HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If Anonymous has definiti...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:34 AM

If Anonymous has definitive proof that Rove tried to hack the vote, present it.

This isn't a movie. Rove isn't Lex Luthor. This is real life, and Rove needs to be investigated if he tried to tamper with the 2012 election.

Anonymous needs to provide the evidence so that a real life investigation can be launched.

The jumping for joy and elation about what at present can be dimissed as a conspiracy theory is elevating Rove to untouchable.

It needs to end.

One of the problems with the 2004 election theft was trying to convince people that Republicans were as despicable as we now know they are. With the media complicit in aiding the Swift Liars, it was too easy to write off the massive election tampering as whining. The 2000 Court selection was easier to understand, but 2004 was an all-out assault on the entire process of democracy.

Across the country there ws vote switching, tampering, long lines, intimidation at the polls, closings, blackouts, confusion reporting the results. A lot of people likely still don't know about these incidents, but the outrage and the commissions that looked into the vote were very real. There really isn't going to be anything like it again, and there has already been a relatively incident-free election (2008) since then.

Here is an excerpt from the 2004 commission.

The first presidential election after HAVA became law — on November 2, 2004 — brought to light as many problems as in 2000, if not more. HAVA, which will take years to be fully implemented, was not responsible for most of the complaints. Instead, voters were discouraged or prevented from voting by the failure of election offices to process voter registration applications or to mail absentee ballots in time, and by the poor service and long lines at polling stations in a number of states. There were also reports of improper requests for voter ID and of voter intimidation and suppression tactics. Concerns were raised about partisan purges of voter registration lists and about deliberate failures to deliver voter registration applications to election authorities. Moreover, computer malfunctions impugned election results for at least one race, and different procedures for counting provisional ballots within and between states led to legal challenges and political protests. Had the margin of victory for the presidential contest been narrower, the lengthy dispute that followed the 2000 election could have been repeated.

http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/report.html


Robert Kennedy Jr. also explored the 2004 election theft:

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm


Unlike Mitt, Kerry ran a smart race focusing on an electoral path to victory. By so doing he came within one state (Ohio) of winning.

Bush got 286 to Kerry's 251. Flip Ohio and Kerry wins 271 to 266. That was a close race.

Republicans mounted an undercover and almost surreal assault on the 2004 election process. In 2012, they attempted to use their power brazenly and openly to suppress the vote.

Now, back to Anonymous: Where is the evidence? This is not a game.


