We live in a Kakistocracy

[Truthmatters]

The Rs past legislation back in like 2001 I think to give money to counties to "upgrade" voting equipment.

At this time the choices were more limmited than now.

The top companies who ended up suppling like 80% of the machinery were Diebold and ES&S they were run by right wing Rs one of whom promised to do all he could to get Bush elected.

If you have been paying attention Florida and I believe ohter counties in other states have Dumped their machines which cost Millions of dollars due to their inaccuracies.

You dont need all the votes counted on a compromised machine to scew an election.

The more the better though

 

[no1tovote4]

The Rs past legislation back in like 2001 I think to give money to counties to "upgrade" voting equipment.

At this time the choices were more limmited than now.

The top companies who ended up suppling like 80% of the machinery were Diebold and ES&S they were run by right wing Rs one of whom promised to do all he could to get Bush elected.

If you have been paying attention Florida and I believe ohter counties in other states have Dumped their machines which cost Millions of dollars due to their inaccuracies.

You dont need all the votes counted on a compromised machine to scew an election.

The more the better though

If you watched the shows on the equipment you would know that the equipment is equally hackable by either side. Thankfully there are other choices.

That there was a rush to a "quick resolution" has little to do with the "it's all the Rs fault" rubbish. It takes a specially trained partisan hack to pretend that it's all the Rs fault when much of the rush to "correct" the problem was brought on by Ds who wished to reject the result of the election of 2000.

If you wish to lay blame, lay blame on emotive reasoning used by politicos to make everybody feel better during "crises". When we react emotively we tend to make poor choices.

 

[Truthmatters]

It would be if they people holding the written code they use wanted them to have it.

The Cos refuse to let anyone examine the code, they are owned by right wing Rs.

There is a lifelong R who testified under oath in congress that he was asked to write a code for the machines to steal the elections.

He has also passed a lie dector test.

Why dont you already know about Mr Curtis?

 

[Truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Curtis

here you go

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your link doesn't say what you claim it says. I suggest you read it more closely....

a quote....

Vote-rigging allegations

Curtis specifically alleged that:

At the behest of Rep. Tom Feeney, in September 2000, he was asked to write a program for a touchscreen voting machine that would make it possible to change the results of an election undetectably. This technology, Curtis explained, could also be used in any electronic tabulation machine or scanner. Curtis assumed initially that this effort was aimed at detecting Democratic fraud, but later learned that it was intended to benefit the Republican Party.

West Palm Beach was named as an intended target, but used punched card ballots in the 2000 elections. Indeed, West Palm Beach was famous for the "hanging chad" recounts of that election.

Curtis explained that the software could be used in any electronic tabulation machine or scanner. He spoke about this to the Conyers Voting Forum, after Conyers left the forum and turned over the dais on December 13, 2004[citation needed].

.......
And your source ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Curtis

 

[unlawflcombatnt]

These are a few more names that come to mind.

In all seriousness, I'd refer to us as a Corporate Plutocracy.

Our legislators and executive serve only the interests of Corporations and the rich.

 

[Care4all]

However there were equal application problems within the law of the State. Remember Amendments? Read the 14th. Equal Protection laws make it so equal application applies. Since the laws didn't have a strong determining factor as to what votes count in hand recounts they found that the equal protection was not being handled correctly. 7 of 9 felt this way. 5 of 9 felt that a statewide hand recount after the legislation cemented rules that could be equally applied would fix the issue, there wasn't enough time for all of that.

No1,

33 other states at the exact same time as florida, had what you or the spreme court said they ruled on this for.... 33 states had various ballots and standards of counting them throughout the counties of their states....

the spreme court had NO RIGHT to get involved in this ONE STATE only, for this one time only... for the reason they say... their motive WAS OBVIOUSLY PURELY POLITICAL....

and the way they said their judgement could not be used as precedent for any other case EVER, in the future, PROVES it had NOTHING AT ALL to do with equal protection or the 14th amendment...

and honestly, i don't believe you can provide any proof or part of the constitution that will change my mind on this... i will leave a slight opening...but unlikely...



care

 

[unlawflcombatnt]

Your link doesn't say what you claim it says. I suggest you read it more closely....

a quote....

Vote-rigging allegations

Curtis specifically alleged that:

At the behest of Rep. Tom Feeney, in September 2000, he was asked to write a program for a touchscreen voting machine that would make it possible to change the results of an election undetectably. This technology, Curtis explained, could also be used in any electronic tabulation machine or scanner. Curtis assumed initially that this effort was aimed at detecting Democratic fraud, but later learned that it was intended to benefit the Republican Party.

West Palm Beach was named as an intended target, but used punched card ballots in the 2000 elections. Indeed, West Palm Beach was famous for the "hanging chad" recounts of that election.

Curtis explained that the software could be used in any electronic tabulation machine or scanner. He spoke about this to the Conyers Voting Forum, after Conyers left the forum and turned over the dais on December 13, 2004[citation needed].

.......
And your source ...

