jennifer5
22.11.05, 04:13
Zeby uwierzyc iz bush wygral wybory w 2004 roku legalnie, rowniez trzeba
wierzyc w to co nastepuje ponizej:
1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the
GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.2
2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in
2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost
people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still
received a 3.4 million vote surplus nationally.3
3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’
votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered
Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered
Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4
counties, merely shows Floridians’ enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this
despite the fact that his share of the crossover votes by registered
Democrats in Florida did not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among
registered Independents, dropping 15 points.4
4) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact
that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in
Ohio and Florida fell to as low as less than 8%, do not indicate a rigged
election.5
5) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time
in history this has happened. Harry Truman has been cited as having also done
this, but Truman’s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his
challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two months before the
1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of support for Truman. Unlike
Truman, Bush’s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.6
6) Harris' and Zogby’s last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was
wrong (even though Harris and Zogby were exactly on the mark in their 2000
election final polls).7
7) The “challenger rule” - an incumbent’s final results won’t be better than
his final polling - was wrong;8
8) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls
(showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the
traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.
9) The fact that Bush “won” Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the
court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots
in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn’t cast any suspicion upon
the official tally.9
10) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered
Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his
employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general counsel and
lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush’s 1994 running mate for
Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a computer program to
undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the initial impression that he
was creating this software in order to forestall possible fraud, handed over
the program to his employer Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: “You don’t
understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in
the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in south
Florida.” (Boldface in original).10
11) Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s declaration in a August 14, 2003 letter to
GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its
electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact that Diebold is one
of the three major suppliers of the electronic voting machines in Ohio and
nationally, didn’t result in any fraud by Diebold.
12) There was no fraud in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where they admitted counting
the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to count.
13) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by
3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents.
Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based
on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents - were showing Bush leading by 2
points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from
a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite it
being mathematically impossible.11
14) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections, paid
for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit polls in the
U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very wrong.12
15) The National Election Pool’s exit polls13 were so far off that since
their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong
than statistical probability indicates is possible.
16) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy
favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey
errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and
centuries of mathematics must be wrong.
... zabawne, i czy jest ktos kto w to wszystko wierzy? Minal rok, poparcie
spadlo na pysk, nikt o zdrowych zmyslach juz nie twierdzi ze to co wyczynia
administracja ma jakikolwiek sens podparty bezpieczenstwem i poprawa
ekonomiczna kraju. Wiec o co w tym wszystkim idzie? Trzy punkty wyjasniaja
calosc:
1. dominacja dolara
2. kontrola zloz ropy
3. bezpieczenstwo izraela
