IS THE ELECTION FIXED?

[pan6467]

Reading some of these posts has gotten me to wondering if the election isn't already fixed. Bush and Cheney are blatantly doing whatever they please and saying whatever they want, yet they act like they know they will win.

Perhaps this belongs on the paranoid thread, and if so Mods I applogize, but it boggles my mind how they feel they can get away with any one of these things let alone all of them

The Cheney/Scalia hunting trip

The incessant lieing about the war and destroying other countries leaders and alliances we have had for years

The way they won't testify about 9/11

The FCC going after Stern as soon as he pulls support from Bush

Haliburton

Carlyle

TIPS and having wanted postal workers spying on residents...... and when the Post Master General said "NO" they found a way to get rid of him. Or have people forgotten?

The whole Patriotic Act

The way Bush allowed Bin Laden's family to leave on 9/11 untouched

The list goes on, we have got to get this man out of here.

[shakran]

eh, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to fix it, but I don't think that the examples you've posted would require them to in order to win. Remember, the public forgets EVERYTHING unless it involves sex. Reagan came out of Irangate smelling like a rose. Bush has avoided so much flak I think he's getting the Teflon President from Reagan. Clinton, on the other hand, is STILL being lampooned as the guy that got a blowjob in the oval office. Never mind the fact that a blowjob didn't kill any soldiers, didn't violate the law (as Iran-Contra did on multiple levels), and didn't actually hurt the country. Doesn't matter, it involved sex, so we'll remember that until the world ends.

How many of you can recall the details of Iran Contra or even Watergate in the same clarity that you can recall Monicagate?

[Superbelt]

"committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
-Walden O'Dell CEO Diebold Inc

www.blackboxvoting.com

The problem is touch screen voting machines which are produced by Diebold and several other companies. Most of the companies don't produce a paper trail for the voter to verify their vote. The government also has no way to perform a manual recount. The companies actually REFUSE to provide support for a printer to be attached to their machines.

These machines have been proven to be faulty. Hell they run on a modified version of Microsoft Access. There have been several elections already where these machines were used and exit polling results were beyond the margin of error norm in discrepancies.
There have been problems with Diebold applying unauthorized patches before an election. These machines are vulnerable to hackers as well, as the machines connect to the internet to download patches and can also use the net to upload their election results. It wouldn't be too hard for someone to hack these and change results either as the source code and sample files were accidentally available over their ftp server for several months last year. They have not changed their software in response.

Many states are waking up to the reality of the problems diebold and others pose and are reverting to old voting methods because they won't provide their machines with verifiable paper trails.

Diebold and others like them are the single largest threat to the electoral process in this country.

[tecoyah]

With all that Bush and company are getting away with.....If they win, I am leaving the U.S. until they are out of office....I kid you not.Passport is ready, Canada is a good spot to watch the fall of American democracy.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by tecoyah
With all that Bush and company are getting away with.....If they win, I am leaving the U.S. until they are out of office....I kid you not.Passport is ready, Canada is a good spot to watch the fall of American democracy.

When should we start calling you Alec Baldwin?

[tecoyah]

Originally posted by onetime2
When should we start calling you Alec Baldwin?

ouch

Still, I prefer chicken little. The sky really is falling.

[djtestudo]

Just so everyone knows, those touch-screen voting machines are being instituted in Maryland by the Democratic supporters over the protests of the Republicans, due to those same issues.

[irateplatypus]

this definitely belongs on Tilted Paranoia.

if not that... then certainly Tilted Nonsense.

of course their rhetoric assumes they will win. showing doubt or worry is an unnecessary show of weakness. if you project any sense of doubt, then your campaign volunteers and voters will also doubt. i watched a documentary on presidential debates yesterday, there was a clip of a political rally where someone said "let me introduce to you, the next President of the United States... John Anderson!" (he ran against both Reagan and Carter in 1980).

you'll hear no different from the Kerry and Nader campaigns... heck, I've even heard it from Sharpton's people before.

