01/09/08: What's sadder is that you don't seem to read the contents of your own posts

Snipped from YOUR POST:

"In the end, Clinton won because she was more popular in the large precincts which happen to be tallied by Diebold machines. Correlation, not causation seems more likely to me."

And, also from YOUR POST:

"There are so many variables in an election result that to put Hillary’s win down to jiggery-pokery without any real evidence is over the top. Demographics of the turnout and McCain siphoning Independents away from Obama at the last minute are infinitely more likely to have affected the [results] than Diebold skullduggery."

Or are you saying that since Diebold gave us the results we seem to have wanted, we can't justify questioning the accuracy of the Diebold machines? This suggests that you accept the dishonesty of these machines in the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004.

So which is it?

Best regards, Wallee

Post a response to this discussion thread