garybeck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:00 PM
Original message |
If he runs, there's only one way Al Gore can win the 2008 election: |
|
ALL THE VOTES WOULD HAVE TO BE COUNTED PROPERLY.
|
wakeme2008
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:01 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Not only Gore but any Dem |
garybeck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
Lone_Star_Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
It's an issue no matter who the Democratic candidate is.
|
helderheid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. ditto on that. And who is more on top of vote counting issues? |
|
Say it together class...
AL GORE
|
wakeme2008
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. Repug Gov Crist in Florida tooooo |
|
We will have paper (op-scan) ballet in 2008 :)
|
garybeck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. be careful in thinking the OpScans are so much better. |
|
having optical scanners is only a minor improvement. Unless there are random audits, the voting machine companies can still easily change the outcome of the election without anyone knowing. Sliding a ballot into a scanner is virtually the same thing as touching a touchscreen voting machine. The only difference really is that you can do a recount if needed. If there is no recount or audit, is basically the same thing. Too many people are thinking the optical scan machines are the solution. IN fact evidence from 2004 suggests that many votes were stolen by the optical scan machines.
we need random audits. the only way to check up on those machines.
|
wakeme2008
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
16. So true but they are a step forward over paper-less touchscreens |
garybeck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
|
not a panacea, not a solution, and certainly not going to prevent election fraud. the problem is that so many people read the paper and think everything's OK in Florida now that they got rid of the touchscreen machines. NOT!
|
garybeck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
For what it's worth, Hillary did introduce the "Count Every Vote Act" which (sort of) attempts to address the issue.
I'm not doubting your claim, I'd just like to know, what has Al done to show he knows about the problem?
|
helderheid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. he is aware the 2000 election was stolen and has been outspoken about it |
garybeck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. 16,000 votes subtracted in Florida |
|
Edited on Tue May-29-07 09:13 PM by garybeck
For anyone who doesn't know, forget the 532 votes that gave Bush the victory.... the real story is that in one county Al Gore registered a total of NEGATIVE 16,000 votes and this has still never been explained. Check out the movie Hacking Democracy.... If that machine didn't flub up and subtract 16,000 votes from Gore, there probably never would have been a recount at all in Florida. There have been all kinds of studies on what happened, and one group of scientists said it could NOT have been a glitch and it had to be done on purpose by someone with access to the machines.
but back to the issue, I'm looking for evidence that Gore is really going to fight against fraud if he runs. First off, he has to show he's aware there's a problem. I wish someone would ask him what he thinks of the voting machines.
|
helderheid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. Someone must ask him about the voting machines. |
More Than A Feeling
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:02 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Same for every other Democrat. |
|
Having a Dem secretary of state in Ohio will end up being a greater boon to winning this election than any other single office won in '06.
|
garybeck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
the problem is, the way Diebold and the others have things set up, even with a good Secretary of State, the shit can go down right under their noses without anyone knowing.
I'm not sure if Ohio has random audits, but that is essential to every state, regardless of who the Sec of State is.
|
MissWaverly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
11. growing up Catholic, you put a token in the box |
|
to indicate that you were going to take communion at the beginning of the service, I feel that count was way more accurate than what we have now with DREs.
|
More Than A Feeling
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
15. Yeah, but at least people won't be disqualified for having the wrong paper quality! nt |
mod mom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:13 PM
Response to Original message |
13. I think we can do it but we have to get big margins-like Ohio in '06. |
|
Hey Gary, do you know what ever happened to the RFK Jr/Papantonio Qui Tam suit? Perhaps if some of the past misdeeds were confronted we might make some progress with getting a fairer vote. You can be assured that Ohio will not see past misdeeps in the area of equal protection, but with machine manipulation, only those with the source code will know for such.
Al Gore has distractors on the right as well as the DLC, but I truly believe he has the wind behind his back!
|
garybeck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
17. I have been asking about the RFK suit, |
|
I asked Brad and he said people keep asking him but he doesn't know. I had the good fortune of giving Greg Palast a one hour drive from a speaking engagement back to his hotel and the first thing I asked him was about the RFK suit, because I know he's friends with RFK.
he responded, that he wasn't sure but he thought they might have dropped the suit, because it seemed like everything was working itself out in Ohio, with a new SoS and some better laws. He said he thought the lawsuit was focused only in Ohio, so they might have dropped it. I thought to myself, "WTF?"
I think you're in Ohio, right? Do you concur that everything is "working itself out" in Ohio?
And I had thought, the lawsuit was not only about Ohio anyway?
So I guess to answer your question, I don't know, but it doesn't look good.
|
mod mom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
19. Rumors is all I know and until I see action, I ain't holding my breath. |
|
Rumors of Marc Dann (AG) + Brunner (SOS) building a case, but we'll see. Maybe their building the case from the bottom (ie USA election caging and Timothy Griffin stuff). I sure would love to see congressional hearings with a subpoenaed Blackwell, Bernadette Noe and a few other characters.
Glad to hear you got to spend time w Palast. Kat had him speak at an event I hosted and I had him over at my house for a CASE fundraiser.
|
garybeck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-29-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
|
well the last I heard, it was at the stage where the government had an opportunity to take the case, and if they declined, then RFK and Pap could "have at it." They were hoping they would decline of course because it could then have turned into a whitwash... but from what you're saying, it sounds like the state AG decided to take the case? If so, that would have taken it out of RFK's hands. But maybe it's not going to be a whitewash, if they're actually looking into it. Amazing how hush it is, and hard to get answers.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:57 PM
Response to Original message |