 sj |
||
|
||
BS: American Election Problems 2004
|
|
|
Subject: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Amos Date: 21 Apr 04 - 08:13 PM There are going to be a slough of them, and perhaps for economy this single thread will be enough to localize the discussin. Here, for example, is the latest piece on the Diebold scandal which is an engineering embarassment. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 04 - 08:35 PM Well, as if we have ever had anything close to Tom Jefferson's dream, firget it! Gone on home. Nuthin' to see here... Sorry, Tom, we kinda tried 'cept the crooks took over. Just like in yer time with the King (what was his name?...) on the take at our expense... Oh well, maybe next time... Bobert ( Well think positive, Bobert, at least there won't be no pesky recounts since there won't be any, ahhhh, ballots...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Amos Date: 21 Apr 04 - 09:59 PM Bobert: This is the first of a number of flaps and issues. Too early to fold your tent, pal. Get out and fight some! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 04 - 10:14 PM Sorry, Amos, but this election/selection is history, at least for me. Kerry doesn't seem to have any particular desire to be prresident or he's offer some real, rather that imagined deifference between himself and Bush on national security,m which seemd to be the top issue... Plus Bush has such a large advantage in money and access to free media that Kerry's chances are slim to none, or less than those... Throw in the Diebold corruption? Hey, it's history, Amos. I really hate to be the bearer of bad news but it's, without a doubt, four more years of complete misery... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Peace Date: 22 Apr 04 - 01:20 AM Bullshit, Bobert. You ain't a quitter. So don't go yankin' chains with that kinda talk. Bush can be beaten, and if it takes Kerry to do it, he will at least improve America a bit. If you're waiting for the Second Coming, that likely won't happen. Diogenes would spend his time lookin'; so, what's changed. But you can't honestly expect the people who have read your posts to actually think you mean that. I don't, that's for sure. Bruce Murdoch |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: DougR Date: 22 Apr 04 - 01:48 AM Way to go, Bobert! You're right, of course. Stay home and don't go near the polls on election day. Of course if you do that, you forfiet your right to complain if things don't go the way you want them to, right? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: dianavan Date: 22 Apr 04 - 10:28 AM Amos - I couldn't get your blue clicky to work but I did find this: "We were caught. We apologize for that," Urosevich said of the mass failures of devices needed to call up digital ballots. As I've said before - Seems that he's apologizing only for being caught, not for the failure of the devices. I believe that is the way he and the Bush administration think. Diebold is from Texas too. What is it with the ethics of those people? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: el ted Date: 22 Apr 04 - 10:38 AM Boring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Donuel Date: 22 Apr 04 - 10:46 AM It will be interesting to see if Arnold the govenor by loophole, will try to protect Diebold in any way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Amos Date: 22 Apr 04 - 10:54 AM http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~2095811,00.html was the original link -- worked ok for me. Concur, Donuel. El TEd, since you find so many threads around here boring, why don't you just pull into your shell and eat your cookies? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: el ted Date: 22 Apr 04 - 10:55 AM Nope, still boring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Ebbie Date: 22 Apr 04 - 01:05 PM It's been my experience that people who are frequently bored are boring people. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Amos Date: 22 Apr 04 - 01:14 PM Gee, el ted, I don't remember your ever exhibiting trollish personality defects before! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Amos Date: 22 Apr 04 - 05:03 PM Here's more on the Diebold flap from Wired: SACRAMENTO, California -- Diebold Election Systems President Bob Urosevich was forced to defend his company's business practices Wednesday at a contentious meeting in Sacramento before California's Voting Systems Panel that may result in the company's machines being barred from the state. Faced with tough questions from VSP election officials in the first day of a long-awaited, two-day hearing on an investigation of the company, Urosevich, accompanied by a defense lawyer and a public relations consultant hired specifically to see the company through its California crisis, worked hard to convince the panel that the company has reformed its ways and can be trusted to conduct elections in the state. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: CarolC Date: 22 Apr 04 - 05:20 PM Amos, your first link (and subsequent URL) is trying to download an "avenue A" spybot on my computer. When I tell my security program to block it, all I get is a blank page. OT, as far as I can see, Bush and Kerry are essentially the same candidate. It looks to me like the only question that remains to be answered is which of them is willing to go the furthest to accomodate special interests. And when the special interests figure that one out, that's the one they will rig the machines to "elect". