Diebolds 4 step plan to victory:1. Look for precincts that are neck and neck amongst the candidates.2. Add a few votes to tip the balance in favor of preferred candidate.3. Leave no paper trail.4. Profit from rigged elections!
It won't count at all.I know in Virginia the GOP here has already stated even if Ron Paul won by 99.9% of the vote, they would not let him be the candidate.
Yeah but how I'm experiencing stuff over here it's pretty f**king obvious Obama should win (In Europe over the internet). I haven't even read a single line promoting Hilary Clinton. So why on earth could it be THIS close? Either they are at it again ... (like GWB elections #1 & #2) or the people voting for Hilary Clinton have not even heard of something called the 'internets'. Seriously ... If Hilary wins the world has been had .... right in the pooper ... hanging by it's balls.But seriously ;.. have you ever heard anything positive about Hilary? I haven't. Nothing at all.
GRTWHT - Diebold cannot affect elections where citizens have demanded the voting machines be changed to produce a paper trail or nixed. ALSO, if enough citizens start demanding these companies and individuals be investigated, these Diebold, Sequoia, election boards, and other vote-thieving rats will s**t bricks and run for cover. They could easily get 10 years in prison for direct involvement in wide-scale vote fraud.
kaelyiestaFeb 4, 2008
Diebolds 4 step plan to victory:1. Look for precincts that are neck and neck amongst the candidates.2. Add a few votes to tip the balance in favor of preferred candidate.3. Leave no paper trail.4. Profit from rigged elections!
Closed AccountFeb 4, 2008
sweet. holt is my representative.
Closed AccountFeb 4, 2008
As Frank Luntz will have you believe, its about electing who will win, not who provides the best platform. =(
misfit410Feb 5, 2008
It won't count at all.I know in Virginia the GOP here has already stated even if Ron Paul won by 99.9% of the vote, they would not let him be the candidate.
spoboFeb 5, 2008
Yeah but how I'm experiencing stuff over here it's pretty f**king obvious Obama should win (In Europe over the internet). I haven't even read a single line promoting Hilary Clinton. So why on earth could it be THIS close? Either they are at it again ... (like GWB elections #1 & #2) or the people voting for Hilary Clinton have not even heard of something called the 'internets'. Seriously ... If Hilary wins the world has been had .... right in the pooper ... hanging by it's balls.But seriously ;.. have you ever heard anything positive about Hilary? I haven't. Nothing at all.
philipl411Feb 6, 2008
nope, but I am smart.
dbrisindaFeb 6, 2008
My brain works just fine--but thanks for your concern.But I do feel your judgement is clouded by wrong underlying assumptions that move you to jump to unsupported conclusions.Case in point #1: "Evidence of DISCREPANCIES is not evidence of fraud. The recounts have shown that no one benefit [sic] from the discrepancies."First, evidence of discrepancies is evidence of possible fraud, and requires further investigation. But your statement that "no one benefit" is incorrect. For example, a statistical analysis of the New Hampshire Democratic Primary Election shows that "Clinton received a higher percentage of votes when ballots were counted electronically by Diebold, and Obama received a higher percentage of votes when ballots were counted by hand." [1]Case in point #2: "anyone [...] would know that no one would take the risk of tampering with the results for NO REASON."How does "anyone" know this? There is an enormous body of documented evidence to strongly suggest that this already happened in Florida 2000 (Gore & Bush), in Ohio 2004 (Kerry & Bush), and again in the 2006 mid-term elections. In fact, several individuals were convicted of election fraud in Ohio surrounding the 2004 election [2,3]. There is, infact, written evidence [4,5*] and video evidence [6] contradicting your conclusion.Case in point #3: "Yup...Ron Paul WON New Hampshire! Diebold brought him down from 45% to 8%!"While I am a Ron Paul supporter, I never implied that Ron Paul won New Hampshire, and that Diebold cost him the win. It is almost as silly for me to conclude this, as it is for you to conclude that "no one would take the risk of tampering with the results": I simply don't have any evidence to arrive at such a conclusion. On the other hand, there is evidence that shows election results had been tampered with [6].What I do know is that a large body of evidence exists that incriminates Diebold and affiliates for election fraud, and vote manipulation in past contests (see references). This being the case, should we, in all good conscience, tolerate technology or chain of custody which may result in our vote not being counted? Or even worse, changed?This is not about Ron Paul. This is about the democratic process. And if the will of the majority of the people choose not to vote Ron Paul into office, then I can accept that. But let their voices truly be heard!Sited References:1. <a class="user" href="http://uscountvotes.org/">http://uscountvotes.org/</a>2. <a class="user" href="http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2362">http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/20 ...</a>3. <a class="user" href="http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2007/01/convictions-in-ohio.html">http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2007/01/conv ...</a>4. <a class="user" href="http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/2197/44285.html">http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth ...</a>5. <a class="user" href="http://www.electionfraudnews.com/Articles/2004/Declaration.pdf">http://www.electionfraudnews.com/Articles/2004/Dec ...</a>6. <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM</a>Other:7. <a class="user" href="http://www.BlackBoxVoting.org/">http://www.BlackBoxVoting.org/</a>8. <a class="user" href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml">http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml</a>9. <a class="user" href="http://freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/983">http://freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/983</a>10. <a class="user" href="http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HRE412A.html">http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HRE412A.html</a>11. <a class="user" href="http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696">http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696</a>12. <a class="user" href="http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html">http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fra ...</a>13. <a class="user" href="http://www.alternet.org/story/58328/">http://www.alternet.org/story/58328/</a>14. <a class="user" href="http://www.iwantmyvote.com/recount/ohio_reports/">http://www.iwantmyvote.com/recount/ohio_reports/</a>15. <a class="user" href="http://coalition4visibleballots.homestead.com/">http://coalition4visibleballots.homestead.com/</a>16. <a class="user" href="http://www.solarbus.org/election/">http://www.solarbus.org/election/</a>
tempest0Feb 8, 2008
GRTWHT - Diebold cannot affect elections where citizens have demanded the voting machines be changed to produce a paper trail or nixed. ALSO, if enough citizens start demanding these companies and individuals be investigated, these Diebold, Sequoia, election boards, and other vote-thieving rats will s**t bricks and run for cover. They could easily get 10 years in prison for direct involvement in wide-scale vote fraud.
cryptokiFeb 11, 2008
that's much too honest and transparent of a process.