385 replies, 28895 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 385 replies Author Time Post
Reply If Anonymous has definitive proof that Rove tried to hack the vote, present it. (Original post)
ProSense Nov 2012 OP
Berlum Nov 2012 #1
ProSense Nov 2012 #2
Coyotl Nov 2012 #202
calimary Nov 2012 #251
AnnieK401 Nov 2012 #99
reusrename Nov 2012 #136
valerief Nov 2012 #184
Coyotl Nov 2012 #203
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #233
reusrename Nov 2012 #250
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #253
calimary Nov 2012 #291
reusrename Nov 2012 #322
loudsue Nov 2012 #327
Phx_Dem Nov 2012 #357
heaven05 Nov 2012 #219
Cha Nov 2012 #264
heaven05 Nov 2012 #284
SkyDaddy7 Nov 2012 #332
pasto76 Nov 2012 #3
ProSense Nov 2012 #8
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #120
TalkingDog Nov 2012 #162
reusrename Nov 2012 #170
Son of Gob Nov 2012 #213
reusrename Nov 2012 #257
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #315
reusrename Nov 2012 #336
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #349
reusrename Nov 2012 #361
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #363
reusrename Nov 2012 #364
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #366
reusrename Nov 2012 #368
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #371
reusrename Nov 2012 #372
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #373
reusrename Nov 2012 #374
reusrename Nov 2012 #337
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #172
heaven05 Nov 2012 #223
heaven05 Nov 2012 #222
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #314
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #345
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #348
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #351
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #352
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #355
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #360
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #362
HooptieWagon Nov 2012 #171
rainy Nov 2012 #41
roguevalley Nov 2012 #141
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #148
pnwmom Nov 2012 #241
glinda Nov 2012 #309
pnwmom Nov 2012 #330
glinda Nov 2012 #359
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #4
ProSense Nov 2012 #9
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #27
ProSense Nov 2012 #62
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #131
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #353
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #127
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #22
brush Nov 2012 #143
cascadiance Nov 2012 #240
brush Nov 2012 #256
marions ghost Nov 2012 #37
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #39
INdemo Nov 2012 #88
treestar Nov 2012 #154
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #165
Rex Nov 2012 #210
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #186
Dustlawyer Nov 2012 #5
Coyotl Nov 2012 #72
Celebration Nov 2012 #94
reusrename Nov 2012 #177
Coyotl Nov 2012 #196
reusrename Nov 2012 #246
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #254
GeorgeGist Nov 2012 #6
ProSense Nov 2012 #10
sulphurdunn Nov 2012 #29
sofa king Nov 2012 #227
pnwmom Nov 2012 #245
Eyes of the World Nov 2012 #7
ProSense Nov 2012 #12
BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #53
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #15
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #42
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #56
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #104
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #121
reusrename Nov 2012 #262
Riftaxe Nov 2012 #268
reusrename Nov 2012 #323
randome Nov 2012 #333
reusrename Nov 2012 #335
jeff47 Nov 2012 #369
reusrename Nov 2012 #370
jeff47 Nov 2012 #375
reusrename Nov 2012 #377
jeff47 Nov 2012 #378
reusrename Nov 2012 #379
jeff47 Nov 2012 #380
reusrename Nov 2012 #381
jeff47 Nov 2012 #382
reusrename Nov 2012 #383
heaven05 Nov 2012 #287
randome Nov 2012 #288
heaven05 Nov 2012 #294
reusrename Nov 2012 #326
reusrename Nov 2012 #324
D23MIURG23 Nov 2012 #310
reusrename Nov 2012 #325
marions ghost Nov 2012 #64
