General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

148. Well, those who worked with him in Congress, disagree with you.

Tue Mar 13, 2012, 01:13 PM

Mar 2012

When you say 'ineffective', what do you mean? The number of bills he got passed? Because if that is the case he was as effective and more so, than most members of Congress. Definitely more effective than Marcy Kaptur.

According to Barney Frank and Alan Grayson, he was very effective which is why they endorsed him. Congress isn't just about passing bills, and we would be far better off if many of the bills passed had NOT passed. Which is also the job of a member of Congress, to try to stop bad bills from passing.

Anyone who speaks out against the issues DK speaks out against, IS a threat. Telling the truth about, eg, the agreement signed with the Iraqi government got him threatened with sanctions in Congress. The truth is dangerous to those who lie constantly to the American people.

I'll take Barney Frank's and Grayson's assessment of his worth in Congress over anyone else's.

But having said that, no one thinks the election was stolen or that even if those numbers are wrong, that he would have defeated Marcy Kaptur in that area. That wasn't the point of the OP.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

151 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Kaptur Defeats Kucinich 94% to 4% on 100% Unverifiable E-Vote Systems in Toledo, OH? [View all] BradBlog Mar 2012 OP

Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #1

Nothing to see here folks,just move along. former9thward Mar 2012 #2

Welcome to DU! sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #3

Wow think Mar 2012 #4

Those numbers don't look the least bit fishy to you? SomethingFishy Mar 2012 #7

No. Tell me: did you think it was "fishy" when Obama won 92% of the DC vote in 2008, NYC Liberal Mar 2012 #12

Whether the numbers are accurate or not they can't be verified. think Mar 2012 #16

I asked you this question below but you might have missed it. Were they running against other sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #17

Looks like it was the presidential election not primary: think Mar 2012 #18

That's exactly what I said. NYC Liberal Mar 2012 #19

Well, that's very different. These were two Democrats and I know for me, eg, it was a difficult sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #22

Republicans vote in a general election. jeff47 Mar 2012 #27

Well his district obviously disagrees with you. He has been reelected repeatedly as she has sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #29

Sorry, I decided to change my point and edited while you were responding. jeff47 Mar 2012 #30

Okay, no problem. I know Marcy Kaptur is very popular in her district. sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #32

It Was The Voters Of Ohio That Were Responsible... KharmaTrain Mar 2012 #109

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but DC is always jsmirman Mar 2012 #62

Those numbers were vs Republicans. Which would seemingly make such a margin NYC Liberal Mar 2012 #20

Thanks, actually I think that it is more strange in a district that is so Democratic to have numbers sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #25

I agree with you about the verification. NYC Liberal Mar 2012 #28

I agree and I am sure even if there were errors it would not change the results. sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #31

In the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary DK only got 2.7 percent of Lucas County onenote Mar 2012 #113

see my experience in post #45 hfojvt Mar 2012 #49

90% of Democrats do not agree anywhere on anything. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #87

Obviously they can, because they just did. NYC Liberal Mar 2012 #92

Why would they even bother trying to fix a vote in DC? DCKit Mar 2012 #41

That's exactly my point: Obama, Kerry, and Gore all won over 90% with no "fixing" of the vote. NYC Liberal Mar 2012 #53

Thank you - having lived in DC for the last four years jsmirman Mar 2012 #60

Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #46

Democrats at 90% in D.C. Yes, that is very believable. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #86

Just like this is quite believable. NYC Liberal Mar 2012 #90

You might be right, BUT tkmorris Mar 2012 #8

What a powerful, convincing argument... Junkdrawer Mar 2012 #9

What was the total votes cast in the district? Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #5

Yes, I am from Toledo ellie Mar 2012 #6

But has she ever, or has anyone ever other than Saddam Hussein, won by this kind of margin before? sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #13

Dennis has done even worse in Lucas County in the past onenote Mar 2012 #116

Of course. KamaAina Mar 2012 #130

Don't forget Dennis with 2.7 percent in Lucas County onenote Mar 2012 #131

You are wrong. Mumble Mar 2012 #23

It's a semi-closed primary frazzled Mar 2012 #52

This message was self-deleted by its author think Mar 2012 #10

Ya know, Brad, early on in the e-voting debate, I told everyone that, sooner or later, results... Junkdrawer Mar 2012 #11

And, sadly... BradBlog Mar 2012 #35

The insiders who worked the issue hard got disabused of the Dem vs Rep nature of the problem.... Junkdrawer Mar 2012 #38

