Tracking right-wing publications

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Nov 3 2006, 12:59 PM) [snapback]343315[/snapback]</div>

So if the Dems do not sweep it has to be because of "stolen elections" or "rigged elections". I guess the Tigers losing the Worlds Series was rigged too. Or perhaps the 1969 Colts should question the Jets victory?

I am not amazed at all - you already have the votes counted - tens of millions - you have extrapolated from polls that have not been accurate EVER - they poll 1,000 people and make judgements covering millions.

I guess that is why we actually vote - to keep the media both left and right wing from telling us who wins and who does not. I guess that is why they actually play the game instead of mailing in the results.

Hey, if a few white guys in a house can rig the elections of 50 states and thousands of counties they deserve it. I guess if they are good enough to do that, they must be right on everything else too :lol:

Dont tell me - you think gas prices going up and down are also controlled by those same white guys in that same house :lol:

Are they also manipulating the Dow Jones Index :lol:

How about those casualty numbers coming out of Iraq?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Nov 3 2006, 12:59 PM) [snapback]343315[/snapback]</div>

I suppose only Republicans rig elections. Now that's why they always win in Chicago...

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Nov 3 2006, 12:59 PM) [snapback]343315[/snapback]</div>

The White House predicted we'd find tons of WMDs in Iraq, that everyone in Iraq would cheer us greeting us as liberators, that there was an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection (OK, there is NOW, thanks to George), that New Orleans wasn't in any danger from some lil' ol' hurricane, that this Bin Laden guy the Clinton administration warned them about didn't matter, etc. etc.

Given their track record on predictions, this is just more confidence that the Good Guys will win next week.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Nov 3 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]343341[/snapback]</div>

no no no - dont forget to ask kennedy how he won the general elections - remember chicago :lol: how about those 5 ACORN members that got busted for voter fraud - signing up dead people.

 

IMO election rigging is non-partisan, although leave it to the repubs to subvert the separation of powers in government to get it done.

As for wanting a paper trail: without a doubt !!

I voted yesterday in an early election center in New Mexico. The state has in the past year sent registered voters first a paper registration card, followed by a plastic card similar to a driving license -- presumably for ID purposes.

So it was surprising that NO identification was asked for ! Each person filled out a short form that asked for name and address. This information was used to generate a ballot in the person's name, localized to the address cross-referenced to an online database.

This system would seem to prevent double voting by intent, but makes NO attempt at all to ensure the voter is the named person. Weird.

 

There have been reports of problems with the electronic machines in early voting.

From the Miami Herald:

From KDFM in Texas:

Please note, I'm not saying these machines have been tampered with or that there's a conspiracy. Just that there have been problems with the machines. If you're voting using one, pay attention when you get to the review screen.

 

Ever notice how polls often get it wrong?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Nov 3 2006, 03:10 PM) [snapback]343466[/snapback]</div>

Very good points and thanks for the links! I read earlier about the Miami area problems but hadn't heard of the ones in Texas. Take it from one who works on touch screen machines (airport checkin kiosks) on a daily basis, if the touch screen goes out of calibration, it WILL register something other than what you touch, and it can often be off by an inch or more! Calibration needs to be done carefully and functionally tested afterwards, preferably by someone experienced with them. So, everyone please, if you use one of these, CHECK YOUR RESULTS BEFORE YOU HIT THE SUBMIT BUTTON!!! Now, for the integrety of your vote after it's submitted, that's anyone's guess.

After the 2004 election, I remember reading somewhere that a number of votes were lost somewhere, it was blamed on a a bad battery in a flash memory card. I can't find any reference of it right now, so if someone can, or disprove it, I'm all ears. There is one minor problem with the explanation for the lost votes, flash memories don't have batteries All in all, I can't figure out for the life of me, why they don't have paper trails.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 3 2006, 11:14 AM) [snapback]343367[/snapback]</div>

That explains is. Florida in 2000 was payback time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 3 2006, 10:44 AM) [snapback]343347[/snapback]</div>

Sorry to burst your bubble. No "Good Guys" are likely to win - if there is a (D) or an ® next to their name, the American public will likely lose. Sorry to be so cynical, but this country seriously needs a third (and fourth) party alternative. If you are hanging your hopes on a (D), good luck - but I submit it's just wishful thinking.

 

[attachmentid=5601] Riiiiiight election fraud. BaHaHahahahaha that must be it! [attachmentid=5601]

That's why the Republicans have been pushing for Valid ID before voting and the Demoncrats have been saying NO NO NO!

Wildkow

p.s. Nancy Pelosi where are you and why does the demoncratic party have it's fearless leader in hiding? [attachmentid=5602]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 3 2006, 02:12 PM) [snapback]343505[/snapback]</div>

Except that the MSM did an extensive study of that very election and the only thing they found out was that Bush won. Who would have thought?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Nov 3 2006, 05:04 PM) [snapback]343499[/snapback]</div>

This may be way off base, but is this the incident you're referring to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._pre...voting_machines

Georgia 2002

In 2002, voters used new electronic systems to throw out a popular incumbent governor and a serving US senator, both Democrats, in favour of little-known Republican opponents. Polls right up to the election indicated that both Democrats would be re-elected comfortably, the tally on election night showed massive swings against them of up to 12-16%. The explanation, according to the winners, was that rural voters came out in force, but later analysis indicated that no more voters than normal came to the polls that day (source 1) and that there was no major demographic shift.

This was the first Republican elected Govenor of Georgia for 134 years, with a massive swing that pollsters were at a loss to explain, took place in an election based upon Diebold touch-screen voting systems that had just been sold to the state. Afterwards it emerged that Diebold software engineers had changed the programming in the state's machines "at least seven times" leading up to the election.

Before any investigation was possible, Diebold workers had already "formatted the memory flash cards from the state's voting machines, making any examination of the electoral record ... impossible".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Nov 4 2006, 12:59 AM) [snapback]343666[/snapback]</div>

That doesn't square with what I recall. Care to give a source?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 3 2006, 10:06 PM) [snapback]343668[/snapback]</div>

Looking right now and the reason for the swing in the votes was becaused the polls were biased.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Nov 4 2006, 01:11 AM) [snapback]343670[/snapback]</div>

I may be incriminating myself, but if you think software engineers are infallible, you're waaaaay off base.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 3 2006, 10:06 PM) [snapback]343668[/snapback]</div>

http://www.norc.org/fl/

These were some of the Headlines run. Of course as everyone knows “YSMV†(Your Statistics May Vary)

"Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush" (Washington Post)
"Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds"(L.A. Times)
"Florida Recount Study: Bush Still Wins" (CNN.com)
"Ballot Recount Supports Bush Win," (St. Petersburg Times)
"Under the Two Most Likely Scenarios, Bush Won Recount" (Palm Beach Post)
"Florida Review Shows Narrowest Imaginable Margins with Bush Ahead in Some Categories, Gore Others" (AP)
"Bush Wins, Gore Wins--Depends on How Ballots Are Added Up" (L.A. Times).

Wildkow


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 3 2006, 10:23 PM) [snapback]343673[/snapback]</div>

I . . . I. . . I'm shocked! :blink:

Use the 5th.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Nov 4 2006, 04:03 AM) [snapback]343689[/snapback]</div>

Ok thanks. The wikipedia long-and-short-of-it is that if a state-wide recount had been conducted, Gore would have won, but that was never requested. As you say, YSMV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_recount

 

Oh, they're making lots of noise. Didn't you hear? John Kerry told a BAD JOKE!

But about the issues? Yeah, they've been strangely silent. Me? I'm preparing a rousing chorus of "Happy Days are Here Again."

Disclaimer: Yeah, I know the Democrats have their faults, too many to list here. But they're still better than The Evil Party.