OMG..., Am I pissed at Jon Stewart

[serryjw]

Oprah had a fun show that the audience could ask questions they always wanted answers to. JS was on thru a remote feed. IF he only wanted fluff questions he should have told Oprah NOT to ask a question like this
quote........
Do our votes really count?

ANSWER FROM JS
quote......
The truth is, it does, same as a guy who's half drunk who came into the voting booth just because it was cold outside," Jon says. "That's the beauty of our democracy—everybody's vote counts the same. And in the last presidential election, about 110 million votes were cast. Yours counted…whatever 1 divided by 110 million is."
end quote........
http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200609/20060922/slide_20060922_text_204.jhtml

[Renew Deal]

1. I don't know. Are you?

:shrug:

[serryjw]

3. Huh??????

Are you having a tough time with English today?

[Red Right and BLUE]

7. The irony is strong with you.

"The truth is, it does, same as a guy who's half drunk who came into the voting booth just because it was cold outside," Jon says. "That's the beauty of our democracy—everybody's vote counts the same."

What part of this do you take issue with?

[patricia92243]

11. LOL!!

[Red Right and BLUE]

2. And?

Bottom line, it counts (or is supposed to). So?

[serryjw]

4. Does anyone speak English today?

n/t

[Renew Deal]

20. Maybe it's not us.

I'm not picking on you. Seriously, what's your point.

[LSK]

5. was he supposed to quote half of Fooled Again on Oprah?

:shrug:

[The Straight Story]

6. In other words (maybe) he had a chance to talk about diebold

and blew it. I am guessing that is what you are getting at :)

[serryjw]

12. Well this is Oprah

not Democracy NOW, so I don't expect him to talk about Diebold when no one in the audience KNEW what the 'majority Whip' is BUT he could have said something about his concern over TT voting machines.

[FoxOnTheRun]

8. ?

[QuestionAll...]

9. in a way he is right.

your vote Does count.
It keeps up the façade of something or other - makes you feel like you have a fucking say in anything. but you don't.

but it counts that you think you do.

[FoxOnTheRun]

10. Or it's counted and then flipped

[gizmo1979]

13. This is a first

I don't I've ever seen Stewart thrown under the bus.I think we now have thrown everyone under the bus,we're pissed at everyone.

[Swamp Rat]

14. I find nothing wrong with what Jon Stewart said.

:shrug:

How much time did he have?

[serryjw]

15. Time wasn't the issue

He just needed to plant a seed that we are concerned over the TT voting machines. WHEN would be ever have this size audience to get our concerns out and he didn't use it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Key word there: "we"

Why you assume that Mr. Stewart is in your "we" is a mystery.

[mongo]

16. Didn't Jon get the memo?

That he is your puppet mouthpiece and should have checked with you on what to say first.

Shame on him.

[NYCGirl]

17. And he made fun of Chavez last night...under the bus with Jon!

:evilgrin:

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Maybe he's one of the sane people who doesn't buy the Diebold crap?

Many of us know why we lost the last Presidential election:

1) The Republicans ran a better campaign
2) The country has never voted against an incumbent during what it perceived to be a major military action.

I have no problem with all the so-called Diebold "research." But it is fringe, and you can't expect people to toe your line all the time. For my money, Stewart's more right than wrong, and the stolen election crowd on DU are slightly above the threshold for medication.

[serryjw]

21. I guess half a dozen major

universities don't agree with you.
the stolen election crowd on DU are slightly above the threshold for medication

Maybe this is why dems don't win. They can't believe the truth when it hits them in the face....and you also believe that * & Com had nothing to do with 9-11?

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. Ah yes...the oponion of "major universities"....

Have you ever been in a university? I work in one. Major universities rarely hold opinions about anything other than alumni donations, I assure you.

[serryjw]

23. You don't believe the researcher or the major universities

Since you didn't identify yourself as an expert in IT, yours is only an uneducated OPINION also
The concerns over IT professors mean more to me.
http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevotedemo.htm
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/New_RFK_Jr._article_Will_election_0921.html
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3467



Would you at least consider the GAO?
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529

BTW, I do think this has gone on since the beginning of time. Disenfranchisement of minorities has been well documented. Electronics just makes it easier to do it and not have any paper trial.

