Recount in Ohio

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Popmartijn

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Jun 19, 2001
Messages
32,861
Location
Netherlands
Hello,

On the Electoral Vote website (http://www.electoral-vote.com) the webmaster stated that there will be a recount in Ohio! No, it isn't initiated by the Democrats, but by the Green and Libertarian parties. The website of the Green Party does mention the initiative (http://www.votecobb.org) even though most mainstream media outlets haven't picked it up, apparently. I did see it mentioned briefly somewhere near the end of an article in the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/politics...11/16/ohio_has_clearer_picture_of_ballots_now):
In another twist to the tally, a statewide recount of the presidential vote appears inevitable after a pair of third-party candidates said they have collected enough money to pay for it.

The recount would be conducted after the election results are certified.

The candidates said they are not trying to overturn Bush's victory in Ohio, but just want to ensure that all votes were counted properly in the face of concerns about Election Day irregularities.

"Our bottom line is to stand up for the integrity of the voting process because the voting process is the heart of the democratic process," said Blair Bobier, spokesman for Green Party candidate David Cobb.

So, what are your opinions about this? And in what way might it change the outcome? What will happen if Ohio gets overturned?

C ya!

Marty

P.S. As if 1 recount isn't enough, Nader is demanding a recount in New Hampshire, questioning the accuracy of the optical scanning voting machines: http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...estion_accuracy_of_optical_vote_scan_machines
 
I admire Kerry's courage not to repeat Al Gore's crusade all over again. I respected him much more when I saw that he wasn't going to ask for 20 recounts. In logic, he conceded because his numbers were not what they needed to be to win.
 
I think it needs to be done. And there's no way in hellfire that the dems could demand this without getting hammered by the right wing media machine which dominates political discourse in this country. But I'm certain that someone among the dems has "encouraged" the 3rd partiers to pursue this...if it's true.
 
american electoral processes are a joke.

is the right person in the white house this time? seems to be, but i see little evidence of concern in post-mortems concerning this election and the way it was administered. this is a real problem.

kind of undermines your democracy.

edit: though i am not a fan of bush, i should note that i made a bushism in saying 'the way it was administrated.'
:reject:
 
Last edited:
LPU2 said:
I think it needs to be done. And there's no way in hellfire that the dems could demand this without getting hammered by the right wing media machine which dominates political discourse in this country. But I'm certain that someone among the dems has "encouraged" the 3rd partiers to pursue this...if it's true.
Third party or democrat... these days, both are anti-Bush propaganda. However, we have something called an election that determines our president every four years. If these third party nuts felt so strongly against Bush, they should've voted for Kerry. And that right wing media machine is: Fox News (fair and balanced?), and what else? The Christian Channel?
 
Flying FuManchu said:


Of course its the 700 Club channel that carries the right wing media machine and helped beat Kerry. :rolleyes:
Exactly. The "right wing media machine" would refer to Fox News and probably nothing else, except Limbaugh, who is not a credible source to begin with.
 
This should not be a partisan issue. I wish more Republicans cared more about the process than they do, but their attitude generally seems to be "Bush won, so who cares?" And, in the interest of fairness, I'll add that I wish the small minority of Dems who feel the election was stolen should wake up.

I have no illusions about the result being overturned. There's just as much reason to believe a recount will help Bush as hurt him. But the integrity of the process is important, and should not be discounted by either side.
 
I am actually for it if it helps to improve the election process... I'm all for it... if its primary reason is to undermine (what seems like a legitimate win) a Bush presidency and by promoting conspiracy theories besmirching the name of voters, the Republican party, and the Bush presidency because of sore-loserness... :barf:
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Third party or democrat... these days, both are anti-Bush propaganda. However, we have something called an election that determines our president every four years. If these third party nuts felt so strongly against Bush, they should've voted for Kerry. And that right wing media machine is: Fox News (fair and balanced?), and what else? The Christian Channel?

This is a joke, right? I mean, you're not serious, are you? Let me introduce you to the right wing media machine. But before I do I want to be clear. I'm not suggesting that our national media is dominated by the right wing. There's left wing media too (air america, truthout, alternet), and there's mainstream media (the big three, PBS, NPR and most newspapers, which tend to be populated by those who lean more left than right, granted, but who still abide by long-accepted standards of objectivity in journalism).

