Programmer Testifies! Elections rigged! - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JamesDean · #1 08-31-2006, 05:39 PM

here is a PDF of the sworn affidavit....

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/12/images/CC_Affidavit_120604.pdf

Botnst · #2 08-31-2006, 06:01 PM

Like I said previously, anybody can swear to anything. Corroboration is the key.

Without that, it's a festering issue.

Think about what Dan Rather learned about affidavits before you become wedded to this one.

B

PS Not saying it's impossible. But in the absence of any credible, independent corroborating evidence I think conspiracy theorists are the only ones who will buy into this.

BENZ-LGB · #3 08-31-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Like I said previously, anybody can swear to anything. Corroboration is the key.

Without that, it's a festering issue.

Think about what Dan Rather learned about affidavits before you become wedded to this one.

B

PS Not saying it's impossible. But in the absence of any credible, independent corroborating evidence I think conspiracy theorists are the only ones who will buy into this.

Didn't that nutcase Karr sign a confession?

There you go...he killed her then.

Bot, shouldn't you be watching Oprah right about now?

JamesDean · #4 08-31-2006, 06:08 PM

well after seeing this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/how-to-hack-a-diebold-vot_b_26301.html

its very probable that the election was infact rigged.

edit: here are some close up high res shots of the motherboard of the machine...
click picutures to see them.

http://www.openvotingfoundation.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=1

BENZ-LGB · #5 08-31-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

well after seeing this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/how-to-hack-a-diebold-vot_b_26301.html

its very probable that the election was infact rigged.

edit: here are some close up high res shots of the motherboard of the machine...
click picutures to see them.

http://www.openvotingfoundation.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=1

Three words:

CONSIDER THE SOURCE.

Botnst · #6 08-31-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

well after seeing this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/how-to-hack-a-diebold-vot_b_26301.html

its very probable that the election was infact rigged.

edit: here are some close up high res shots of the motherboard of the machine...
click picutures to see them.

http://www.openvotingfoundation.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=1

Whatever Huffington says must be true and she doesn't even need an affidavit.

And the other site has instructions on how to cheat. I'll be damned, it is possible to cheat in an election. Where is Jimmy Carter when the world needs him?

Look, every method of balloting has methods for fraud. Every method, even blue fingers. Should we get all panty-wadded because somebody shows us how to stuff a paper ballot box? No, what we should do is be vigilant and we should also guard against being sucked into cynical conspiracies.

If your point is that electronic balloting is a dumb idea, I'm with you 100%. I think it is stupid and subject to gross manipulation. I'd rather have paper and pen and a blue finger. But we're too damned sophisticated for that.

B

JamesDean · #7 08-31-2006, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If your point is that electronic balloting is a dumb idea, I'm with you 100%. I think it is stupid and subject to gross manipulation. I'd rather have paper and pen and a blue finger. But we're too damned sophisticated for that.

B

this is my point. no paper trail? so evidence towards who you actually voted for? You say this but the machine says otherwise. i agree with you that every method has ways of fraud...even te paper ones..i read an article in my paper about a voting place in the next town over...a man was sitting in the back room ripping up all the ballots with democrat on them.

what bothers me is what about all those people's votes?

computers are much easier to manipulate than paper...a few keystrokes and votes could be changed..no one would be the wise...

shoulnt exit poll's match the actual votes? to a certain degree i mean not 100% accurate...

Carleton Hughes · #8 08-31-2006, 07:21 PM

A friend knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who knows this guy who saw it happen.

Botnst · #9 08-31-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

this is my point. no paper trail? so evidence towards who you actually voted for? You say this but the machine says otherwise. i agree with you that every method has ways of fraud...even te paper ones..i read an article in my paper about a voting place in the next town over...a man was sitting in the back room ripping up all the ballots with democrat on them.

what bothers me is what about all those people's votes?

computers are much easier to manipulate than paper...a few keystrokes and votes could be changed..no one would be the wise...

shoulnt exit poll's match the actual votes? to a certain degree i mean not 100% accurate...

In my state we've been using mechanical voting machines for decades but some buttwipes in state gov wanted to switch to electronic. They claim it is cheaper. I think it is stoopid. But apparently my opinion is in the minority.

Of all the voter fraud possibilities I think the greatest one is from who gets to vote. I think there should be strict voter registration. Other people think that too, is subject to abuse, which it is. So which error is worse, letting people vote who should not or preventing people from voting who should? I think it depends mostly on where the greater source of fraud is. At this time and in my state the greater source of fraud (IMO) is from dead voters and unregistered voters and dual registered voters.

Concerning exit polling, I would agree in a strict statistical sense, that exit polls should match actual polls. However, I've fooled with statistical sampling and design enough to know that it is not too difficult to get spurious results. Usually bad results are due to mistakes (technically, there's a difference between mistakes and errors. There are two types of errors, both of which are due to technicalities of methodology. Mistakes are also known as blunders, and those are due to human failings)

Human beings are a silly bunch. They can drive to the poll with one opinion and get inside the booth and have a change of heart. They can know they are voting against what their neighbors think. They can make mistakes when talking to pollsters. I have a colleague who intentionally answers political polls in a manner different from what she believes. She doesn't like it that many people are swayed in their opinions by what polls say, so her bit of rage against the machine is to lie to pollsters.

I agree with her sentiment concerning people being swayed by polls. Polls should be descriptive, not prescriptive.

Bot

GottaDiesel · #10 08-31-2006, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

its very probable that the election was infact rigged.
http://www.openvotingfoundation.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=1

Golly, ya think?

peragro · #11 08-31-2006, 08:56 PM

I read an article the other day that said Pella windows were perhaps the best windows ever made by man. In fact, this guy on Huffpost said he felt that they were so good that they probably used alien technology.

It has to be true.

GottaDiesel · #12 08-31-2006, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

I read an article the other day that said Pella windows were perhaps the best windows ever made by man. In fact, this guy on Huffpost said he felt that they were so good that they probably used alien technology.

It has to be true.

I'd love to see that article.

t walgamuth · #13 08-31-2006, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

I read an article the other day that said Pella windows were perhaps the best windows ever made by man. In fact, this guy on Huffpost said he felt that they were so good that they probably used alien technology.

It has to be true.

actually they have some problems in my experience. i have seen several examples of them coming apart because the lower edge of the panes leaks water down into the parent wood inside the cladding. so i recommend against pella.

i have for many years used a lot of andersen. but if they are a subsidiary of haliburton ....well yikes!

tom w

450slcguy · #14 08-31-2006, 09:06 PM

I wouldn't disbelieve it seeing how them Repub's. paid media hosts to sphew their party line. But then again I'd like to see some evidence in order to believe it. You would think software for electronic ballots would have to be registered and verified for accuracy before being implemented. Wouldn't you?

peragro · #15 08-31-2006, 09:15 PM

all the electronic machines that I've used in my county spew out a printed record.