republican last year?

            The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

            by RedDan on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:34:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No sir (none)
              The evidence was that he was losing Clermont by 56.5 -43.5

              The NEW conspiracy theory would be Hackett's remarkable reversal.

              You'll excuse me, that would be strong evidence of Dem fraud no?

              Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:42:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A good point. (none)
                And you are correct.

                The null hypothesis in this case is that the margin of victory in the remaining 91 districts should mirror the margin in the prior 100 districts, and that turnout should have been similar.

                That would still have resulted in a Schmidt victory, but by a far smaller margin.

                The alternative you presented (an 8 point turnaround in a heavily Republican area) would have been MORE suspicious than a 3 point increase in Schmidt's margin in that same area.

                I concede.

                The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

                by RedDan on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:51:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This Is An Entirely Sensible Conversation (none)
                  So why this diary with all its blustery prior restraint talk about banning those who engage in fraud discussions?

                  As I always say on these threads: I'm disinclined to believe in fraud and conspiracies, but I'm very glad that there are people looking into such allegations. Some are credulous and fanatical. I ignore them. Others really look at the numbers and facts and reach actually interesting and useful conclusions, whether or not they uncover fraud.

                  I continue to feel that the last thing that dKos needs is for the frontpagers to start acting like the Committee of Public Safety.  But if they insist on doing so, I nominate Armando to play Robespierre.

                  Support IWT
                  Independent World Television
                  The Alternative to the Corporate Media

                  by GreenSooner on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 12:37:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting numbers, but (3.33)
      given that the last precincts to come in were very heavily Republican, doesn't that also suggest a bump in the percentages?

      The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

      by MoronMike on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:02:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you (4.00)
    this was a great night for us. I'm not gonna let people ruin all the good will I'm feeling tonight by posting ridiculous bullshit diaries that make me want to punch a wall. Let's just focus on the positive tonight, that a race that had no chance of being competitive...was.

    You'd better do as you are told-You'd better listen to your radio

    by AnnArborBlue on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:56:14 PM PDT

  •  Wow (4.00)
    You guys will be showing Chris Bowers the door?

    Hackett would have won any other district in Ohio. He only lost this one by less than two points. After the general culture of vote corruption in Ohio is exposed, it will be revealed that he lost by even less (or who knows....)

    You guys are harsh...

    Zigzagger: Blogging the highs and lows of digital cable.

    by ZanderOC on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:56:29 PM PDT

    •  Fraud (none)
      seems to be missing.

      But I will say this, Chris should keep that shit at MYDD unless he has evidence.

      I'll be sure to tell him.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:57:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We have no evidence. (4.00)
        What we have are statistics.

        Statistics can show coincidence or correlation (a pattern of repeated coincidence).

        Those statistics should be used to guide unbiased inquiry.

        Unbiased inquiry should lead to some testably hypotheses:

        1. IF there was a massive bump in local turnout in one particular segment of one particular district, then there should be correlative population, demographic and historical patterns that reflect similar variances....

        2. IF there are not such population, demographic, and historical patterns, THEN there must be an alternate explanation (for example, hometown effect, church effect, and so on).

        3. IF neither are demonstrable, then there should be SOME EVIDENCE for something else, and we should be able to find that evidence.

        Chris needs to understand causal chains, and you need to relax.

        The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

        by RedDan on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:04:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My first (4.00)
          VERY cursory look at the numbers show a couple areas to examine, but nothing that stands out too much.

          2004                   
          County    GOP    DEM    GOP    DEM    Total Votes
          Adams    8310    3169    0.72    0.28    11479
          Brown    13796    5293    0.72    0.28    19089
          Clermont    66158    20210    0.77    0.23    86368
          Hamilton    89743    38237    0.70    0.30    127980
          Pike    6047    5578    0.52    0.48    11625
          Scioto    10099    8004    0.56    0.44    18103
          Warren    32949    9107    0.78    0.22    42056
          Totals    227102    89598    0.72    0.28    316700
          2005                   
          County    GOP    DEM    GOP    DEM    Total Votes
          Adams    1911    2101    0.48    0.52    4012
          Brown    3100    3950    0.44    0.56    7050
          Clermont    17320    12439    0.58    0.42    29759
          Hamilton    25011    23597    0.51    0.49    48608
          Pike    1559    2659    0.37    0.63    4218
          Scioto    2638    4925    0.35    0.65    7563
          Warren    7556    5420    0.58    0.42    12976
          Totals    59095    55091    0.52    0.48    114186
          2004 vs. 2005                   
          County    GOP    DEM    GOP    DEM    Total Votes
          Adams    6399    1068    -0.25    0.25    7467
          Brown    10696    1343    -0.28    0.28    12039
          Clermont    48838    7771    -0.18    0.18    56609
          Hamilton    64732    14640    -0.19    0.19    79372
          Pike    4488    2919    -0.15    0.15    7407
          Scioto    7461    3079    -0.21    0.21    10540
          Warren    25393    3687    -0.20    0.20    29080
          Totals    168007    34507    -0.20    0.20    202514
          •  Thanks BooMan! (4.00)
            That's all I am looking for.

            The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

            by RedDan on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:24:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm just amazed (4.00)
            that a Democrat performed so well in rural, river counties.  Thinking in terms of implications for 2006, I have to wonder whether outside of Ohio, we couldn't see some real suprise.  Next door in Southern Indiana, we lost two races that we never should have had to even worry about, IN-8, and IN-9.  The 9th was very, very close, and there's a lot of cultural connections between southern Ohio and Indiana.  I know that move on is planning to target these races because they've got ads for staff on Craigs list already.  
        •  Do your homework (none)
          when you have something then post.