What I'm saying is that there is a very significant and very powerful media in this country that isn't merely "biased" or "slanted," but actively promotes a right-wing agenda. This includes Fox News, the Washington Times, the New York Post, WorldNetDaily, Drudge, Newsmax, Limbaugh, Hewitt, Ingraham, Hannity, O'Reilly, Medved, Gallagher, Reagan, Coulter, Savage, etc., etc., It's these people who would ridicule amy complaints the democrats made about the election, and make them look foolish for it, regardless of whatever merit they might have.

The Christian Channel? Is there such a thing? Regardless, I doubt Christ would like His name to be associated with anything on the right.
 
LPU2 said:


This is a joke, right? I mean, you're not serious, are you? Let me introduce you to the right wing media machine. But before I do I want to be clear. I'm not suggesting that our national media is dominated by the right wing. There's left wing media too (air america, truthout, alternet), and there's mainstream media (the big three, PBS, NPR and most newspapers, which tend to be populated by those who lean more left than right, granted, but who still abide by long-accepted standards of objectivity in journalism).

What I'm saying is that there is a very significant and very powerful media in this country that isn't merely "biased" or "slanted," but actively promotes a right-wing agenda. This includes Fox News, the Washington Times, the New York Post, WorldNetDaily, Drudge, Newsmax, Limbaugh, Hewitt, Ingraham, Hannity, O'Reilly, Medved, Gallagher, Reagan, Coulter, Savage, etc., etc., It's these people who would ridicule amy complaints the democrats made about the election, and make them look foolish for it, regardless of whatever merit they might have.

The Christian Channel? Is there such a thing? Regardless, I doubt Christ would like His name to be associated with anything on the right.

If you stopped listening to AM radio, then more than half the "right wing" media you just listed would be off that list. AM radio does not compare to major media outlets that "pretend" as much as FOX to be unbiased. Hell, I can't even pick up AM radio stations clearly in some parts of where I live.

From what I understand, Drudge is a libertarian, not Republican.

WorldNetDaily- do people actually take everything they put out seriously? I mean, c'mon... WorldNetDaily

Medved, Coulter.... I think Medved may have a show but they make their noise by books, don't they. Count how many anti-Bush books out this past year and a half (or two)... please.

Washington Times and the New York Post have competition with bigger names and bigger audience in the same market - New York Times and Washington Post (liberal slant anyone?)

Fox News vs. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC... hmmmm ok.... and thats not taking into consideration how crappy AP writing is. Associated Press.
 
Last edited:
Also for every conservative blog out there, there is a liberal blog to counter it... AM radio is an effective tool for the Repubs/ conservatives but the liberals have something to call their own in AIR America. Also isn't it true that Rush and Savage attract as many haters or good anount of haters alah Howard Stern to their listening audience? That takes a bite out of the "conservative listener audience.

However, I believe conservative radio is a niche driven market (could be wrong). Niche market isn't as powerful as you make it out to be.

Again add the Hollywood media to the list of pro-liberal media.... and the whole "right wing media machine which dominates political discourse in this country," sounds ludicrous.
 
Coulter, now that's hard right. So hard right I don't care for her at all. She's not someone I really admire. And World Net Daily is obviously targeted for the right.

I'm not sure about everyone you listed though, here's some examples:

New York Post? I don't see how they lean to the right at all. I read their review of The Passion of the Christ, and it basically asked for a "politically correct" version of Christianity or "religion" in general. Very secular as usual. As for Hannity, Alan Colmes joins him to even out the debate. I for one enjoy their show, and enjoy both of their opinions. O'Reilly? He's technically not a conservative, he's been both a democrat, republican, and an independent. He stands as a right-leaning independent nowadays. And Reagan... Ron Reagan? He's a hard liberal who still claims Bush stole the 2000 election.
 
Flying FuManchu said:


If you stopped listening to AM radio, then more than half the "right wing" media you just listed would be off that list. AM radio does not compare to major media outlets that "pretend" as much as FOX to be unbiased.

