I was wondering, since the Republicans have "stolen" the past two presidential elections, if the Democrats do win, is it only because the Republicans decided they didn't want to remain in power so decided to not steal this one? If you believe the hype, the Republicans could theoretically stay in power forever through stolen elections. Which would lead to the natural conclusion that if they ever lost an election it was because they decided not to steal it.

Or, the election stealing conspiracy nutz will take credit for bringing Republican stolen elections to an end with thier activism.

In defense of the conspiracy nuts, your argument doesn't seem logically sound. "Stealing" a presidential election may be something that is only possible under certain conditions.

somehow the republicans have done it two times in a row, what is to stop them from doing it again?

somehow the republicans have done it two times in a row, what is to stop them from doing it again?
Conditions, as I said. Perhaps this hypothetical election theft can only occur when the Republicans are really close?

How do we know the dems didnt cheat to even get close in the first place?

How do we know the dems didnt cheat to even get close in the first place?
We don't. This whole thread is pointless.

In defense of the conspiracy nuts, your argument doesn't seem logically sound. "Stealing" a presidential election may be something that is only possible under certain conditions.
You can't declare something logically unsound by disputing premises. Logic deals with how you come about with a conclusion from a series of premises. The premises may be correct or incorrect, but logic doesn't deal with that part of rhetoric. Trav's just wrong, not logically unsound.

I was wondering, since the Republicans have "stolen" the past two presidential elections, if the Democrats do win, is it only because the Republicans decided they didn't want to remain in power so decided to not steal this one?

Excise the words -- **decided they didn't want to remain in power so**-- and I would say............ yes.

If you believe the hype,...

There is zero hype about the stealing of elections, by the Rightwing, that I believe.

There are, however, many facts about the stealing of elections, by the Rightwing, that that I do believe. Greg Palast has documented it (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=palast+stolen+election&btnG=Search) extensively.

....the Republicans could theoretically stay in power forever through stolen elections.

True.

The problem is however that the election has to be fairly close in order for them to steal it and for it to still appear at least somewhat credible to the dimwitted Public that they "won". If exit polling were to trend very, very strongly toward them losing, they may fear getting caught, and abandon plans to use the Diebold machines (and other methods) to steal the election. (not that around half of the populace in America would CARE even if they were caught redhanded stealing it).

_____________________________________

Assume we flip a coin 50 times

What is the probability it will turn up heads at least 41 times?

n= number of coin flips : 50

Probability of the coin turning up Heads: 50%

Let's calculate the probability that the number of heads in the 50 flips is at least 41.

Solution:
Using the Excel function, we calculate the probability:
Probability = 1-BINOMDIST(41,50,50%,TRUE)

Prob (number of heads is at least 41) = 0.000058%

...or 1 out of 1,718,869

Fact:
The actual vote percentage for Bush exceeded his exit poll percentage in 41 out of 50 states.

Question:
What is the probability that this would occur due to chance alone?

You can't declare something logically unsound by disputing premises. Logic deals with how you come about with a conclusion from a series of premises. The premises may be correct or incorrect, but logic doesn't deal with that part of rhetoric. Trav's just wrong, not logically unsound.
Trav is drawing a conclusion (or, at least, suggesting one). Thus, he is using logic, and this logic is not sound.

This is utterly semantic anyway.

I am asking a question to the left wing members.

Let me rephrase it:

If a Democrat wins a close presidential election, does that mean the Republicans only lost because they decided to not steal the election?

Or, does a Democrat winning an election mean the republicans won the last two without stealing it? Because if they have the mechanism in place to steal close elections they should never lose a close election.

Or, was it only the Bush administration that had the capacity to steal elections and not the Republican party as a whole?

Well let me pretend for a second that I believe the last two elections were stolen (I don't actually).

If they were, this election might not be able to be stolen for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the Republicans don't want to steal it. Maybe the Republican candidate next year will have enough morals to want to win honestly or not win at all. Perhaps they will try to steal it and fail.