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #70
marions ghost Nov 2012 #85
treestar Nov 2012 #158
Coyotl Nov 2012 #81
marions ghost Nov 2012 #87
AikidoSoul Nov 2012 #150
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #65
treestar Nov 2012 #155
pnwmom Nov 2012 #242
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #11
marions ghost Nov 2012 #75
Coyotl Nov 2012 #86
marions ghost Nov 2012 #92
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #255
pnwmom Nov 2012 #243
marions ghost Nov 2012 #267
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #317
99Forever Nov 2012 #13
ProSense Nov 2012 #14
99Forever Nov 2012 #21
ProSense Nov 2012 #24
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #19
99Forever Nov 2012 #26
ProSense Nov 2012 #36
99Forever Nov 2012 #48
ProSense Nov 2012 #55
99Forever Nov 2012 #66
ProSense Nov 2012 #69
Coyotl Nov 2012 #91
99Forever Nov 2012 #96
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #319
99Forever Nov 2012 #342
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #44
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #214
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #220
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #225
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #226
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #229
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #230
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #234
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #236
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #239
D23MIURG23 Nov 2012 #312
thesquanderer Nov 2012 #247
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #260
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #320
randome Nov 2012 #334
thesquanderer Nov 2012 #339
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #346
Cha Nov 2012 #271
heaven05 Nov 2012 #292
pocoloco Nov 2012 #146
treestar Nov 2012 #160
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #318
99Forever Nov 2012 #343
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #347
99Forever Nov 2012 #350
Stevepol Nov 2012 #32
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #35
Stevepol Nov 2012 #216
argiel1234 Nov 2012 #278
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #279
argiel1234 Nov 2012 #280
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #281
argiel1234 Nov 2012 #283
randome Nov 2012 #290
argiel1234 Nov 2012 #293
randome Nov 2012 #295
argiel1234 Nov 2012 #296
randome Nov 2012 #297
heaven05 Nov 2012 #34
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #45
Coyotl Nov 2012 #95
freshwest Nov 2012 #139
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #142
freshwest Nov 2012 #192
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #321
treestar Nov 2012 #159
Evasporque Nov 2012 #16
ProSense Nov 2012 #20
JimDandy Nov 2012 #169
HooptieWagon Nov 2012 #180
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #187
Atman Nov 2012 #17
ProSense Nov 2012 #28
Atman Nov 2012 #61
ProSense Nov 2012 #74
heaven05 Nov 2012 #18
ProSense Nov 2012 #31
CanSocDem Nov 2012 #189
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #58
heaven05 Nov 2012 #103
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #113
heaven05 Nov 2012 #117
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #151
heaven05 Nov 2012 #191
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #212
heaven05 Nov 2012 #218
Coyotl Nov 2012 #97
msanthrope Nov 2012 #23
heaven05 Nov 2012 #38
msanthrope Nov 2012 #52
Coyotl Nov 2012 #102
LineLineLineLineReply I
heaven05 Nov 2012 #107
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #46
msanthrope Nov 2012 #57
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #25
ProSense Nov 2012 #47
marions ghost Nov 2012 #101
Coyotl Nov 2012 #105
boston bean Nov 2012 #30
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #33
ProSense Nov 2012 #40
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #49
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #63
ProSense Nov 2012 #71
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #73
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #84
heaven05 Nov 2012 #43
ProSense Nov 2012 #50
aandegoons Nov 2012 #108
