OT: How George W. Bush won the 2004 election

[Saint Johnny B]

Thanks Wow, I appreciate that's it really hard for us to agree on anything. I'm glad I don't have to work on any music-related projects with you, I'm sure it would cats and dogs all the time. LOL These new voting machines should be totally tamper proof, but they're not. They should be foolproof beyond question, but they are not. They should prevent fraud and cheating, but they don't. Those links above show that cheating and fraud are not only possible, but it will become more likely to try to game the system as time goes on. Much like Enron gamed California's energy users and cheated them, much like the mututal fund managers gamed the system to cheat investors. Much like some people use computers to game the system to steal people's music or their indentities. People game the system for money and power. So you can count on someone gaming these new Diebold voting machines, and that's the trouble with them. Too vulnerable to fraud and cheating. We can do better.

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by tld: [b]The concern about the Diebold voting machines is the real deal. The reason there's information floating around the net about it is because someone was able to break into a web server used by Diebold and get messages as well as actual code from Diebold employees. [/b][/quote]No. The reason we have "information floating around" is because people like to make shit up. And then other people read and think they have 'discovered' something. There is no logic or reasoning applied to it at all. It's total reaction.

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by Christopher Kemp: [b]Anyways, Super...if you hold office, and get to participate in approving the voting machines, you just [i]might[/i] want to know that they can be accessed easily. Job security, ya know? [/b][/quote]Job security for whom? What you don't seem to understand here is that it is that a rigged system is 'job security' for NONE. [b] [quote] it's not necessarily in [i]every[/i] politician's interests to ensure fairness, if they would be the recipient of the spoils.[/b][/quote]It sure is if they're the one getting screwed. And they are the ones who would blow the whistle. And that's why this is complete nonsense. It doesn't exist because it couldn't exist.

[Salyphus]

This is an extremely serious issue. I hope it gets more widespread attention or we are in big trouble.

[Johnny Bitch]

[quote]Thanks Wow, I appreciate that's it really hard for us to agree on anything. I'm glad I don't have to work on any music-related projects with you, I'm sure it would cats and dogs all the time. LOL [/quote]You are welcome. As far as DOUBLE POST goes, we have a GREAT team and politics never ever comes into the discussion. Is your last name Bralalala or Watermelon? :D

[Franknputer]

[quote]Originally posted by Super 8: [b]Job security for whom? What you don't seem to understand here is that it is that a rigged system is 'job security' for NONE. [/b] [/quote]OK, I'll say it again r-e-a-l s-l-o-w, so YOU can understand: If control over a system puts you in power, the same control of that system is what will [i]keep[/i] you in power. [quote]Originally posted by Super 8: [b]It sure is if they're the one getting screwed. And they are the ones who would blow the whistle. And that's why this is complete nonsense. It doesn't exist because it couldn't exist.[/b][/quote]Sure thing. It can't happen here. It's nice that you can be comfortable with that belief - but history shows pretty clearly that power without oversight leads to abuse. So putting one's trust in a voting system that can be manipulated transparently (with MS Access, for Christ's sake!) is foolish, plain and simple. And again - Diebold [i]never denied the information in the leaked memos concerning the system's flaws.[/i] They instead tried to claim a violation under the DMCA, claiming that the memos were their property. (Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it false...)

[tld]

[quote]Originally posted by Christopher Kemp: And again - Diebold [i]never denied the information in the leaked memos concerning the system's flaws.[/i] They instead tried to claim a violation under the DMCA, claiming that the memos were their property. (Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it false...)[/quote]Exactly: http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/article/0,aid,113273,00.asp All conspiracy theories aside, I just think these folks don't know what the hell they're doing. They have MS Access databases in this thing for God sake. I'm not sure I understand why these voting machines need any bloated operating system at all, let alone Windows. They just need to count votes reliably and securely. I'd think that would be better accomplished with a dedicated tamper proof system of some sort. Tom

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by Christopher Kemp: [b]OK, I'll say it again r-e-a-l s-l-o-w, so YOU can understand: [/b][/quote]Don't you talk down to me, you little piss-ant! I understood EXACTLY what you were saying the first time I read it. It is YOU who doesn't seem to understand some very simple concepts about the balance of power in our government and our elections. [b] [quote] If control over a system puts you in power, the same control of that system is what will [i]keep[/i] you in power. [/b][/quote]That's a very BIG "IF", dude. The Democrats are not some helpless party. If they are so clueless that this whole thing is taking place without them even being aware, then frankly I wouldn't want them in any postitions of governing power anyway. BUT, that isn't the case, is it. Trust me. They're big boys. They can take care of themselves. [quote][b]It's nice that you can be comfortable with that belief - [/b][/quote]Well, it sure beats this terminal paranoia that so many around here seem to suffer from, that's for damn sure! [b] [quote] but history shows pretty clearly that power without oversight leads to abuse. [/b][/quote]True. But we are not in a situation without oversight. And that is the crux of everything I am saying. I really don't think you have anything to worry about.

