Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Are the presidential elections rigged?

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 » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 06:24 AM
Original message
Poll question: Are the presidential elections rigged?
I'm really leaning toward the idea that they are.

It's certainly not an impossibility. Most people vote on some sort of electronic voting machine, many of which aren't even capable of being audited. The votes go up into "thin air."

In my own sorry state of Alabama, we use "optical scan voting," which, on the surface, seems a little bit better. There are physical ballots that can be examined, if the occasion arises. When did the last occasion arise?

It's interesting to note that Alabama went from solid Democratic, to solid Republic at the same time votes began to be collected electronically.

The Republicans come in and rob the country, wreaking havoc with wild tax giveaways and corporate welfare to the warmongers, then a Democrat comes in, supposedly, to try to solve the fiscal mess, promising some "HOPE AND CHANGE," for which they are vilified as "tax-and-spend" liberals, whether they raise taxes or not.

It almost seems like the Democrats are just another wing of the corporate party, playing the hapless stooge.

Clinton did a few good things. But he also did a lot of bad things. He carried out the corporatist mission of destroying any semblance of an American welfare state... to use blunt, frank language.

And Clinton moved the American political center decidedly to the right.

And I see Obama doing the very same thing. I think the whole system is poisoned.

I was elated when Obama won in 2008. I was walking on air. I thought things were finally going to change.

Alas, I was wrong.

It's just more of the same. The rich taking from the poor. And the continuing consolidation of wealth into the velvety hand of fewer and fewer patrons, that control the machinery with which we vote.

The only things that matter are your connections... where you went school... what fraternity you were in... forget sororities for now.

We are ruled by an oligarchy now, and that ain't gonna change anytime soon. Unless we see some serious action in the streets, and I don't envision that happening in my lifetime.

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. There is ONE group of people calling the shots, in my opinion
because the 'change' that happens is always inconsequential to the larger goal: keeping money flowing to the well-connected, and keeping the peons down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. ageed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. That "center" they go on about is really a drain hole.
As you circle the drain, sometimes you're on the left and sometimes on the right, but in actuality you're just getting closer to going down the tubes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's only over
when we the people say it's over IMHO. While I can't say that I've been 100% satisfied with the amount and/or speed of change over the past two years, I'd say that, on balance, things are better and getting better than they were during the Bush II years, especially considering some of the obstacles President Obama has had to overcome even with his own party. Change in our society seems to occur under the "two steps forward, one step backward" principle, mostly due to the regressive forces in our society that want to halt any positive social change or reverse it entirely. They are still influential and powerful but ultimately beatable as long as we don't just throw in the towel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I certainly don't want to throw in the towel
Edited on Tue Feb-08-11 06:40 AM by Syrinx
And Obama is light-years ahead of Bush. I'm just yearning for some progressive thought (and action) in office.electronic voting alabama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I live in the Republican state of Indiana run by Bush II former Budget Director
Edited on Tue Feb-08-11 06:49 AM by Proud Liberal Dem
I don't know if it's better or worse than your situation but I think I can kind of relate to you about the helplessness feeling you probably have surrounded by regressive Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats whom are only slightly better with nowhere really progressive to turn (though Indianapolis/Marion County isn't the worst part of Indiana to live I suppose). The most "liberal" radio show I can get out here is Alan Colmes on Fox News Radio (late at night when I'm nowhere near a radio).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NuclearDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Marion County really isn't the worst you could do
Even if Ballard is a Republican, at least there's some effort being made to clean up the city and start some environmental programs.

The most liberal bastions you'll find in Indiana are still B-town, Lafayette, and Muncie in all likelihood. You gotta love Muncie's public transportation system too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #9
45. You didn't mention all of Lake County - Gary, Hammond, East Chicago etc
They are solidly Democratic and have been at least since the 1950s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #9
52. I suppose you're right
Marion County isn't really that bad. I would like it though if our state overall was a little more "blue", however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
7. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NuclearDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. Thank you, Mr Beck
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
20. It's not just the Rothschilds.
Friends of the Rockefellers and Harrimans and those with really big amounts of money do quite well.



Baron de Rothschild and Prescott Bush,
sharing a moment together.


What draws them together? Cold hard cash -- and power.

"One of the things that is interesting about reading conspiracy theory is that much of what folks think is conspiracy is really many people acting in concert to make or protect their money." - Catherine Austin Fitts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disintermedia8 Donating Member (174 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #20
29. Of course, Octafish, you are correct
I have learned quite a lot from reading your work. You are a true gem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. The Mayberry Machiavellis comes close to describing ''Them.''
Of course, their roots are more sinister:

Know your BFEE: Reinhard Gehlen

Thank you for the kind words, Disintermedia8. A hearty welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #20
32. lol. You're quoting Catherine Austin Fitts?