          Until then, no fraud.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:10:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Nice Job, Armando. (none)
    Armando and Kos. You've done the job that needs to be done which is to put the positive face on this.

    In the absense of proof conspiracy theories are not going to accomplish anything. They probably aren't going to cause any harm because look how close we came in the most Republican of districts and remember all the bitching that went on after Nov.

    All those who think there's something fishy in Denmark should find others who also believe it and do some work to back up the talk. Otherwise, it's sceaming at a rock - nothing will come of it.

    No matter what you believe we've got to stay grounded in reality and facts no matter how strange every fact seems to be to you your hunches are not enough.

    See ya later and come back after you've calmed down.

    Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:56:55 PM PDT

  •  Who Are You? (3.33)
    Kos's Mini-Me?

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:59:55 PM PDT

  •  The new censorship project at Kos? (4.00)
    I don't believe it is a good idea to cry wolf about fraud unless there is good reason to do so. But, um, Armando, wasn't the tone of your diary a bit, well, fascist? I've seen a jillion and one viewpoints here at Kos, some brilliant, some bullshit. Some were not the space they took up. But I always thought everybody had the right to his or her views and then could have the community evaluate them. If you are respectable to others and do post just to cause conflict, we've been told, all is fair.

    So now, if we write on your favorite taboo topic, we'll be banned? How charming. So tell us, Armando, what other items are on the list? What subjects have you and Kos deemed a bannable offense? Or is it like the FCC, with no written rules on what is not acceptable, you can just call em as you see 'em? Really, give us a list of what you and Kos deem unacceptable or what opinions we dare not utter, lest we be banned.

    Not very democratic, Armando.

    •  Call it what you will (none)
      No FRAUDSTERS! Period.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:18:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please let us know.. (4.00)
        ...when you deem other topics off limits too. Oh, does this embargo now extend to the discussions of fraud last November too? When will you be banning Georgia10 for her work on the topic?

        Do other people have the ability to decide what topics are not accepted or is it just you? (Kos always has that right, it's his party, but then if you can be banned for a viewpoint we really shouldn't be calling it a place where people can express any idea, now should we?)

        Seriously, Armando, what other topics do you feel entitled to shut down discussion over? How much mojo do you need to get Politburo censorship rights?

        •  Fuck that (none)
          This is old news and if you want to play the idiot enjoy.

           

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:28:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your dodging the issue (4.00)
            I don't disagree with you that it's a bad idea to call fraud unless there is damn good evidence. What sucked is your sudden proclamation that if someone posts on a topic you don't like, they get banned. Why just you? Why just your topic?

            That doesn't sound like the Armando who stood up against torture and who has pretty fiercely defended free speech in most instances in the past. It's a fucking electronic diary - why can't people talk about whatever the hell they want to if they do it in a polite way? I've seen fucking Thanksgiving recipe threads. Shutting down discussion on any topic is more like Free Republic than Kos. How about letting US, the community of 60,000, decide what is worthy of discussion and what is not? I respect your opinions, but not enough to let you decide for all of us what is not worth reading.

  •  Without Proof (none)
    If all you have is a collection of irregularities and coincidences -- and lets be clear these things are not even close to proof -- the only thing you will accomplish by publishing those irregularities and coincidences is you will undermine the credibility of the democratic party.

    again.  until you have proof you won't inspire anyone.  you won't be honoring the hardwork put in by the campaign itself.

    the only thing you will do is undermine the credibility of the democratic party.

    spooky mulder is great theater.  go write a screenplay.

    spooky mulder as an indentifying characteristic of a political party dooms that party to failure....  if you want democrats to win, keep it to yourself, keep researching, and if and when you do have reall proof, by all means..... let us know.

    (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

    by BiminiCat on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:10:20 PM PDT

  •  Vote counting is OBSERVED (none)
    There are Democratic and Republican staffers present when votes are tallied. It's not an "OK, little old lady, we trust you" system.
    •  When it works (none)
      There were a few instances in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 where the vote counting was not observed, and a few more where the machines were tampered with.

      But the way this election is being watched, I'm confident that any such irregularities will bubble up.

      In the mean time, I hear CA-48's up soon? I'm flush enough from this showing that I want to find the next Hackett and throw money at him. It's almost a given that we won't face odds this steep again.

      •  If it isn't being watched, we deserve to lose (none)
        But the way this election is being watched, I'm confident that any such irregularities will bubble up.

        I have a deep understanding of how the voting process works in my county, and if the Democrats in Ohio are not doing the same type of observation and monitoring of the process, then the democrats in Ohio deserve to lose

        faking election results isn't an easy thing to do, unless the opposition lets you do it

        •  It didn't happen (none)

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:25:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  what didn't happen ??? (none)
            the observation and monitoring ???

            seriously, if they were gonna fix this one, wouldn't they have fixed a landslide instead ???

            PS: Do YOU have any evidence that the logic and accuracy proceedures used in Ohio elections are effective ???

            once I mention the logic and accuracy tests, the conspiracy theorists usually give up

            •  The fraud (none)

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:33:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  any idea of the Land A process (none)
                I saw somebody mention mark-a-vote cards were used for the 2004 election in some parts of Ohio, and I saw another comment that said punchcards were widespread in this district, and that Diebold wasn't widely used

                that eliminates most fraud possibilities right there

                that is why I support the basic point of this diary. Faking elections results ain't as easy as it looks. And if you've ever visited your local ROV office on election day, you know that there are people watching EVERYTHING

                but that doesn't mean I trust the repuglicans as far as I could throw any of them (I might get up to  about 10 feet with the smaller repuglicans, and I'm willing to toss every one of em). I don't trust the Democrats too much either

                power corrupts, so it must attract the corruptable, right ???

