READER COMMENTS ON
"Recounting the Recount and Counting the Uncounted"
(14 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 5/23/2008 @ 6:51 am PT...
Those who don't count are no-accounts ... you know, the voters, so get over it.
"Those who vote decide nothing, those who count decide everything. We count." (Stalin Scalia, translated by Dredd).
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 5/23/2008 @ 7:24 am PT...
Wouldn't you just love to hear Louis Armstrong, Stalin, and Antonin Scalia sing this song:
YOU'E JUST A NO ACCOUNT
(You're Just A No Account, Louis Armstrong). Especially if they would dedicate it to the voters of
Brad, maybe you should give a free copy of that along with the other???
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 5/23/2008 @ 7:52 am PT...
2000 was a joke. 2004 was a joke. 2008?
There was finally a decent thread at DU on the 2004 stolen election. Then Mark Lindeman showed up. Is it part of his job description to write Rovian "public relations" on message boards?
There is no way he is posting out of the goodness of his own heart. Mark Lindeman, imho, is an astroturfer.
Was fraud really responsible for Bush's '04 "victory" in Ohio?
political scientists generally think Kerry lost
It isn't a matter of "absolute proof" --- as far as we can tell, the preponderance of the evidence points against your position.
The analogy to global warming is inappropriate because, in the case of Ohio 2004, the weight of expert opinion is against you, not with you. Expert opinion of course could be wrong, but it's sort of unnerving if you don't know what it is.
This is called sophistry and the invoking of authority. To be blunt, his sentence structures tend to not make sense. Expert opinion is unnerving if you don't know what it is? What about the expert opinion of Brad, Crispin Miller, Bob Fitrakis, Professor Freeman and so many others?
Lindeman loves to attack the common nobody. His main argument to folks is nothing to see here, move along.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 5/23/2008 @ 9:01 am PT...
Yes, the appeal to authority ("experts" and "studies") is a problem in the public domain.
In the courts it takes an interesting path:
Experts and non-experts have an equal opportunity in that space.
In the courts my definition of “expert” is “A person who is allowed by the court to get paid more than the average person on the street would to give an opinion”.
In the typical case “experts” will give their opinions to the jury … an opposite opinion for each side. They are sworn in, list their degrees, and the court makes a ruling that they are experts. Then they explain that they looked at some evidence and tell the jury what their opinion is.
The expert for the defense has one opinion and the expert for the prosecutor has another and different opinion … on the exact same evidence.
Then the everyday folk on the jury make the decision as to which expert was right! Yes, the person who left the farm after a 5:00 am breakfast, and drove the truck into town for that day’s jury duty, decides which rocket scientist had it right.
If you are wondering why this is so, remember that the foundation of jury theory is that the people can determine facts better or more accurately than experts in the law can.
By “better or more accurately” I mean in the context of the use of power. The people tend not to use the power they are given to destroy their fellow citizens as governmental agents have tended to in the past.
The old saying that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is directed at governments rather than at juries.
(Essays at Art Juries). I once proposed a jury system at precincts during national elections.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 5/23/2008 @ 12:51 pm PT...
i watched the interview last night on oblerman and was dissapointed that neither mentioned the 175,000 ovr votes that were nevr counted
no wonder the american peops dont know the truth of things,msnbc comes as close as any msm to telling truth but they fall short
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 5/23/2008 @ 1:36 pm PT...
I tend to agree with the jury analogy. The jurors usually don't have a personal interest in the outcome other than for being in a "for the grace of God but me" outlook.
This guy Lindeman somehow is entrenched with "election integrity." It feels like he is trying to steer the movement. In 98% of his posts, one will see him debunking election fraud. Every once in a while someone will call his bluff and ask him for proof that the elections weren't stolen. His response is simply more evoking of authority.
I'm Mark Lindeman. I am a Political Scientist. You are an annoying citizen on a hobby horse. Now shut up and be grateful that I spend any time with you common peons.
Karen, great minds think alike. I was gonna post some cynicism towards Olbermann this morning. He really is a modern day Murrow. I read once that Murrow actually came out strong against the red scare nonsense, once it was politically viable to do so. Phil Donahue was saying the same things as Keith is now when it wasn't politically correct. Donahue got canned even though his ratings were on the upswing.
Where is Keith Olbermann as regards to covering election fraud? Yeah, he was good for one week back in 2004. I remember him covering Barbara Boxer's efforts. His special comments are good, but they aren't exactly ground breaking. Some folks talk about a venting theory.
Oh, look at Keith ranting, we must still live in a free society, it's all been because of Bush and Cheney.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 5/23/2008 @ 2:43 pm PT...
I'm "anticipointing" the movie, so I don't get let down.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 5/23/2008 @ 4:06 pm PT...
I'm gald to see Dan on the right side of the fight, even though I've already watched this a while back!
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 5/23/2008 @ 4:10 pm PT...
Whooaah, that was supposed to be GLAD! Funny how words do matter.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 5/23/2008 @ 5:46 pm PT...
Hey, Lindeman is on the ropes at DU. Even Febble predictably showing up to play tag team has failed. Kudos to L. Coyote and Dr. Eldritch. Link in post#3.
I don't think OnTheOtherHand will be getting the Christmas bonus this year.
The truth is winning out!
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 5/24/2008 @ 8:15 am PT...
The 2000 election was the first overt effort to steal an election by stopping an election recount and arbitrarily (but politically) declaring a winner. The Supreme Court really had no standing or business stepping into the middle of Florida's State Supreme Court action and stopping it. At best they should only have been able to stay and review the procedures before allowing the recount to continue. If the legal recount had continued Bush would not have won. (Also... do not forget that 9/11 occurred within days of the unofficial recount being made public. What timing neh.)
Still.... elections have been finagled from the beginning of vote counting centuries ago. However, the present times have shown a greed beyond sense where their actions have pulled the curtain back to the point that most of us have seen the wizard and his infernal machines controlling our perception of a free and fair election. The veil has been lifted.... at least for those of us paying attention.
Lyndon Johnson finagled the Texas vote for John Kennedy more than George Bush (of Houston then) did for Dick Nixon. And the Texas vote was the deciding state in the 1960 election. (It seems that someone thought it was also fitting to kill him in Texas.)
My opinion is that greed, stupidity and hubris have weakened the Republican Party to the point of oblivion.... or a name change.
The Democratic Party is mostly bought and controlled by special interests to the point that they currently have very little power to achieve anything for democracy.
The American people.... if enough of us are paying attention... are trying to reinstate democratic government with Obama.
I can only hope and pray that our foes understand that if they assassinate him there will be riots and demonstrations. I can also hope that our foes understand that maintaining an overt police state will be as easy to do in America as it has been in Iraq.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 5/24/2008 @ 3:02 pm PT...
I don't know if anyone saw Dennis Leary on Jon Stewart, but Stewart was trying to get him to talk about Recount, and he didn't say a word about it. Did anyone see that? He kept pimping some other DVD he had coming out at the same time. I guess he didn't think Recount was that important (?) or he was too busy fooling around with Jon Stewart. Or he became a huge dick. One of those...
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 5/25/2008 @ 3:53 pm PT...
I went through it. But like the humanitarian world educated person I thought I was. I was silenced too. If you did not experience it personally you really should reach out because everything is suppressed here. Help me.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 5/26/2008 @ 9:35 am PT...