for me,
us vs. them = superior vs. inferior
but, yeah, gangs are gangs.

Diebold. They haven't fixed the old problems but they have found some new problems. Sequoia and Hart Intercivic produced similar results.

There are inherent flaws in the concept and the need for an election.

Fairness is objective and fleeting.

It can never work. The law of permutations guarantees it to failure.

It'll keep a lot of people from rioting, though.

Were taught to believe in Santa Claus, the easter Bunny, The tooth Fairy....
no wonder people are so willing and eager to believe in the broken system.

quote:

the researchers write that "virtually every important software security mechanism is vulnerable to circumvention."

I still don't understand what was wrong with paper ballots.

The elections were too difficult to manipulate using paper ballots.

Oh yeah.

quote:

Originally posted by Boogerhead:
The elections were too difficult to manipulate using paper ballots.

You got that right. For many years the American public has had a fifth grade reading level.

Although the reading level of voters is probably a bit higher.

So by "going digital", the powers that be can take the election manipulation process to a high enough level that the average voter feels confused, shocked and awed in fact, and totally incapable of understanding just how his vote is being screwed with.

I forgot to mention that the volunteers who man the poling places, no matter what their party affiliation, tend to be an educated and honest civic minded lot. They would notice in a heartbeat any irregularities in paper balloting.

This seems to be the right place for this:

"Freedom is slavery about authority"

quote:

You have free speech so I can be heard.

!?

"You have free speech so I can be heard".

Rudy cant fail! Spoken like a true Camorrista.

We live in interesting times.

I doubt highly Bush wants to do a 3rd term. This job is starting to bother him. Nobody likes him and he no longer gets to bask in the glow of a worshipful crowd. Also, it's easy to say he will, but *how*? He's already blown the Son of Pearl Harbor 'stand by me' card.

Diebold issues will increasingly become vulnerable from all sides: the machines can be hacked, and hackers are not known for their loyalty to the Republican party.

I anticipate Romney getting the Repub nod because he's just the kind of mealy-mouthed compromise a throughly demoralized buncha losers can agree on, and he's good-looking and a nice Mormon family man.

I believe (with a big chunk of biased hope, of course) that Obama will get the Dem nod, will step into the White House, and if he won't pull a Carter and let himself be daggered from behind by a zillion rats, will be assassinated, perhaps in some unique way worthy of a neo-cyberpunk espionage thriller.

quote:

Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:

I anticipate Romney getting the Repub nod because he's just the kind of mealy-mouthed compromise a throughly demoralized buncha losers can agree on, and he's good-looking and a nice Mormon family man.

I believe (with a big chunk of biased hope, of course) that Obama will get the Dem nod, will step into the White House, and if he won't pull a Carter and let himself be daggered from behind by a zillion rats, will be assassinated, perhaps in some unique way worthy of a neo-cyberpunk espionage thriller.

You know, a couple months ago I would have said Romney didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell, but he is strong in all the right places - namely, the three early states. Of course, he also reminds me of a Republican John Kerry. Hoping he will hold it together long enough to dishearten the evangelicals, and then implode in the general.

I would like to believe that Obama can make it work, but I can never underestimate the democrats' ability to pick the "safe" candidate who turns out to be utterly unelectable (Senator Clinton, I'm looking at you.)

From an article in TimesOnline, apparently. Reposted on crooksandliars.com:



Interesting.

Very.

Please keep in mind that The Political Compass is a universal tool, reflecting the full spectrum of political thought, and applicable to all democracies.

Meh. I guess they're trying to explain why almost none of the Democrats are on the left of the dividing line. Personally, I see no reason why any of those people would be. Kucinich and Gravel are well to the right of "typical social democrat[s] in a European context".

It's a pity they don't have more detailed analysis of how they organised this. I can only guess that Ron Paul's "pro-life" position is what's bumped him above the middle line, despite his other extreme libertarian positions.

Still, there's never a bad time for pointing out the rightward skew of US politics.

quote:

Originally posted by Gromit:
From an article in TimesOnline, apparently. Reposted on crooksandliars.com:



Interesting.

"I am so 'disliking this'," she said, politely.

Not to sound defeatist or anything, but we're doomed.

Wow. Kucinich scores more libertarian than Ron Paul.

We live in interesting times.

quote:

I would like to believe that Obama can make it work, but I can never underestimate the democrats' ability to pick the "safe" candidate who turns out to be utterly unelectable (Senator Clinton, I'm looking at you.)

I know. Kerry was so *electable*.

I think Obama is positioning himself well for the seemingly inevitable shouting match with Iran. He has a firm grip on the Big Stick one is popularly expected to wield when Talking Softly.

Hillary will inherit the flippy-flop label, I think. Edwards is decidedly a wild card in this thing. Which is intersting, since even 10 years ago, an Obama would be wild card by default because of his skin color.