Democratic candidates have consistently won 85-90% of the vote in DC in presidential elections. NYC Liberal Mar 2012 #14

Are those primary numbers? sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #15

See my reply (#20) NYC Liberal Mar 2012 #21

This is DC. It makes Manhattan and Brooklyn look like Right Wing enclaves jsmirman Mar 2012 #66

East Cleveland dsc Mar 2012 #93

Republican registration is only 7% in D.C. former9thward Mar 2012 #96

I would wonder if those numbers were tallied via an unverifiable e-vote machine... LanternWaste Mar 2012 #118

Was there an exit poll? Vattel Mar 2012 #24

Without any other evidence, all this is is "big number!!!" jeff47 Mar 2012 #26

Since there is no way to verify the vote, there is no reason EFerrari Mar 2012 #33

BULLFUCKING SHIT, if you read the link it's the machines have a voter-verified paper audit trail. joshcryer Mar 2012 #34

"Dip their pinky finger in purple unwashable ink"??? BradBlog Mar 2012 #36

I have one Brad. If there is a question about the result of an election sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #37

Yes, that has happened and has been done before. Ask for a public records request. joshcryer Mar 2012 #40

Good luck with that! BradBlog Mar 2012 #56

3506.18 Electronic voting machine - verified paper audit trail as official ballot in recount. joshcryer Mar 2012 #63

"in recount" BradBlog Mar 2012 #69

If a voter verified paper audit trail is made available to the public = FOIA joshcryer Mar 2012 #72

An unsatisfying answer for ya... BradBlog Mar 2012 #55

Voter verified paper audit trails shall be preserved in the same manner and for the same time period joshcryer Mar 2012 #67

Thanks, that's what I thought. sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #70

You can request an audit. Please do. But then you wouldn't get hits on your site... joshcryer Mar 2012 #39

What the hell is wrong with you, dude? And why are YOU posting false information?? BradBlog Mar 2012 #57

100% unverifiable = FALSE, dishonest joshcryer Mar 2012 #61

So you continue to defame? Really??? BradBlog Mar 2012 #71

I have already established that you are posting misinformation. Call me a liar all you want. joshcryer Mar 2012 #73

Simple Watson. Kaptur supporters knew how to read and use computers. nt bluestate10 Mar 2012 #42

and once again the uppercrust dems are arrogant jerks fascisthunter Mar 2012 #48

oh, Democrats are hacking machines now? PeaceNikki Mar 2012 #43

An audit would reveal any hacks. joshcryer Mar 2012 #44

No, it wouldn't. (Or, at least there is no guarantee of that) BradBlog Mar 2012 #59

The audit trial is considered paper ballots in the event of auditing. joshcryer Mar 2012 #65

WRONG. AGAIN. DUDE. Jesus... BradBlog Mar 2012 #74

You're the one contending that something fishy is going on, yet all your evidence is... joshcryer Mar 2012 #76

To quote the noted computer security expert David Dill-- eridani Mar 2012 #105

Why would you assume Democrats? quakerboy Mar 2012 #51

Who said Democrats -- or anyone -- is hacking the machines? BradBlog Mar 2012 #58

Your question was false, misleading, disinformation. joshcryer Mar 2012 #64

A question can be "false" and "disinformation"? Really? BradBlog Mar 2012 #75

"question about the seemingly implausible and certainly unverifiable results" joshcryer Mar 2012 #78

You may have trouble with the definition of the word "false" BradBlog Mar 2012 #99

What evidence have you provided? joshcryer Mar 2012 #102

so far it looks like you are losing this argument.. snooper2 Mar 2012 #115

I disagree. Can you expand on that? sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #125

For example, notice how BradBlog hasn't responded to post #102 snooper2 Mar 2012 #126

Actually Brad has responded to almost all of joshcryer's posts most of which sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #127

I guess we have our own opinions :) snooper2 Mar 2012 #128

True, but opinions are not worth very much, yours or mine. sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #136

I totally disagree. girl gone mad Mar 2012 #150

It was not false and it was not unclear. I understood what sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #77

I have spoken for myself and I have yet to be refuted. joshcryer Mar 2012 #80

No one insulted you. sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #82

Yes you did. "make sure to be clear that it is YOU who does not understand what he posted" joshcryer Mar 2012 #83

It is only YOUR opinion that the 'OP is not giving correct information' and it is my sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #88

I have established that the information is wrong. It is not 100% unverifiable. joshcryer Mar 2012 #89