ProSense Nov 2012 #111
aandegoons Nov 2012 #119
bahrbearian Nov 2012 #78
Coyotl Nov 2012 #109
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #115
bahrbearian Nov 2012 #147
Coyotl Nov 2012 #188
treestar Nov 2012 #164
boilerbabe Nov 2012 #178
quinnox Nov 2012 #51
IdaBriggs Nov 2012 #54
bahrbearian Nov 2012 #76
ProSense Nov 2012 #89
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #125
ProSense Nov 2012 #129
bahrbearian Nov 2012 #145
Cha Nov 2012 #275
Coyotl Nov 2012 #116
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #238
Fence rider Nov 2012 #59
patricia92243 Nov 2012 #60
Coyotl Nov 2012 #67
KharmaTrain Nov 2012 #68
tammywammy Nov 2012 #83
starroute Nov 2012 #77
NorthCarolina Nov 2012 #79
ProSense Nov 2012 #82
Melinda Nov 2012 #80
NorthCarolina Nov 2012 #100
Coyotl Nov 2012 #122
marions ghost Nov 2012 #273
D23MIURG23 Nov 2012 #316
NorthCarolina Nov 2012 #340
D23MIURG23 Nov 2012 #384
marions ghost Nov 2012 #341
D23MIURG23 Nov 2012 #385
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #367
marions ghost Nov 2012 #106
edhopper Nov 2012 #90
Coyotl Nov 2012 #124
edhopper Nov 2012 #128
grantcart Nov 2012 #93
heaven05 Nov 2012 #98
HooptieWagon Nov 2012 #193
LineLineLineLineReply I
heaven05 Nov 2012 #198
JimDandy Nov 2012 #197
Are_grits_groceries Nov 2012 #110
heaven05 Nov 2012 #112
ProSense Nov 2012 #123
Are_grits_groceries Nov 2012 #126
heaven05 Nov 2012 #344
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #114
arely staircase Nov 2012 #118
Eyes of the World Nov 2012 #130
longship Nov 2012 #132
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #133
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #134
ProSense Nov 2012 #137
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #231
Wait Wut Nov 2012 #149
aandegoons Nov 2012 #135
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #138
Coyotl Nov 2012 #140
toddaa Nov 2012 #144
Dark n Stormy Knight Nov 2012 #331
geckosfeet Nov 2012 #152
treestar Nov 2012 #153
pipewrench Nov 2012 #156
ProSense Nov 2012 #161
DirtyDawg Nov 2012 #157
Cirque du So-What Nov 2012 #163
ProSense Nov 2012 #168
meanit Nov 2012 #221
Hutzpa Nov 2012 #166
lalalu Nov 2012 #167
HopeHoops Nov 2012 #173
sofa king Nov 2012 #174
go west young man Nov 2012 #313
Gregorian Nov 2012 #175
The Traveler Nov 2012 #176
Skraxx Nov 2012 #179
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #183
ProSense Nov 2012 #185
Skraxx Nov 2012 #201
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #228
Skraxx Nov 2012 #298
randome Nov 2012 #299
Skraxx Nov 2012 #300
randome Nov 2012 #301
Skraxx Nov 2012 #302
Cleita Nov 2012 #181
ProSense Nov 2012 #182
Cleita Nov 2012 #190
heaven05 Nov 2012 #195
ProSense Nov 2012 #199
Cleita Nov 2012 #200
flamingdem Nov 2012 #194
Matariki Nov 2012 #217
robinlynne Nov 2012 #204
SidDithers Nov 2012 #205
Rex Nov 2012 #206
Zorra Nov 2012 #207
ProSense Nov 2012 #209
Zorra Nov 2012 #308
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #259
InsultComicDog Nov 2012 #208
rzemanfl Nov 2012 #211
allrevvedup Nov 2012 #215
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #224
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #232
flamingdem Nov 2012 #235
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #237
sofa king Nov 2012 #258
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #261
sofa king Nov 2012 #358
reusrename Nov 2012 #269
judesedit Nov 2012 #244
James48 Nov 2012 #248
eyewall Nov 2012 #249
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #252
argiel1234 Nov 2012 #263
maindawg Nov 2012 #265
RoccoR5955 Nov 2012 #266
ProSense Nov 2012 #270
RoccoR5955 Nov 2012 #338
marions ghost Nov 2012 #272
aletier_v Nov 2012 #274
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #276
aletier_v Nov 2012 #277
randome Nov 2012 #285
argiel1234 Nov 2012 #289
bucolic_frolic Nov 2012 #282
TrollBuster9090 Nov 2012 #286
ProSense Nov 2012 #303
TrollBuster9090 Nov 2012 #307
William769 Nov 2012 #304
NightOwwl Nov 2012 #305
PATRICK Nov 2012 #306
MrMickeysMom Nov 2012 #311
rightsideout Nov 2012 #328
merrily Nov 2012 #329
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #354
merrily Nov 2012 #356
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #365
closeupready Nov 2012 #376