The Queen of the conspiracy theorists? The 9/11 truther?

Here's one of her more interesting quotes:

"I believe one of the goals of the swine flu vaccine is depopulation. Perhaps it is the goal of a swine flu epidemic as well, whether bio-warfare or hype around a flu season."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. So, in your opinion, she's a bad person?
I disagree. She once was a big shot in GHW Bush's administration, Fitts got fed up with the corruption at the highest levels of government, business and finance. She's doing all she can to document corruption on Wall Street and Washington and helping those who give a damn do something about it. Her Narcodollars for Beginners deserves a Pulitzer.

Don't agree with everything she says, but I don't with most people. What I do know, Fitts exhibits something I look for in people: Integrity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. Do I think she's a "bad" person? I have no idea. I'm sure she's
a nut though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. Have you read anything she's written?
Or do you go by a few quotes that don't agree with your worldview?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. I've read enough to know that she's a wacky conspiracy theorists.
Did you know she claims to have been poisoned four times(whoever is poisoning her wins the award for most inept poisoner ever).

I have a hard time giving her any more credence than I give Glenn Beck, who she sounds an awful lot like:

A quote from her:
6. What advice do you have to offer the average American (e.g. NOT a deep-pocketed investor) who is concerned about our economic future and wants to preserve wealth and quality of life?

Your time and attention count. Stop listening to or associating to people or institutions that have a vested interest in centralization. Start by turning off your TV. Shift your deposits, purchases and donations to people and companies that you can trust.

Protect your health. The food and water supply is slowly being controlled and poisoned. Taking steps to assure local sources of fresh food and water is essential for your health. So is educating yourself on steps you can take to detox your body and build your immune systems. The rise of environmental and electromagnetic pollution calls for a level of effort to maintain physical energy and strength that was unthinkable a decade ago.

Lower your overhead. Use your time to build as many skills as possible that can help you do more for yourself and barter with those around you.

Invest in tangibles, including precious metals. Do now allow yourself to be drained by what I call the slow burn.

Finally, build your understanding and ability to engage in spiritual warfare. The financial corruption is a symptom of a much deeper and very invasive moral and cultural problem. Organize your life to serve whom and what you love.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disintermedia8 Donating Member (174 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #42
50. WOW! I had never heard of her
and the quote you posted is absolutely outstanding. Thank you for that. What a fantastic bit of advice that I could not improve upon.

Let me just repeat a couple of the key points:

Taking steps to assure local sources of fresh food and water is essential for your health

Use your time to build as many skills as possible that can help you do more for yourself and barter with those around you.

Finally, build your understanding and ability to engage in spiritual warfare. The financial corruption is a symptom of a much deeper and very invasive moral and cultural problem. Organize your life to serve whom and what you love.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. Well then, here you go:
You'll probably love this one just as much, same premise,different nut:

http://www.amazon.com/Broke-Restore-Trust-Truth-Treasur...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
8. Seriously?
It took you this long to figure it out? You don't get to be President unless you are approved and the same people that approved Bush approved Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
10. Of course. It's rigged from the start with capitalism. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
11. The game is called good cop bad cop.
And what we don't understand about it is both the good cop and the bad cop work for the same organization.
And the reason this works so well is that we then focus on the game and not the results...and that is good for them because the results will always favor them not us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NuclearDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
12. Well, by God, I guess I'll just throw in the towel now
Edited on Tue Feb-08-11 07:07 AM by NuclearDem
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:12 AM
Response to Original message
14. My guy never wins does not equal rigged elections. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fla_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
16. Only when 'we' lose
:smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_bryanto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
17. Are you arguing that the elections are rigged in the sense that our votes don't matter?
Some machine makes sure the right canididate wins?

Or is it more that elections are rigged because whichever candidate we vote for is going to be part of the oligarchical class?

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rene Donating Member (758 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #17
24. It's all in the IT . server ID's /locations and programming
As happened in Ohio....it's VERY easy to switch server i/p addresses in the middle of processing to another site....run programs to alter the data.....and switch back to original site's I/P. It's very easy to program which scanned ballots go into which 'buckets'...a specific or random pattern can be set to put actual cast votes into wrong places on the ballot as it's scanned or later in tabulating. I don't trust any electronic voting results.
Also, I personally watched a manual recount of an envelope of ballots found in our Town's safe, that were marked spoiled but were determined were not...needed to be counted. Several of us waited while they counted in a nearby room. My friend, who was on the ballot, had her spreadsheet out and checked each time she heard her name called.....42 times. When the 'officials' came out and announced totals....they'd stated she had 21 votes. When challenged by her notes, they went back in the room.....did whatever....came out and announced YES she did have 42 votes and got on the Town Council as a result. That means they monkeyed with everyone else's originally announced totals in order to give her the rightful count.
WHO counts the votes is extremely critical.....and ripe for corruption/politicizing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_bryanto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. Humans are at least as easy to corrupt as machines
And historically there are accounts of elections being tampered with both in big cities and in the south. Is democracy possible when it is so easily corrupted?

