> George Bush won the popular vote- and pigs are flying
5 November 2004, 01:34
I appreciate your thoughtful response. There are a few questions that bother me though, if I may? How could Diebold e-voting be utilized without considering the conflict of interest since Diebold is a major contributor to the Republican Party and headquartered in Ohio, one of the most significant swing states for the election? Also, another conflict of interest, how could the head of elections in Ohio, a known republican Bush supporter, allow these machines to be used without a "paper trail" or any other state for that matter?
Please explain the exit polls discrepancies in Ohio submitted by CNN based on AP results? I understand the exit polls have a history of extremely low rate of error, something like 0.01% ?
Going back to the e-voting, why is it that in every single instance of e-voting problems of a wrong vote, it was always sided against Kerry and not Bush? Isn’t it rather strange that people who voted for bush DID NOT ONCE have Kerry light up on their screen as some sort of computer glitch? However, thousands of Kerry voters had their votes light up Bush, and in some cases, the whole ballot would light up "republican" all the way down the column? It is quite possible that the code written in Diebold software could have easily altered votes. How could it be that this software and other e-voting software was not allowed to be scrutinized by appropriate committees? How on earth could we have allowed electronic voting to take place that did not allow for some cross checking for security purposes and to reassure the public that voting in this method was safe and secure? I for one would like to see this as illegal within the Unite States. I for one would like to see a true nonpartisian investigation into this election by multiple methods simultaneously, i.e., the media, government committees, watch dog organizations.
If you believe so much in this country’s constitution, you should consider it your patriotic duty to protect this country from losing its fundemental freedoms; the security of our votes, having a fair and balanced power in all three branches of government, the legislative, the judicial and executive branch; ensure our civil liberties are never compromised, having an open and transparent government that is accountable for its actions. Without that, brown shirts and swastikas could become all the rave and do not think for one minute it can’t happen here!
Oh by the way, the health care Kerry was talking about WAS NOT socialized national health care as you all myoptically misquote, rather, it was simply allowing those of us who need it the option to buy into an insurance pool, just as businesses do... what a radical idea that is! Unemployment, hmm... skewered data to include part time (no benefits) employees, those forced to work as "subcontractors" again with no benefits and more minimum wage jobs, lovely. Lastly, taxes... well, I’ll give Bush credit that he did lower taxes across the board, however, more so for the affluent individuals and companies.... so you say it is fair and appropriate for CEOs to make multimillion dollar salaries over the lowly 98% of the country? then let them apply your "trickle down" theory and trickle some of that down in taxes, what a concept!
I appreciate your thoughtful response. There are a few questions that bother me though, if I may? How could Diebold e-voting be utilized without considering the conflict of interest since Diebold is a major contributor to the Republican Party and headquartered in Ohio, one of the most significant swing states for the election? Also, another conflict of interest, how could the head of elections in Ohio, a known republican Bush supporter, allow these machines to be used without a "paper trail" or any other state for that matter?
Please explain the exit polls discrepancies in Ohio submitted by CNN based on AP results? I understand the exit polls have a history of extremely low rate of error, something like 0.01% ?
Going back to the e-voting, why is it that in every single instance of e-voting problems of a wrong vote, it was always sided against Kerry and not Bush? Isn’t it rather strange that people who voted for bush DID NOT ONCE have Kerry light up on their screen as some sort of computer glitch? However, thousands of Kerry voters had their votes light up Bush, and in some cases, the whole ballot would light up "republican" all the way down the column? It is quite possible that the code written in Diebold software could have easily altered votes. How could it be that this software and other e-voting software was not allowed to be scrutinized by appropriate committees? How on earth could we have allowed electronic voting to take place that did not allow for some cross checking for security purposes and to reassure the public that voting in this method was safe and secure? I for one would like to see this as illegal within the Unite States. I for one would like to see a true nonpartisian investigation into this election by multiple methods simultaneously, i.e., the media, government committees, watch dog organizations.
If you believe so much in this country’s constitution, you should consider it your patriotic duty to protect this country from losing its fundemental freedoms; the security of our votes, having a fair and balanced power in all three branches of government, the legislative, the judicial and executive branch; ensure our civil liberties are never compromised, having an open and transparent government that is accountable for its actions. Without that, brown shirts and swastikas could become all the rave and do not think for one minute it can’t happen here!
Oh by the way, the health care Kerry was talking about WAS NOT socialized national health care as you all myoptically misquote, rather, it was simply allowing those of us who need it the option to buy into an insurance pool, just as businesses do... what a radical idea that is! Unemployment, hmm... skewered data to include part time (no benefits) employees, those forced to work as "subcontractors" again with no benefits and more minimum wage jobs, lovely. Lastly, taxes... well, I’ll give Bush credit that he did lower taxes across the board, however, more so for the affluent individuals and companies.... so you say it is fair and appropriate for CEOs to make multimillion dollar salaries over the lowly 98% of the country? then let them apply your "trickle down" theory and trickle some of that down in taxes, what a concept!