PDA

View Full Version : Whoever Diebold chooses.

sellitman
07-02-2006, 09:39 AM
Does anyone here still have confidence in our elections? :rolleyes:
ECW
07-02-2006, 05:40 PM
I have confidence in the elections but little confidence in the people who count the votes. As Stalin said, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." Bushies proved it in 2000 and in 2004.
utahraptor
07-12-2006, 09:05 AM
I have confidence in the elections but little confidence in the people who count the votes. As Stalin said, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." Bushies proved it in 2000 and in 2004.


Tinfoil hat sales are that away---->
BoogyMan
07-12-2006, 11:20 AM
Does anyone here still have confidence in our elections? :rolleyes:


Yet again more logical fallacy from the left, create the false impression that something has or will happen, and then back it up with hordes of fiction.
Nathan Brazil
07-12-2006, 02:17 PM
I enjoy watching people who have no expectation of their party winning the election setting up the excuses for their failure in advance.

What they're really saying is that they know the Democrats can only win by cheating, so when they lose, it must be because the other side cheated more. The concept that Democrats might actually be declining in popularity never crosses their mind.

Which is good. The longer they spend figuring out that they're ridiculous, the longer it will be before they figure out a new con to play on the people.
Elrathin
10-19-2006, 03:15 PM
Yet again more logical fallacy from the left, create the false impression that something has or will happen, and then back it up with hordes of fiction.


It's not a falacy when machines do not have paper trails. Those typs of machines SHOULD BE BANNED from the elction process federally.

I would worry, as a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, any machine that has no paper trail and can be hacked into to change votes. Wouldn't you?
Nathan Brazil
10-21-2006, 01:22 AM
It's not a falacy when machines do not have paper trails.Â*Â*Those typs of machines SHOULD BE BANNED from the elction process federally.

Why? What happened in Floriduh when there were nothing but paper trails? Chicanery and ballot altering by the score, in a vain attempt to steal the election for Al Gore.

It's not the machines that are the problem. It's being able to trust the vote counters. Frankly, the machines are much more reliable.

Fortunately, the 2004 election went off without any fraud at all.
Elrathin
10-21-2006, 04:51 PM
It's not the machines that are the problem. It's being able to trust the vote counters. Frankly, the machines are much more reliable.


So you think that the ability to break into a machine and change the votes without a paper trail to back them up is MORE reliable? The word gullible comes to mind.

And in Florida the reason the recounts happened was there WAS a paper trail to follow. And in fact there WERE discrepancies found.

No errors can be found using the diebold systems because no paper trail exist.
Nathan Brazil
10-22-2006, 12:16 AM
Yeah, it's more reliable. Establish multiply redundant paths of storage and use biometrics to key that access, and pretty much make it as easy to alter the machine as it is to launch a nuclear weapon, and what's the problem?

The Democrats are complaining about the lack of paper trails exactly because it's easier to fudge paper trails.

Didn't you watch what happened in Floriduh?
Elrathin
10-22-2006, 03:59 PM
Yeah, it's more reliable. Establish multiply redundant paths of storage and use biometrics to key that access, and pretty much make it as easy to alter the machine as it is to launch a nuclear weapon, and what's the problem?


The problem is they AREN'T doing that. That is the WHOLE PROBLEM. Right now as it stands, the way the machines are now, they are NOT more reliable and in fact can be changed. This was already proven they can be hacked into.
Nathan Brazil
10-22-2006, 09:15 PM
Oh, but they will. Besides, there weren't any problems in 2004, so it doesn't seem urgent.

...oh wait. YOU don't think KERRY lost because of fraud, do you? Oh, that's just way too funny!
Elrathin
10-22-2006, 11:46 PM
YOU don't think KERRY lost because of fraud, do you? Oh, that's just way too funny!


Did I say that? No I didn't. I said that having a machine that is KNOWN to be able to hack into is a danger without a paper trail.

And until they fix that loophole I am going to continue to always criticize a machine that has no paper trail that can get hacked into. It's called security. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it never will.