I don't really see the point of this thread.

Trav is drawing a conclusion (or, at least, suggesting one). Thus, he is using logic, and this logic is not sound.
Of course he's drawing a conclusion, and yes, he is using logic. But you aren't attacking his logic. You're attacking his premises, and then calling it his logic.

This is utterly semantic anyway.
It's still a better discussion than the OP.

Well let me pretend for a second that I believe the last two elections were stolen (I don't actually).

If they were, this election might not be able to be stolen for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the Republicans don't want to steal it. Maybe the Republican candidate next year will have enough morals to want to win honestly or not win at all. Perhaps they will try to steal it and fail.

I don't really see the point of this thread.

I want a left winger to answer, but thank you for your time.

Of course he's drawing a conclusion, and yes, he is using logic. But you aren't attacking his logic. You're attacking his premises, and then calling it his logic.
A logical argument is sound if and only if

1. the argument is valid
2. all of its premises are true.

...

The following argument is valid but not sound:

All animals can fly.
Pigs are animals.
Therefore, pigs can fly.

Since the first premise is actually false, the argument, though valid, is not sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness

Well now I see the point of this thread. You're intentionally asking a question that doesn't really have an answer in a (weak) attempt to make left-wingers look bad. :p

A logical argument is sound if and only if

1. the argument is valid
2. all of its premises are true.

...

The following argument is valid but not sound:

All animals can fly.
Pigs are animals.
Therefore, pigs can fly.

Since the first premise is actually false, the argument, though valid, is not sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness
Aha! I get it now. His argument was valid, but not sound. It seems to me like it should be the other way around, but there it is!

It has a sarcastic flavor to it, but the question is not just for the answer, but to see what liberals think as a whole. To see if they are universal in their beliefs, not just if liberals do it.

Frankly I like the question... it's brash, blunt, and to the point

Well now I see the point of this thread. You're intentionally asking a question that doesn't really have an answer in a (weak) attempt to make left-wingers look bad. :p

basically :D I also want it on the record what they will think if and when the scenario plays out.

I am asking a question to the left wing members.

Let me rephrase it:

If a Democrat wins a close presidential election, does that mean the Republicans only lost because they decided to not steal the election?



Yes.

Or, does a Democrat winning an election mean the republicans won the last two without stealing it? Because if they have the mechanism in place to steal close elections they should never lose a close election.

Looking at it from a purely statistical viewpoint, it nears a mathematical certainty that Democratic candidate in the last two elections received more votes than the Republican candidate. There is a mountain of evidence that points toward something underhanded being done by a person or persons who wanted the win in the election to go to GWB*sh.

Either that or something unprecedented and unbelievable happened, some fantastic numerical anomaly, that had less than one chance in well over a million of happening.

PRELIMINARY PRES. ELECTION FRAUD PROBABILITY ANALYSIS (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x24095)

MILLIONS TO ONE; PROFESSOR FREEMAN'S CALCULATION OF THE ODDS THAT DEVIATIONS IN THE VOTES FROM THE EXIT POLLS WERE NOT DUE TO CHANCE. (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:cpYUKn_6kiIJ:www.electionarchive.or g/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf+PROFESSOR+FREEMAN%27S+CALCULATION+OF+ THE+ODDS+THAT+DEVIATIONS&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us)

Odds that there were deviations --well beyond the margin of error-- in B*sh's favor in 7 critical states (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x38892) .

In every other Democracy in the world, we use exit polls to judge whether an election was fraudlent or not... except in America. Our standards seem to be much, much lower than anywhere else.

lol, who uses exit polls to tell if an election was fraudulent? why even have an election, just take a poll :rolleyes:
Sorry, but no exit poll is accurate enough to verify the vote results. In america the exit polls are made by the media anyway who have an agenda, so why trust them? I know the democrats would like to take the first exit poll that shows them in the lead, which is pretty much all of them, and just use that as the election results. Thankfully in America we use the vote to decided, not the exit poll.

lol, who uses exit polls to tell if an election was fraudulent?

