You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #10: So, are you implying that this is no big deal? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-14-05 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. So, are you implying that this is no big deal?
I think that there are a number of differences between the situation that we have now and the 1960 election.

It is true that Nixon may have been the rightful winner of Illinois, and that Kennedy may have carried Illinois due to fraud in Chicago. In any event, carrying Illinois for Nixon would not have won him the Presidency. He would also have needed Texas, and there is no evidence that he should have won Texas.

Probably the more important difference is that with the electronic machines that we have today, with their lack of security, absence of a paper trail, and proprietary software codes, as Gumbel himself points out, the potential for fraud is greater than ever before. The Democrats may have had a lock on Chicago in 1960, and I am not excusing that. But today it appears that the Republicans may be developing the mechanis to use elections fraud to carry large portions of the country.

I note in my OP that there are many excellent parts to Gumbles book, not withstanding his denial of election theft. He points out the great potential of DREs to accomplish massive election fraud, and he explains what kinds of safeguards need to be put in place in order to prevent this. The Republicans today control all 3 branches of our federal government, and they are aggressively pursuing statutes that will make our elections even more prone to fraud -- by them, since they have the voting machine vendors in their pockets. I don't think that it's a coincidence that they are actively pursuing statutes that will make fraud even easier than it was in 2004. If they succeed then their lock on government will become even more solid, and they will have even more control to do as they please.

Furthermore, I don't believe that our country has ever been in the hands of as ruthless a bunch of criminals as it is now.

I just don't understand why you are apparently trying to minimize the importance of this?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC