Nice allegations, E-Sabbath, but I again say that with all this attention, if even one of these things was actually verifiable, don’t you think the courts would have taken action? Or are all the judges in these areas part of the grand GOP conspiracy?
Probably. Or they were just informed that their career would be ruined if they voted they ruled the “wrong” way, or that they would be made to “disappear” into some foreign torture chamber.
You know, claiming that people who have no problem with torture, murder, and kidnapping for political reasons wouldn’t stoop to hacking some voting machines is more than a little ridiculous.
Are you serious? You really think the GOP tells judges to vote the “right” way or they will be killed? And your evidence for this breathtaking assertion?
Please provide any evidence that the Republican Party tortures, murders, or kidnaps people for “political reasons.” Did I miss something? Has there been a spate of Democrats being kidnapped and tortured?
I would argue that the Republicans are in trouble because they have pursued the principled path of pushing preferred policies rather than playing it safe by enacting more popular measures. In fact, I have done so in post #14. In simplified terms, had they chosen more centrist policies they would be cruising to victory despite the Foley scandal.
Hey, someone from Cato said something that actually makes sense. Nice! Too bad it doesn’t fit our circumstances. As E-Sabbath points out, evidence that monkeying with the election machines has been produced even if it might not rise to the level of becoming indictable.
And as I pointed out to Cheesesteak, I’m not asking you to prove a negative. You made a positive assertion and can reasonably be expected to back it up. Simply pointing out that we can’t prove a conspiracy occured does not make the idea ridiculous. I’m hardly familiar with the gas pricing at all but with e-voting it seems we have means, motive, and opportunity.
Just my 2sense
So Karl Rove is therefore not a political genius. A political genuis embraces popular polices, and figures out ways to sell unpopular policies and make people love them. Political geniuses create political dynasties. They create lasting coalitions. They accomplish great things. Karl Rove is not a political genius, he’s a talented but stupid hack.
Franklin Roosevelt was a political genius. Bill Clinton was a political genius. Heck, even Ronald Reagan for all his faults was a near-genius because he sold unpopular polices and make people like them. Heck, Newt Gingrich could qualify. Or Lyndon Johnson, master of backroom armtwisting.
But Rove? Karl Rove got George Bush elected by the slimmest of margins, both times. Well, all that counts is getting elected, right? No, because what are you going to accomplish while you’re in office? George Bush has squandered his time in office and eviscerated the Republican party for a generation.
Republicans control both houses of Congress, so if your theory is true, they are alienating members of their own party, both in office and out. I’d call that “stupid” (unable and unwilling to compromise), not “principled.” The kind of bipartisanship you’re attempting to describe as populist and unprincipled is actually necessary in creating legislation - unless you’re a party that actually feels compromise is bad. Then you end up with exactly what we have today: a party that has done little to reach out to the other side, and thus isn’t even able to share the blame for its screwups.
What have the Republicans done that was unpopular-but-principled? Invading Iraq was very popular when it happened, and Iraq is their biggest problem. Maybe you could argue that staying there is unpopular, but I’d say there’s more to that than principle. The tax cuts were also popular, and I’m sure they still are (although the defecit isn’t). Opposing gay marriage is popular. Letting the assault weapons ban expire certainly popular with Republicans. The Katrina fuckups weren’t a policy decision, so they don’t count. I can’t think of anything Bush has done that he knew would be unpopular ahead of time. Maybe the Dubai thing, but that lasted about 15 seconds and has been totally forgotten. Congress alienated people with the Terri Schiavo fiasco, and Bush went along with it, but I don’t know if they thought people would hate that - certainly they thought they could keep her around to show to their base.
It actually applies quite nicely. There is no evidence to back up either of the above assertions.
No, there is evidence that the machines, under the right circumstances, could be hacked. There is also evidence that some machines malfunction and that some poll workers may not be properly trained. There is no evidence of any conspiracy to hack the machines to steal elections.
No, if someone is going to assert a theory, then that person must provide evidence of that theory. Pointing out that there is no evidence to support a theory is simply illustrating that this theory is groundless. If there is no evidence to back up a theory, then it must be rejected. Just because some people on this board think the GOP is so evil it could steal elections, manipulate gas prices, kidnap and torture judges, does not mean that these things actually happen. If you are going to tell me this does happen, then show me some evidence. Until someone does, then it’s ridiculous to put forward such theories.