BTW, I do agree that Kerry ran a terrible campaign

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. That's not quite it

While I believe that the "researchers" (when they have a demonstrable method other than crediting that which they already believe and discrediting that which they disagree with from the outset, and when they have falsifiable findings) have proven something definitively: Diebold machines can be hacked. Of course, nobody should find this particularly surprising, since any information-based machine can be hacked. The question is whether they were, in fact tampered with with respect to the 2004 election. The evidence of the "researchers," professional or, well, hacks themselves, is much thinner on that crucial point.

Second, as I said before, "universities" themselves don't hold these opinions. Various people within universities might, and then it's a question of whether 1) they already have tenure, and 2) whether their departments and colleges think that their work makes a contribution to their field. Or, they could be doing this work on their own, unrelated to the research programs for which they were hired, etc. The point is, you don't buy any additional credibility by telling me that "universities" agree with you. Universities do not agree with you. Some people within universities might, but that's another thing altogether. I can go find people who are tenured professors in major research universities that hold almost any opinion under the sun, some backed by legitimate research, some not. That doesn't tell me a whole lot about whether a state of affairs is actually the case.

Finally, I should say that I am being very specific: Do the Republicans finagle with elections in order to suppress some demographics and elevate others? Of course. The expulsion of people from the voter rolls in Florida in 2000 was a disgrace. The production of long voting lines in Democratic districts in Ohio in 2004 (primarily accomplished through under-equipping and financing selected precincts) was similarly a disgrace. Did it swing the election in Florida 2000? Yes. Did it swing it in Ohio 2004? Probably not. But as to the Diebold question, that has not been rigorously demonstrated in any sense of the term. You can hack a Diebold machine with a paper-clip and two rubberbands for all I care: it doesn't go to the essential question: did this ever happen?

It sucks to lose. It does. It sucks when more people agree with a babbling idiot like Bush, and it sucks when you've been outplayed by someone as despicable as Karl Rove. Yes. It sucks to know that a majority of your voting countrymen can be swayed hither and thither on the flimsiest evidence, rushed headlong into catastrophe on the basis of fear, anger, and nonsenses. That is truly terrifying. But the stolen election nonsense is a piss-poor response to that general suckery, and even a self-defeating one (how many have I seen here screaming that they won't vote again until the "machines" are fixed).

I'm an open source guy. I want general transparency on these issues. To that extent, i admire what the Diebold-crazies are doing, since they may move us toward transparent software for voting machines, and to established paper trails. This is all good - the reAl good to come out of all this. More power to ya on that score. But the fact is that we lost the 2004 election because our campaign sucked, and because history and people's dispositions were against us. Not because of voting machines. We didn't "fake" lose. We really, really lost. And the sooner we get that through our heads, the sooner we can correct the mistakes that led to such a loss, and conceive of a better strategy.

[serryjw]

26. Your last paragraph

is the only important point. In a time when the country is so divided over election 2000 and everything since then; it would be nice to know that we REALLY did lose. I will go to my grave not believing it ..and I am much less partisan than most on DU...but I also believe that Wellstone's plane didn't have mechanical problems........

The one consistency I have in my political belief system is I hate coincidences, especially when dems are always on the short end of the stick

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. I hate being stuck in traffic

And I always feel that I'm in THE lane that's not moving. Of course, I'm a grown up, and I understand that this is a psychological effect, and not a fact about the world.

The funny thing about coincidences is that they tend to pop up, more so when you're seeking them out. The psychologists (not to mention the psychiatrists) have a term for that, too....

But you make the important point here as well: you want to believe what you want to believe. That's a question of desire, not fact. That's well and good. I would never begrudge you a belief that makes you feel better. But you shouldn't expect everybody to see out of your eyes, or transform your personal desires into their own belief system. Perhaps Jon Stewart, and the rest of us, will simply wait for good evidence before picking up your desires as our own.