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:39 AM

1. Show us the proof, Anony

"We need data." - Upstanding American Citizens

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:53 AM

2. Yes, we do. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:42 PM

202. At least someone who thinks like Data

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #202)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:13 PM

251. EXCELLENT!!!! Man, LOVED that show!

I would love to see more about this story, too. We need to!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:06 AM

99. Love this, thanks for making my day. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:48 AM

136. The proof is out there.

 

Mike Collins has written several excellent articles on this subject, detailing how they got caught manipulating the Republican primaries:

http://www.opednews.com/populum/pagem.php?f=Part-II--Rigged-Elections-by-Michael-Collins-121031-324.html

The facts are what they are, there's no theory to it at all. It did really happen in the primaries:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1648236

In 2004, they set up a "man in the middle" using a SmartTech IT routing switch to intercept and alter the precinct data:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021835756


There's plenty of proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #136)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:39 PM

184. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #136)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:44 PM

203. Not this BS again.



Once a false meme gets started, it becomes proof for the next one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #203)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:07 PM

233. Do you actually think you're going to stop people from posting their opinions on this board?....

Seriously???

ROFLMAO!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #203)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:11 PM

250. I'm going to give y'all one more chance to respond.

 

What, specifically, are you talking about?

Try to do the right thing here and make an intelligent response.

Folks have died for the right to vote, and your mockery is about as offensive as it gets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #203)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:18 PM

253. Maybe you could choose not to read these threads, instead of being, you know,

obnoxious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #136)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:23 PM

291. Welcome to DU, reusrename!

I tend to suspect the worst of our "worthy opposition." Just what I've learned about them through years of observation. Anything that even remotely includes kkkarl rove - is not to be trusted. VERIFY. THEN trust. NOT the other way around. Glad you're here. We've ALWAYS got to be on our guard with these people. ALWAYS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #291)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:48 AM

322. Always!

 

Even absent evil intent, their stupidity and incompetance are plenty dangerous on their own.

Thanks for the warm welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #136)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:48 AM

327. Exactly. It's been proven every way ....statistically, technically, timing, cover-up....

And it makes me really angry that none of this has been taken care of by the justice department.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #136)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:22 PM

357. +1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:38 PM

219. where's the beef?

He's occupying the WH at the moment. Anonymous, stay strong and competent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #219)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:57 PM

264. "He's Occupying the WH at the moment"? What does that mean? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #264)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:10 PM

284. small

attempt at humor per the anonymous op asking where's the beef. Very small attempt. dumb attempt probably, but I never said I was perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 06:17 AM

332. Anonymous is a JOKE!!

They have never really been anything other than MOUTH...Yes, they have been a small pain at times for corporations & one security firm but that is about it. They have less than a quarter of the power they claim to hold & 1000 times the MOUTH! LOL! Small time hackers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:56 AM

3. A group like Anon coming forward with details? the group wouldnt survive that

public hearings. CONGRESSSIONAL hearings. names and histories under scrutiny.

Maybe they did, maybe they didnt. If they did, thank all your gods that they did. We do not have a President Elect romney. IF they did, fucks like Rove now _know_ that someone is watching.

"this isnt a movie". Neither is invading two countries, but youve seen how little the country cares about that. Along with pollution in general, global warming, future water shortages, food shortages, the theft of american wealth by global corporations. Nobody cares.

Sure, members of DU would love to see Rove hang for shit like that. But hey, did you know there are only FOUR episodes of Jersey Shore left?

LIKE FOREVER?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:06 AM

8. Who said they have to come forward?

Certainly, the evidence can be delivered without compromising the group.

Yeah, let's just do the happy dance knowing that Rove, a criminal, was secretly foiled.

Good grief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:19 AM

120. Really?

You see no risk involved with sending such evidence, and sending it to whom? I am completely ignorant when it comes to anything technical, but wouldn't it be very difficult to produce creditable evidence without revealing just how they obtained it? And wouldn't that
risk crippling their ability?

Isn't what ANON does illegal, or perhaps just marginally legal? If, say, they sent their information to the Justice Department, wouldn't the Justice Dep't. spend more time, money and energy trying to uncover the ANON operation and very little real effort on investigating Rove? If you consider all of the secrets government keeps from the people, Military, NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, the WH ,
do you honestly think the focus would not be on trying to find a way to stop ANON rather than prosecution of Rove?

Personally, I would prefer ANON to just continue to do their thing.... Any administration unwilling to prosecute the previous regime of thugs, is not going to go after Rove... But I do understand your position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #120)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:50 AM

162. Send it to Mother Jones, Atlantic Monthly and about 1/2 a dozen other news outlets

foreign and domestic.

Have you noticed... or maybe you don't read that much, that a lot of stories that get "big" in America are American stories leaked to the foreign press?