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #17
26. In any democracy, there will always be votes that "don't matter."
In 1984, our votes didn't matter. Reagan won 49 states.

Does that mean we don't live in a democracy? Of course not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
18. I do believe elections are manipulated, particularly in states
controlled by a political machine. But first and foremost, the media conglomerates do the sifting in the primaries. Only corporate structure candidates make it through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuvNewcastle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
19. Yes, I believe they are rigged.
Money from wealthy campaign contributors is the primary tool used to rig elections in their favor. Enough money is spent during the primaries to make sure that the nominee of each party is friendly toward wealthy interests. There's also a lot of vote-tampering in certain key swing states so that the desired outcome is assured. The voters don't even get a real choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
21. It's easy to figure out
Once you understand that the only candidates from either party who are treated seriously as contenders are members of the same private organization - one with objectives that are clearly not in the best interests of average people in the United States - the veil of representation appears thin indeed.

That organization is the Council on Foreign Relations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
22. They're Rigged In Our Choices...
It happens long before anyone enters a voting booth. It's the slating process that favors those with deep pockets. They are able to amass more money and squeeze out those without the connections (including many Progressive candidates). We saw this in Arkansas last year and in many house primaries.

Can elections be stolen? Of course...always have, always will. However with the mass amount of polling and a well coordinated "ground game" there are a lot of eyes watching that make such games harder to play (especially in high profile races). Seems that when your party wins elections it's the will of the people...when they lose, it's due to the machines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #22
41. Exactly. The game is over before the public votes. We get the choice
of Corporate Rep A or Corporate Rep B.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
23. I know this may be hard to believe, but "you not liking election results" does NOT imply that they
Edited on Tue Feb-08-11 07:42 AM by BzaDem
are rigged.

There are always small portions of both parties who will never be satisfied with anyone their party elects as President. Always -- now, a hundred years ago, and a hundred years into the future. Now, a small portion of that small portion might say this is indicative of a "rigged" system, but that doesn't make the system rigged. It just makes the person claiming such wrong.

The reason for this is simple. Any party that ever elects anyone to high office has to be at least somewhat ideologically diverse. This means that there will always be certain people who are never satisfied, in a party that elects people to high office. Sure, there are a few tiny parties whose members will be satisfied with who the tiny parties nominate, but that is irrelevant to the future of this country, since those tiny parties never actually elect anyone to high office.

A party can have 100% satisfaction from within, and be totally irrelevant now and forever -- or it can have a small amount of dissatisfaction, and be relevant. Not both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #23
30. Yes, you can read this same "elections are rigged" posts over at
Free Republic too. It's a very simplistic explanation no matter which political side embraces it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
25. Yes, because the major political
parties determine who the candidates will be so said candidate(s) will be under Party control. Since both political parties currently represent the same corporate entities there will be no one offered up who represents us. George Carlin was right -- we don't have choice, we have the illusion of choice. All this rah-rah, hooray for our side cheerleading crap is a distraction away from that reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. Actually, primaries and caucuses determine who the candidates will be.
Kucinich was a candidate. But the fact that he got ~1% of the vote does not signal a problem with democracy. It simply is a signal that most people didn't vote for him. Every person being satisfied is not and has never been a prerequisite for democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. No, the parties determine who will be in the pool.
They don't care if people like Kucinich run or not, they'll make sure he doesn't actually get it by starving his campaign and if someone like, say Dean in 2004, gets too close, they pull out their dirty tricks team and let them do what they're hired to do best. The entire system is rigged and the Democrat rank-and-file need to wake up and change the party from the inside or continue losing progressives to third parties which only stand to gain. The problem with the rank-and-file is that a) they're so busy infighting and jockeying for position, they've long ago lost the big picture and b) they will, ultimately, support who the Party tells them to support. Good luck in changing that culture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. Why do you think anyone in the Democratic party is worried about losing Democrats to third parties?
Edited on Tue Feb-08-11 08:20 AM by BzaDem
These progressive-third-partiers need the Democratic party far more than the Democratic party establishment needs them. The more people "leave" (to the extent a non-negligible portion does), the more the party is forced to the right, to get more people in the middle. And in any event, the establishment doesn't really suffer at all under Republican presidents. Third partiers, on the other hand, do. If the Democratic establishment were actually worried about third parties, it could just wait for a Republican to win when the pendulum shifts, and watch them all fly back so fast it would make your head spin. (See 2000-2004.)

