Election fraud: Only PEACE CANDIDATE sabatoged.
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
United States
August 14, 2007 12:47pm CST
The Iowa straw poll recently held by the retardicans holds absolutely no legal standing. Thus it is doubtful that vote fraud there was a crime. That said, since it did probably happen, which candidate was the primary victim? Ron Paul, the only peace candidate for the retardicans.
Here's some more information.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_vote_fraud.html
Don't expect much as to other news about this. It was not a legal election and the retardican leadership opposes Ron Paul. Still, I hate to see the only man standing for honesty and the constitution be cheated.
What do you say?
3 people like this
3 responses
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
7 Nov 07
The retardicans and dumbocrats richly deserve to be mocked relentlessly by everyone.
2 people like this
@MntlWard (878)
• United States
19 Aug 07
I've heard a bit more about this thing in Iowa:
The article questioned the number of people who appeared to have paid $35 to vote in the poll, yet chose not to vote. It turns out that candidates were paying the money for some of those people to show up. Some of the voters were even bussed to the polls at candidate expense.
I wouldn't rule out electronic vote tampering, but it seems there was a lot of vote buying going on, as well.
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
19 Aug 07
It seems that just because there are now high tech modern ways to steal an election does not mean the old ways still do not work.
1 person likes this
@MntlWard (878)
• United States
15 Aug 07
Diebold gets into primary vote-rigging too? Hooda thunkit?
A lot of folks (me included) think Diebold had a big hand in our getting another four years of George Bush in 2004. They reputedly promised to deliver Ohio to the Republicans, though I can't find a major news source that confirms that statement.
www.blackboxvoting.org should have a lot of info about Diebold and other electronic vote-counters.
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
15 Aug 07
The link you posted is a good one. Thanks, for posting it. I've posted it previously here:
http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1241088.aspx
In this post I take the position that eliminating election fraud would reduce the number and severity of wars as well as reducing crime.
This concept seems to be too much for most people to understand, but I am still convinced it is correct as it is simple, direct, and honest. This is the explanation.
Most people really do not want war. If the will of the people was really expressed in elections (as it would if there was no fraud) there would only be defensive wars against aggressors, but almost no nation would ever be an aggressor if the will of their people was acted upon. Hence, eliminate election fraud, eliminate most war.
1 person likes this