    •  In a sense, it is... (none)
      At least, I know that when I went to vote, there were a lot of little old ladies running the show, at least at the local level. Maybe we just trust little old ladies?
  •  I will be checking the MSM (none)
    tomorrow for political analysis of the drop from 72%, 71%, and 71% in Warren, Hamilton, and Clermont Counties, respectively, to 58/51/56.  This is where the news is, and it will be interesting to see who spins what and how.

    The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

    by MoronMike on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:13:11 PM PDT

  •  Good grief! I did NOT realize you (4.00)
    are so obnoxious.  I had supposed that this was an open forum for people to discuss issues that are important to this country.  However, it seems you and Marcos do not feel that way.  What a shame.  What unctuous asshole behavior.  I am ashamed of you both.

    Judicial nominee stonewallers deserve a NO-vote.

    by macmcd on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:16:46 PM PDT

  •  No, my life's work foiled again!!! (4.00)
    Armando, you can try to censor The TruthTM, but with a proof like this:

    ...it's only a matter of time before people wise up. If I have to get banned for standing up for what's right against all you vichy Democrats, then so be it. Einstein was right about relativity, but the Nazis didn't believe him because he was a JEW so he had to LEAVE GERMANY. Hmmmm, do I detect a faint whiff of HITLER in your tone? Because you're acting just like NAZIS and you're treating fraudsters exactly like Hitler treated JEWS. And so you won't get the atom bomb of FRAUD PROOF, and instead your arch-rival DU will get all the glory that comes with my magnificent EVIDENCE which you so willfully choose to MOCK.

    As of today DAILY KOS = NAZI GERMANY as led by KAISER KOS and ARMANDOLF HITLER! DIRECT ANALOGY!!@!!! Who's willing to be a REAL DEMOCRAT and STAND with me?!

    Cough.

    Can someone please start a group called "Antiwar Liberals Against Jane Fonda..."

    by Addison on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:18:49 PM PDT

    •  Nice try (4.00)
      but I notice X wins BOTH GAMES of tic tac toe. This means you are a ILLUMINATI AGENT who is also A MEMBER OF THE NWO and a BLACK HELICOPTOR who can somehow TYPE WITH YOUR ROTOR BLADES. Also, addison is a anagram for ADDONIS. Do I need to SPELL IT OUT for YOU PEOPLE?
  •  By the way (4.00)
    Did I mention that the second plane had a pod on it?

    The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

    by RedDan on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:30:50 PM PDT

  •  am I missing something??... (4.00)
    isn't a liberal blog a place where ALL viewpoints are tolerated? Y'know, like the way we would prefer our country to be? Have people actually been "Purged"? If so, can someone give me the history and rationale? Or is this one of those times where I'm just not getting the irony?

    "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." ~Plato

    by dj angst on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:52:44 PM PDT

  •  Armando (4.00)
    I'm disappointed in your preemptive strike posture and your suggesting people post elsewhere.

    Ah, fuck it, what do you care....

  •  I don't see "massive fraud theories"... (none)
    But I do see the following words:

    Reactionary
    Snowball
    Goldstein

    Or maybe they're all in my head.

    •  Or maybe it IS just me (none)
      'Cause I don't know what's crazier - raising questions of possible shenanigans, or thinking that our defeat constitutes "victory".

      It's just me, then.

      •  Yep (none)
        Just you.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:19:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, you seem to have it right... (none)
        defeat IS victory  We lost, but in losing we WON.  I think it's a load.
        It IS, however, what's being said.
        Personally, I will withhold judgment on that, but will continue working for a real victory--I will not downplay what has happened with Hackett's showing, but I will NOT confuse it with a victory--losing really sucks, and losing to THESE fascists really hurts.  All I am asking is this:  Please do NOT spin defeat as victory: it isn't.  Say that we LOST here, but in this loss there are significant signs of hope--which there are!
  •  This Is Why You Get Your Own Blog (none)
    You can then make your own rules and do whatever the hell you want.

    This is the domain of Kos with Armando as the head busting hitman. You have to respect their rules.

    There are plenty of places where you can get free blogs and post your rants and wild conspiracies.

    •  no, I don't see it that way... (4.00)
      If you promote your blog as a blog that promotes an ideology, then you can ban people who piss you off as long as the banning doesn't violate the ideology upon which the blog is based. In this case, Free Speech is a core value of democracy and liberal thought. Otherwise you risk loss of credibility. Is that what we want for Kos? Is that what Kos wants?

      "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." ~Plato

      by dj angst on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:15:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why the hostility? (4.00)
    With regard to this election, I'm not a "fraudster." At least not yet. But your diary, Armando, reeks of the kind of arrogance that makes me, a member and frequent visitor to this site, want to go elsewhere. There are a lot of other blogs that welcome debate. You want to express your opinion to this community, (without whom, by the way, DailyKos would not be where it is today), that's fine, but the tone of your remarks is so damn disrespectful.

    Social Security: No Crisis! Here's your cat of the day

    by Rome890 on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:08:09 PM PDT

  •  Why don't YOU put up an occasional fraud diary... (4.00)
    ...and then delete it when you feel it's gotten too ridiculous?

    That would give everyone a chance to get it out of their systems (and debunk the more obvious rumors) without permanently besmirching the reputation of the site.

    I'm thinking that the banning strategy might lead to an epidemic of veiled hints and mutterings about secretly harbored suspicions, when an occasional (but temporary) open discussion might clear the air.


    Those who cannot remember the future are condemned to repeat it.

    by Abou Ben Adhem on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:25:49 PM PDT

    •  Good idea (none)
      i know jus t the guy to do it - DHinMi

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:27:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I should tell you (4.00)
        this privately but...