Kucinich campaign wasn't "starved" by anyone (other than a lack of supporters). Perhaps people wondering why the Democratic party isn't sufficiently progressive for them to be members should look in the mirror, and ask why they can't get a non-negligible portion of the party to agree with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #33
40. They're not worred, THAT'S their problem.
And they should be. Actually, the progressives need the Democratic party right now just about as much as they need the Republican party. If there is a mass exodus of progressives away from the Democratic party, I would think that they would want to know why, but no, they move to the right which further alienates their base. They're going to pull this shit until they, like the DLC, no longer have any relevance.

Go on with the same old memes. You guys are losing members by the tens of thousands. Soon it will be by the hundreds of thousands and eventually the total will be millions. Why do you think that the largest growing political affiliation in California is Decline to State? It's because more and more people are recognizing the major political parties for what they are -- tools for the corporations.

We have a "Democratic" president who convened a catfood commission for crissakes. This "Democratic" president is talking about making cuts to social security and medicare and yesterday proposed MORE tax cuts for big business. You can't apply logic to that and you can't run away from it. You guys can change your ways or go the way of the dinosaur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. "They're going to pull this shit until they, like the DLC, no longer have any relevance."
Edited on Tue Feb-08-11 09:00 AM by BzaDem
Good luck with that.

"Actually, the progressives need the Democratic party right now just about as much as they need the Republican party."

The only reason a negligable portion of progressives think that is because they have incredibly short memories. All it takes is one term of a Republican president, and they quickly change their behavior to match reality. And for some, the "reality moment" will happen long before that -- people like Rick Scott will force a meeting of the minds with reality even before the next Republican president.

"You guys are losing members by the tens of thousands. Soon it will be by the hundreds of thousands and eventually the total will be millions."

Nope. Again, both conservatives and progressives have tiny portions that will never be satisfied, yet somehow think that there will ever be a point in the future in which they will be. This has been going on since the dawn of political parties, this is a completely natural byproduct of any political party system, and it is nothing new.

The new record Obama is setting is for how MUCH support he has from the base (relative to past presidents) -- not how little. You can continue to discuss completely imaginary mass flight from the Democratic party (due to the most popular president among Democrats and liberals in generations, no less), but that isn't going to get you very far if your goal is to actually change a single policy in the country. Instead of thinking that there MUST be some non-negligable portion of the country that agrees with you (even though that is empirically false), you should ask yourself why they don't agree with you, and what you can do to change that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. Repeating the same prescribed talking points
isn't debate. It's dogmatism. This is it, while you guys are busy splitting a gnat's ass you don't notice the guy with the bug spray about to wipe out your colony.

Peace

LTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. If you are concerned about repetition, why do you keep repeating that a party with 0.3% of the vote
Edited on Tue Feb-08-11 09:07 AM by BzaDem
is about to do any harm to a party that gets 53% of the vote?

I mean, if you think what I'm posting is repetition, I'm only doing it in response to your same repeated talking points.

The bug spray analogy better applies to third parties. After all, the green party went from 3% to three tenths of one percent from 2000 to 2004 (and same in 2008), while the Democratic party gained nearly ten million votes from 2000 to 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. Thanks for proving my point.
Have a good day.

Peace,
LTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
37. "Non-Verifiable" EVM's are no unfortunate accident. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
39. Anything Short of a Landslide Gets Stolen by the Diebold Republican Electing Machinez
We were able to win in 2008 with a candidate who was the best campaigner in living memory
with record-breaking fundraising,
and against Republican candidates who were obviously senile and/or crazy.

That is what it took for a Democrat to win the White House in 2008.

It will be much harder next year than it was in 2008.

"Citizens United" has given the Repiglickins access to unlimited corporate and foreign cash.
The Repiglickin vote-stealing machine is still in place to steal the election if it is within 10 points or so.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
44. We are herded towrd the hapless stooge TPTB want elected in the primaries.
The ones they demonize most are the ones we should be electing.

Think Howard Dean and the scream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-08-11 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
49. READ DU: Proof is in. Case closed. What is worrisome is that
those very people who were fixing the elections proposed a new voting system, one eliminating any possible evidence "if" elections are fixed.

OHIO 2004: 6.15% Kerry-Bush vote-switch found in probability study
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

How Kerry Votes Were Switched To Bush Votes
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/ohio.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 01st 2014, 02:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion 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