This reference also says the following:

"Curtis explained that the software could be used in any electronic tabulation machine or scanner. He spoke about this to the Conyers Voting Forum, after Conyers left the forum and turned over the dais on December 13, 2004[citation needed]....

On March 3, 2005, Curtis passed a polygraph test given by Tim Robinson, the retired chief polygraph operator and 20-year veteran of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The polygraph was paid for by Kevin Walsh, a private investigator from Washington, D.C., who told the St. Petersburg Times that he had been hired to prove election fraud. Walsh refused to identify the client.[3] Curtis has stated that the test was based on all the allegations in the affidavit that was provided to Conyers' Voting Forum.[citation needed]...."

In summary, Curtis described a method used by agents of the Republican Party to fraudulently alter election results. And he passed a lie detector test when making these claims. Thus, the evidence indicates that Feeney did try to fraudulently alter the election results. And his victory may well have been fraudulently achieved.

Is there some other interpretation to be drawn from this reference?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are aware that anyone can learn to pass a "lie detector" test? And that is one of several reasons they are not admissible in most courts.

Further, do you have the transcript of the questions asked in this "test"?

Back to point. Icouldnttellthetruthifmylifedependedonit is claiming that a situation occurring BEFORE the use of the new machines is proof that current companies and machines are the problem. He has not connected the dots nor provided one shred of evidence his claims about "Rightwing" conspiracies is true. Further he has claimed that the Republicans wanted the changes and only did so to "fix" future elections. Unproven and on its face Ludicrous.

The reality is after Florida 2000 the Liberals were HOWLING for changes. THEY demanded computer voting of one type or another. As I recall they were NOT happy with the optical devices either.

If there is a problem it was created by both sides rushing to change something based on emotion, not reason or logic. There is NO proof at all that the 2002, 2004 or 2006 elections were "fixed" In fact the 2006 election pretty much puts that claim to rest. Or did the "evil" republican right wing conspiracy take a nap in November 2006?

As for the elected official in question, point me to his indictment and either the trial transcripts , his impeachment process or his future date for either.

 

[Truthmatters]

I GIVE PROOF YOU GIVE OPINION.

You see you spout off on here about how only you know the truth and then give no evidence of what you say just opinion.

I have given hard facts, studies , articles from reputable sources.

You give nothing but opinion.

This Curtis guy was a life long republican who switched parties after trying to report these assholes for trying to steal an election and got smeared by his own party.

Maybe someday you will love the principles of freedom and democracy more than you love the Republican party.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I GIVE PROOF YOU GIVE OPINION.

You see you spout off on here about how only you know the truth and then give no evidence of what you say just opinion.

I have given hard facts, studies , articles from reputable sources.

You give nothing but opinion.

This Curtis guy was a life long republican who switched parties after trying to report these assholes for trying to steal an election and got smeared by his own party.

Maybe someday you will love the principles of freedom and democracy more than you love the Republican party.

Your FACTS are anything BUT.... since your claiming that the current machines were all tampered with by "rightwing" extremists , explain how, when they didn't exist in 2000 your proof has anything to do with the link?

 

[loosecannon]

If you wish to lay blame, lay blame on emotive reasoning used by politicos to make everybody feel better during "crises". When we react emotively we tend to make poor choices.

IOW HELLO IRAQ. 9/11 changed everything!

The repubs changed the voting machines rubish mouth. Repub pres, repub congress. Repubs period.

Because they barely threw FL 2000, and wanted insurance.

 

[no1tovote4]

No1,

33 other states at the exact same time as florida, had what you or the spreme court said they ruled on this for.... 33 states had various ballots and standards of counting them throughout the counties of their states....

the spreme court had NO RIGHT to get involved in this ONE STATE only, for this one time only... for the reason they say... their motive WAS OBVIOUSLY PURELY POLITICAL....

and the way they said their judgement could not be used as precedent for any other case EVER, in the future, PROVES it had NOTHING AT ALL to do with equal protection or the 14th amendment...

and honestly, i don't believe you can provide any proof or part of the constitution that will change my mind on this... i will leave a slight opening...but unlikely...



care

They can only hear what is brought before them, Care. Like any other court in the land. Those other states, while they didn't go before the courts, will still be held to those same standards from now on.

It is extremely disingenuous to pretend such a level of ignorance when I know you to be better informed than this. They only hear cases when somebody requests a hearing. They don't get to run around selecting what they will hear and forcing people to bring suit.

So, since nobody brought suit in those other states, yet somebody did in this particular one they heard the case that was brought before them. And stuff that might violate Amendment 14 is most definitely within their purview. And I'll take the reasoned explanation from 7 of 9 experts that it is their job to figure out. Seriously. It is extremely lame to ignore that 7 of 9 of them explained exactly why this was a violation of Amendment 14, that you refuse to listen doesn't change their decision, nor the explanation of it one iota. Nor does it change the fact that they are eminently more qualified than you or I.

 

[no1tovote4]

IOW HELLO IRAQ. 9/11 changed everything!

The repubs changed the voting machines rubish mouth. Repub pres, repub congress. Repubs period.

Because they barely threw FL 2000, and wanted insurance.

