Court Filing On How 2004 Ohio Election Hacked

chimpo13 writes "A new filing in the King Lincoln Bronzeville v. Blackwell case includes a copy of the Ohio Secretary of State election production system configuration that was in use in Ohio's 2004 presidential election when there was a sudden and unexpected shift in votes for George W. Bush."

Comments

This just proves

[EraserMouseMan]

hhat we need a bigger more anti-Republican government to control the election process.

Re:This just proves

[Lumpy]

Minorities came out to vote in larger numbers than the rich old whites did.

Honestly, you Repubs should be very afraid. If someone finally motivates the Poor and Minorities to get out and vote, all of your GOP candidates in every election will lose in a landslide as the poor outnumber you 100 to1.

The problem is that most poor and minorities do not trust anyone in government as all they do is screw them. If someone get's past that you are utterly doomed.

Honestly, the best thing Obama could do is have press conferences publicly smearing the GOP. "The republicans want to protect the rich while screwing the poor, I am fighting for the poor! remember this in the next election!"

If he pulled that on TV in every speech and was able to motivate the masses.... it would be game over.

Re:This just proves

[Vidar Leathershod]

Yeah, because poor people are poor as a result of rich people stealing from them. Yeah, this works with uneducated people, and people who for whatever reason are just born with fewer mental capabilities. But, as you said, not only do some blame others for their poverty or other problems in their lives, they also have that same outlook in politics. Somebody else is responsible for the morons that get sent to Washington.

In reality, of course, those people who feel that they are primarily responsible for their outcomes tend to do things to improve their own lives. They also tend to be more conservative, and try to spread the message of their success to others. As a result, they are often vilified as some servant of the white/rich man, as if they were a paid spokesperson. Instead of looking at the success and learning from it, the feeling of victimhood and jealousy and anger intensifies.

This does indeed work for some socialists, especially if they have some public speaking skills. They are able to harness that emotional response, tie it in with the rest of their platform, and get some votes. Between those, and the wealthy individuals who have a subconscious sense of superiority ("they can't help themselves, we should do it for them!") while maintaining a conscious sense of guilt (albeit a small one, as they want to give someone else's money away), they manage to win elections in mostly urban areas. One needs only look at the messy candidates that rise out of New York and Chicago. Especially in State-level politics.

Luckily, there are enough people still living in rural America who really have to put their nose to the grindstone to become successful. They can't rely on a city job to make a lot of money by the time they are 35. It usually takes more time, and they learn while they earn. They learn how hard it is to start and run a business, to meet payroll obligations, work shifts when employees are sick, deal with various state and federal regulatory agencies. Some consider themselves to be Democrats (mostly due to family history). They will vote for Obama. Start talking in a direct way about how the rich are screwing the poor, and they will vote for the other guy. They may stay "Democrat", but future "D" candidates will be more coy about their class warfare politics.

Working People

[cgfsd]

Hmm, could that sudden shift have been caused by people getting off of work and then voting?

All it takes is looking at your paycheck and seeing how much is taken out by the government and most people think twice about electing someone who promises to raise taxes.