PDA

View Full Version : dr. paul says NO to recount - read what happened in az!




sunny
01-12-2008, 09:06 PM
read this and then read my comment please:
http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=1310#comment-5323

Well the doc has said he will not support a recount. the story is on HQ.
I have read it and have mixed feelings now.
This is the first time that I am having mixed feelings.
This kind of thing is probably what happened in iowa and new hampshire.

I read somewhere how in iowa and new hampshire that ron paul people
left early and did not stay for the ballot count. is this what is happening?
are people getting burned out and going home? what's going on?

it looks like the ONLY way that we can get an honest count is do what the
cowboy did in arizona with the hand counts. but what do we do with the
damn machines?

do we have to do a damn recount in every primary?........this is serious
and really getting to me......please post your thoughts.

does anyone here feel that the doc should support a recount or perhaps
that he feels he does not have to cuz it's already happening? but it doesn't
seem that way. he says the numbers are about right, and there is no
fraud. I find this disturbing. does anyone else?

Is he being too trusting? Are the people in the campaign not feeling that
a recount is necessary? I don't know what to think anymore.....

Please post your thoughts.

Paul10
01-12-2008, 09:08 PM
....

Give me liberty
01-12-2008, 09:09 PM
Because the media told them to support.

I hope on super Tuesday's is going to be different

AlbemarleNC0003
01-12-2008, 09:12 PM
do we have to do a damn recount in every primary?........this is serious
and really getting to me......please post your thoughts.


SC uses only machines. No paper.

Joel High
01-12-2008, 09:17 PM
That issue does not need to fall in our lap. Just gives them another reason to talk about him without going over the issues.

Let me use a word that Ron Paul loves...BLOWBACK.
Imagine if the counts come back 99.9% accurate. They'd nail him on it.

Ara825
01-12-2008, 09:21 PM
That issue does not need to fall in our lap. Just gives them another reason to talk about him without going over the issues.

Let me use a word that Ron Paul loves...BLOWBACK.
Imagine if the counts come back 99.9% accurate. They'd nail him on it.

QFT

Cleaner44
01-12-2008, 09:21 PM
What are you talking about with AZ?

sunny
01-12-2008, 09:26 PM
click on the link and read the article

constitutional
01-12-2008, 09:28 PM
I don't think there was voter fraud.

I think the campaign was shooting for 3rd place (stay under the radar so you don't get attacked); although the campaign did succeed, but the turn out was high and we ended up @ 5th place. The campaign underestimated the turn out.

VRP08
01-12-2008, 09:39 PM
I don't think there was voter fraud.

I think the campaign was shooting for 3rd place (stay under the radar so you don't get attacked); although the campaign did succeed, but the turn out was high and we ended up @ 5th place. The campaign underestimated the turn out.

:(

Malakai0
01-12-2008, 10:10 PM
People I meet and know IRL all the time think McCain is for pulling the troops out. I don't understand where they got that impression from!

jake
01-12-2008, 10:11 PM
People I meet and know IRL all the time think McCain is for pulling the troops out. I don't understand where they got that impression from!

"bring our troops home with honor" - there is no honor in an illegal senseless war, the troops are being used as pawns senator McCain :mad:

pcosmar
01-12-2008, 10:15 PM
Ron Paul is not requesting a recount in NH, but there WILL be a recount.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/12/officials_in_nh_agree_to_recount_primary_vote/
I will be watching for that.
It can't hurt, and it may help.

ecliptic
01-12-2008, 11:12 PM
The exit polls prove there is no fraud. It's just that people are ignorant and thought McCain was for pulling troops out of Iraq and there was a big craze to support him (because everyone else did).

I disagree, but recognize that Ron Paul thinks it is not fruitful to pursue this further. The re-count seemed like a good idea because of the huge swing in Clinton's numbers ( I don't buy for a second that her phony tears influenced the savvy voters of New Hampshire ). However - the more important issue is chain-of-custody of the ballots. Now that precious time has elapsed this becomes an ever-greater factor in this drama:

http://blackboxvoting.org/



1-10--2008 Kucinich Stepping into Trap with Recount? (http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71260.html?1200200315)

The election integrity community is abuzz with news that candidate Dennis Kucinich will ask for a recount in New Hampshire, and Ron Paul fans have been pushing him to recount as well. Careful.

NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTION INTEGRITY ADVOCATE NANCY TOBI IS CORRECT:

"We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up. Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines."

As Tobi says, "A candidate asking for a recount may well be a tool used to 'prove' everything was okay and then that candidate will be further discredited."

I'll go further than that. The only way a recount makes any sense at all in New Hampshire is AFTER an assessment is made of the chain of custody issues. If the chain of custody isn't intact the recount won't be worth a cup of warm spit.

TOBI:

"This is high stakes.

"You do not walk into a battle ground not knowing where the snipers are, just because you were invited. Strategically, going into something like this where you have NO CONTROL is foolishness.

"And I say this as one of the strongest recount proponents of former times. Things I have come to learn and understand have changed my mind. The recount is someone else's game, not ours.

"In the recount, we have no control, and we have already lost 48 long hours of ballot chain of custody oversight.

"We need citizen control and oversight. This is not going to come from the recount. If the election was rigged...don't you think the riggers would have a backup Plan B for a rigged recount, knowing how easy it is to get a recount in NH?

No. It is time to take control. "

BLACK BOX VOTING:

The following is excerpted from our New Hampshire election protection information published in November 2007:

quote:
Knowing that the greatest opportunities for election fraud are with insiders, this tells us something about what to examine first. If you are a person with inside access in New Hampshire, because any candidate can ask to recount any location, if you plan to manipulate the election you'll want to make sure you can achieve ballot substitution, ballot removal, or ballot stuffing. You need a strategy just in case someone asks for a hand count.



WHAT'S THE POINT OF A RECOUNT IF THE CANDIDATE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW...

1) The name of all companies that print ballots for New Hampshire elections.

2) The ballot ordering history for each location, especially those using computerized voting systems and the inventory records for the current contest.

3) The ballot chain of custody plan for each location and for the state of New Hampshire.

IMMEDIATE CONCERNS

- We don't have information on ballot inventory records.

- With ballots and recounts, it's all about blocking ballot substitution. To achieve substitution, you need extra ballots. If you get more ballots, someone might follow the money trail and ask you why you're sitting on 10,000 or so blank ballots. So you need some workarounds.

BALLOT CHAIN OF CUSTODY WAR STORIES

Patriot Richard Hayes Phillips, while writing his brilliant upcoming book "Witness to a Crime," uncovered evidence that an Ohio County took delivery on 10,000 off-the-books ballots in 2004.

Employees for the Diebold ballot printing plant slipped us financials showing that Diebold was printing 25% more ballots than ordered. This could be handy: If a governmental entity doesn't take official delivery on ballots, Plan B can sit at a print house somewhere, on private property and absent from either government bookkeeping or public records.

CONVICTED FELONS

The Diebold ballot printing plant at the time we got records on the overages, was being run by a convicted felon who had spent four years in prison on a narcotics trafficking charge. No, not New Hampshire's voting machine programming exec Ken Hajjar, who cut a plea deal in 1990 for his role in cocaine distribution. This was another convicted felon, John Elder, who ran the Diebold ballot printing plant; he's now an elections consultant.

We have so far been unable to learn whether New Hampshire has convicted felons printing their ballots; we've got a records request in on this. New Hampshire officials like to say "The state prints the ballots" but they sure aren't printed in Secretary of State Bill Gardner's office.

Frank S., one of the new breed of citizens jumping in to take back control of our elections, took the initiative on his own to help today by spending several hours trying to find the ballot printer in NH. It may be that convicted felons print the ballots: Frank turned up evidence that one state-paid printing vendor is NHCI - New Hampshire Correctional Industries, a prison-based printing outfit.

New Hampshire Correctional Industries is a job training program for inmates. After they get out of prison they have a skill! I'm not sure we want a bunch of ex-convicts running around in New Hampshire with ballot printing expertise, so I hope a different ballot printing vendor will show up.

Any candidate seeking a recount needs to know this stuff.

IDENTIFY NARROW SPOTS IN THE PIPELINE

What is the smallest number of people with access, and at what points does centralization of access occur?

WHERE HAVE THE BALLOTS BEEN DURING THE LAST 48 HOURS

If there's going to be a recount of this magnitude, we need to know whether checks and balances have been followed. Let me give you an example of what I mean: In San Mateo County, California, citizen Brent Turner asked for ballot chain of custody records for 2007; a six-week gap in the access logs was revealed in the documents.

SHOULD CANDIDATES RECOUNT NEW HAMPSHIRE?

In concept I love the idea, but as it currently stands, it makes me queasy. They're walking into this blind about the details that make or break the integrity of the process.

WHAT TO DO INSTEAD

Tobi calls for doing a real investigation in order to take corrective action by November. I'm not sure about that. New Hampshire had hearings on the hackable Diebold optical scan machines, and didn't take any action to mitigate the risks.

New Hampshire knew it was running elections on machines that can't be trusted. And today, thanks to the efforts of two more citizen volunteers, I learned that the New Hampshire Secretary of State knew about the narcotics trafficking conviction of Ken Hajjar, yet still authorized LHS to code every memory card in New Hampshire.

Harri Hursti himself testified in New Hampshire in Sept. 2007, urging them to disconnect the wiring allowing reprogramming of the memory card through the modem port. New Hampshire took no action.

New Hampshire didn't take even the half-step actions other states used to beef up voting machine security.

Maybe there are better ways to skin this cat.

THE IDEA OF A RECOUNT STILL INTRIGUES ME BUT...

At this moment I can't think of a way to offset the chain of custody unknowns. The last thing we want is a recount that doesn't answer our questions, or raises new suspicions that aren't answered.

There must be a way. It's been a long day. Let me think on that.


1-12-2008 Red Flags over New Hampshire (http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/71287.html)

Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 5:03 pm:
New Hampshire's 2008 primary election may prove to be the most fascinating presidential preference race in history.

- Both Democrat and Republican candidates have requested recounts

- More than half of New Hampshire's elections administrators hand count paper ballots in public at the polling place, with a public chain of custody. The rest of New Hampshire's towns and cities use Diebold voting machines to count votes in secret, with a secret chain of custody.

- Hand count and machine count locations, when calculated statewide, show an eerie statistic:

Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%

Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%

- Two hand count towns reported "zero" votes for candidate Ron Paul to the media, even though they did have votes for him. The town of Sutton reported zero, but had 31 votes; the town of Greenville reported zero, but had 25 votes. The two towns had misreported results affecting exactly the same candidate in exactly the same way.

- Results in many locations arrived up to four hours late on Election Night, surprisingly, from machine-counted locations -- not hand count locations;

- A single private entity had control over coding for every memory card in New Hampshire. According to the contract for LHS Associates, this firm requires a right of access to any voting machine at any time, services the machines, maintains the machines and handles repairs, replacements and troubleshooting on Election Day.

- Ken Hajjar, a key employee of this sole source private entity, LHS Associates, has a criminal record for narcotics trafficking. The state of New Hampshire knew of this conviction but approved the contractor anyway. According to a complaint filed with the New Hampshire Attorney General, Hajjar had called the Dan Pierce radio show in 1999 and threatened to rig an election.

- A high number of "other" votes appeared in Manchester, where over 570 people apparently decided to go to the polls and choose none of the first tier OR second tier candidates.

- The voting system in New Hampshire was updated, but to a version that had been proven to be vulnerable in studies in Florida and California. Instead of upgrading to newer versions which at least claim to address known security vulnerabilities, New Hampshire chose to implement none of the beefed up procedures or upgraded versions that other states are using.

A newly aroused citizenry in New Hampshire and elsewhere is telling New Hampshire "trust us" for an answer. Citizens from many different states are now examining New Hampshire's ballot chain of custody, because if that is as weak as their voting machine controls, the recounts will just produce new questions.

The Clinton / Obama numbers are frankly beyond coincidence. Anyone who seriously argues that those numbers being exactly switched is coincidence - to one hundredth of a percentage point - is smoking a lot of crack...

I hope that the recount and related investigations continue regardless of Ron Paul's participation. This smells like fraud. Please support Black Box Voting!