pooor ron paul, howard the duck candidate, not connected, no chance in hell, Diebold will decide......

oh and about the "killing social programs"...
he is saying that there is a better way to fund "social programs" than making federal diktats.
i kinda agree there.
he is not saying that if you get cancer you have to fuck off and die, he is saying buy health insurance with the money from the job you get because the economy is better because money isn't wasted on inefficient "programs".

so you can disagree with him, but he's not "antisocial", he's a doctor ffs. he just doesn't want money wasted when it could be put to good use. it's an argument about funding method only. he's not saying poor people don't deserve hospitals, he's actually saying poor people would get better hospitals under his system.

it's a hard sell, when people just focus on the deletion of one system and forget that it would be replaced by another, perhaps better system.

i also disagree on his personal abortion stance, but at least he's not proposing banning abortion at the federal level, can't you see that distinction?

i dunno, i'd vote for him just because he has a consistent record and system of beliefs that you can trust, even if you disagree.

but i'm not american, so i can't vote. i am a noncitizen in that particular empire, in an outlying state, a buffer zone between the empire and the russian barbarians. doomed to suffer the consequences of american policy without the power to change it at the ballot box / diebold windows voting machine.

@BrknPhoenix

14. Fradulent elections. It was an extremely close election, and unless you have evidence it was fradulent, don't just assume that it was and think you made a point.

Go f-k yourself. You spineless Party-over-all-else people make me sick. I can't help it you put your head in your ass everytime you are confronted with the mountains of hard evidence about stolen US elections. Um, let's see FL00, OH04, 20,000 undervotes in Sarasota, etc. Highly politicized DOJ using Voting Rights section and USAs to engage in partisan election manipulation. A bunch of felons (and relatives) running Diebold and ES&S and essentially the election thanks to Ney's HAVA. Guess where Ney is now.

Do any amount of research and you'll see the fraud. One day when its too late you'll wake up and go.. oh.

How ironic, I upvote a video at 8, and now it's at 7.

Speaking of Diebold, I saw their name on a bank machine - freaked me right out - then I realized it makes perfect sense.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Fixed. Do you work for Diebold by any chance Raytrace?

You can tell your grandkids that you remember once upon a time when private companies sold machines to local governments to secretly count the votes. And they were worse and more buggy than Windows98, and they had security holes you could drive a truck through.

That once upon a time, America's elections were run on the words of Diebold and ES&S telling people "just trust us". We are at the apex, on one side is the end of transparent voting forever in the US. On the other side is citizens wrenching voting back out of the hands of politicians and corporations that make this crap.

> The timing of the sentencing is . . .um . . .interesting.

They should have tied it directly to the election... Diebold could put a "Kill Saddam" button on their voting screens, a real time vote, with a real time outcome.

Great job. It must feel fantastic to be ranked #3 and nipping on the heels of dotdude and ant and . . .wait . . .#8?

Someone call f*cking Diebold.

Yeah whatever.. you're in on it too. I can see the DIEBOLD label behind your sunglasses.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

We had a small issue bringing over the votes from the SiftOff to the main site. It's all better now. This SiftOff has been brought to you by Diebold Voting Systems.

Here's Diebold's response and Ed Felten's point-by-point reponse to that: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1065

zeth_rb asked, "You need a Princeton Professor and two students to confirm that a "computer" voting machine can be hacked?"

Yes. There's a difference between stating that something is or isn't true, (i.e., Diebold machines are flawed) and proving that the flaw exists.

Yeah, i also would like to see Diebold's statement to this.

So they could get to the Diebold guys? Would have liked to see that portion of show.

This video is a response to "Hack a US Election in 3 E-Z steps with your friend Diebold" http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=10853