Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (8839)	11/4/2004 10:12:33 AM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Turnout was higher this election than 2000. 20 Million more votes were tallied, 20% more. As far as the actual returns being different than the exit polls?!? I'm not sure what to make of that? Was it diabold meddling? The exit pollsters have a very good track record over the years, but are sometimes wrong. It would seem odd if they were wrong only in states with electronic voting. That would indicate fraud.

To: sea_urchin who wrote (8839)	11/4/2004 12:12:55 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

off topic The problem with balloting is the ballots are secret. That's been the problem since day one. The person casting the vote has no way to ever go back and see it was counted as cast. I don't recall in my lifetime ever running across anyone unwilling to tell others how they voted. In this day and age, it would be fantastically simple to create a system where every voter has a registered account, to which they could log on to, in order to review their choices. Those accounts could also be publicly listed, under an anonymous identifier, in order for every person in the country to double check the totals. Vote fraud is hardly a new invention. Rigging the count is as old a concept as voting. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to view the system and see it is intentionally set up to allow fraud. IMO, that particular aspect doesn't come close to being the problem of the rigging which takes place before the votes are cast. At the start of this farce, Kerry was one of the least popular candidates in the field. For Bush to "win" under any circumstances required an "opponent" so unpopular, picking the lesser of two evils would be too close to call. Bush's record is so terrible a real opponent would have utterly destroyed him. This should have been an election where 90% of the population voted against the incumbent. The real issue is it would be virtually impossible to rig a landslide of that magnitude. The only real threat to the status quo in the early line up was Kucinich. Kucinich had an impeccable record of representing the people at every turn. Heads up against Bush, it wouldn't have taken long to establish the stark difference in character between the two candidates. What we got instead was a series of straw men who served no purpose other than to be knocked down at the proper time and place. At that point it became a simple matter of rigging the count by a few percentage points to set Bush up for another 4 years of treason against the people of this country. Kerry's intent was never to win, but to present a different slant on Bush doctrine, to weaken the will of the American public when he "lost". The fix was in before the votes were cast. Does it really matter that they system is set up to miscount votes when a real choice was never presented in the first place? In the final analysis, the responsibility to promote change rests with the people. It's our job to find and support persons who represent our interests, rather than sit quietly by while our choices are narrowed down to those who view us as milking cows. America needs a hero. Since neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any intention of ever presenting us with one, we're going to have to find one of our own. If we ever reach that stage, the only problem will be keeping him alive until election