        Your anti-fraud dogma is over-the-top.

        Let's look at the data and then decide.  Why are you trying to stamp out speculation?

        I understand resisting idle paranoid speculation, but I don't understand this preemptive strike.

        The more things change the more they stay the same.

        •  Over the top (2.00)
          Certainly and intentionally so.

          I suggest that all fraud talk take place at Booman Tribune.

          I am perfectly serious.

          We don't want it here.

          Can I be any clearer than that?

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:41:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah (4.00)
            and you couldn't be a bigger dick either.

            I sent you my preliminary data.  It doesn't show any glaring fraud.

            Your position is that no fraud ever occurs.  If it does, your position is to ignore it, lest speculation about it hurt the brand name of Daily Kos.

            I have nothing but contempt for that position.

            Fuck you for giving the finger to me and to Chris.  All we have done is look at the numbers.  You don't even want to look.  "La la la la, I can't hear you", you say.  Fuck off.

            I see no evidence of fraud, but I'm not about to tell people not to examine the data...in fact it is the first thing I did.

            It looks like the data is consistent with a good count.  But you act like I should declare it a clean election without looking.

            And fuck you again for bringing Booman Tribune into it.

            •  Have it your way (none)
              I said not here.

              What's wrong with Boo Man Tribune?

              Am I being a prick? Of course i am. More than ever.

              I will not relive last October and Decmeber, no fucking way.

              Sorry that offends you. It is what it is.

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:50:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yup. It's brand management (none)
              "Your position is that no fraud ever occurs.  If it does, your position is to ignore it, lest speculation about it hurt the brand name of Daily Kos."

              Perfectly legit for Kos to do.  

              Perfectly legit for any one of us to reject.

              I think there was no fraud tonight.  Just an amazing race, well fought by a heroic candidate, supported by the grass roots.  Including the much-vaunted netroots.

              I can't wait to see Hackett to go to run again.

              But Jesus, this authoritarian prick posturing is goddamned juvenile.

              Nope, it's not censorship.  That word doesn't apply.  But it sure is pissing in the punchbowl on this otherwise great night.

               

              •  Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence (none)
                Just because no fraud has been proven doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'm sure a tree DOES make a sound when it falls in the forest when no one's around to hear it, you know? I have no idea whether fraud happened or not in this case as I've been occupied with other concerns. But the automatic assumption that an election was NOT fraudulent to me seems a rather silly stance to take. Investigate the heck out of every election for the next several years until we find out what's broken and fix it. Or we find out what's not broken and celebrate our much more certain knowledge after investigation. There's NO harm, ONLY GOOD, in questioning authority. There IS harm in automatically disbelieving, and, for that matter, automatically believing authority. Neither is an appropriate stance.
          •  I think I'll do just that (none)
            More Armando-isms and it's STRAIGHT to the BT.

            Not shedding any tears. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

      •  Armando, I have a question (4.00)
        Last year, Raw Story did a story on the recount in Clermont County.  6-7 people signed affidavits, testifying that they saw white stickers placed on many ballots, in many cases covering up a Kerry vote, with Bush's oval blacked in.  There was more, something about keys, ballots unguarded...Congressman Conyers even wrote to the FBI about this specific case.

        http://rawstory.rawprint.com/105/conyers_fbi_letter_128.php

        My point is, wasn't this compelling evidence of election fraud?

        I always thought it was.

        John

  •  honorable Armando: (4.00)
    agree that a lot of baseless theories have been floated.  Even agreed with the banning of those who promulgated them.

    I assume, however, that this post applies to BASELESS theories - and that if someone in a position to have actually observed fraud - such as a poll watcher, etc. - came forward with evidence or an affidavit, or somethig legit, that such issues could be aired here?

    I Have no knowlege of any such fraud, of course, sitting here in CA - and NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE WHO WAS NOT THERE. backing the great Armando here.

    Again, holding no brief for baseless theories, nor do I think they should be discussed on this blog.  I just think that some newbies may not understand that, as I read your position (correct me if I'm wrong)

    A.  If the Hackett Campaign officially alleged fraud, they would certainly get a fair hearing on this board, and, if true, our vocal support, or,

    B. If there were CREDITABLE REPORTS of fraud from mainstream media who were watching the election in Ohio, then discussion might be appropriate?

    B.  Unless that happens, useless speculation is useless speculation.  Let's spend our excess energy in celebration of what we achieved - not providing fodder for the freepers.

    ok, that's all I wanted to say

    •  and remember - I backed you on Freddie Prinze JR. (none)
       - just as I back you on this!
    •  When that happens (none)
      then we can talk.

      Since it won't, we won't have to.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:53:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well, I don't think it will, either - (none)
         in fact, I'm sure it won't - - just trying to explain to newbies (and there's a lot now)  - that if the Hackett Campaign alleged fraud, you wouldn't ban them for discussing it!

        People who just joined -who don't know  about the mid-winter craziness that overtook this place for a while - might think you're just being mean for no reason.

        Don't bite my head off, I'm supporting you - just posted to show that you have very good reasons for this diary.

        (Now, after the Hackett celebrations are over, can we get back to the important question - has anybody asked Joss Whedon about the possibility of more Vapire slaying in any form?  (Believing Prinze knows dick about anything - now THAT is black helicopter stuff! )

  •  Don't be a pre-emptive asshole (none)
    I like your stuff and this has been by far, the best blog out there.

    I wasn't thinking along the lines of a fraud really.

    However, if there was one, you've stifled the conversation ahead of time.

    I expect this from Powerline not Kos.

    So eat it jerkoff.  You sound like a motherfucking piece of shit jackass doing that.

    Go ahead.  Ban me.  I'll take that as my cue to not come here anymore.