The people then put pressure on the government to deal with it and there is less chance for a cover up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #162)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:08 PM

170. The foreign press has written about electronically flipping the primary for Romney.

 

Don't see any major US outlets going with the story. Why do you think that is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #170)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:15 PM

213. Do you have a link for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Son of Gob (Reply #213)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:23 PM

257. Unfortunately, the links have been scrubbed the last time I looked.

 

The ukprogressive had a page up until a few days ago. I posted about the scrubbing a while back.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021664507

A month ago there were quite a few news articles about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #257)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:26 AM

315. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to reusrename (Reply #336)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:38 AM

349. Yes, and that entire line of logic fails for the following reasons.

First off, it is predicated upon this sentence: "That reveals trends should remain statistically constant throughout an election."

Wrong.

This is ignorant of phone banking, sign waving, and other localized advertising (like road signs) that are leveraged at higher rates in high population density areas.

10% is a pretty easy signal to detect, and the election boards could catch it during machine evaluation.

10% doesn't necessarily win you an election. It didn't save McLame, and it didn't save RMoney. So it's a pretty risky venture to just do an across the board 10%, when the end result might be you lose the election anyway.



Also, it's not as hard to find that guy's claims as you seem to think. Pima County Election Board actually evaluated the claims, and basically told him to pound sand.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/pima-commission-to-discuss-chance-of-election-fraud-in-larger/article_c2bb25a8-40d7-596d-a933-38bd767a6b87.html

(Obama won that county in Arizona by a 7% margin)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #349)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:01 PM

361. It's suddenly become obvious that you don't have a grasp of the question being raised here.

 

I don't think I've made the issue clear enough, and for that I apologize. There is so much disinformation and confusion out there that it's hard to understand what people's specific objections are to the information.

First off, nothing that I'm talking about is predicated on the sentence: "That reveals trends should remain statistically constant throughout an election."

That sentence has absolutely nothing to do with anything, afaict. It is not part of any argument that I have made.

Your link to the Arizona Daily Star has also nothing at all informative to it. Basically some folks are crying that this can't be true because they would rather believe in miracles than believe that the votes were electronically flipped. I don't really think you share that belief, the belief that God created a miracle for Mitt here.

So please listen to your own argument for just a second. Follow it through completely for once. You are claiming that sign waving and phone banking could have caused the vote share in the precincts to arrange themselves in a manner from lowest to highest according to total number of votes in that precinct, in race after race, always favoring Mitt and detracting from the front-runner in each race.

My only question to you is this:

How do the flag wavers and and phone bankers know when to stop waving and banking in order to ensure that the total vote counts line up this way. I mean, how did they stop the wavers and bankers from waving and banking too hard in the smaller precincts?

I hope you can follow this, because it is the heart of the issue. How could they have possibly accomplished that, because that is what actually happened. Did God help them to create this miracle? Because, in my current understanding of the universe, any other explanation is impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #361)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:28 PM

363. That quoted bit is the claim being made by the fellow doing this statistical analysis.

I realize it is not your flag/hill to defend, but it sheds light on the credibility of *his* claims.

"How do the flag wavers and and phone bankers know when to stop waving and banking in order to ensure that the total vote counts line up this way."

They don't. The magical 10% is a pattern illusion. This is Mitt's first run. When the rubber met the road, Mitt lost. Funny, eh? Yet, the more credible/accurate surveys and exit polls didn't show Obama ahead by an additional 10% beyond the vote tabulation. Strange, yes?

"I mean, how did they stop the wavers and bankers from waving and banking too hard in the smaller precincts?"

Very simply, by not extending resources to smaller precincts. When people have to fight and claw and pay out of pocket with no campaign support whatsoever, they tend to be less effective. They didn't have to be 'stopped' because they didn't really exist in the first place.

Romney's campaign was a monumental failure in this department. I have co-workers still waiting on delivery of their hats, signs, bumper stickers etc. (And boy are they pissed!)

"I hope you can follow this, because it is the heart of the issue. How could they have possibly accomplished that, because that is what actually happened. Did God help them to create this miracle? Because, in my current understanding of the universe, any other explanation is impossible."