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: CarolC Date: 22 Apr 04 - 05:24 PM *G* Hey Amos. That last link goes to the Guy Wolfe thread ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Amergin Date: 22 Apr 04 - 05:28 PM What bothers me the most about the election problems in 2004 is that this discussion is even taking place. It shows that many MORE people are losing hope in the democratic process...enabling it a slow ungraceful death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: CarolC Date: 22 Apr 04 - 05:30 PM What democratic process, Amergin? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Amos Date: 22 Apr 04 - 05:37 PM Carol: The first link should go to this story by the Oakland Tribune: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~2095811,00.html and this link should go to it also. I dunno about no Spybot -- I just get a hyperlink to the Oakland Tribune. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: CarolC Date: 22 Apr 04 - 06:26 PM Still no luck, Amos, but thanks for re-posting the link to the Tribune. Here's a corrected link for the Wired story: Wired And here's a link to Disinfopedia's page on Diebold (thanks again for the heads-up about Disinfopedia, Amos): Disinfopedia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Bobert Date: 22 Apr 04 - 07:55 PM Hey, brucie, I ain't throwin' in the towell. I'll vote fir Nadar which ain't quittin'. Votin' fitr Kerry is to me like quittin'. He doesn't have the balls (excuse by French...) to offer any alternatives in Iraq, like getting the heck out. Now if he were tyo say, for instance, that if he is elected over Bush and Diebold, that he would withdraw all military personel within 90 days of his innauguration, hey, I would get back on the bandwagen, but he doesn't. It's just more of the same old crap. More "boots on the ground, blah, blah, blah...." Fine you want more boots on the ground? Load a C-5 to the ceiling with, ahhhhh, boots, fly over Iraq and drop 'um. But get our army out. Everything that Bush said originally for being there turned out to be a lie. His? CIA's? FBI'S. Who cares! He was wrong, now we should leave and provide an address to the Iraqi's to send the bill for the damages... Oh? You say that the original reasons for attacking Iraq were not about WMD's, Al Quida or Mushroom Clouds, but to get rid of a brutal dictator? Fine you've done that, too. Now leave..... Yeah, that's what I want Kerry to say and unless he comes close, it's Nadar agin fir this ol hillbilly... BObert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: dianavan Date: 23 Apr 04 - 03:54 AM Trouble is Bobert, the real reason is oil. Kerry will stay there for the same reason. Kerry's strategies might look slightly different (if he's given the opportunity) but he'll stay because he knows Americans love their SUV's, etc. He's a politician. What would Nader do? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Apr 04 - 04:06 AM Sorry, but the last two posts together made the temptation for a silly pun irresistable (well, I didn't try hard). What would Nader do? Nada Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: GUEST Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:01 AM It looks like Diebold has been found out. Tell me more. Are they really as unscrupulous as they sound? Besides the lousy voting machines, they seem to be into everything from spyware and weapons to bank machines. Scary! Who are the stockholders? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: GUEST Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:11 AM That last post was from me, dianavan. Why am I suddenly a guest. Will someone please clue me in? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 04 - 04:00 PM Diebold may be prosecuted, accrding to Wired today (that's http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63191,00.html/wn_ascii). A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: dianavan Date: 23 Apr 04 - 04:50 PM I hope they are prosecuted and found guilty. I'm calling the bank to make sure none of my "ethical" funds are invested in Diebold. I hope other stockholders sell their shares as well. What a creepy outfit that is! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: dianavan Date: 24 Apr 04 - 02:00 PM Strange coincidence! I just got a letter, dated April 22, stating that the Ethical US Special Equity Fund is being closed due to weaker than average returns and that I will have to re-invest in something else. I really wanted my funds there because I wanted to encourage ethical growth in the U.S. as well as Canada. Luckily its not much money. I guess this means that the growth of ethical businesses in the U.S. is at an all time low. This does not bode well for the U.S. citizen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Amos Date: 24 Apr 04 - 02:10 PM Dianavan: I coulda extrapolated that!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Deckman Date: 24 Apr 04 - 02:18 PM RE-ELECT GORE ... IN TWO THOUSAND FOUR! Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Gareth Date: 24 Apr 04 - 02:27 PM Bobert - I am ashamed to you. The object is not to satisfy your ego, but to benefit the People of the World. The Deckman - whose history is honourable, has it right. CarolC - Again most people treat you with the sympathy your medical condition deserves. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: CarolC Date: 24 Apr 04 - 03:03 PM What are you talking about Gareth? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Ebbie Date: 24 Apr 04 - 10:48 PM I didn't find just the right place on the Cat to post these figures so I thought, What the heck- I hope they'll be among the Election problems. Eb Truthout: Here is a look at just six of Bush's super-fundraisers: 2003 compensation: est. min. 2003 tax savings: Henry McKinnell CEO, Pfizer Raised $200,000+ for Bush, $11.9 million, $244,214 E. Stanley O'Neal CEO, Merrill Lynch Raised $500,000+ for Bush $8.8 million $351,900 Charles Cawley CEO, MBNA America Raised $200,000+ for Bush $29.1 million $276,000 William McGuire CEO, UnitedHealth Group Raised $100,000+ for Bush $9.5 million $329,866 Dwight Schar CEO, NVR Raised $200,000+ for Bush $94.3 million $138,000 Maurice Greenberg CEO, American International Group Raised $200,000+ for Bush $29.4 million $276,000 "This comes from Forbes.com, WhiteHouseForSale.org, and National Journal. The minimum tax savings from the Bush tax cut is estimated based upon calculating the portion of 2003 income, as reported by Forbes.com, that each CEO received in direct pay and bonuses multiplied by the new lower tax rate of 35%, as opposed to the 39.6% rate before Bush took office." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: dianavan Date: 25 Apr 04 - 01:06 AM I wonder how much Diebold contributed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Amos Date: 25 Apr 04 - 11:29 PM The tip of the iceberg, surely. This election is going to be one of the stormier ever encountered. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: GUEST,Larry K Date: 26 Apr 04 - 11:00 AM I think it is far better to vote for someone, than it is to vote against someone. Vote for the person you most believe in. There is no perfect candidate....ever. Get over that fact. I have voted for both Democrat and Republican presidents. There have been other times I have voted, but did not vote for a president because I did not like either candidate. (I think it is important to vote for all the other issues beside president) Don't just vote against something. I remember a line I heard 30 years ago. "It's not the lesser of two evils, it's the evil of two lessers" As my friend Utah Phillips says "a man put a gun to my head and asked if I am voting republican or democrat. I said shoot me" Fill in the two candidates names and that joke almost always works... in almost every election...in almost every country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: Gareth Date: 26 Apr 04 - 07:19 PM Read your own posts CarolC. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: GUEST,darkriver (no cookie) Date: 05 May 04 - 01:54 PM Update on Diebold machines: Calif. Sec. of State is not only rejecting electronic voting machines, but has passed evidence on to the state attorney-general to bring charges against Diebold for fraud. See here (http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html) And in Ireland, plans to use electronic voting machines have been scrapped. See here (http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=125409434&p=yz54yxz97&n=125410377) As a Californian, I'm happy with this news. Doug |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: CarolC Date: 05 May 04 - 02:05 PM I thought you got over your freakish obsession with me, and your need to stalk me here in the Mudcat about this time last year, Gareth. I see that I was wrong about that. I must say though, your dedication to your obsession with me really is very sweet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: CarolC Date: 05 May 04 - 02:28 PM Re: the topic of this thread, I'm glad to see that, darkriver. I'd like to see either paper ballots or other kinds of voting systems that leave a paper trail in place everywhere. Anything less is an invitation for abuse of the voting system and of the voters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 May 04 - 04:49 PM God knows what Gareth is on about there. You must have got on his wrong side some time, Carol. He's got a right side too though. I can't really see why people worry too much about election promises and that. They don't mean anything, so far as I can see. If you vote for someone just because they say the things you like in a campaign, you're just storing up disappointment. I think Kerry's wife Teresa got it about right when she said "Political campaigns are the graveyard of real ideas and the birthplace of empty promises". And she strikes me as a good enough reason for preferring Kerry, if there weren't any others. What matters is whether the bunch of people who are going to have their hands on the controls after an election are more likely on balance to do less damage than the other bunch. And that doesn't look too difficult to work out in this case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: CarolC Date: 05 May 04 - 05:45 PM I'd say Bush and his team are doing an excellent job of keeping the promises they made to the people who bought him the presidency, McGrath. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 May 04 - 05:48 PM But not the promises they made to the voters. Wasn't there some stuff about "compassionate conservatism"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: American Election Problems 2004 From: CarolC Date: 05 May 04 - 06:07 PM Never the voters, McGrath. Well, he did cut taxes, theoretically. But they always use that little bribe as a bit of political slight of hand to distract the voters from the fact that they're about to slit our collective jugular. The very rich got their taxes cut, even though they don't really ever pay any taxes, but everyone else has probably experienced a net increase in taxes, when we factor in increases in local and state taxes and other hidden costs that are being used to compensate for the decrease in federal monies available to the states because of Bush's tax cuts. |