    If you think I'm a troll then read my posts.  You'll know I'm not.

    Fuck you for the Bullshit.  Eat it.

    •  Stifled Ahead of Time (3.00)
      Thanks for the compliment. My goal exactly.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:40:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  WOW. And they call ME (4.00)
      Unreasonable. Downrating/uprating based on knee-jerk reactions and All Dat.

      Not really pulling up a comparison chart here. Just saying "F THE EFFING F-ERS" is maybe slightly more offensive than asking, "What happen?"

    •  yo, aitoaster (none)
      I had to give that comment above a 4 because you zeroed it. You shouldn't take this stuff personally.
      •  Whatever... (none)
        I'm tired of this Ego crap on the part of Armando.
        Statements like "all of it"  referring to any of the fraud or conspiracies.

        Heck, I don't know if I subscribe to any conspiracies.  One question, though:  If people were thinking Hitler's takeover of power and diminishing of people's rights was a conspiracy, would they have been right?  (Note: did not compare Bush to Hitler, I was just trying to establish whether conspiracies can exist)

        We think the Repubs eat their own?   Look at this crap!

        Purges?  Jeez.  We have nothing to be proud of here.

        I wasn't even close to thinking of conspiracy.  But now I can't think of one.  

        I donated twice to the Hackett thing and got whipped up in the heat of this inspired by this blog.  Then we get the BIG BACKHAND...

        Whatever dude, whateva.  Don't want me around, fine.  Keep pulling this crap.

  •  Anything is possible. (4.00)
    It could have happened.  It's just not what was important about tonight (unless something unexpected shows up).

    Most people are idiots... But don't tell them. It'll spoil all the fun for those of us who aren't.

    by d3n4l1 on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:37:51 PM PDT

  •  La completa guía turistica de Pamplona n/t (none)
  •  The stupidest thing people do... (4.00)
    ... is rule out the possibility that bad things could be happening to them behind their backs.  Even the paranoid have enemies.  If close your eyes completely, you're blind.  Just look away - maybe this election doesn't need close scrutiny - but don't be stupid and close your eyes.

    Most people are idiots... But don't tell them. It'll spoil all the fun for those of us who aren't.

    by d3n4l1 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 12:12:07 AM PDT

    •  That may be (1.66)
      But go win your Pulitzer at Booman Tribune on fraud and conspiracy theories.

      Not here.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 12:14:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Still being (4.00)
        a fucking dick I see.

        Fine, come win your Pulitzers at Booman Tribune.  At least at Booman Tribune we don't have front-pagers constantly disparaging Daily Kos.

        I come here to dis you, I don't do it at my site, you drunken prick.

        You wanna apologize now, or you want to do it later?

        •  You (none)
          insult the shit out of me and demand apologies?

          Fine. I apologize.

          But I was not insulting Booman - you have expressed an openness for fraud postings. You have done so repeatedly on this thread.

          What the fuck is the insult when I point that out.

          Fine I'll say MLW if you like. And I mean no offense to MSOC, but she is very open on these things.

          We are not.  

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 12:23:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fuck that!! (none)
            I didn't insult you.  I said I disagreed with this diary.

            And then I told you to fuck off for telling fraudsters to go to my site.

            Yeah, they go to my site and then you use that as evidence of how my site is a fringe element.

            I've seen this before and I don't appreciate it.

            Take it like a man.  You are cutting of debate preemptively.  I told you I don't see fraud, I also see no need to close my eyes and assume no fraud.

            Leave BMT out of it.

  •  Fraud (none)
    Fraud

    Fraud

    Fraud

    Fraud

    Fraud

    Fraud

    Fraud

    Fraud

    Fraud

  •  No conspiracy theories? (none)
    Well, okay. Far be it from me to suggest this crop circle bears an uncanny resemblance to George Bush!

    Please note I used a thumbnail image to save bandwidth.

  •  frauditty frauddity fraud fraud (none)
    fraudley fraudley fraud
    frauditty frauditty fraud fraud-y
    fraud frau fraud frau fraud

    blackwell wave his magic wand-o
    how much are they paying you armando ?

    frauditty frauditty fraud frau frau frau
    fraudditty
    frau frau fraud !

  •  I see your point (4.00)
    and your delivery, and your responses, seem to lack professionalism and a level of maturity that I for  one thought I would see from a front pager here.

    So, I learned something new today about you today, and in my eyes, I unfortunately have a little less respect for you today.  And I know you don't care, but I, too, care about this blog.  And newbies here today might be turned off by this diary.

    When it comes to markos' rules, isn't it entirely possilbe that you could 1) state them and be done with it, and 2) follow through with the consequences when someone breaks them, and be done with it?

    Instead, there's a lot of incindiary stuff in here, and it's not serving any greater good.

    And while that is entirely your perogative, your approach doesn't elevate this blog in anyone's eyes.  In fact it makes us look less than what I know we are.

    I see and understand your passion about wanting credibility here a dkos.  We all do.  One way to add to that credibility is to treat each other with respect, imho.

    NO PARDONS FOR TRAITORS.

    by Bob on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:01:39 AM PDT

    •  Well (none)
      You didn't live it like i did.

      Since you didn't and since you would be none to happy if kos purged folks in the next week, I am glad you think I am a prick, rather than the blog.

      As for the rest well you are right I don't give a shit what you think of me. Why should I? I never heard of you before in my life.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:05:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hear you loud and clear (4.00)
    no discussing of election fraud under any circumstances in any american election. I'll be happy to abide by it. Your ball your rules. Meanwhile for anyone interested in a good post on the subject I recommend Billmon at the Whiskey Bar

    http://www.billmon.org/

    dated August 3d and entitled too close for comfort. It's really good.

    Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

    by moon in the house of moe on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:04:08 AM PDT

  •  Reporting of results-Was Clermont different or not (none)
    There are quite likely very simple answers to these questions - rather than sinister.  But, rather than assume this, I ask here to find out for sure.

    Basically, there are two questions:  Was the way Clermont reported results different from other counties?, and If they reported differently, what's the reason?  

    More specifically -
    From what I understand, Clermont Co. votes were reported in two batches rather than in dribs and drabs - the first 100 precincts, and then the remaining 91.  

    Did other counties also aggregate votes from a bunch of precincts before releasing vote tallies, instead of putting precinct results out as they were tallied?  (By the way, is it proper procedure in Ohio to not report precinct results as you've finished counting them?)

    Also, was the delay in reporting Clermont in fact worse than for other similar counties?

    If it's true that they were reporting differently than other counties (by reporting on a greater delay and/or through aggregated dumps), then how come?  Media reports indicated there was humidity causing the ballots to stick, forcing them to be hand counted.  

    Does this scenario explain how that County's reporting unfolded - in a delayed fashion and in two separate dumps?  Did other counties go through the same hand count procedure for that reason (it wasn't hot just in Clermont after all) and then experience the same delay in reporting vote tallies?

    •  Only optical scanners (none)
      so Clermont is unique always.

      See, the unfortunate thing is the facts pretty much rule out any fraud scenario.

      no motive, no difference in the outcome, no nuthin.

      There is the problem, folsk make fools of themselves on fraud.

      That's why we don't want them here.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:10:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  With due respect, please notice that (none)
        I'm not making unsupported allegations, floating wild theories, or anything like that.  I asked reasonable questions about the election tonite which have factual answers which I seek.  No conspiracy theories here.  

        I'm not interested in getting into an argument -- I just want to know the answer to the questions that I ask.  If you happen to know the details, it'd be great if you would share.  If not, or you don't care to, perhaps others who are in a position to answer can.

        EG. You seem to know something about the equipment Clermont uses.  What do you mean by "only optical scanners so Clermont is unique always"  

        Thanks

  •  My Two Cents (none)
    I like what you did here.  If people have the facts then no one will dissalow their diary, or comments, but if they don't have the facts then they deserve all of the scorn of a Bob Novak autobiography ghost written by Judith Miller.

    If you have the facts this doesn't apply to you.  If you don't, then don't post.  Its a simple statment, just made in Armando's own special way.

    •  The Problem With That (none)
      Is, how many people had all "the facts" when 2000 (or heck, 2004) election fraud accusations started flying around?

      No one.  No one has the ability, or the vision, to do all that research on their own.

      A credible case was assembled through months of gathering; small things, anecdotal tales of voter intimidation, questions about electtronic voting machines, and yes, pure speculation, and it drove the effort to find out more.  If we had waited to have an airtight case to begin looking, we'd have had nothing at all.

      For the record, I don't believe that the case for election fraud has been conclusively made in any American presidential election in my lifetime.  But I also don't think it's fair to strangle efforts to make on in the cradle.

      I think they all think that their guy will do a better job, but I think they make dishonest arguments. In their eyes, the ends justify the means. -Jon Stewart

      by Slade on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 02:47:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What a dim bulb we are today... (4.00)
    This act has about as much wisdom as those Christians protesting some offensive, yet otherwise sure to pass into oblivion if it weren't for their protest, movies.  

    I saw no sign at all that there was even the potential for a replay of last year. I could see a scattered thing here or there, but frankly, unless something new develops, I strongly doubt that anyone would bother over this election.

    So what do you do? You divide every one again just by bringing it up. I like you Armando, but on this, you need to call your lobotomist and schedule an appointment. They obviously removed the wrong part of your brain.

    You should re-title this diary: "Old Wound, Meet Rusty Nail."

    Meanwhile, my position is exactly as it was: any election cast on voting machines with no PROVABLE verification of how you voted is a fraud itself. No need for an investigation. But I won't bring that up again. I'm moving to fucking Canada where they mark their ballots with a number 2 pencil. And after I become a Canadian citizen, and cast my first vote, I'm gonna send you a fucking photocopy of the ballot so you'll know what a real democracy looks like again.

    cheers lobotomy boy.

    :D

    •  Right (none)
      As if this diary had nothing to do with that.

      Dream on.

      And you of all people on THIS issue, no others, well trade, carry little weight with me.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:11:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe I need to call my lobotomist (4.00)
        cause I have no idea wtf your saying here.

        If your saying what I think your saying, I would remind you that I never once claimed evidence of fraud. Never. I even bashed my share of rediculous claims.

        But I refuse to rehash that now. My comment had wasn't about fraud. It was about the stupidity of this diary. And regardless of whatever "weight" you assign to my opinion, I think the fact that you're in here arguing with so many people over fraud diaries when no one posted a fraud diary is proof of it.

        Don't get me wrong. I personally don''t give a fuck. But you keep saying you don't want to go through another 'period'. Well, this diary is a veritable flash back. Enjoy.

    •  Toque - Why are you moving to Canada? (none)
      Did you write about it? I apologize if you did and I missed it. Did you get a job there?  I envy your upcoming participation in a verifiable election.

      Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

      by moon in the house of moe on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:17:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Check the files!!!!!! (none)
    Not the documents, dummy, the Shmidt nailfiles!!!!!  Why was she risking an illegal electioneering charge to push them on voters??????? Embedded chips to trigger gamed  software in the tabulators? Drugs to brainwash voters? And what about the Birthday cake? And that Hackett. hell, he's even got "Hack" in his name. Tell me that's a co=incidence. Yeah, right.