You can't just ignore AM radio's impact. Rush Limbaugh alone is on over 600 stations and has over 20 million weekly listeners. That's a helluva reach. The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News is the most watched show on cable TV and it can't even come close to those numbers. You know as well as I do that there is a very powerful right-wing segment in our media. But unless they're calling themselves "fair and balanced" there's nothing wrong with it. But don't deny it exists.

And if I hear one more person hold up the major networks as counters to the kind of sensational bias we see on Fox, I'm gonna lose it.

The problem with the political discourse in this country is that it has nothing to do with discourse. It's this way especially on cable news. It gives you an ILLUSION of debate. The problem is that no one talks about POLICY anymore. They prefer talking about, and perpetuatin, stereotypes (the right wing redneck, the tree-hugging liberal). We spend half our time angry at the extremes, when in reality very few people live out there. And the worst part is that NO ONE (on either side) is ever willing to hear the truth when it comes dressed as opposition.
 
LPU2 said:


You can't just ignore AM radio's impact. Rush Limbaugh alone is on over 600 stations and has over 20 million weekly listeners. That's a helluva reach. The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News is the most watched show on cable TV and it can't even come close to those numbers. You know as well as I do that there is a very powerful right-wing segment in our media. But unless they're calling themselves "fair and balanced" there's nothing wrong with it. But don't deny it exists.

And if I hear one more person hold up the major networks as counters to the kind of sensational bias we see on Fox, I'm gonna lose it.

The problem with the political discourse in this country is that it has nothing to do with discourse. It's this way especially on cable news. It gives you an ILLUSION of debate. The problem is that no one talks about POLICY anymore. They prefer talking about, and perpetuatin, stereotypes (the right wing redneck, the tree-hugging liberal). We spend half our time angry at the extremes, when in reality very few people live out there. And the worst part is that NO ONE (on either side) is ever willing to hear the truth when it comes dressed as opposition.
Good post. While I do think that Fox News leans toward the right, they aren't slanted. They did report on W's drunk driving when it came out, among other things. I do think that the right has a lot of power in the radio, but I won't deny that there's plenty of Howard Sterns out there who badmouth the president on a daily basis.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
New York Post? I don't see how they lean to the right at all. I read their review of The Passion of the Christ, and it basically asked for a "politically correct" version of Christianity or "religion" in general. Very secular as usual. As for Hannity, Alan Colmes joins him to even out the debate. I for one enjoy their show, and enjoy both of their opinions. O'Reilly? He's technically not a conservative, he's been both a democrat, republican, and an independent. He stands as a right-leaning independent nowadays. And Reagan... Ron Reagan? He's a hard liberal who still claims Bush stole the 2000 election.

The Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, which owns Fox News. But you lost me with the Passion of the Christ thing. Alan Colmes evens out Hannity? Now THAT'S funny. :) O'Reilly is the worst of all. His brilliance is in his ability to manipulate a few viewers into believing that he truly IS independent. And, no, I don't mean Ron Reagan. He's one of the good guys. I meant Michael. The one with the talk show.
 
LPU2 said:


The Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, which owns Fox News. But you lost me with the Passion of the Christ thing. Alan Colmes evens out Hannity? Now THAT'S funny. :) O'Reilly is the worst of all. His brilliance is in his ability to manipulate a few viewers into believing that he truly IS independent. And, no, I don't mean Ron Reagan. He's one of the good guys. I meant Michael. The one with the talk show.
Okay, so Colmes is probably a moderate, rather than a complete liberal, or you might just think he's a bad debater. O'Reilly is undoubtedly disrespectful at many of his guests, but I believe in his cause for protecting our kids from pornography and violence in schools. Michael is a republican, but I don't see him as a threat to the liberals, unless all conservatives are.
 
LPU2 said:


You can't just ignore AM radio's impact. Rush Limbaugh alone is on over 600 stations and has over 20 million weekly listeners. That's a helluva reach. The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News is the most watched show on cable TV and it can't even come close to those numbers. You know as well as I do that there is a very powerful right-wing segment in our media. But unless they're calling themselves "fair and balanced" there's nothing wrong with it. But don't deny it exists.

