rjung, I still can’t think of a thread you’ve started that offered a fool-proof plan for elections. Can you link to the thread you started on that subject?
If that is the only conclusion you can come to, you need to have that head-wound reexamined.
I wasn’t aware I was obligated to provide one. But give me the grant and I’ll bang out a preliminary requirements proposal for ya.
I never know how I should respond when Brutus attacks – it’s like being assaulted by damp tissue paper.
Airman, I don’t even address the specific subject of Diebold. What matters to me is that there be a reliable paper trail that will allow for the recounts that are surely to come in close states no matter who wins.
Considering the state of the nation today, the decisions that were contested by both parties in 2000, the 5-4 decision of the SCOTUS regarding that election, it would behoove us to take every step possible in every state to insure a fair and certifiable election.
I do not understand why these concerns are not being addressed more “out there.” That is probably one of the reasons that the issue is brought up more and more often in here.
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that you and other fair-minded people of all parties would cry foul at any attempt at rigging.
I believe that rjung is also one of those fair-minded people; he has a specific concern about Diebold’s role based on what has been said and done in the past. That doesn’t mean that he would turn a blind eye if there were evidence that a Democrat with similar power and similar claims and a similar record was in a position to rig an election.
I agree with almost nothing you post. Hell, if you told me the sky was blue, I’d go outside to confirm it. But, in fairness, I’ve tried to see things from your point of view. I have. But this response shows you’re just using the Diebold thing as a reason to spew invective.
If you feel so strongly about Diebold being evil and unfair, I insist you tell us a better way of doing things. So far, every system I’ve seen and heard about has flaws. But you seem to think Diebold is somehow inherently evil and unfair.
So what is the best way? You seem such an expert on voting systems, how would you propose we conduct elections?
No expert here, but conducting them fairly would appear to be a good start. As in not having known Republican boosters in charge of computerized voting systems that can be easily hacked.
Would that irk you terribly?
Did you even read the post from me you quoted? Maybe you can answer it in another post, because this one didn’t do it. It’s little more than a post-count booster. How would you propose we hold a fair election? :dubious:
What have we been using before? Are you saying we never had a fair election till these new gizmos came out?
Diebold, Diebold. Better that people know about it than not, it’s an important topic and worthy.
From my perspective, if you don’t see anything wrong with the Diebold system, it’s simply because you A) really want Bush to get elected but B) can’t be bothered with the details of whether or not that happens legally and fairly.
Bruce: rjung, STFU about Diebold. Start a thread about it, quit the driveby shit.
rjung: Why do you hate democracy?
Right on.
Any comment about my points, rjung?
You’ve got to be kidding me- when confronted with evidence that you’re continually posting the same shit over and over and over to different threads, your response is to claim that the person who pointed it out must “not believe in democracy”- :rolleyes: . This has little to do with Diebold itself and everything to do with net etiquette. We’re well aware of your feelings on this subject and, unless you have anything new or susbstantial to say, STFU. I don’t like the Diebold machines but you don’t see me shitting all over a dozen different threads because of it.
Will you people please stop picking on rjung and his Diebold obsession?
At least it’s a break from his maniacal “The right-wing media/talk radio are penetrating my tinfoil hat” obsession, which has resulted in endless posts and drivebys,
Gaack.
Ad nauseum.
If being concerned about the fairness and accuracy of our nation’s elections is a crime, then let me be found guilty, halleujah!
I have started threads on the topic. And you’ll doubtlesssly continue to bitch about those, too.
Not really. I agree the numbers are inconclusive, which is why I don’t make much of a fuss about them nowadays. I still find the correlation between “surprise upsets” and the use of electronic voting machines to be suspicious, however.
Pardon me for being more concerned about the issue than you, then.
Rjung has almost 10,000 freaking posts and you dig up a dozen or so in which he says the same thing? Whoop-de-fucking-do!
We need to repeat ourselves because it appears to be the only way to get through to all your thick skulls. Kind of like when Bush convinced half the friggin country SH and AQ where in bed.
Thanks Elvis
You want to get pissed at someone for repeating something a million times? Get mad at Bush!
What makes you say that? Because I don’t post “Diebold is an evil Repug plot!!!” in every other thread?
Once again, this isn’t about Diebold or your level of concern, it’s about message board etiquette, pure and simple. Read through the links in the OP, there’s very little that you’re bringing to the table in 'em.
What do I win? A pack of gum? A beer? Come on, I get something.