Skip to main content

View Diary: Ion Sancho - Election official hammered for telling the truth. Enter the lawyers... (269 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yep (2.25)
    yep I wonder how much these annoying lil trolls tlh lib, and vgebert get paid by diebold to derail every Harris thread?
    •  Bev Harris is the only one taking Diebold money (3.40)
      Her and Jim March.  

      No one has to be paid to tell the truth.

      •  Kurt Vonnegut per nyceve "believes:" (none)
        Vonnegut takes an easy chair across from Prof. Manuel Luis Martinez, a poet and teacher of writing. He grabs Martinez and semi-whispers into his ear (and the mike) "What can I say here?"

        Martinez urges candor.

        "Well," says Vonnegut, "I just want to say that George W. Bush is the syphilis president."

        The students seem to agree.

        "The only difference between Bush and Hitler," Vonnegut adds, "is that Hitler was elected."

        "You all know, of course, that the election was stolen. Right here."

        •  Of course, you realize (3.80)
          That Ion Sancho's reaction to proving Diebold machines could be hacked was to try and purchase ES&S machines, right?

          Seriously, folks.........without a SOLUTION, the attacks only mean we jump from the frying pan into the fire.

          I put this question to someone long ago........

          OK, let's say we're entirely successful and we get Diebold run out of the election business.  What is your solution once that happens??????????

          Because, quite frankly, when and if we kill Diebold, there are multiple vendors waiting in the wings to be the NEXT vendor of record.

          The issue is ELECTRONIC VOTING in it's entirety - not Diebold nor republicans.

          The ISSUE is outsourcing elections.

          Now, tell me what Bev Harris has done to address THAT issue?

        •  Vonnegut isn't that dumb (4.00)
          He knows Hitler was never elected to anything.
          •  Um... (none)
            Per wikipedia for laziness sake:

            "Campaigning still continued, with the Nazis making use of paramilitary violence, anti-Communist hysteria and the government's resources for propaganda. On election day, 6 March, the NSDAP increased its result to 43.9% of the vote, remaining the largest party, but this success was marred by its failure to secure an absolute majority. Hence, Hitler had to maintain his coalition with the DNVP, which jointly had gained a slim majority."

            Then August 19, 1934, Hitler was elected Fuhrer (95.7% of German voters).

            After that of course, he created the Third Reich... were you listening in history class?

            •  Um (4.00)
              I'm a modern European historian, and the Nazi period is my area of specialization. I've forgotten more about that period of history than you'll ever know.

              The 1934 elections came AFTER the Nazis had banned the Social Democrats and the Communists, and "encouraged" all the rest of the independent parties to disband "voluntarily." The August 1934 vote was a plebiscite, not an election--it was Hitler going to the voters and asking them to rubber-stamp his decision to abrogate the Weimar Constitution and illegally combine the powers of the presidency and the chancellorship. They did not "elect" him Führer--he appointed himself to that post and asked "permission" later.

              Nor was Hitler elected to the post of Reichskanzler that put him in a position to create himself Führer after von Hindenburg's death in 1934. He was appointed to that post, by von Hindenburg (albeit reluctantly).

              Have you ever taken a history course?

              •  i guess i'm wrong.. (none)
                ..if i'm arguing with a history buff but it appears to me that there was an election after Hitler was appointed to Chancellor....
              •  however... (none)
       appears that Bush's rise to power somewhat resembles that of Hitler, per election 2000:

                On January 30, 1933, Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor. As Hitler historian Alan Bullock put it:

                "Hitler came to office in 1933 as the result, not of any irresistible revolutionary or national movement sweeping him into power, nor even of a popular victory at the polls, but as part of a shoddy political deal with the 'Old Gang' whom he had been attacking for months... Hitler did not seize power; he was jobbed into office by a backstairs intrigue."

                •  A point (4.00)
                  I've made myself, numerous times, both here and elsewhere. Still doesn't mean that Hitler was elected to office (or that Bush was, for that matter). In both cases, I would say that the means of seizing power were technically legal but highly constitutionally questionable.
      •  Now she's taking Diebold money? (none)
        What's next, she was part of the UN Oil for Food scandel?

        You throw around a lot of allegations with NO SOURCES whatsoever.  

        Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space because there's bugger all down here on Earth.

        by bawbie on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 07:13:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site