[pan6467]

Originally posted by irateplatypus
this definitely belongs on Tilted Paranoia.

if not that... then certainly Tilted Nonsense.

of course their rhetoric assumes they will win. showing doubt or worry is an unnecessary show of weakness. if you project any sense of doubt, then your campaign volunteers and voters will also doubt. i watched a documentary on presidential debates yesterday, there was a clip of a political rally where someone said "let me introduce to you, the next President of the United States... John Anderson!" (he ran against both Reagan and Carter in 1980).

you'll hear no different from the Kerry and Nader campaigns... heck, I've even heard it from Sharpton's people before.

It has nothing to do with campaigning or what someone states. IT has everything to do with the fact he has done things that are overtly criminal for the president to do. It has everything to do with the scandals he allows his cabinet members to be involved in.

How can the Sec. of Educ. call the largest teachers Union Terrorists and be expected to deal with them fairly? Obviously he has animosity towards them and they towards him. Yet, nothing was done, why? No big move or appology to save Bush's face and help smooth over votes lost because of it.

What about lieing 3 times about the reason for war? Lieing to Congress (isn't that what the Right tried to fry Clinton on?) and the US people. Yet when faced with these lies they act like they aren't worried if the voters get mad. Why?

Confidence? Doubtful. Even so in a serious economic crisis, record deficits, massive tax cuts for the rich and a destruction of social/education services, a war that he has lied 3 times about, and so on, would be enough for any man to worry about his chances of being re-elected. So why isn't he? It's gotta be fixed or he has a big Oct.-Nov. surprise like oooo maybe Bin Laden, or Saddam coming out with some great revelation. (been awful quiet about Saddam lately hasn't Bush? I'd have thought this "evil" dictator would have been tried by now.)

I truly believe 1 of 3 things will happen we'll see a fixed election, some great action that proves "he is the greatest president ever and the war is hugely successful" a week or maybe even a month within the election or we'll see a terrorist action a week or so before the election and Bush declaring Martial Law and "postponing" them.

I just don't feel this election is going to be legit. Bush has too much to lose.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by pan6467
IT has everything to do with the fact he has done things that are overtly criminal for the president to do.

Statements like this are what drag your other arguments down. There has been no evidence of criminal action, no censure or impeachment hearings, no criminal cases whatsoever with regard to Bush administration actions.

Accusations with no basis in fact should not be part of any meaningful discussion.

[tecoyah]

Originally posted by onetime2
Statements like this are what drag your other arguments down. There has been no evidence of criminal action, no censure or impeachment hearings, no criminal cases whatsoever with regard to Bush administration actions.

Accusations with no basis in fact should not be part of any meaningful discussion.

You are correct.....no impeachment hearings, But there probably should be if we follow the guidelines set for the previous administration. Think about it.

Clinton faces impeachment for lying about sex acts.

Bush does not after lying about reasoning for WAR.

Clintons actions kill the reputation of an intern.

Bushs actions kill hundreds of Soldiers.

The media reports on a daily basis, the perverted actions of Clinton, "Wag the dog" becomes a common statement.

The media under-reports the possibly illegal actions of the Bush administration, and regardless of the "wag the dog" similarities(far closer in this case), the term is never used.

The only difference, obvious in this case. Republicans are in "COMPLETE" control of the government and, mostly control the media. Dangerous times, indeed.

[shakran]

But there's a difference, onetime. Clinton not only lied under oath (Bush has yet to be placed under oath) but he also EXPLICITLY lied. i.e. "I did NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."

Bush on the other hand was always careful to use a phrase like "we think" or "intelligence indicates" before every statement (especially statements to congress) justifying the war. i.e. "we believe Iraq has WMD's." In other words, he never said "Iraq has WMD's." He said that he believes based on evidence Iraq has WMD's. How are you gonna prove that he didn't believe that unless you get a confession from him?

PLUS, he got Congress to grant him the power to take unilateral military action long before he invaded Iraq - Congress wasn't in on the Iraq war declaration. IMHO this points to the fact that he was plotting this for a long time, and steadilly and systematically usurped our government's system of checks and balances so that he could realize his goal of getting Saddam, but it was all done legally.

The only area where we could impeach him is by accusing him of war crimes. The prisoners in Gitmo could be used there, as could his invasion of a country that was doing him no harm, but it's shaky legal ground at best.

No one would like to see him impeached more than I, but he's carefully arranged it so that impeachment isn't possible.

[Superbelt]

Clinton was also careful to use the words "Sexual relations" which by the actual definition didn't include oral sex.

From what I read most ethicists and lawyers questioned about it say that, though he was not totally forthcoming, it is questionable whether or not he committed perjury. And it would be almost impossible to convict him of it.

[pan6467]

You're right having Colin Powell hold a vial of anthrax before the UN saying Iraq has enough of this to kill millions of people,is not perjury, or a crime in anyway.

You're right lieing about SEX is far more important than lieing about why we send men and women into the throes of death for a war we have yet to have a true answer for.

[onetime2]

Interesting that I'm constantly being chastised by some on this board about "always pointing to Clinton" in response to Bush accusations (which in 99% of situations is completely untrue as I only mention him in response to others' examples using him) and yet I mention nothing about Clinton in this one and it's brought up. The two situations are completely different exactly for the reasons described by others, he was under oath and Bush and Powell weren't [edit] oh and the fact that there was evidence of Clinton's "sexual relations" [/edit]. Go ahead and claim that they're just avoiding being put under oath, but Clinton certainly didn't volunteer to testify, he was compelled to testify.

FWIW, shakran, I agree that there's no way to prove that Bush knowingly lied without knowing what he was thinking (I've made that point ad infinitum throughout these discusions), but just as you can't accuse him of lieing, he can't be accused of planning this for the same reasons. I applaud your phrasing of your argument that "in your opinion" he carefully planned this whole thing. If people couched these accusations in the same way as you there would be far more productive discussions I think.

[seretogis]

I'd like to take this time to speak out against subject lines with all caps. It does nothing but make the thread-poster look like a mouth-breather / Counterstrike-player. It also makes baby Jesus cry. Please stop. For the children.

As for the election being "fixed," yes, it is. Either Bush or Kerry will win, and no one else has a snowball's chance in hell of coming close or even getting one electoral vote. Both Democrats and Republicans will be struggling to maintain control of the system, by means of so-called "campaign finance reform" which scews everyone but themselves.

[mml]

Originally posted by seretogis
As for the election being "fixed," yes, it is. Either Bush or Kerry will win, and no one else has a snowball's chance in hell of coming close or even getting one electoral vote. Both Democrats and Republicans will be struggling to maintain control of the system, by means of so-called "campaign finance reform" which scews everyone but themselves.

Solid post and highly accurate.

Listen, this election is not fixed. I do not care for the Bush Administration, its general sense of arrogance and superiority and lack of (IMO) an effective economic or cogent foreign policy. I am frustrated and saddened that the 2000 election turned out the way it did. I truly believe the U.S. and in turn the world would be a much better place if Bush had not won, but he DID win - legally and legitimately. The fix is not on, if Bush wins a second term it will be John Kerry's fault for not running a better campaign, just like it is Gore's fault he lost.

And if Bush wins, you wont see me taking my bat and glove and going home (or to Canada) to pout. I will just step up my activism to try to curb any further damage to our ecomonic stability and foreign relations.

[smooth]

I actually think it will be the people's fault, not Kerry's. Specifically, my generation for not giving a shit about voting and our parents for placing their interests before their grandchildrens'.

I think those who keep voting on (to me) trivial (in terms of being outside the pervue of government) issues regarding homosexual marriages and abortion, but won't take action when it comes to economic and foreign policy issues are the ones that are driving this ship in the ground.

But I won't run to Canada to pout (too cold). I might go to Australia. I hope you don't see that as pouting, there isn't much more to be done here. You can step up your activism, I'm going to start paying into a retirement system that is actually going to be solvent when my time comes. How old will you be in 15 years (the newest projected date of SS insolvency)?

[shakran]

Originally posted by Superbelt
Clinton was also careful to use the words "Sexual relations" which by the actual definition didn't include oral sex.

From what I read most ethicists and lawyers questioned about it say that, though he was not totally forthcoming, it is questionable whether or not he committed perjury. And it would be almost impossible to convict him of it.

"tell the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth"

A lie of omission is still a lie.

Originally posted by pan6467
You're right having Colin Powell hold a vial of anthrax before the UN saying Iraq has enough of this to kill millions of people,is not perjury, or a crime in anyway.

You're right lieing about SEX is far more important than lieing about why we send men and women into the throes of death for a war we have yet to have a true answer for.