Nate Silver, and Intrade, two very different statistical analysis tools, one proprietary analytics, one a market, accurately predicted the outcome of the election by cutting through the noise and getting to the meat underneath. How is this possible with a 10% vote flip going on, or expected to be going on, even if it was foiled? Intrade is the sort of mechanism that reveals insider trading, because who wouldn't try to make a buck off it if they knew the fix was in? Right?


We're chasing smoke and mirrors here. There are reasons to adjust how we do procurement for the tabulation and voting machines, and who they are purchased from, etc. Was Rove's evil insider plot foiled by Anon? No facts in evidence at the moment. Just a claim.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be fairly dismissed without evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #363)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:10 PM

364. We are obviously not talking about the same thing.

 

It still hasn't clicked into place for you.

What you just said about not extending resources to smaller precincts. Follow this explanation to the end.

How did they determine exactly how many resources to withold from the smaller precincts?

It would be impossible to create these results using your method of witholding resources from certain precincts. It would require knowing ahead of the election exactly how many resources to withhold from each specific precinct. How would you even begin to make that kind of assessment?

Perhaps you do believe that God figured this all out for them, and then they simply followed His plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #364)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:35 PM

366. You are not clicking to the idea that the '10%' is an illusion.

The money allocations for support occur before the day the votes are cast.

I will consider the '10%' when I see his methods and data peer reviewed. In fact, there are several publications that will take on such a topic.

Until then it is merely a claim.

One that didn't avail the Republicans in 2008 or 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #366)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 08:58 PM

368. yes, peer review is necessary - can't image it taking more than another month or two

 

But the 10%, it's documented history, recorded in the official certified vote totals.

The vote totals themselves are impossible. They cannot occur naturally. Only electronic vote flipping can produce such outcomes.

There is no smoke, no mirrors. The certified results themselves, are either a miracle, or they were flipped electronically.

Here's why.

1) In order to intentionally produce these results using your theory, each individual precinct would first have to be ordered by size. Not the size of the precinct, but the actual vote, which means that voter turnout for each precinct would have to be accurately determined in advance.

2) Then, the actual vote counts in each precinct would have to be accurately predicted.

3) Now the impossible part, expenditures would have to be assigned on a precinct-by-precinct basis in such a manner that it suppressed or enhanced the vote in each individual precinct such that it outperformed its next smaller neighbor while still managing to underperform its next larger neighbor.

How do you think that last part was done? Because it did happen in the certified vote. Fact.

I think a rational person would concede that it could only happen by electronic vote flipping. There is no other possible explanation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #368)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:02 AM

371. Again, I will believe it when I see it verified.

1) In order to intentionally produce these results using your theory, each individual precinct would first have to be ordered by size. Not the size of the precinct, but the actual vote, which means that voter turnout for each precinct would have to be accurately determined in advance.

Things like Orca and Narwhal do precisely that, and they do it very well. Well, Narwhal did anyway. Houdini and Orca fell over.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/when-the-nerds-go-marching-in/265325/

2) Then, the actual vote counts in each precinct would have to be accurately predicted.
Down to the last vote? I don't think so, but surprise, that can be done by certain characters like Nate Silver, obviously.

3) Now the impossible part, expenditures would have to be assigned on a precinct-by-precinct basis in such a manner that it suppressed or enhanced the vote in each individual precinct such that it outperformed its next smaller neighbor while still managing to underperform its next larger neighbor.

And that is where you see 'smoke and mirrors' or rather, you see a false signal in the data.
You are basically saying Obama needed a 17% actual lead, rather than the 7% he needed in 2008. And that's frankly bullshit, unsupported by independent exit polls, pre-election polls, you name it.

Same with 2012, unless you also believe Anonymous somehow repaired every single machine in every polling station, yadda yadda, whatever. I don't think so. If they did, they could prove it. They haven't thus far.