Only those statisticians, election officials and researchers who want an accurate way of determining if the election results were accurate or if the election was tainted by fraud.

Your willful blindness, your willingness to ignore the well established reasoning behind exit polling --since it does not support the particular belief that you want to hold-- is amazing, though.


Also, I knew immediately upon your instigating this thread that the reason you were doing it is because you had in your mind already resigned yourself to the Democrats winning the presidency come 2008. ROTFLOL. (although I myself do not profess to know which of the two wings of the Corporate Party will 'win')

lol, who uses exit polls to tell if an election was fraudulent? why even have an election, just take a poll :rolleyes:
Sorry, but no exit poll is accurate enough to verify the vote results. In america the exit polls are made by the media anyway who have an agenda, so why trust them? I know the democrats would like to take the first exit poll that shows them in the lead, which is pretty much all of them, and just use that as the election results. Thankfully in America we use the vote to decided, not the exit poll.

Exit polls are frequently done by election watchdog groups. It's the best way to police an election. Why would anyone have an objection to that?

Didn't the exit polls show Kerry with a big lead, but then those polls didn't match at all with the election results? Weird.

Also, the machine's have NO paper-trail and were created by a company that donated money to George Bush.

Plus, people in towns that tend to vote Democrat had to wait in huge lines (in battle-ground states)...but that didn't happen in towns that tend to vote Republican.

All seems fishy.

However, I don't know if the Republicans "stole" the election, but I do think there was some weird things going on.

And if the Republicans did steal the last two elections, the reason it won't be "stolen" this time is because the Democrats are wise to the tricks the Republicans pull and they'll hopefully fix and plan ahead for them by 2008. :)

Didn't the exit polls show Kerry with a big lead, but then those polls didn't match at all with the election results? Weird.

Also, the machine's have NO paper-trail and were created by a company that donated money to George Bush.

Plus, people in towns that tend to vote Democrat had to wait in huge lines (in battle-ground states)...but that didn't happen in towns that tend to vote Republican.

All seems fishy.

Not merely "fishy".

Statistically impossible, or close to it.

And if the Republicans did steal the last two elections, the reason it won't be "stolen" this time is because the Democrats are wise to the tricks the Republicans pull and they'll hopefully fix and plan ahead for them by 2008.

They're hopeless when it comes to *fixing things and planning ahead*, apparently. They had four years after the 2000 fiasco, and they didn't get the safeguards in place. They barely addressed the problem at all.

I was wondering, since the Republicans have "stolen" the past two presidential elections, if the Democrats do win, is it only because the Republicans decided they didn't want to remain in power so decided to not steal this one? If you believe the hype, the Republicans could theoretically stay in power forever through stolen elections. Which would lead to the natural conclusion that if they ever lost an election it was because they decided not to steal it.

Or, the election stealing conspiracy nutz will take credit for bringing Republican stolen elections to an end with thier activism.

You DO Know that there is absolute Proof of Democrats pleading
Guilty to Election Fraud in '04.And nOTa single conviction of
Republican Election Fraud.
This is the Strength of the Democrat Party.
They virtually LIVE to make charges that They are guilty of.
Just like the Election fraud in Chicago and Texas that Gave Kennedy {JFK}
a slight {very slight} edge in votes.
Plus the Bullcrap of the Gore/Daly Election Fiasco in Florida of 2000.

Has it crossed anyone's mind that the EXIT POLLS could have been fixed to boost Kerry to a big lead to start... causing a bandwagon of supporters to hopefully jump on and get him the presidency?

I mean... it HAD to be the other way around though... right?

Has it crossed anyone's mind that the EXIT POLLS could have been fixed to boost Kerry to a big lead to start... causing a bandwagon of supporters to hopefully jump on and get him the presidency?