No, they changed the law, the emotive county officers decided what to buy in order to "fix" the problem. That they made the decision hastily, and thus purchased poorly, only proves my point. Look to the leadership of the counties, I'm sure you'll find they agree that they want to blame everything on the Rs even though they chose what machines to purchase.

And I agree, "HELLO IRAQ". More evidence.

BTW - Rubbish mouth? You need some help with your ad hominem attacks. That was extremely sad and not very effective.

 

[Care4all]

They can only hear what is brought before them, Care. Like any other court in the land. Those other states, while they didn't go before the courts, will still be held to those same standards from now on.

That simply is not true...the supreme court's decision did not in any way change our laws so that the other 33 states would have to change, where do you get this from No1? How have they been held to those standards? I guess I have no clue on what you are talking about here because the supreme court case bush v gore CAN NOT be used for any other case. And most all states still do not have a standardize system in all counties within their states so again, I don't know what you mean?

It is extremely disingenuous to pretend such a level of ignorance when I know you to be better informed than this. They only hear cases when somebody requests a hearing. They don't get to run around selecting what they will hear and forcing people to bring suit.

It is extremely disingenuous to pretend such a level of ignorance when I know you to be better informed on precisely what the supreme court said involving the decision of this case...they said IT COULD NOT BE HELD AS PRECEDENCE...and I know you know what that means so why are you pretending that the way the supreme court handled this case is the same as all other cases in their history which would make the other states in the country mandatory to conform to it???? huh no1?

So, since nobody brought suit in those other states, yet somebody did in this particular one they heard the case that was brought before them. And stuff that might violate Amendment 14 is most definitely within their purview. And I'll take the reasoned explanation from 7 of 9 experts that it is their job to figure out. Seriously. It is extremely lame to ignore that 7 of 9 of them explained exactly why this was a violation of Amendment 14, that you refuse to listen doesn't change their decision, nor the explanation of it one iota. Nor does it change the fact that they are eminently more qualified than you or I.

sigh...big sigh...and I'll take the reasoning of constitutional law scholars and other justices and judges on this....

If they were concerned with the 14th amendment and they approached this case merely on that and wanted to "right the wrong" then their case could be used as precedence in other states BUT IT CAN NOT BE USED, why is that?

Care

 

[Care4all]

You are aware that anyone can learn to pass a "lie detector" test? And that is one of several reasons they are not admissible in most courts.

Further, do you have the transcript of the questions asked in this "test"?

Back to point. Icouldnttellthetruthifmylifedependedonit is claiming that a situation occurring BEFORE the use of the new machines is proof that current companies and machines are the problem. He has not connected the dots nor provided one shred of evidence his claims about "Rightwing" conspiracies is true. Further he has claimed that the Republicans wanted the changes and only did so to "fix" future elections. Unproven and on its face Ludicrous.

The reality is after Florida 2000 the Liberals were HOWLING for changes. THEY demanded computer voting of one type or another. As I recall they were NOT happy with the optical devices either.

If there is a problem it was created by both sides rushing to change something based on emotion, not reason or logic. There is NO proof at all that the 2002, 2004 or 2006 elections were "fixed" In fact the 2006 election pretty much puts that claim to rest. Or did the "evil" republican right wing conspiracy take a nap in November 2006?

As for the elected official in question, point me to his indictment and either the trial transcripts , his impeachment process or his future date for either.

google it yourself IF YOU really want to read the transcript...it's out there ret sgt, you just need to use a finger or two....tm has given you enough info for you to find it, IF you desire such.

care

 

[Gunny]

google it yourself IF YOU really want to read the transcript...it's out there ret sgt, you just need to use a finger or two....tm has given you enough info for you to find it, IF you desire such.

care

TM has put so much junk out here he probably qualifies as spammer, and he has supported none of his allegations with anything more than rhetoric. The fact remains that RetiredGySgt's post is pretty-much spot on. It WAS the left squealing for automated voting and once they got it, griped about it and cried "fraud" again.

There is NO foolproof system, and there are those on both sides of the aisle willing to cheat to win. Politics is a dirty game and dirty people play it. Acting as if everyone on one side or the other is above reproach is ludicrous, to say the least.

The 2000 election woulnd't have been in question to begin with if Gore hadn't tried to steal what he couldn't win. None of these deflections and/or unsubstantiated allegations changes that fact.

Attempting to twist bureaucratic, administrative bumbling into Republican cheating is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Truthmatters]

If they were concerned with the 14th amendment and they approached this case merely on that and wanted to "right the wrong" then their case could be used as precedence in other states BUT IT CAN NOT BE USED, why is that?

Care

Funny that one huh?

it seems they did not want it applied to all cases but just one case.

I dont think I had heard of anything before that one like that .

 

[Gunny]

Funny that one huh?

it seems they did not want it applied to all cases but just one case.

I dont think I had heard of anything before that one like that .

Nothing funny about it. One state's court cannot set precedent for another state's court. Simple logic, no conspiracy required.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

It was SCOTUS who made that decision.

They did not want the standard applied to any other case.

wether it be Florida or any other state