http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2638275Oh my.
JMDEM (707 posts) Wed Jan-09-08 02:43 AM
Original message
Does anyone truly believe this isn't just a sick joke?
This election fraud has been going on for years, and it never stops. Never stops. And nothing gets done, and the sheeple bury their heads.
I'm so disgusted -- the shock is the same as 2000 and 2004, even though this election was just a miniscule primary. The shock comes from the ugly monster raising its head again, and everyone pretending it doesn't exist.
I mean, why even participate? What the F* can we do? I know, I know... I'll continue doing what I can, but that's how depressed I feel right now.
In NH, only candidates can challenge an election (or so I read). So why doesn't Kucinich or Edwards or even Gravel challenge this sucker and blow it out of the water? What do they have to lose?
By my accounting, according to the Rasmussen poll taken yesterday, there was a 17 or 18 point swing in ONE DAY. We are supposed to buy that? Some news organizations are calling this the greatest shocker in the history of American politics. We are supposed to buy that too?
Hey, WHAT HAS Rove been up to? (Per another thread). This is a great way to split the Dems right down the center -- have them thrash out an election fraud issue he engineered. Beautiful.
I'm sick of this shit.
Yeah, vote fraud's been going on a long time. In big cities and somesuch.
One wonders which political party controls big cities.
Anyway.
This is a pretty big campfire, so I'm going to quote only Doug's ex-wife; she argues with the cyanide primitive, and then later on, with the magisterial one.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Exactly. Wave to President Huckabee.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. To quote a DUer, what reason do we have to have confidence in the result?
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. No, because the result makes no sense in context.
It's the same to me if Obama or Clinton win this one or any of them for that matter.
I DO NOT want to wake up to another UNELECTED Republican president.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:14 AM
Original message
This was an election on the same system we will use in the GE.
In other words, it will still be hackable when they try to steal it for Huckabee or Romney.
It's not about Clinton or Obama. It's about winning again and having it stolen in 2008 -- for me, in any case.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. Because there was no anomaly on the Republican side.
See? The anomaly was only in this one race.
And, the reason to "spout off" about it is that if there is a problem, we have to find it as soon as possible or we'll be dealing with it come November.
And, you'd likely lose you bank account so I won't take you up on that even though it's January, lol, and I could use the cash.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #56
59. We'll know more tomorrow. If she won, more power to her.
If this is as bad as it looks, we better come up with a plan because I cannot look at Huckabee without wanting to HURL.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #70
72. Yes. I'm listening to the talking heads right now, something I never do.
They are good to go. Now all we need is a reprise of the NYTs telling us that internet rumors were quicky put to rest.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 05:06 AM
Response to Reply #74
75. That's probably a healthy response to knowing our elections are dirty.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #57
64. Iowa was a completely different process. No Diebold machines there.
girl_interrupted (45 posts) Wed Jan-09-08 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. No one claimed election fraud in 2006
When the Democrats took the House & Senate. I would never trust any poll, especially Rasmussen. It's early yet, no need to get discouraged if your candidate didn't win tonite, there's a long way to go.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Actually, they did. Vote shaving likely cost us a real working majority.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
18. Polls became curiously unstable this century.
What's next? Gravity?
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
14. Can you read mine: secret vote counting on hackable machines.
I hope you aren't working for Edwards because we need thinking people.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #19
53. Do you remember all the fictions they came up with to explain all those "values voters" that no one could ever produce for Bush?
And, as far as I can remember, there was no race issue in the Bush/Kerry OH contest where pretty much the same thing happened. Or, the Gore/Bush contest in FL.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #25
39. This is not likely Clinton. The Republicans have been rigging elections for years now. What makes you believe they'll let go of the White House in the first place?
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #48
61. But remember these criminals are overreachers.
And, why not? They get away with everything.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #44
50. Sure. But, I'm more concerned that there CAN be manipulation than I am about WHO they are manipulating for. They are dying to run against Hillary, imho. It makes election fraud a lot easier if you can point to ten reasons why someone "lost". Don't mistake me. In a fair election, I think any of our top tier candidates could wipe the floor with any of theirs.
But, the fact that we accept such an irrational result concerns me so much more because -- well, look who's running for the Republicans. Three dirt bags. Which one do you want to call CIC?
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #54
58. Oh, I agree. She's a formidable person.
Not my choice but, that's not the point, I think.
I DO NOT want to see our landslide stolen and explained away and the theft accepted again.
Methinks Doug's ex-wife has got to get out more.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. Years of vigilance will indeed bring about exactly such a condition.
Now, if you'll excuse me, Sir, I must go walk the perimeter.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #45
55. The net is lit up with it. You might want to go check Mark Crispin Miller's blog when you get a chance. He's been writing about it all night. I'm just sort of too stunned to read but, he's sent out a bunch of mail, fyi.
sfexpat2000 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #66
67. Isn't Denver retooling, though,donheld?
I thought I saw something last Sunday that said CO was revamping their system.
Oh my.