Jump to content

You've got to be kidding me


ydoaPs

Recommended Posts

If Obama's family bought the voting machines in swing states, there wouldn't be enough court times in the next 10 years for all of the lawsuits and it would be all that is on FOX all the time.

 

Tagg Romney is buying up polling machine companies that service swing states. Because THAT's the integrity of the Romney campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spot on! Protection of voting rights should be safeguarded, absolute and fool proof. Here are a few links to start with.

 

Electronic voting machines

http://www.politicolnews.com/tagg-romney-invested-in-ohio-electronic-voting-machines/#ixzz29lT2TX55

 

Ohio’s use of electronic voting machines

http://www.peoplesdefender.com/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=83&ArticleID=122331

 

States that use electronic voting machines

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/State_by_State_Voting_Equipment

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just when I thought I couldn't get any more disheartened about the state of the political process in the US...

Yes, it’s a little scary that we have to worry about such skullduggery, but people of ill intent can do a lot of mischief if allowed to go unfettered. I’m sure many safeguards have been built into these voting machines since they come out some years back, but caution is never wasted when seeking honesty and truth. Maybe I’m gullible but somehow I can’t imagine Mitt wanting to have a single dirty vote to be counted in his behalf. As an entrepreneur, I hope Tagg makes a bundle by buying into this company. Wish I had a few bucks to do likewise. Because? Eventually we will all be using these machines.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I’m gullible but somehow I can’t imagine Mitt wanting to have a single dirty vote to be counted in his behalf.

 

 

I'm going to call BS on you here, Mr "You didn't build that". If Obama knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy whose third cousin's friends boss was thinking about buying the machines, more than likely you'd be on here screaming fowl play.

 

Think about it this way. It's illegal to purchase lottery tickets from a place where a person you know or to whom you are related is employed. And the lottery numbers are completely out of control of the employees. Right before the election, the son of one of the candidates starts buying up companies providing the machines for swing states, and you want us to give him the benefit of the doubt? Especially after Romney/Ryan keep setting the records for most lies in the shortest amount of time? Why on God's green Earth should we just give them the benefit of the doubt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to call BS on you here, Mr "You didn't build that". If Obama knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy whose third cousin's friends boss was thinking about buying the machines, more than likely you'd be on here screaming fowl play.

 

Think about it this way. It's illegal to purchase lottery tickets from a place where a person you know or to whom you are related is employed. And the lottery numbers are completely out of control of the employees. Right before the election, the son of one of the candidates starts buying up companies providing the machines for swing states, and you want us to give him the benefit of the doubt? Especially after Romney/Ryan keep setting the records for most lies in the shortest amount of time? Why on God's green Earth should we just give them the benefit of the doubt?

If you are explaining this video, you're right.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Obama's family bought the voting machines in swing states, there wouldn't be enough court times in the next 10 years for all of the lawsuits and it would be all that is on FOX all the time.

 

Tagg Romney is buying up polling machine companies that service swing states. Because THAT's the integrity of the Romney campaign.

 

I'm confused to how owning a company that makes polling machines equate with corruption with the voting process. It's odd certainly but not definitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused to how owning a company that makes polling machines equate with corruption with the voting process. It's odd certainly but not definitive.

Hart Intercivic makes VOTING MACHINES:

 

http://www.hartinter...c.com/pages/154

 

 

Managing elections is a big job. Public attention has become focused on elections more than ever. Citizens want to be assured that the election process cannot be compromised and their vote is counted accurately.

 

Consequently, election officials face the spotlight while working to train staff and poll workers, respond to changes in election law, and ensure the integrity and security of elections. Every election presents unique challenges, so what can you do to keep up?

 

Hart has the election management software, voting systems, and support you need to ensure success. Our proven best practices and knowledge of election procedures are reflected in everything we do from programming ballots to recording and tallying votes to training election workers and staff.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oops typo. I meant Voting. Again,where is the evidence of foul play?

You've got to be kidding me!

 

This is one of the cornerstones of democracy. At some point the process should seen as above reproach. Election irregularities erode the confidence of the voters, and cause fewer people to be interested in taking part in the process as a whole. If you suspect the vote is being rigged, why bother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screams about Bill Ayers and Acorn and "Chicago style politics," but silence on this? The right epitomizes double standards and hypocrisy... They may not have a monopoly on it, but they've certainly cornered the market. :rolleyes:

 

h/t John C for the clever turn of phrase

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oops typo. I meant Voting. Again,where is the evidence of foul play?

Some of the objections to these machines is that there will be no evidence if the machines have been rigged. At the very least the issue is the appearance of impropriety and the appearance of integrity of the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the objections to these machines is that there will be no evidence if the machines have been rigged. At the very least the issue is the appearance of impropriety and the appearance of integrity of the process.

I remember the irregularities from the 2000 and 2004 elections, and how we were looking for machines that were above reproach. The best one I saw took the electronically generated ballot, printed it and held the copy behind a clear security screen for the voter to verify as accurate, then dropped it directly into a secure box. The cost was right, the paper trail gave us something to check against the electronic record, it seemed ideal. And they decided to go with Diebold, a machine they proved could be hacked through vulnerabilities in the Microsoft OS everyone knew was at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe the Romneys are just trying to make a buck off the political process (state government will be spending a lot of money on these machines). That would be bad enough even without allegations of trying to control the political process.

 

I agree that it appears improper and its a poor move if the Romney's campaign has anything to do with it, but I don't just see the hysteria that's been over the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the United Nations can help.

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-elections-will-have-un-monitors-2012-10

 

The United Nations-affiliated Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will deploy election monitors around the United States on Election Day in an effort to monitor conservative groups for voter suppression or intimidation at polling places.

 

Led by Ambassador Daan Everts, the election monitors will include a total of 57 international experts and observers — 13 placed in Washington, D.C. and 44 placed at polling places on other cities.

 

The monitors, from Europe and central Asia, will not limit their observation to noting possible violations of U.S. and state election law. They will also “assess these elections for compliance with international obligations and standards for democratic election” and “conduct comprehensive monitoring of the media,” according to a press release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.