RE: [DMCForum] Shenanigans?

["timnagin" <timnagin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Or, Bob, maybe it was the actual truth.  Just because Kerry lost doesn't
mean it was a world-wide conspiracy.  Even he has the back bone to concede.

But then again it could all be explained that even though the Redskins lost,
the Packers won and they are from Green Bay, Wisconsin (GBW) which, if you
move two letters, you get GWB... George W. Bush... which should have been a
concrete prediction he would win :)

No, I don't really believe in that superstitious crap.

Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Brandys [mailto:BobB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 11:45 AM
To: DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [DMCForum] Shenanigans?



There are many inconsistencies with this election

1. Historically,  according the yesterday's WSJ, if the market dropped
 >0.5% in October, the incumbent president would lose.  Well, it dropped
more than 0.5% in October. and BUSH won. This goes against history.

2. Newly registered voters historically have always been more
democratic.    How many times  did all the pollsters say the new young
people who voted were mainly democratic.  Well, this sure did not appear
in the numbers.

3.  Since only 15% more people voted than in 2000  105 million vs 120
million, WHY were there such long lines. These lines were not present in
2004.

4. Since more electronic voting was used this year, and electronic
voting is almost twice as fast than paper ballots - Why were there such
long lines?  Was the number of polling places restricted.?  Were they
moved?  Two polling places in a democratic area in  republican
controlled dupage were moved to areas where there was no parking- the
day before the election.  On was a car dealer? Hey, any one who votes
the "right" way gets a discount!  and the other was in basement of an
old building on a dead end street.

5. Since most of the new voter registrations were young people -who did
vote - according to the polls- then Kerry should have ended up with more
democratic votes. But he got less votes - which is in conflict with the
voter registration data.

6. More black voters turned out than every before and they voted for
Kerry more than every before.  Than why did Kerry get less votes?

The only conclusion is the votes don't agree with the registration and
voting history statistics.

Extrapolating the historical statistics Kerry should have won by at
least 10,000,000 votes.
Since he did not,  and if you believe that voting machines and vote
counting were rigged

(As Stalin said- it does not matter who votes- what matters is who
counts the votes)

Then approximately 15% of the votes were stolen or rigged.  (you heard
the stories about the machines in florida that would only vote for bush
both in the primary and in this election)
What is strange is  NO Machine was ever found to be voting ONLY for
KERRY.  You computer dudes know this is not possible!

Only a detailed analysis of what happened by an unbiased party in the
future will explain why Kerry lost.  Or we may never know.

Or american democracy is only an illusion!

BOB

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.