[serryjw]

30. you want to believe what you want to believe

This is not about political desire..I want to KNOW! Plain and simple. We may not be able to PROVE that it was or wasn't stolen but WHY should I even question it. Too many people have concerns and with the thugs not being willing to force transparency from Diebold in their source code or legislate paper trails, I have a right to be concerned.It's is undemocratic for a PRIVATE company to have the source codes that BOTH sides can not have access to.......unfortunately, it's only ONE side that seems to be concerned.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. Wrong again

You say earlier that only my last paragraph mattered. This new post leads me to believe that you only read the last paragraph. I do not believe the last election was stolen by vote machine tampering, but - as I've already said - I DO want there to be open source code for any voting machine, and I do not oppose "research" into any previous election. But now you're changing the grounds. You initially complained because Jon Stewart didn't accept the premise that tampering HAD, in fact, OCCURRED. Now you're whining that only your group (that believes that tampering HAD, in fact, OCCURRED) is somehow being silenced from even questioning voting machines tout court. Well, that's a fine rhetorical position to take up when you can't, as you say "PROVE that it was or wasn't stolen" (it's a refreshing admission, to be sure, and quite rare), but it hardly responds to the challenge. I have no problem with people demonstrating that Diebold machines CAN be hacked. I have no problem with people advocating for open source code for voting machines. Sign me up. I'll sign any petition to that effect you want signed. I also have no problem with further investigations into voting during the 2004 election. Yes, please, more. Some evidence for your claims would be as refreshing as your admission that you have none! By all means, proceed. My only beef is that you seem to want people like Stewart and myself to believe what you believe (that there was ACTUAL tampering with machines during the 2004 election), despite your complete inability to demonstrate good reasons for your belief. That's fine for religious fervor, but hardly something that anyone with your particular desires can attest to in good conscience. But bluntly, your criticism's of Stewart are misplaced and without merit. You are even unable to demonstrate their merit in this sub-thread!

[serryjw]

34. WRONG again..MY OP

said I was pissed that he didn't take the opportunity to mention the concerns over voting machines, not about 2004 election. See Post #31. Very conveniently you didn't respond to CO judge and many other in the country are concerned over the potential of voter fraud with these machines and no paper trail

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. Your OP specificvally mentions the last election

It is safe to assume that his comments about the last election raised your ire. But, as I said, it's refreshing to see that you'll admit you haven't proved jack squat about the last election. I'm glad you're at least going with that approach.

On Edit: And I did respond to the CO judge and I've made myself clear about the potential for voter fraud, explicitly, so I have no idea what you're talking about there.

[serryjw]

36. What are you smoking? I want some!

Your OP specificvally mentions the last election ( No it didn't)

It is safe to assume that his comments about the last election raised your ire. But, as I said, it's refreshing to see that you'll admit you haven't proved jack squat about the last election. I'm glad you're at least going with that approach.( WHAT comments??..that 110 million voted??)

It was NOT what he said, it was what he DIDN'T say that bother me....didn't you get that yet?

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. His comments that every vote counted

That's what seemed to have set you off. At least, that's what you started disputing in this sub-thread. My initial post 1) disputed the stolen election crowd. That's what you responded to. Now you want to change your position. Whatever. It's a symptom of your inability to argue the point.

It's nice to change course mid-stream, but hardly honest. But at least we've established this: that you cannot prove the last election was stolen. So, essentially, we lost it. That's a good start going forward.

[serryjw]

38. You seem to have a tough time

understanding English, so lets agree to disagree

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. I understand English perfectly

I'll agree that you cannot demonstrate anything about election 2004.

[serryjw]

31. HOT off the Press!

quote.......
September 23, 2006
A Denver district judge ruled Friday that the secretary of state did an "abysmal" job of security testing on new computerized voting machines, but it's too late to bar them from the Nov. 7 election.
Unable to be certain the machines' software is safe from tampering that could distort the vote, Judge Lawrence Manzanares ordered the state to immediately devise detailed rules for counties to ensure that no one can get to the machines to reprogram them.

Plaintiffs showed malicious software could be installed with a screwdriver and a flash drive in as little as one minute on some machines, Manzanares noted.
end quote.........
Once again we get screwed. CO is a battleground state for Governor and several Congressional races
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,DRMN_24736_5015947,00.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. So?

Does that prove that there was tampering in the 2004 election? No? Then your OP is off-base and without merit.

Thanks for playing.

[rman]

24. I suppose you haven't very often been to DU's Election Reform forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

[Bucky]

27. The all powerful RePUKElaNazis got to Stewart & now he's covering for them

How could this entertainer let up from hammering the bushbotcons 24/7 for their impending one world government? Obviously they're trying to distract us from bin Laden's death.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. LOL

Nicely done.

It's a challenging discourse to perfect, but i think you're pretty close!

:rofl:

[lonestarnot]

39. So what do you suggest? Democrats stay home?