I mean... it HAD to be the other way around though... right?
Has it crossed anyone's mind that the election could have been performed without any fraud at all?

Not a chance. Election fraud is an integral part of democracy. We might have less fraud than we did fifty years ago, but there's no chance at all of there being no fraud.

Has it crossed anyone's mind that the EXIT POLLS could have been fixed to boost Kerry to a big lead to start....

Huh?......."boost Kerry to a big lead to start".........?!?!?

Wow.

Evidently, you have no idea what an exit poll is.

If you guys HONESTLY think Kerry had more votes than Bush, I don't know what to tell you.

The last election was lost because the best person the democrats could produce was John freakin' Kerry. Period.

If you guys HONESTLY think Kerry had more votes than Bush, I don't know what to tell you.

The last election was lost because the best person the democrats could produce was John freakin' Kerry. Period.
Essentially. Howard Dean would have been a good option, but for some reason, he lost credibility with the Dean Scream.

Huh?......."boost Kerry to a big lead to start".........?!?!?

Wow.

Evidently, you have no idea what an exit poll is.

actually I do.. people stand outside of the voting booths in the morning and ask people who they voted for.

Those numbers could have been skewed.. i mean, it is POSSIBLE right?

can you comprehend any wrongdoing in this world NOT done by George Bush FT?

Essentially. Howard Dean would have been a good option, but for some reason, he lost credibility with the Dean Scream.

OH ! Did Dean serve in the Military.?
He was a nutjobber who also practiced some kind of medicine.
Outright Lied,numerous times about Republicans.
Actually took the latest news and fashioned it as a
Republican bugaboo.That was his real downfall.
He was the constantly the Boy who Cried Wolf.
As in... See...there's another Republican,therefore he did
this & that and the udder thingy.
The guy wasn't even good for a laugh,towards the end.
All bully pulpit sensationalism.And what a true bully he was.
Lost his job on the DNC for Overhype and failed fundraising efforts.

If you guys HONESTLY think Kerry had more votes than Bush, I don't know what to tell you.

All the exit polls showed he had a substantial lead.

Nobody could explain what happened until the BBC exposed the entire Republican voter caging program.

I have a question. During the the 2000 election I voted on campus (I went to Rice university) . In the building I went into to vote there were various school officials in there volunteering. None ofthem were school officials or professors. A few I did reconize as assistants and secretaries.

Every single person there helping people all either had Kerry/edwards buttons,shirts or even flat out anti republican apperal.

To me that always seemed a little biased. I mean hell I know everyone has an opinion,but people working an election should keep it to themselves. Isnt that like a ref at a game cheering while a team scores?

Sorta like having the secretary of state running one of the candidate's campaigns, only not as bad.

All the exit polls showed he had a substantial lead.

Bush had over 3 million more votes than Kerry. If what you are suggesting is true, approximately 5% of the official ballet had to be falsified.

I think it's far more likely that people simply didn't want John Kerry as president.

I will do something no other republican will ever do.... I will admit that the 2000 election was probably tainted. I do not believe there was a huge conspiracy planned out from day one. It was a close race,,,,,every vote was crucial.

I think a bunch of people in Florida were totally 100% bone heads in picking a design for a ballot,mixed with a percentage of voters who's problem solving skills were non existent resulted in alot of ballots being discarded.

A series of events unfolded and a winner was picked. Was it the right person picked as the winner.... I dont know.... you dont know either.... We just had to roll with the punches.

in 2004 there was no foul play... another close election,but the correct winner was picked...

We cannot blame Florida or Ohio.... A close election is going to always rest in the hands of that one state. If you think the system is so corruptible then go lobby for election reform.

Bush had over 3 million more votes than Kerry


Only if you don't count all the votes that got thrown out by the Republican voter caging program.

Only if you don't count all the votes that got thrown out by the Republican voter caging program.

You've made a lot of allegations without any evidence. I'd like to see some.