    Remember the episode in WKRP where people disappear in the Cincinatti Triangle? How many of them would have voted for the Democrat?

    No-one who voted against the USAPATRIOT Act has lost an election. I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State. Or Yours.

    by ben masel on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:21:10 AM PDT

  •  The most un-American thing you can say is (4.00)
    "You can't say that."

    The most un-American thing you can say is, "You can't say that."
    - G. Keillor

    by Eddie Haskell on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 02:07:14 AM PDT

  •  Yeesh (4.00)
    Who are you, and what have you done with Armando?

    Seriously man, if I wasn't pretty sure I knew better I'd say your account has been hacked.  You're not acting like yourself lately.

    I don't know if this is an edict that came down from somewhere higher up that you're stuck enforcing, or if you're under other stress lately, or if, like someone else upthread was saying, you're just on a power trip.  But this whole telling people what they're allowed to talk about thing has got to stop.

    I understand that you're worried about things like trolls, bandwidth concerns, and the general credibility of the site when unfounded accusations start getting thrown around, but to pre-emptively censor a whole topic of discussion is pretty heavy handed.

    (I know you specified unfounded (in significantly more colorful and diverse language), but how many people with what they think is a decent case might hold back on it, for fear of banning?)

    Because when you do things like you're doing right here, you're taking a step toward the same problem that most traditional media is unendingly affected with: lack of new ideas.  Christ, how many times have we all lamented the "MSM," and rightly so, for failing to entertain any sort of fresh ideas, fresh viewpoints, fresh material?

    I frankly think I said all this about as well as I can say it in my diary about Paul Hackett's chain email tactic, so I'll just reprint it here:

    But it's still a problem.  Let's step back for a moment and think, about what the greatest strength of the weblog format is.  Instant response, right?  The fact that ideas can be exchanged very quickly, and with little of the filtering that we see in most traditional news media.  The echo chamber effect that we see in traditional media is in large part a result of this filtering; becuase new ideas don't arise quickly, the old ones kick around for a long time, and become conventional wisdom.

    This is why I have such a problem with people who think that Daily Kos should be, in a way, selectively censored when elections are near.  We saw it before the 2004 Presidential election, too (anyone else remember SYFPH?), and it's a bad thing.  It's a bad thing for people like me, because we feel like we don't get to say what we want, but it's also a bad thing for the site as a whole, because it destroys the biggest advantage, the most truly revolutionary edge, that we have over traditional media.  If we start selectively pre-filtering what we think is admissibly to throw up on the screen, rather than throwing anything out to see where it lands, then we're going down the same path that's ruined most of the rest of political media coverage.

    We can do better than that.  The community can do better than that.  The whole point of this blog thing is that the community itself is a better self-filter for what is acceptable than anyone or anything else ever could be, and that system works because we can filter content in close to real time.

    I think they all think that their guy will do a better job, but I think they make dishonest arguments. In their eyes, the ends justify the means. -Jon Stewart

    by Slade on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 02:41:25 AM PDT

  •  What I don't get.... (4.00)
    If we're supposed to be good Kossacks and shout down any type of talk at all about 'irregularities', then what are we supposed to do with the reality of the data in Congressman John Conyers' "What Went Wrong in Ohio"?

    Is Conyers a part of the problem, too?

    Conyers' posts always get in the Recommended Diaries column here, and Kossacks appear to cheer him on in many of the things he says and does. So, what to make of his Report on the 2004 Presidential Election?

    It concluded:

    There is "ample grounds for challenging the electors from Ohio as being unlawfully appointed [...] there are numerous irrefutable instances where Ohio election law has been violated by the Secretary of the State and others to the point that the election cannot be said to comply with Ohio law [...] the US Congress needs to conduct additional and more vigorous hearings into the irregularities in the Presidential election in Ohio and around the country."

    Is my referring to that report going to get me kicked out of here? Is it going to get Congressman Conyers kicked out, too?

    I honestly do not understand the hard line on this issue here, especially in light of how important faith in our voting system is to staving off outright revolution in the streets. My father had to do that in Hungary in 1956, fighting on the streets of Budapest against the Soviets. A bit different: they didn't have elections over there. We have them, but can they be trusted? Conyers says no.

    It's disheartening to see that the country that my father and my mother fled to afterwards has become what it is today -- a hollow democracy. And I just don't get this hostile and aggressive attitude towards shouting down and flushing people who believe that it wouldn't hurt to push for more transparency in our voting process.

    'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'

    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Meade

    by ilona on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 08:19:59 AM PDT

  •  Excellent (none)
    I think it is excellent of you to declare that discussion of topics which reflect badly upon you or Kos here are not allowed as they might impact the accumulation of fame, power (influence) and income streams for those with the most to gain (and therefore lose) from this vehicle known as DailyKos.com.

    It clarifies what you're about and what the site us fundamentally about.  Clarity is ALWAYS good.  I realize that the site may not initially have been about that, and since the success has created so much that is new, this may not be a comfortable topic.

    May I say this?  You guys have a great environment here and have attracted a following of bright people, and you have allowed that accomplishment, and the good that comes of it, to go to your heads.  But hey, that's your prerogative.  It's also entirely human.

    The unfortunate thing is to watch people who have built something so successful, begin to sabotage themselves and what they've built.  That's always a disappointment, but again, it's something to be expected.  And no mistake is entirely undoable.  It is what it is.  A mistake.