And if I hear one more person hold up the major networks as counters to the kind of sensational bias we see on Fox, I'm gonna lose it.

The problem with the political discourse in this country is that it has nothing to do with discourse. It's this way especially on cable news. It gives you an ILLUSION of debate. The problem is that no one talks about POLICY anymore. They prefer talking about, and perpetuatin, stereotypes (the right wing redneck, the tree-hugging liberal). We spend half our time angry at the extremes, when in reality very few people live out there. And the worst part is that NO ONE (on either side) is ever willing to hear the truth when it comes dressed as opposition.

You're quoting John Stewart right? ;)

I think its fair to say ABC, CNN, CBS, etc. are counterweight to FOX news. Sensational bias from FOX? I dunno. Outside of the "debate" shows the bias to me isn't as apparent (seems the same as other news networks). Cavuto vs Dobbs... anyone?

Again there was the ABC election memo concerning trying to make up for Republican attack ads (unbiased, uh ok), CBS memogate, etc.... sure why not believe that. Add Walter Cronkite's declaration many years back that the media is liberal.... hmmmm wonder why people think that the media is liberal. The editor for the Chicago Tribune and some other major newspaper acknowledge most reporters (especially in the White House press corp probably voted for Kerry or supported Kerry). Evan Thomas, editor of Newsweek, believes the American media is liberal. I dunno, I can see a case being built for the media being biased as Fox is relatively biased.

I did not discount the effect of AM radio but c'mon... AIR America is out there now. Hollywood is an acknoweldged liberal stronghold whose influence is pervasive in American culture. The AP which IMO should report straight news does not do it. It seems to do its reporting with a noticeable liberal slant in terms of headlines and content. Not all but some, and so blatantly so that its ridiculous considering what papers use the AP for. The AP which is used by pretty much every newspaper in the country.

I do not know anything about O'Reilly's numbers (though they are supposed to be high) but Rush's audience as well as many other conservative talk shows on AM radio pull in a good amount of anti-Rush and anti-Savage fans which would cut into the numbers.

Does the right have some kind of machine? I think so. But it does not dominate politcal discourse the way you make it out to be.
 
Last edited:
Macfistowannabe said:
Okay, so Colmes is probably a moderate, rather than a complete liberal, or you might just think he's a bad debater. O'Reilly is undoubtedly disrespectful at many of his guests, but I believe in his cause for protecting our kids from pornography and violence in schools. Michael is a republican, but I don't see him as a threat to the liberals, unless all conservatives are.

I'll just say one more thing about this. Do you know anyone who's FOR letting kids see pornography or FOR violence in schools? The problem I have with O'Reilly is that he takes on issues like this—issues which no one really disagrees with—and rails against them as if he's looking out for us, the folks. Thanks, Bill! You saved our children! His typical foil is either the ACLU or some "activist judge." But the problem is that these "liberals" are just as much against pornography and violence as O'Reilly is, but unlike Bill—who's only worry is ratings—they have the Constitution to consider.
 
LPU2 said:


I'll just say one more thing about this. Do you know anyone who's FOR letting kids see pornography or FOR violence in schools? The problem I have with O'Reilly is that he takes on issues like this—issues which no one really disagrees with—and rails against them as if he's looking out for us, the folks. Thanks, Bill! You saved our children! His typical foil is either the ACLU or some "activist judge." But the problem is that these "liberals" are just as much against pornography and violence as O'Reilly is, but unlike Bill—who's only worry is ratings—they have the Constitution to consider.
I laughed at your post, and thought that in a lot of ways, you're right. He does exaggerate on liberals, making it sound like they're all in favor of teen pregnancy and such. I've met a few people on here who may be liberals, but they still want the best life for their kids.

Nobody is FOR it except for sleazy pornographers who want to get young people hooked on pornography for life. I also think that parents aren't doing enough to protect their kids from viewing it. It's a shame that our legislative system didn't approve of banning porn for those under 18. I don't know the reason why, but I'm assuming they took Freedom of Assembly to an extreme. Their way of saying, we know it's wrong, but it's "constitutional."