[Franknputer]

Look - I've been saying that this is a dangerous situation, and it's disturbing that you want to just write it off with a wave of your hand. You say you doubt that it's a problem, when there's very real evidence to the contrary. Forget the fact that the President of Diebold promised to 'deliver (his) state' to GWB - how about the internal memos talking about flaws in the machines & subverting test result to show otherwise; or the machine software being left on an unsecured server where anyone could get at it (and they did)? Poll monitoring is one thing, but manipulating these machines doesn't have to occur at the poll at all - It can be done remotely. So where's the oversight there? You think you will never see defective machines used for an election? Wrong - it's already happened in 2000, 2002, and will again in 2004. So are you saying that you consider it acceptable that the very process that builds our government is handled in this manner?

[Saint Johnny B]

Better machines with no controversy, that's what we need.

[Chuck Moore]

As long as democrats lose elections, there will be controversy. They are very poor losers. And they never learn from the past. The hardcore left is in the process of nominating Dean, who brings them the worst qualities of McGovern and Mondale, ie Mcgovern's foriegn policy stance and Mondale's tax position. And when they lose it will be "disenfranchisement" or "faulty machines" or "intimidation at the poles" or "lets count them again, and again, and again ad nauseum". It is never introspective as in "what is it the American people don't like about our message"

[Peake]

So long as Republicans have to use the courts and the good ol' boy network to steal elections, Democrats will have to fight back. It's simple, it's fun, and it's demanded. The price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance.

[Chuck Moore]

If i recall correctly, Al Gore was the first one to court to try and sue his way into the whitehouse.

[BP3]

I still like fish. [img]http://fins.actwin.com/pics/Selene_brevoortii.jpg[/img]

[Chuck Moore]

ahhhhhh i see you posted the right facing fish, so I'll count you on my side. :thu:

[Saint Johnny B]

Chuck, But Gore won the majority of the American people's popular vote. In other words, nationally Gore got more votes. And many Americans believe that the country would have been better managed with a Gore Presidency. I happen to be one of them. I like Al Gore, esp after I read his book, "The Earth in the Balance."

[Veracohr]

You know, this issue really shouldn't be about Democrats or Republicans. Both have their problems, as do all the other parties. The articles I linked are indeed from the Republican-bashing-lefty side, but what they talk about is the important thing. Democrats could take advantage of this kind of thing just as easily as Republicans.

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by Christopher Kemp: [b]Look - I've been saying that this is a dangerous situation, and it's disturbing that you want to just write it off with a wave of your hand. [/quote][/b] Whatever, dude... There really isn't any point in me repeating myself. If you really buy into this crap, then I guess that's your choice. But, if I were you... I would hold to task, those who have fed you this nonsense, when you start noticing Democrats winning elections next November. Ask them about how this can possibly happen, when these machines were clearly rigged to ensure easy tampering by the Republican party. I mean they've got "Documented" evidence, right? They'll never admit that they spoon fed you bullshit, but you can at least watch them squirm around trying to come up with an explanation.

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by Veracohr: [b] Democrats could take advantage of this kind of thing just as easily as Republicans.[/b][/quote]What you've just said illustrates exactly why there is no merit to this noise. Who could EVER trust the results? Nobody.

[alcohol_]

This shouldn't be a Republican vs Democrat issue. An election should be verifiable. If computerized machines are not verifiable and subject to tampering they shouldn't be used. We've been having elections for over 200 years. Why should we make the results of an election even more unverifiable? Why should we make elections more unverifiable?

