Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
taken out of context, it's an easy shot to pull quotes about problems with the validity and security of an electronic voting method (which has since been employed in Ohio, despite what occurred in 2004) and conflate them with the OP's concern with voting irregularities in 2004 that he didn't link to Diebold.
|
Then why is Diebold mentioned 10 times on the first page of this thread?
Thread titled: Ohio Ballot Recount...
Most popular word in beginning of thread: Diebold
Why even bring up diebold when talking about an ohio ballot recount if diebold wasn't even used in that election?
I can think of 2 reasons to bring it up. One, ignorance. Just plain assuming diebold had to be behind the whole thing, but never really looking into it and see if thats the case. Two, dishonesty. Knowing that other people aren't going to double check and will just take your word for it if you make it sound like diebold was behind it, even if you never say that explicitly. Drop "diebold" a half a dozen times and enough irrelevant articles into the discussion and people will begin to associate the two together. Diebold=election fraud in ohio.
Too bad everyone now knows diebold had nothing to do with the 2004 ohio results...
