Programmer Testifies! Elections rigged!
 

shouldnt this be on CNN or somthing big? so that everyone knows?

i think we are actually still using the same voting machines

http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/10754/Programmer_Finally_Testifies_U_S_Elections_Rigged

Is this for real?
 

I would not doubt that this happened, but more and more,. I don't trust the press either. If it is for real than the Democrats really blew it if they didn;t use this.

There are people who have sworn affidavits that they saw actual flying saucers and communicated with the dead. What they lack is corroborating evidence.

Newspapers and TV newsrooms make money off of readership and viewership, both of which greatly increase during times of controversy. No newspaper or TV news would suppress that. Quite the opposite, they'd jump all over it.

Look at Dan Rather. He had a guy with a sworn affidavit, and he went public with no corroboration.

Either conspiracies are everywhere or things are pretty much just as they seem.

B

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


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

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? :D

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.

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

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...

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

You liberal you....:D

Actually they don't, they make money from advertisement.

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

Come on now, take it one more step....


Who is the advertising aimed at???