|
You like rightwing Bushite corporations 'counting' all our votes with 'TRADE SECRET' programming code, and virtually no audit/recount control?
ANYTHING can happen in such a non-transparent system. These corps have the EASY capability to shave points off a candidate's mandate and to entirely reverse elections, to choose our parties candidates and then to trounce them in the general election, if they turn out to be too uppity, or they happen to want that Puke quite a lot. How would they use that power in this situation? For a long time, it was a tossup to me which Dem frontrunner was the corp candidate, the one these rightwing corps would favor--Clinton or Obama--and I considered that both of them might be (since the strongest anti-corp, and anti-war candidates had been aced out). Now I'm of a mind that, if this great, non-transparent power over the vote count was used in the Dem primaries, they would use it for her. One item that influenced my thinking was that Obama kept winning caucuses, and Hillary primaries. Caucuses are NOT COUNTED BY BIEBOLD AND BRETHREN. Another is the war issue. 70% of the American people against the war; Hillary for it, Obama against it, early and publicly, and, though he fudged the matter later (voted for war funding), he was the only one left standing who represented that huge American antiwar majority to ANY degree. He should therefore be winning, and winning big. He wasn't, in the early primaries; he was in the caucuses.
He did win SC, which was 100% non-transparent. So then I thought, what if the corps are just into PROLONGING this fight, and stirring up bitterness between to liberal groups: blacks vs. women? They would therefore let Obama win a state, at that point.
You can't look at our vote counting system, and who controls its, and its near total non-transparency, and not have such suspicions. There is also the likelihood that the corps have some concern about losing their "trade secret" vote counting power to a "Boston Tea Party" by the American people, against the voting machines, if the corps were to steal the November election from a hot, peoples' candidate like Obama, so what they may do is let him win but shave his mandate and maybe give him a difficult Congress--in order to limit any reform. That way, they preserve their power to dis-elect him in 2012, and bring in some more thieves and torturers.
So I'm interested in what Greg Palast has to say. He has been right on, the past, on election issues. Your post remind of anti-Chavez posts I've seen here at DU. He's nut. He's a dictator. He's a scumbag. Three-word "hit and run" posts with no information. Why do you think Greg Palast is a "nut."
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(54 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