Having worked with voting machines, the means aren’t as simple as Kennedy and his ilk claim. The motive is also not there. Republicans – just like Democrats – want to win elections. That does not mean they want to win them illegally.
Even if your assertion were true, until there is a crime, it means nothing. Hell, I have means, motive, and opportunity to kill my neighbor’s dog that is constantly barking. According to your logic, I should be investigated. The police, however, may want to know one key part of the story – is the dog dead? Since it lives and barks as we talk, there is no crime. When the dog is dead, they will tell you, then they’ll investigate. Similarly, when an election is hacked, then we’ll investigate. Since that hasn’t happened, it’s ridiculous to claim it has happened.
Here’s what I don’t get. Diebold machines are insecure and hackable, that is a fact. They can be hacked by Democrats or Republicans, that’s also a fact. So, why are Republicans so dead set against forcing Diebold to improve the security of the machines? Isn’t it at least a bit reasonable for people to think those against fixing a security hole are planning to exploit it? If a CFO were opposed to an audit, isn’t it reasonable to wonder if he has been cooking the books?
In my Democrat controlled county, we’ve kicked Diebold out and are going to be voting on paper ballots which get scanned in. Those with disabilities will vote on touch screens which produce a paper ballot for an audit trail. We’re kind of serious about fair elections - why aren’t Republicans?
No, under the right circumstances that is a fact. They aren’t simple to hack, they have to be left vulnerable to hacking.
Who says they are? Our Republican governor of Maryland has been quite vocal about his desire to get rid of Diebold machines.
No, not really. We have to see why they are opposed to fixing it. I suspect there is more to the story than what you are telling me.
To be fair, it’s not as if judges haven’t received death threats from the right before.
As for the whole “if something was wrong, why haven’t we seen any court cases?”, I believe that’s the whole point of Mr. Kennedy’s “qui tam” lawsuit – the one that all the right-wing apologists keep jeering…
A major chunk of the news, apparently :rolleyes: . Hello ? Abu Gharaib ? CIA “secret” prisons ? “Extraordinary rendition” ?
No, I’ve followed the news but I guess I missed the part where Democrats filled up Abu Gharaib and the secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe. Silly me, I thought that these prisons were filled with either Iraqis or suspected terrorists. I guess I was wrong and that they are instead filled with American political prisoners.
C’mon, Der Trihs, I would hope even you could see that these tactics are not being used for “political” reasons. No one is imprisoned for his or her political views in the U.S. The Republican Party is not targeting Democrats for jail. You agree about that, right?
What else? They’re certainly not being used to fight “terror.”
Yeah, that’s what I meant! I’d never be dumb enough to confoozle the skullduggery of the statehouse Republicans with the Congressional Republicans. Never!
That’s ridiculous. Whether or not you agree that they are achieving their goal, it is undeniable that their reason for existence is to fight terror or at least what the Administration perceives as terror. They are not there to jail judges who don’t toe the GOP line as Der Trihs seems to think.
!!! Cite?
I disagree, and I really don’t grok how intelligent people can believe this. The Republican maintains itself in power by a process, which in outline looks something like this:
-
Voters vote Republicans into office.
-
Once in office, Republicans give away enormous pork-barrel handouts to wealthy corporations.
-
The wealthy corporations that receive these benefits make enormous contributions to the Republican Party.
-
The Republican Party uses this money to run ads accusing the Democrats of spending too much (among other things).
-
Voters vote Republican in order to prevent the Democrats from spending all that money.
-
Republicans, in office for another term, give away more enormous pork-barrel handouts to wealthy corporations.
etc…
The cycle could go on indefinitely, but the idea that Republicans would deliberately throw an election just doens’t make sense. If they actually lost both houses, that would break the cycle at step 2, since the Pubs would no longer be able to hand out such huge amounts of money. Consequently they would bring in less money, and woud be in bad shape for the next election cycle. The Republican Party is completely dependent on its massive financial edge; if the two parties had equal spending money, the Democrats would pound the crap out of them.
Incorrect. I deny it; I don’t believe for one moment that the Administration cares even slightly about stopping terrorism. Quite the opposite, since terrorism is to their political benefit. The only reason for such tactics is political, and simple cruelty. And no, I do not consider it “ridiculous” to say the Republicans are motivated by cruelty. As supporters of conquest and torture, they are monsters, they are evil.
… … Wow.
Just wow.
I’d say more be this isn’t the right forum.
Yes, in modern America, “Supporting Torture is Bad” is a far left sentiment deserving shock and horror. :rolleyes: