OP
OP
Here is some background information that I think is important.
Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election fi
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
Bester
<font color=blue><B>Grand UberSoke, Sith-jutsu Ryu
In all honesty, does it really matter? Would Gore or Kerry have truely been much different? The systems broke, been broke, and isn't repairable except by blood. A price that most Americans are no longer willing to pay. We live in a nation where our rulers vote themselves pay raises, at the same time that we are facing continued downsizing, pay cuts and continued rape by the American Oil Cartel, a group that backs both sides of this disgusting farse.
So what if it was rigged? It's not like the other side would have somehow done the impossible and made any sweeping changes in the system.
So what if it was rigged? It's not like the other side would have somehow done the impossible and made any sweeping changes in the system.
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
Yes, I think things would have been different if Gore or Kerry had been elected. And if you think things would have been no different, you haven't been paying attention.
And yes, I believe our elections procedures should and can be different. We need paper ballots. I can go to my ATM and get a receipt. I will not be convinced that a voting machine can't accomplish the same. Members of the candidates' campaign organization should not be running the elections, period, and I don't care what party they come from. And companies whose CEOs and trustees are major contributors to a campaign have a conflict of interest, and should not be granted vote counting contracts.
And yes, I believe our elections procedures should and can be different. We need paper ballots. I can go to my ATM and get a receipt. I will not be convinced that a voting machine can't accomplish the same. Members of the candidates' campaign organization should not be running the elections, period, and I don't care what party they come from. And companies whose CEOs and trustees are major contributors to a campaign have a conflict of interest, and should not be granted vote counting contracts.
Ray
Master Black Belt
Kerry, I remember that name...He's that guy that wanted to raise taxes---I'm sure that people can pay extra tax if they so desire, so do Kerry, Gore and Clinton contribute extra money to the gov't? They have spoken about how they are under taxed. I'll bet they dont. I'll bet they spend just as much as Republicans do to limit their personal tax liability.Phoenix44 said:
Yes, so we can have hanging chads. After the bush-gore election the news was filled with how bad and unfair paper ballots were. Part of what I remember being said was: Dems couldn't read or follow instructions to properly choose their candidates; ballots were put together deceptively so that people were being tricked into selecting the wrong candidate.Phoenix44 said:
I remember that computerized ballots were going to solve all the problems. But now, after the bush-kerry election computerized elections are just terribly unfair.
Reconsider that. If I owned a software company, felt strongly about my civic duty and contributed to the candidate of my choice then I shouldn't have the opportunity to bid on a gov't job? That hardly seems fair.Phoenix44 said:
Things would surely have been different under Mr. Gore or Mr. Kerry. Iraq would be a problem for any presdeint, but that problem could have been handled in one of many ways. Even if we went in--we could have gone in for reasons other than alleged WMDs or inflated links to terrorism. Saddam Hussein was murdering his own people. I have no ethical problem with taking him out, though I doubt an invasion is worth the benefit of doing so. But let's be clear about what we're doing and why, I say.
OP
OP
Ray said:
They certainly were touted as a cure-all by the major media, however, there were people who foresaw the difficulties, potential for abuse and actual abuse that (may) have presented itself. I think the biggest thing we can do to deal with these difficulties is be open to all possabilities and reactive to change as it comes. If wrong doing occured, then it needs to be dealt with. If loopholes in security exist, then they need to be fixed.
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
So what's your point, Ray, that touch-screen voting without a paper receipt with unverifiable results are a good idea? You're entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree.
And correct, I don't think a company CEO who makes a major contribution to a particular campaign should be permitted to bid on the contract to count the votes for the election involving that campaign. If he wants to do his "civic duty," he can donate his money to the American Red Cross, or tutor deaf kids. Or, bid on a contract for a town election board in a town where he doesn't live. Or, he can go ahead and contribute to the campaign, and bid on a contract for snow removal instead of vote counting.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Which makes your argument all the sillier. If Diebold was going to rig the election, they wouldn't use a system ANYONE could hack in to, they would use a system only THEY could hack in to... Come one man, use your brain.upnorthkyosa said:
Like I said, why design a system to defraud the American people that ANYONE could hack in to. They built it, it's not hard to build a backdoor only they can control.upnorthkyosa said:
You should remember Hanlon's Razor "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
You've still never answered the KEY question....Where's your proof that this occurred? You're still playing the "It could have happened, so it MUST have happened" game. Now you're shoring it up with "You should see these people, they're bad PEOPLE, so they MUST have done this."
As for needing an investigation, apparently a large number of people have BEEN conducting investigations....and not uncovered one single thread of evidence to support the assertion that this DID happen.
It's starting to look like the Locheness Monster. For the people that believe it's true, no amount of evidence will refute it, and the fact that it ISN'T seen, is considered evidence of it's existence. :erg:
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
I'll field this for Ray. He most certainly didn't not call it a "good idea".Phoenix44 said:
His point is, that NO system is beyond scrutiny and NO system is ever introduced working perfectly. This is why you NEVER buy a new technology on the first production run. So ANY election that is the first to use a new technology will one where the bugs are worked out.
Keep in mind that lots of people we believe the word of are politically motivated. The head of a company is a private citizen.Phoenix44 said:
It would seem unreasonable to think that a private citizen suddenly loses his right to support a political candidate simply by taking a government contract. Or is this rule only for those who support candidates we dislike?
Keep also in mind that the much lauded CIA agent who was allegedly outted by the Bush administration was making large campaign contributions to the DNC from the CIA front company she was running when she was outted.
Are we to assume that merely making campaign contributions to a given party is to be considered suspicious behavior and make them uncredible?
But, the truth is, is that any backdoor, is usable by anyone who knows about it's existance. I've dealt with enough systems to know that, often the hard way.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Well, I was one of those who predicted possible problems. That having been said, you've FAR from met the burden of proof of a VAST conspiracy. The best you've done is pointed out what I said several years ago when we started discussing electronic voting....Electronic equipment is flawed.upnorthkyosa said:
OP
OP
sgtmac_46 said:
I think we may have a bingo!
Think of it more like a secret entrance. Speak "friend" and enter.
Here are the facts as we know them.
1. Diebold made strong claims the machines were safe.
2. Diebold sued anyone who wanted to open one up and check for themselves.
3. The GAO got involved, legally seized a couple, and popped them open.
4. The GAO's report shows that there are numerous loopholes in security that could compromise the integrity of the results.
5. Diebold sues to avoid election transparency.
What is the simplest explanation for this? (oh, I can't wait to see this spin!)
The allegations in the congressional report were double checked and verified. The GAO report's conclusions have also been independently verified. An official investigation must occur before we can move on.
The "bad people" is your little insertion/invention. When I said, "you should see what some of these people are saying," I meant, you should take a look at what the CEO of Diebold and the Secratary of State for Ohio have been saying. They both have said directly that they would hand the election to President Bush.
This is absolutely FALSE! NO "official" investigation has ever occured into HOW the alleged incidents occured. The ONLY "official" investigations that occured were ones that verified that these incidents occured and the investigations done by the GAO.
You walk into your house through a door that's been forced open. All of the stuff easily pawned is missing. What happened?
OP
OP
sgtmac_46 said:
Well, at least we agree on this. :asian:
Um, Hillary was in town again and needed props?
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
No, I don't think we have a 'bingo', as you entirely missed the point. If diebold wanted to rig the election, it wouldn't be a "backdoor" able to be entered by modem, it would be inherent in the system....something "just anybody" could access, and you wouldn't know about it. The fact that there are flaws that people can hack, is certainly not evidence of anything....unless you're suggesting ALL computers are purposely programmed to be hacked.upnorthkyosa said:
Again, upnorth, you're confusing what you want to be true, with what is. A fantasy is just that.upnorthkyosa said:
uhm...ok. I think every maker of electronic equipment in HISTORY has sold their product with....strong claims the machines are safe....That's part of the sales gimmick, man. What, you expect them to go "Yeah, uhm, we, uhm, think it's safe".upnorthkyosa said:
They sued anyone who wanted to examine how they worked. Any company with a prioprietary product will do the same thing.upnorthkyosa said:
That's what they should have done. So?upnorthkyosa said:
See, when we start examining the evidence in depth, your conspiracy theory ALWAYS falls apart. The GAO concluded "numerous loopholes" in security "COULD compromise the integrity of the results", that's a far cry from DID. What's further, name ONE piece of electronic equipment, such as an ATM, a database, anything, that deals with information that needs to be protected.....that COULDN'T be compromised. You name one piece of equipment that's compromise free, and i'll conceed the whole point.upnorthkyosa said:
Diebold does what all companies do when they sue...They try to maintain their profit margin. Again, far cry from "Vast right wing conspiracy".upnorthkyosa said:
Oh, obviously the simplest explaination is that it's a HUGE vast right wing conspiracy against you, upnorth, and all freedom loving people of the world....."They've" done it to you again.upnorthkyosa said:
What were those conclusions again? lol......And what WAS the GAO report.....IF NOT AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION?!upnorthkyosa said:
What exactly do you define as an 'investigation'? The GAO found not one single piece of evidence suggesting that fraud OCCURRED.....They found problems with the technology that, in the future, could lead to fraud. Again, my friend, sounds like you've failed the test of reason....AGAIN.
Really? They've been 'quoted' by who? Secret broadcasts being received in someone bloggers fillings?upnorthkyosa said:
If not official investigation has occurred, what do you call the GAO investigation...Unofficial? Please. We've spent several years investigating who said what to who about a CIA agent, yet, you claim there is a VAST rightwing conspiracy to defraud the American voter, and yet, you can't find enough evidence to call a special PROSECUTOR?! This is getting rich.upnorthkyosa said:
Actually, this is more like walking in to your home and finding your alarm clock not where you left it. You swear someone broke in to move your stuff, because the alarm clock, AGAIN, is not where you left it. Also, your toothbrush has been turned counter-clockwise 20 degrees. You just KNOW someone is doing it, you keep finding evidence all over the house that someone has been in your house. Not only that, this is the third time THIS WEEK!upnorthkyosa said:
Someone is breaking in to your house to drive you crazy. The proof is there. You call the police, they don't believe you, they think you're going crazy, but you're not....It's THEM that's crazy. Why won't they BELIEVE you, the proof is all around you. You show the police the moved alarm clock..."I didn't leave it there" you tell the police, but they only smile at you patronizingly. "Look at my toothbrush" you say, but again, they merely nod. After the ninth call, they ask you to stop calling unless it's an emergency.
Hey, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean 'they're' not out to get you you.
OP
OP
When you compare the allegations in the congressional report to the findings of GAO that is more then enough cause to investigate whether or not fraud occured. The GAO was an official investigation, but it DID NOT investigate whether fraud occured. You need to READ the report to actually see what it said. Other then that, you post is pretty much summed up as "it was probably this or probably that and not some 'vast right wing conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!'" Probably. You suspect that it isn't, but you don't know any more then I do what happened. Yet, there is a conncection between the congressional report and the GAO. Any idiot could see it. The "computer errors" that happened, and the people who were caught red handed installing unlisenced software, and the reported firsthand accounts of actual vote switching ALL point to the very real possibility that the loopholes the GAO uncovered were used.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
upnorthkyosa said:
Actually, what I said is you failed to even come CLOSE to meeting the burden of proving your wild allegation. THere isn't "Probably" anything. Also, the GAO never said there were computer "errors", that's a distortion you added. They said there were problems in the equipment that should be fixed. As for "probablies" they certainly are better than "Maybe's" and "possibilies" and "It could have happens" that I hear from you.
I still haven't A) Heard you give one credible piece of evidence of ANY voter fraud ACTUALLY having occurred and B) Have yet to hear you name a technological piece of information technology not prone to error (since your SOLE piece of evidence of voter fraud is that the voting machines were 'imperfect', comparing to similar equipment might make your point better....or not.)
As the Bard would have said, it's a tale "full of sound and fury, signifying.....nothing!"
OP
OP
sgtmac_46 said:
We don't yet have all of the information.
Oh really? How about when you said...
Translation, they are probably just trying to sell their stuff.
Translation, they are probably just trying to protect their product.
Translation, they are probably trying to protect their profit margin.
You missed the point with this. By chopping it up and attempting to refute each of them singly, you are deleting/ignoring the fact that their is a chronology to these events. This chronology ties all of these events together so that when they are taken together, they paint an altogether different picture.
It's not a distortion. I was referring to the congressional report. You are confusing the two.
THAT is because your bias flows in the opposite direction. AND actually, my "probablies" are FAR superior to yours because I've got the statistics on my side. Unexplained demographic shifts, exit poll errors, machines actually switching votes, machines adding votes, etc, almost every single instance favored President Bush. The weight of this evidence does not support the idea that it was probably an error.
An investigation would clear this up.
It's not that they are imperfect. Its the fact that their imperfections favored President Bush nearly 100% of the time. Errors should have no bias. Statistically, if there were an error, then all choices should have an equal chance of being affected. How many candidates were their for presdent? And nearly all of the "errors" still favored Bush.
The thing about this that really grinds my gears is that IF there was a conspiracy to rig the election, part of it depends on a general level of stupidity among Americans. If one had the slightest clue about statistics, then seeing information like this would immediately raise questions...
The allegations in the congressional report were double checked and given under oath. The GAO uncovered numerous security problems with the equipment. These reports, taken together, demand an investigation, an independent investigation.
Similar threads
- MisterMike
- The Study
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
-
éåæ ZhĆ²ngxÄ«n center of gravity
- Latest: Wing Woo Gar
