Experts Question Clinton's New Hampshire Primary Win
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
Note the percentages swap as soon as they are run through a Diebold machine.
Clinton optical (Diebold) scan: 91,717 (52.95%)
Obama optical (Diebold) scan: 81,495 (47.05%)
Clinton hand-counted: 20,889 (47.05%)
Obama hand-counted: 23,509 (52.95%)
http://www.alternet.org/story/73551/
.
Clinton optical (Diebold) scan: 91,717 (52.95%)
Obama optical (Diebold) scan: 81,495 (47.05%)
Clinton hand-counted: 20,889 (47.05%)
Obama hand-counted: 23,509 (52.95%)
http://www.alternet.org/story/73551/
.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It already has been, at least twice now
New Hampshire Recount
When you do, you'll see that Kucinich and a Republican demanded a hand count of the NH votes, paid the $2,000 each to get that hand count, and as of Friday, New Hampshire has agreed to that hand count.
Can you say: "Born to hand count, baby!"
Are these the same experts that had Obama up by 12%? After the 2000 election and now this I think we have had enough of experts don't you?
**********
more proof that dems and republicans are more similar then different
How is this proof of republican/democrat similarity? i respect Kucinich for forking up something like 67,000 dollars, obviously, in the name of election integrity. The only candidate who really has anything to gain from a recount is Obama. The problem is, even if there was an instance of fraud (i wouldn't be surprised), it is HIGHLY unlikely a recount will uncover it. Who else would you expect to call for a recount? Hillary? She won, and if anyone cheated, its her! Obama? Any fraud, again, will not be uncovered and he would come off as a sore losing crybaby. He isn't one of those. WTF do you expect?
While on the surface the number seem out of wack, but if there were Diebold machines in areas where Clinton polled a lot higher than Obama, that could make sense.
I dunno... As far as NH goes, it won't make much of a difference as far as delegates since they split them anyway, but I would like to something like this to prove the inaccuracy/vote fraud of machines with no paper trail. I still have no idea who could possible defend the use of machines with no paper trail.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Great point... the whole thing is just a sad state of affairs.
i see you have planted your Obama flag...
Been there since he announced it last year...
got ya...
i am actually getting a Kucinich 08 tattoo on my ass later this week :cool:
That's a good point about Obama. He can't complain about it or he gets labled as a whiner (Sore Loserman, you may recall). Obama's kind of stuck just doing his best and hoping cheating does not occur.
And yes, good for Kucinich. He knows he cannot win. It's his job to remind these others about some other issues and, in this case, the integrity of the contest.
I don't mind them being machine counted, and with the millions of votes cast in a presidential election, it would take forever to hand count.
But there should be a paper verification. Say you vote on a computer screen, and it should print out a confirmation receipt with your vote number (or whatever) and your choices. This should be visible to you and if it's wrong, you can summon help right there. If it's correct, you could confirm it and it gets dropped in a locked box in the voting machine and the whole box sealed that day. If a recount is needed, they can break the seal and use the "receipts" for recounts.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
The problem with your idea is it just makes too much goddamn sense!
read again what i posted ... this is the basis for your democratic institution - the ability for votes/people to be heard ... if that process is compromised in any way - then everything is a sham ...
every candidate including hilary should consider this an issue - not just dennis kucinich ...
i did read it. Now read mine. Let me slow down for you a little bit. Why in the hell would Hillary chalenge the votecount? SHE FUCKING WON AND IF ANYONE CHEATED IT WAS HER! Challenging the votecount would be ridiculously waterheaded. Even if, completely unbeknownst to her, someone else cheated on her behalf, do you really think the fucking Clintons would be like "Now, wait a minute, in the interest of election integrity, i think we should recount the votes. i think i may have actually lost". Do you REALIZE how fucking stupid that sounds? Keep in mind, Bill Clinton's degree of honesty got him fucking impeached!
Obama, the only candidate, with anything to gain, is not stupid enough to present himself as a sore losing, cry baby, conspiracy theorist. Especially when you could the ballots fifteen times and the fraud, even if exists, will not be uncovered or dealt with. He, afterall is still trying to win an election and has a legitmate shot at doing so. He would be comitting political suicide. It isn't that he is not concerned with integrity. C'mon think a little.
i understand your theorizations - but you are essentially saying that every other candidate believes there may be fraud in the voting process but that they just don't care ... because they don't want to suffer any potential bounce back ...
the voting process is not some convuluted system - it's really quite simple to do and ensure validity - democracies have been doing it for decades ... the system today has been compromised and no one seems to care except people like kucinich ... that is truly sad ...
i don't think it has anything to do with not caring. That's my point. i'm pretty sure Hillary would care if she lost and thought she may have been cheated. Obama, i'm sure cares, but is not in a position to really throw a fit about it. Kucinich, on the other hand, is in the perfect position to chalenge it on the grounds of maintaining integrity. He has nothing to gain or lose. i've already said i respect kucinch for his stance on this issue. Its costing him some money and its obvious he is doing it for the right reasons. Now were Kucinich in Obama's place, i doubt he would do it.
well ... that's my point ... political strategy taking precedence over the legitimacy of your democracy ...