Skip to main content

View Diary: [Updated] Ohio to outlaw recounts and shield Diebold (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Supports NONE of the Claims... (none)
    ...made in this diary except one, and then only by following the implications even though they're not spelled out in the article.

    "Most people don't realize that this legislation, if passed by the senate next week, would make it virtually impossible for homeless folks to vote

    Not mentioned in the Toledo Blade article, but a fair inference to make based on the requirement to show ID before voting.

    would make it virtually impossible for groups to register large numbers of voters

    Toledo Blade article doesn't mention it.

    would eliminate oversight of voting machines

    Toledo Blade article doesn't mention it.

    and would cancel our right to challenge election results."

    Toledo Blade article doesn't mention it.

    But it also opens voter registration activists to partisan prosecution

    Toledo Blade article doesn't mention it.

    exempts electronic voting machines from public scrutiny

    Toledo Blade article doesn't mention it.

    quintuples the cost of citizen-requested statewide recounts and makes it illegal to challenge a presidential vote count or, indeed, any federal election result in Ohio

    Toledo Blade article doesn't mention it.

    So, I'm still waiting on something to support this diary other than a blog quoting the unreliable Bob Fitrakis.

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by Dana Houle on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 07:42:38 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Sheesh, you don't quit (4.00)
      do you? Hiding in the bushes taking pot shots at everyone. Why don't you go out and read it yourself and prove to us that the diary is wrong. You're the one questioning it.

      -4.25, -6.87: Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

      by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 09:24:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What? (none)
        It's not incumbent on the diarist to provide sound evidence of a point, it's the duty of the reader to do that work?

        I always love the inversion of intellectual responsibilty that prevails on these threads.  "I said this, and I don't have to prove anything, it's up to you to disprove what I just said."

        Sheesh...

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 09:51:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure it's the journalist (none)
          responsibility to provide proof. No one is doubting that BUT look at our mainstream media performance. They don't do their job so people here do it.

          You are not only calling out the diarist you are calling out anyone who provides what they think is relavant. I call that taking pot shots.

          There are even some here who call out a dKos diary and do the research to refute a point. What don't you do that?

          You say you have the ability to read and understand legislative bills. It's certainly not anything anyone else here has claimed.

          Don't you feel even the least bit interested in helping out here? It seems that your only interest is in telling everyone that they are wrong rather than providing a service to the community. You could provide a service that most of us can't get elsewhere.

          Step up, dude or are you afraid of someone questioning you?

          -4.25, -6.87: Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

          by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 10:18:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, Sure (none)
            I'm afraid of being questioned, which is why I was a guest blogger here for 18 months.  

            I'm not an expert on Ohio election law, and I don't want to spend a week or two getting up to speed on the issues contained in a massive, multi-section bill.  Rather than posting on everything, I think sometimes we'd be much better served when people recognize their limitations and don't make unsupportable pronouncements that they can't establish, especially on issues on which it's unlikely that most people around here would have any  expertise.

            I've written things on voting procedures, and in a general way I'm very well informed, probably more so on the administrative aspects than almost anyone around here.  But I don't see any great virtue in writing something for which I don't have any great knowledge, and the Ohio compiled laws is one of those categories.  I used to do that shit for a living, and it's not easy and it takes time to really learn what you're doing.  I'm not so arrogant as to claim I know all the implications of a bill amending a C.L. with which I've never worked.

            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

            by Dana Houle on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 11:23:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So, I'm wrong on the scared (none)
              part - sorry. I still wish you'd do the necessary work on the the analysis part and write a diary on it. You obviously are qualified. No one here is afraid of the truth.

              Would you rather leave it to me, a systems engineer? or my wife a health care worker? It's not that we're stupid but since it'd take you two weeks it would take me a lot longer than that.

              With Congressman Conyers admitting that they don't read all bills at the Federal level, State-level bills probably also don't get read. The few snippets we've seen here make it look like someone is trying to pull something so I'm immediately suspecious aside from the fact that it's a Republican-written bill.

              I'm not objecting to the ID part because frankly I don't see the issue admittedly possibly a factor of ignorance on my part. What I smell is an attempt to keep the process hidden and that bothers me greatly.

               

              -4.25, -6.87: Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

              by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 07:22:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Recount to cost five times as much (none)
      From the bill, DHinMI:

      Because my cut-and-paste does not show this - for your information in line below, "ten" is lined through and "fifty" is underlined.  

      I got this from the link in the comments to the text of the bill.

       Each application for recount shall separately list each precinct as to which a recount of the votes therein is requested, and the person filing an the application shall, at the same time, deposit with the board of elections ten fifty dollars in currency, bank money order, bank cashier's check, or certified check for each precinct so listed in such application as security for the payment of charges for making the recount therein applied for, which charges shall be fixed by the board as provided in section 3515.07 of the Revised Code.

    •  S'which is it? (3.50)
      * [new] Supports NONE of the Claims...
      ..made in this diary except one,

      I hate to scrutinize, except, when i nit pick.(had to try it-yep, its pretty misleading when i do it too!!)
      I think putting NONE in all caps,and then  typing  ...except one, right afterwards is pretty unreliable. Is it NONE or one?  I am not real keen on the subject of voting machines,codes, Ohio,people quoted in articles, or hell even on Math. I guess im not too keen on why people say one thing, (using CAPS,in the subject line,= emph-ass-is) only to immediatly contradict it.  I did except i didnt, i will except i wont, i can except i cant. Last time I checked,(which hasn't been recently) One equal's more than none, even if just by one. NONE, well that must mean zero plus one right??(CAPS must add +1 to words representing a number, i.e. one=1 ONE=2) Otherwise why wouldn't Mister, ahem , "I know reliability, I worked with reliabilty and you Mr. (insert anyone DHinMI considers to be a piece of shit)are not reliable."  How is that type of talking/posting out both sides of your neck any different from
      Double Shot Dubyuh saying,
      "We don't torture" or "mission accomplished"

      AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH

      •  Thanks For Saving Me Time (none)
        The frivious nature of your comment means I'll remember to never pay you much attention in the future.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 11:23:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ticket please (none)
          ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

          oh, how terrible for me, frivi-in-muh skivvys.
          hahahahahahaha
          do you validate parking too??

          •  BTW, Nice Dishonest Job... (none)
            ...of quoting me.  Actually, the article doesn't support any of the claims.  I conceded the one about disenfranchising homeless people by making the inference, not because the article lays out the implication.  

            I realize that may be over your head, but I just put it out there for anyone else to see what your comment for the lightweight and even dishonest comment that it was.

            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

            by Dana Houle on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 11:38:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Congrats (4.00)
      Man, you really put the kibosh on this one again. The added prong of turning the focus on to yourself is a good double whammy.

      I'm relatively new around here, but your name stands out as one of the best practitioners of thread-fu on this very impressive forum.

      •  Thank You For THREAD-FU!! (none)
        I've been calling it hijacking [and getting well-pissed about it], but hijacking, mugging, bogarting, ego-tripping, weren't really satisfactory descriptions.
        Thread Fu. Priceless.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (62)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Culture (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Education (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Media (22)
  • GOP (21)
  • Civil Rights (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Affordable Care Act (19)
  • Texas (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site