You have "established" nothing of the kind. But you HAVE defamed me with your misinformation. BradBlog Mar 2012 #98

There has been no audit. Why don't you go do one? joshcryer Mar 2012 #100

it's not implausible in my experience hfojvt Mar 2012 #45

Oh no... the centrist dems didn't push him out fascisthunter Mar 2012 #47

I personally think Venezuela's system is cleaner than our own. joshcryer Mar 2012 #68

Luckily, citizen oversight has nothing to do with what JoshCryer "thinks"... BradBlog Mar 2012 #79

I've yet to be convinced. See, the poll workers, in the end, are the weakest link. joshcryer Mar 2012 #81

Yes, Very Probable ISUGRADIA Mar 2012 #50

I like Kucinich as much as the next guy but I'm sick of all this conspiracy shit.... FLAprogressive Mar 2012 #54

I've totally lost all faith in both the voting and political system. Zorra Mar 2012 #84

I haven't had confidence in the integrity of the vote since 2000. AtomicKitten Mar 2012 #85

I wonder how many here that are making uninformed comments have actually been to Toledo. SmellyFeet Mar 2012 #91

It might have a little bit to do with this dsc Mar 2012 #94

Well duh! We've all been here long enough to know that if my preferred candidate loses, tritsofme Mar 2012 #95

I agree with the alerter - conspiracy theory. Locking. HopeHoops Mar 2012 #97

Whatever convinced you to unlock it is, imo, peer pressure. joshcryer Mar 2012 #101

It may be verifiable, but is is never verified unless you actually do an audit eridani Mar 2012 #106

No vote is "verified" unless the vote is handled by mutual observers. joshcryer Mar 2012 #122

Utter nonsense. Lucas County has touchscreen DREs, which can never be verified. eridani Mar 2012 #132

Circles. Going in circles. VVAT = verifiable. Period. joshcryer Mar 2012 #133

You still haven't explained why we should trust the output of any proprietary software eridani Mar 2012 #137

No where did I say that. joshcryer Mar 2012 #138

Please reread post # 55 eridani Mar 2012 #142

I did not say it was unhackable. joshcryer Mar 2012 #144

Not at all. Unless you are suggesting that forensic analysis of programs is routine eridani Mar 2012 #145

Thank you: sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #135

You're entitled to your opinion, but it wasn't peer pressure - it was a careful review of the thread HopeHoops Mar 2012 #108

To get a result like this, two things needed to happen: Junkdrawer Mar 2012 #103

Issues be damned, name recognition ALONE should have been, what, 5% to 15%.... Junkdrawer Mar 2012 #107

Why would name recognition matter onenote Mar 2012 #114

I'm told there are some people out there who actually don't follow issues.... Junkdrawer Mar 2012 #117

Even if they didn't follow issues, anyone showing up to vote in a Democratic primary in Lucas County onenote Mar 2012 #119

Let's say 10% of primary voters voted purely on name recognition and not issues... Junkdrawer Mar 2012 #120

It is sad that people just refuse to realize that outside of his district in Ohio, Ikonoklast Mar 2012 #104

This is ridiculous. Jennicut Mar 2012 #110

Part of the problem with this redistricting Nikia Mar 2012 #111

Actually, DK did better in Lucas County this year than in 2004 onenote Mar 2012 #112

Do you have a source for that? I tried in vain to find it. joshcryer Mar 2012 #121

Here you go onenote Mar 2012 #123

What do you want? A perfect recording of actual votes? Now that's plain silly! Better Believe It Mar 2012 #124

Would we be having this debate if the vote in Lucas County was 75/25 for Kaptur? onenote Mar 2012 #129

Of course not. joshcryer Mar 2012 #134

If you knew anything about Ohio politics you would know that DK is NOT beloved in any WCGreen Mar 2012 #139

Thanks. I was informed of that, and his attacks in Toledo. joshcryer Mar 2012 #141

No, unfortunately. And THAT is the real threat to election integrity. eridani Mar 2012 #151

K & R! lonestarnot Mar 2012 #140

The Shadow Government views Kucinich as a threat Ter Mar 2012 #143

are you seriously suggesting that Kucinich really defeated Kaptur? onenote Mar 2012 #146

Jesus, DK is no threat to anyone... WCGreen Mar 2012 #147

Well, those who worked with him in Congress, disagree with you. sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #148

I've known DK personally since 1994 when he had his comback... WCGreen Mar 2012 #149