Google up “diebold”, “electronic voting”. Go to YouTube. There was even a CNN broadcast. “Elections” have been rigged to yield pre-determined results for years; Diebold just makes rigging easier. These machines have been used in several precincts to yield 95% results for a candidate where no one voted for them at all — and these are just the publicized test-cases. It does not matter if Diebold changes its name (it has) or if another company were used; with e-voting, there is no paper trail, nothing to audit, and no proof of any kind of what the actual votes may have been.

This has been well-publicized.

Guess I missed the memo. How do we know this?

Bob Johnson said:This article was an excellent analysis, but still I wonder if it’s all a moot point given that it sure looks to me like McCain is trying to lose the general election on purpose.

I have noticed that in the last three elections with Kerry, Gore, and Dole. You can even tell by the look on their faces. Since we know that each president is decided long before the “elections” take place, the lackadaisical campaigning of one of the two candidates means that he has been told that he was not picked.

“Elections” are the same as pro-wrestling entertainment, where the two wrestlers know during rehearsals who is going to win and they are choreographed to enact an entertaining story. The difference between elections and pro-wrestling is that a wrestling lasts only several minutes, but elections several months. So, no one who knows he is going to lose can keep up the exhausting pace for something he knows is a sham. Thus, “it sure looks to me like McCain is trying to lose the general election on purpose.”

But we are now in a new phase. Since it is now the practice to program election results into the Diebold e-voting machines, it makes no difference what the loser or what the winner does.

So I predict that as time wears on, no later than 2012 when Obama runs for re-election, there will be a whole lot less electioneering going on. There will be no longer any point for candidates to carry out the same exhausting schedule, and they will balk against their handlers. That means compared to today, much fewer cities will be visited, more money will be kept by candidates, and less spent on campaigns. The mime show will continue nevertheless, and the winner to be will always appear exultant whereas the loser to be will appear diffident, just as today.

How, what alternative?

Partly this is because the very thing which hurt him in 2008, being the new guy in a Party which is averse to actually nominating the new guy, will help him in 2012 because his only real competition is likely to come from “new guys” like Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal.

Another advantage Huckabee will have is that he has smart and (at least relatively) independent minded advisors, and I can’t really think where his competition will find anyone in their league (especially in terms of someone with national experience like Rollins).

Though one thing that comes to mind is that it would certainly be interesting if Palin ran in 2012 and decided to hire her old boss Pat Buchanan in some kind of senior advisory role.

First he goes to the struggling white working class in the key industrial swing states and talks about how great Free Trade and NAFTA have been to the very people who’ve been most directly hurt by that philosophy and that agreement.

Then he goes on “Ellen” to congratulate host Ellen DeGeneres on her gay marriage to another woman, thereby proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that his half-hearted opposition to gay marriage is an insincere pretense that he can’t even be bothered to keep up when on national television.

Then he goes to Canada to attack Obama for being such a bold strong foe of NAFTA, thereby helping Obama in key swing states by sending the message that the Democratic Nominee actually is a threat to the agreement.

Then he secretly meets with Hispanics in Chicago, telling them he’s still committed to “immigration reform” (aka amnesty).

Then he secretly meets with the “Log Cabin Republicans”, noted fans of gay marriage (and some other things).

Then after Obama releases his debut General Election ad, McCain decides to travel around Latin America, where he campaigns for the votes of people who can’t vote in the American election with far more vigor then he’s ever shown in his American campaigning. (Even Dick Morris, who is too much of a kiss up to McCain for my taste, mocked him by noting that Mexico doesn’t have any Electoral Votes.)

Maybe someone should tell McCain that his traitorous kind haven’t yet managed to force through the North American Union (then again, don’t).

And just today, he hired Giuliani’s 2008 Campaign Manager as Political Director.

I guess for McCain, it’s not what you know, or how much money you idiotically squandered in your last job, but rather which well connected corpse of a political big shot you happen to know.

If McCain somehow won and does half as bad as President as he has running his campaign, it won’t just be the end of America, but the end of the entire Human Race.

Seeing how the US has to borrow money from Russia and China to fight there “wars for democracy” and against a mythical Al Queda threat that doesn’t exist it would be logical to stay on favourable terms.

Nobody seems to notice or critically evaluate that NATO has Russia completely surrounded its on all of its borders Baltics and Central Asia and now we have missles pointed at it. If Ukraine joins NATO and naval ships are based in the Black Sea NATO would have have total supremacy over Russia.