Back up a second. I'm not defending Bush. I think what he did is so much worse than what Clinton did that it's not even on the same measurement scale. All I'm saying is that, unfortunately, we can't impeach him yet because there isn't enough evidence - it's a situation where we KNOW the fucker lied, cheated, and manipulated the country, but we can't PROVE it.

BTW, they apparantly couldn't prove it with Clinton either, because he was impeached, but not removed from office.

[losthellhound]

The way Bush allowed Bin Laden's family to leave on 9/11 untouched

And this is a bad thing? Osama was and maybe still is the black sheep of the family. If they stayed in the country thier lives would in constant danger from vigilanties and people who are ignorant and want to spill blood.

[Tophat665]

Y'all know in how exceedingly low regard I hold George W. Bush and his gang of sycophants and handlers. Y'all know that I am willing to believe almost anything they say is a self serving lie or half truth.

I don't think they're quite ready to pull off something quite this brazen. Yet.

Do I think there will be electoral fraud? Oh sure. I think it will benefit both sides equally, which is the same as saying not at all.

Should the pressure be kept up on the touch screen manufacturers? Oh sure. They laid their cards on the table way too early when the president of Deiold promised Ohio to Bush. I can almost guarantee that, whatever the count in Ohio, it will be litigated Florida style. There should be a paper back-up. It's just common sense. In fact, the machines should be used for a preliminary result and then the paper be used for the actual count.

But I really don't think it will come down to fixing the election, and, if they do, I think this time the country grinds to a halt for a while while it gets fought out in the streets.

Originally posted by seretogis
I'd like to take this time to speak out against subject lines with all caps. It does nothing but make the thread-poster look like a mouth-breather / Counterstrike-player. It also makes baby Jesus cry. Please stop. For the children.

Now, normally I can be relied upon to disagree with everything that you post in this forum (though not on the TB. Yowza!), but this gets an Amen!

As for the election being "fixed," yes, it is. Either Bush or Kerry will win, and no one else has a snowball's chance in hell of coming close or even getting one electoral vote. Both Democrats and Republicans will be struggling to maintain control of the system, by means of so-called "campaign finance reform" which scews everyone but themselves.

Yeah, true enough, but the only way, historically, one has been able to get a third party into the system in any meaningful way is by killing off one of the other two when it has become moribund. I don't for instance, think much of the Whig ticket this year.

The role of a third party is not to win elections, but to focus attention on issues underserved by the major two parties. This is where the third parties have been failing. The only thing of note that has happened lately is the Greens running Nader in 2000, and that was so ill timed that it backfired. (To a lesser extent, Jesse Ventura as a Reform Candidate and <strike>The Librarians</strike>... <strike>Liberetrains</strike>... Anarchists running Howard Stern were both good moves, one of which even worked. A little.)

[MSD]

Until Diebold voting machines stop returning suspicious results, including victories of Republican candidates in local elections by a margin of exactly 18181 votes*, they shouldn't be trusted to tally up our presidentail votes. Any voting machine should have its source code publsihed, then hard-coded into machines after verification by professionals and a chance to be scrutinized by knowledgeable members of the public.

* http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16474

[mml]

Originally posted by smooth

But I won't run to Canada to pout (too cold). I might go to Australia. I hope you don't see that as pouting, there isn't much more to be done here. You can step up your activism, I'm going to start paying into a retirement system that is actually going to be solvent when my time comes. How old will you be in 15 years (the newest projected date of SS insolvency)?

I don't know your background or situation in life, but from this statement, yes I would file this under "pouting". In 15 years, I will be 50, and hopefully a long way away from Social Security. I am curious as to why you would say "there isn't much more to be done here". If you are truly opposed to what the Bush Administration stands for, then there is a plethora of issues to tackle. If you feel that your personal situation is more vital ( and I can't fault you for that) then I would say go ahead and join the ex-patriot population because clearly you are no patriot.

I am not trying to slam you, it just seems to me(someone who believes in the USA and can still admit we are far from perfect) that giving up on your country shows that you do not understand what our nation is all about. We are free, and freedom is the hardest thing you will every encounter. It means you have to allow people and ideas that you may or may not agree with. It also means you can work to change those ideas. I also allows you to remove yourself from the process. It is your choice, make it wisely, it will effect the rest of your life.