    You guys have a great site, and I really don't like to see it lose its vitality.  But it seems inevitable if this kind of behavior keeps up.  And that has nothing to do with whether "conspiracy" theories or evidence or not is posted by every commentor.  No doubt, people will speculate given recent history and well documented cases of election fraud and suppression that went nowhere.  I don't think they were bogus claims, it's just that our system cannot process such fundamental challenges to its legitimacy right now.  When people become widely aware of such things, and elections become delegitimated in the minds of many elite (even judges), that is a function of real politics and a reality beyond the control of Kos or this site.  When others tell people not to discuss their concerns about such matters, that demand can only be a function of an agenda which is at odds with the reason that many come to this site, for free and open communication so that we can all learn from one another - and evaluate ideas - critically but openly.  

    Apparently, the progenitors of this site do not feel that that purpose is consistent with their needs.  And yet I would bet that the vast majority of the users would have an automatic conflict with that at some level, because they do not come here just to elevate people they do not know very well, they come here because it is a great site and most of the time, they get a lot from visiting and interracting with all of the other users of the site.  There is conflict in that reality.  There is clarity in the recognition that the motivations of those who visit and post - and those who run and provide the site are different.

    As for fraud and "voter suppression", I have no idea if these things happened.  It wasn't on my mind.  It probably should have been though, since Ohio is both demonstrably corrupt and there were so many problems in the most recent election.  Corrupt places do not reform themselves magically.  However, even candidates we support do not want these things discussed when they want to preserve their legacy for the next race.  Look at John Kerry, even Teresa thought the race was hacked - but JK has never said a word and conceded the next day without fighting as he said he would - and after collecting tens of millions on the promise that he would.  

    Hacket never did such a thing, and he is surely an honorable man - so that's not the issue.  But this motivation by a politician to avoid that kind of conflict after a race may be WHY this is coming down from on high so harshly.  Again, that gets back to my first point - everyone has their own motivation, and there is a perception amongst a few that our comments here are provided to elevate others and this site - and not solely for the purpose of engaging with others of like mind and thrashing through the issues and evidence of whatever it is we are discussing.  There's no problem with that, it may even be expected, but it's just good to have the clarity.  And you provided it Armando!  Thank you!  :)  I'm sure you have to be speaking for Kos, because if you were not, he would have surely spoken up by now.  You're a loyal lieutenant.  That's cool.

    And, so, the question is, are the good thoughts and good will of all those who come here really only here for the elevation of those who "run" and "provide" this resource?  The tenor of this kind of discussion makes that appear to be so.  So thank you for the clarity and the opportunity to discuss this issue.  I'm sure if this turns out not to be the place to discuss this issue, or other pertinent issues, other blog communities will come along any moment.  That's the thing about such a competitive marketplace as the Internet.  At least you guys can take heart in the knowledge that you gave birth to such a community.  That's a huge accomplishment.  Thanks for the resources of DailyKos, thanks for all the work, and most importantly, thanks for your efforts to start this.  It has been a great start, I hope it continues.

  •  So here's a simple question (none)
    How will fraud ever be found if nobody will look for it?

    Who will believe fraud occurs is, when it is found, nobody accepts the possibility?

    I'm simply hypothesizing here. If we have already decided that our answer will be that "it doesn't happen", when somebody says "it did happen", a great number of people will say "no it didn't". It seems to me to be very similar to the Republican factions that automatically disallow the possibility of illegal torture in violation of international law being condoned by the government. They've decided it is impossible, and ignore all evidence to the contrary. If they hear or see evidence, they rationalize it or attack the source.

    Do we really want to fall into that same trap?

    I was at the Army chow hall the other day, which is run entirely by KBR, and at the sandwich bar there's a sign that says "Have it OUR way". Very funny, KBR.

    by jabbausaf on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:16:09 PM PDT

  •  Oh God, not again... (none)
    After my last series of beatings by Small Dicks Anonymous The Armando Fan Club), I'm loathe to get involved, except to say three things:

    1. Unless you were personally overseeing the entire OH-02 election, you do not have any idea as to whether there was any fraud, so how can you so prematurely and so matter-of-factly say that there was no fraud and demand that we not even raise the possibility? You've essentially said, "THERE WAS NO FRAUD, SO DON'T EVEN GO THERE!" How the hell do you know, and know so early and so confidently?

    2. You demand proof when other people make arguments, but when Lush asked you to show proof to back up your assertions about Kos's statements re: fraud diaries, you (rather rudely) refused and told him he was lazy. If you're going to make these kinds of demands, don't we at least deserve the same courtesy from you?

    3. You actually went as far as to call 59,000 people dimwits? I was positively fucking dumbstruck. If you believe that you're so much smarter and so much better than everyone else here, and believe that you should be the only one posting and we should all be listening to you for your wit and wisdom, why don't YOU go somewhere else and leave us alone? I'm ashamed to admit that I lack the linguistic prowess to express how completely appalled, ashamed, and furious I am that you would say such a thing.

    "Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage." --HL Mencken

    by PerfectStormer on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 08:46:22 PM PDT

  •  I think there are better ways... (none)
    than stifling "free speech" to keep the conversations realistic.  It's harder to not show people the door but to instead work through the issues and get to the truth.  But it's worth it, I think.

    Of course, there's no such thing as "free speech" on a private blog, but when you stifle expression, you run the risk of becoming a lockstep blog like johnkerry.com was.  It was a completely unproductive environment.  

  •  Wow. (none)
    You're right. You are SO RIGHT IT HURTS! Kos is a god. Bushco would NEVER steal, or lie, or plant false intelligence, or profit from the war or anything like that. The GOP & power elite are completely trustworthy, and I believe everything they say.

    Why, if were to run around with a tinfoil hat on my head screaming about central tabulators and security, what would the neighbors think?

    Love, Stepford Wife
    (in big scribbly, loopy letters)

    with a little hug & kiss on it

    "xo!"

    toodles!

    Freedom & dignity spring from within the human heart... & inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated. -Wes Clark

    by velvetdays on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:50:27 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site