You know cons are going to play dirty now that rats are fleeing the sinking ship.
2007-07-09 05:10:53 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't know, but I'm getting out my broom and calling shenanigans if we have another questionable election.
2007-07-09 05:14:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Although it has been proven that electronic voting machines can be tampred with. It takes little more than a memory card upload to change votes or install a simple program to recount votes, the Importance of the 2000 and 2004 elections justified the risk of tampering, and achieved the desired results and then some.
It is my opinion, when there is that much Money and Power at stake, (the Power of the Presidency and the War in Iraq), then there are no coincidences. It is no coincidence that Bush won an election that he had 533,000+ votes less than his opposition, we are in Iraq finishing up for Bush I, the war has been seen to justify the consolodation of Power by the Preesident of the US like never before, and he even got to appoint two Chief Justices, changing the legal landscape for a generation. A lot was riding on that election and alot of people including the Oil companies (Record Profits) have gotten rich beyond their wildest dreams.
everything that needed to be accomplished was accomplished in those two elections, this next election isn't that critical, not worth the risk, Diebold probably isn't a factor in this one.
2007-07-09 05:25:30 · answer #2 · answered by Myles D 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it'll be Soros's built in excuse to aid in ruining the capitalist system
"The 2004 election almost seemed like a dress rehearsal for such a maneuver, given the raucous demand by some Congressional Democrats for UN election monitors, and the so-called Boxer Rebellion, in which Senate Democrats challenged Bush’s electoral vote count".
the Shadow Party may attempt something similar in the USA. If they fail to win legitimately in 2008, they will likely cry voter fraud, fomenting an electoral crisis similar to the Bush-Gore deadlock of 2000.
the left has learned a few lessons since 2000. It seems doubtful that they will stake their revolution on a decision of John Roberts’ Supreme Court. More likely, they will press for international arbitration this time, possibly under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This group actually monitored our elections in 2004. Its relations with Soros – and with the Democratic Party – are extremely cordial, to say the least
2007-07-09 05:20:45 · answer #3 · answered by UMD Terps 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
LOL, if Democrats win, it will have been no factor. If Republicans win then it could ONLY have been with the help of that EVIL Diebold machine!
Liberals are so self righteous that they believe that conservatives can only win if they cheat. That is a big head to hide behind...
2007-07-09 05:43:34 · answer #4 · answered by Amer-I-Can 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Theirs is the only vote that counts.
"It is enough that the people know there was an election.
The people who cast the votes decide nothing, the people who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin
2007-07-09 07:50:20 · answer #5 · answered by Ringo G. 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Conservatives don't play dirty. Haven't you ever noticed that the only places where voting irregularities were alleged by democratic candidates were in places where the entire voting process from ballot design to poll monitoring was controlled by democrats?
2007-07-09 05:24:20 · answer #6 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Diebold is only consider if the republicans win and not if the democrats win.
2007-07-09 05:24:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Plenty... if there's even an election.
I have a strange feeling Bush will find an excuse to execute his new imperial powers that he granted himself in a state of emergency.
2007-07-09 05:23:01 · answer #8 · answered by tiny Valkyrie 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Get real, this whole stealing of elections thing belongs right up there with the 9/11 conspiracies, and the apollo conspiracies.
2007-07-09 05:14:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
If you think Diebold controls the election you are more delusional than first thought.
2007-07-09 05:15:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