Election Reform

It's just one smoking gun after another.

The problem is that each of those is 'feasible' without absolutely indicating fraud.

Yes, 4000 people might have come out and voted for Bush, but also figured they wanted a super-liberal judge. Perhaps they just hated Kerry. It absolutely strains credulity, but the point is that 'because it's possible' the deniers can dismiss it.

That's how they work. There's a mountain of evidence, but they just look at each piece and find some way, ANY way to dismiss it without ever taking into account how all that evidence points to a conclusion that is virtually impossible to escape once the sheer improbability of all of those indications being 'merely coincidental' is understood.

Yes, it's almost impossible for all of those things to have 'just happened' in such a way that it gave Bush the election and almost certain that they were deliberate as they would all be Prima Facie indicators of fraud. We know this. Unfortunately, the willfully ignorant and dedicated deniers have their 'Each tree does not a forest make' approach to examining this.

Where is proof of the forest?