[QUOTE=Foolsworth]OH ! Did Dean serve in the Military.?
QUOTE]

Now you care about candidate's service in the Military?

[QUOTE=LiquidFork]I will do something no other republican will ever do.... I will admit that the 2000 election was probably tainted. I do not believe there was a huge conspiracy planned out from day one. It was a close race,,,,,every vote was crucial.

I think a bunch of people in Florida were totally 100% bone heads in picking a design for a ballot,mixed with a percentage of voters who's problem solving skills were non existent resulted in alot of ballots being discarded.


Obviously you are forgetfull of The Fiasco in Florida {2000} or
wasn't that involved.
The Election was tainted First by NBC.They called Florida EARLY
and put in the Gorte column,falsely based on exit polls.
That caused probable voters from a highly Republican sector {panhandle}
to drive back home and Not vote.
Votes were Not cast,by the false reporting of Tom Brokaw and NBC.
Later that evening it seemed that Florida was Undecided and by
2:30 am declared Bush as the winner.
Everyone staying up that late was waiting for Gore's concession
speech.
When a general Election is within 1/10th of 1% close,it is Mandatory
for a recount to kick in.
Then Gore hired on Crooked Chicago ex-mayor Daley to
oversee a Bias Retabulation in select cherry-picked Dade and Broward
county,both heavily registered democrat districts.

Has it crossed anyone's mind that the election could have been performed without any fraud at all?Republicans believe this is possible.

Last year there were sweeping changes in Congress and they weren't challenged by Republicans the way Republican victories are challenged by Democrats..

Then Gore hired on Crooked Chicago ex-mayor Daly to
oversee a Bias Retabulation in select cherry-picked Dade and Broward
county,both heavily registered democrat districts.
No, sir, Mayor Daley no longer dines here, sir. He's dead, sir.

No, sir, Mayor Daley no longer dines here, sir. He's dead, sir.Doesn't stop him from voting, though. :)

I have a question. During the the 2000 election I voted on campus (I went to Rice university) . In the building I went into to vote there were various school officials in there volunteering. None ofthem were school officials or professors. A few I did reconize as assistants and secretaries.

Every single person there helping people all either had Kerry/edwards buttons,shirts or even flat out anti republican apperal.

To me that always seemed a little biased. I mean hell I know everyone has an opinion,but people working an election should keep it to themselves. Isnt that like a ref at a game cheering while a team scores?

emphasis mine

Typically campaign material of any kind is not allowed within a certain distance of polling places. They shouldn't have been wearing buttons or any other apparel that made reference to any of the candidates.

Were these people manning the actual voting areas?

Huh?......."boost Kerry to a big lead to start".........?!?!?

Wow.

Evidently, you have no idea what an exit poll is.

actually I do.. people stand outside of the voting booths in the morning and ask people who they voted for.

Actually though, you don't know how the the data that is collected is handled.

You are obviously operating on the (incorrect) assumption that the exit polling numbers are released to the Public early in the morning and throughout the day, as they are accumulated, if you imagine that they could have been used to "give Kerry a big lead to start".

The exit polling numbers are not allowed to be disseminated to the Public until after the polls close.

THAT is why I am saying that you do not know what exit polling is or does.


Those numbers could have been skewed.. i mean, it is POSSIBLE right?

Absolutely! Quite possible.

They could have been skewed.

But firstly, they could not have been used to "give Kerry a big lead" when they are not even allowed to be released to the Public until after the polls close.

And secondly, as I have pointed out here before with several links, for them to have been skewed to the degree necessary for B*sh to have been several points higher in actual vote results than the exit polling would have indicated requires (according to mathematicians and statisticians who have analyzed the data) a mathematical anomaly (a result inconsistent with what the numbers would predict) on the order of well over one million to one.

can you comprehend any wrongdoing in this world NOT done by George Bush FT?

Yes, of course.

I have never claimed that he is the cause of all that is wrong in the world; just that he and his far Right faction are extremely bad for America and Americans.