[Sid Viscous]

[quote]Originally posted by offramp: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Chuck Moore: [b]And this from the same people who let dead people vote in Chicago, and let peoples garbage back up in NY if they didn't "vote right".[/b][/quote]And what of the people who performed an 'ethnic cleansing' of the voter registry in Florida via falsified info concerning felony records? @ 90,000 voters, if I recall.[/b][/quote]Yet, as hard as they tried the Dems could not find one person who wanted to vote and was not able to. As to the subject at hand. There is always a chance for vote fraud, and this is no different. The places where the most voter fraud has always happened are large cities, who are controlled by who? That's right, Democrats. I am pretty much a Republican and do not like the idea of electronic voting. California is now requiring a receipt with each vote but I'm not sure how that would help in a contested election. IT was the Dems that demanded electronic voting anyway. So here it is. :rolleyes:

[Franknputer]

[quote]Originally posted by alcohol_: [b]This shouldn't be a Republican vs Democrat issue. An election should be verifiable. If computerized machines are not verifiable and subject to tampering they shouldn't be used. We've been having elections for over 200 years. Why should we make the results of an election even more unverifiable? Why should we make elections more unverifiable?[/b][/quote]This is exactly my point - remember, I said to put aside your partisan beliefs & look at the facts: the machines are insecure; There is NO record kept for verification; and sometimes the machines don't work right, either. One of the Diebold machines posted -16,000 votes for Gore in 2000. [b]Now, before you start screaming about bias,[/b] this is in one of the memos - an upper-level person at Diebold wanting answers as to how this could happen. I'm NOT saying that it made it to the end relults - what I AM saying is that the machine fucked up - and with no record of who voted what, then there would be no way to fix it; and with records on the machine being wiped immediately, there is the possibility that it could slip through the cracks & throw an election. So there is no argument to be made that this is acceptable, unless you have a personal agenda (like wanting to sell as many machines as fast as possible).

[Veracohr]

I know that once people's minds are made up about any give issue, they're highly unlikely to change, but I'll give a couple links, just as food for thought: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ --A woman who wrote a book about this issue, and was harassed into not publishing it, offers the entire book for free download. [url=http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,59925,00.html]A hacker steals Diebold\'s software to show how easy it is.[/url]

[Johnny Bitch]

If Al Gore would have carried his own State, then Florida would not have been an issue.

[whitefang]

Here we go again! Some of you sound as if you believe that ANY Republican who wins an election is the best man for the job. The rest feel the same about any Democrat. Whatta buncha MAROONS! It WASN'T true for Ike, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and now Bush! An anology of that attitude would be to reply with "ALL guitarists are the greatest" next time that thread pops up! Truth is, many Republican candidates over the years would have been top-notch administrators. Only they didn't parrot the platform. Just as many possibly outstanding Democrats didn't either. If Bush were to butt-fuck a nine year old boy on national TV, many of you would STILL vote for him! And claiming the whole time, "At least he ain't no goddam LIBERAL!" Take my advice from the other thread... WAKE the FUCK UP!! Whitefang

[offramp]

[quote]Originally posted by Sid Viscous: [b]Yet, as hard as they tried the Dems could not find one person who wanted to vote and was not able to. [/b][/quote]Source, please?

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by whitefang: [b] If Bush were to butt-fuck a nine year old boy on national TV, many of you would STILL vote for him! And claiming the whole time, "At least he ain't no goddam LIBERAL!" [/b][/quote]No. They would say the same thing all of the Dems were saying when Clinton got caught shagging Monica; "It DOESN'T effect his ability to run the country!"... There ya have it...

[Peake]

[quote]Originally posted by Chuck Moore: [b]If i recall correctly, Al Gore was the first one to court to try and sue his way into the whitehouse.[/b][/quote]To call out an in-credible situation, yes. Bush used the courts to avoid a re-count. Difference is important :-)

[Peake]

[quote]Originally posted by Sid Viscous: Yet, as hard as they tried the Dems could not find one person who wanted to vote and was not able to.[/quote]Ignoring the stories of abused voting registration? There's a guy in this forum who wasn't allowed to vote in FL due to this fraud. Some 90,000 people had the same thing happen, IIRC. Oddly enough, in Bush's brother's state. No issues there. Wouldn't even think of it. I also remember that Gore's vote tally went _down_ at one point, on the news. This is little-mentioned.

[Johnny Bitch]

[quote] Yet, as hard as they tried the Dems could not find one person who wanted to vote and was not able to. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source, please? [/quote]Offramp, you tell us someone that was not able to vote, the people in Florida could not find one. [quote] There's a guy in this forum who wasn't allowed to vote in FL due to this fraud [/quote]Then "this guy" should have came foward and Al Gore might be the President.