I think O'Reilly has plenty of reasons to rip the ACLU to shreds. They support NAMBLA, they want God out of our country, I could go on and on. I'm not sure O'Reilly is the best guy in the world to do it, but someone has to stand up against their Anti-Christ agenda.
 
Last edited:
Anti-Christ agenda? how bout the Anti-non-Christian agenda of the conservative right?

The Anti-Christ agenda is, in reality, an attempt to keep God out of our laws, as it should be. Not everyone believes in God, and even those who do believe do not always agree with each other. What may be viewed as God's law to one person may be simply a nice example to strive for to another, or a quaint idea to someone else. Once we begin legislating our religious beliefs into law, discrimination against those who don't share our beliefs will rise. It's already happening.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
I've met a few people on here who may be liberals, but they still want the best life for their kids.

Nobody is FOR it except for sleazy pornographers who want to get young people hooked on pornography for life. I also think that parents aren't doing enough to protect their kids from viewing it. It's a shame that our legislative system didn't approve of banning porn for those under 18. I don't know the reason why, but I'm assuming they took Freedom of Assembly to an extreme. Their way of saying, we know it's wrong, but it's "constitutional."

I think O'Reilly has plenty of reasons to rip the ACLU to shreds. They support NAMBLA, they want God out of our country, I could go on and on. I'm not sure O'Reilly is the best guy in the world to do it, but someone has to stand up against their Anti-Christ agenda.

Seriously where do you get this? Most liberals don't want what's best for their kids?! They want God out of the country?! And your porn thing, where is that coming from? Who's showing porn at their schools? How are minors not banned from porn?

It's like someone taught you that liberals are evil once and you just never questioned it.
 
Diemen said:
The Anti-Christ agenda is, in reality, an attempt to keep God out of our laws, as it should be. Not everyone believes in God, and even those who do believe do not always agree with each other. What may be viewed as God's law to one person may be simply a nice example to strive for to another, or a quaint idea to someone else. Once we begin legislating our religious beliefs into law, discrimination against those who don't share our beliefs will rise. It's already happening.

Diemen, a review of actions taken by the ACLU will show an inconsistent application of a "separation of church and state" standard.

In Los Angeles, they sued (or threatened to), to have a small cross removed from the official seal. What they blatantly ignored was the large portrait of the goddess Pomona that dominates the seal.

If there was some element of consistency on this issue, perhaps the ACLU would gain credibility.
 
U2democrat said:
We were talking about the ACLU in government class today. They have good intentions but they go too far sometimes.

I agree, sometimes they are grossly unfair. They'll try to stop Christian Activity X in two seconds but won't do the same to a Hindu, Muslim or Wiccan act. If you're consistent you are either going to keep *religion* out, and that means all of them, or you're not going to keep any out, which means you'll display a Koran, the Ten Commandments, or whatever. You can't have it both ways.
 
Ohio Finds Double Votes, Count
From Associated Press

November 18, 2004

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Election officials in one Ohio county found that about 2,600 ballots cast in the presidential election were double-counted, and two other counties had discovered possible cases of people voting twice.

Prosecutors sought to determine Wednesday whether charges should be filed against a Madison County couple accused of voting twice. In addition, Summit County election workers investigated possible double votes found under 18 names.

In the other case, Sandusky County election officials discovered that about 2,600 ballots from nine precincts were counted twice, probably because of worker error, elections director Barb Tuckerman said.

Tuckerman believes the votes were counted twice when they were mistakenly placed alongside a pile of uncounted ballots.

The problem was discovered when Tuckerman found that one precinct showed 131% of registered voters had cast ballots.

President Bush won the election by taking Ohio with 136,000 votes more than Democrat Sen. John F. Kerry, according to the unofficial tally.

The couple who voted twice in Madison County cast absentee ballots in October, then voted in person on election day, county elections director Gloria Herrel said. The couple said election workers told them their absentee votes were lost, prosecutor Steve Pronai said.

In Summit County, typically the votes were made by absentee ballot or in person, and then a second vote was cast with a provisional ballot in another precinct, elections director Bryan Williams said.

Under Ohio law, people who vote twice could be charged with election fraud, falsification or illegal voting, according the secretary of state's office. The maximum
 
Back
Top Bottom