"Because it did happen in the certified vote. Fact.
I think a rational person would concede that it could only happen by electronic vote flipping. There is no other possible explanation."


Unless of course the whole analysis is bullshit. (highly likely)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #371)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:49 AM

372. Obama was not a candidate in the Republican primaries.

 

Romney defeated four front runners, one by one. None was Obama.

I'm sorry you can't follow the evidence, but to claim that it's smoke and mirrors just isn't true. There is no false signal in any data. It just isn' t the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #372)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:21 AM

373. So let's see it independently verified. Peer reviewed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #373)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:53 AM

374. And published in a scientific journal.

 

That is very curious. I would think some publications would have been all over this by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to TalkingDog (Reply #162)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:09 PM

172. I've been subscribing to Mother Jones & The Atlantic for years...

I'm not really concerned with the "to whom" as much as the risk of uncovering ANON. I have yet to read anything on the 2 threads discussing them that gives ANON a good reason to come forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #162)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:43 PM

223. It's

a reasonable option. Yet the media information is corrupted once it crosses our border. So.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #120)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:41 PM

222. See!

People are thinking. Right on to you SD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #120)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:25 AM

314. "I am completely ignorant when it comes to anything technical"

You could have just stopped typing right there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #314)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:15 AM

345. Can't answer my questions yourself

so you resort to snark? Brilliant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #345)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:22 AM

348. There is absolutely NOTHING more dangerous about sharing the code and logs

than there was about this 'press release' in the first place.

Nothing.

If they had it, they could do it, and it wouldn't implicate them any more or less than just claiming to have done something in the first place without supplying the code changes. (One can assume the code is still ON the machines as well. Even if the 'code change' was a password reset, as some of the revised statements have alluded to)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #348)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:22 PM

351. Thank you!

That is what I wanted to know.

So now it's better to assume this claim is bogus? Do you think it even came from ANON...or some imposter?

I am envious of people who understand the way this 'stuff' works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #351)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:49 PM

352. Could easily be some

anonymous-wannabe making exaggerated claims, or some group that wants to discredit anonymous.

That's part of the fundamental problem of Anonymous, how do you know what claim is theirs or not? By definition, you really can't.

The only thing that sort of 'proves' to me when Anonymous is involved, is, the demonstration of capability, AND the claim of responsibility. Groups claiming to be Anonymous have at times demonstrated actual capability. With this claim, at this point, there has so far been no demonstration of the ability to do or record of having done what was claimed.

They could still do so, but it would make me wonder why they didn't demonstrate it up front.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #352)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:13 PM

355. I will definitely

rely on your superior knowledge in these matters...particularly if you alert DU when you think any claim meets your standards.

I find it entirely plausible that Rove & co. would attempt to rig the voting machines, but then we've all come to distrust that man and probably wouldn't believe him if he told us the time while wearing 2 dozen watches. In your estimation, would it have been possible for some outside agent to mess up the transfer...or whatever it was?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #355)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:37 PM

360. I don't think so, not with so many people on both sides watching.

That's kind of the beauty of the 'voter fraud' boogeyman. Every election, someone loses. Both sides lose from time to time, so both sides (two party system) are always looking to catch the other side cheating. There are a LOT of partisan eyeballs from both sides looking at the voting process from one end to the other.

All we seem to actually catch is onesies-twosies of people doing stupid things like trying to vote in two precincts or vote for a dead spouse, and the system does catch them. (And the news showed those instances to be often if not mostly Republicans, which is funny, because voter fraud is precisely the subject they howl about the most)

Unfortunately, I cannot state with any certainty how vulnerable or invulnerable the voting machines or tabulation machines are. They are not open source, so we can't code review them from the outside. Could the vote totals be altered in transit? I'd just about eat my hat if the data was sent unsigned, if not encrypted as well, BUT... Stranger things have happened. However, the total on the machine would have to be altered first, because there is a check performed when the results are certified, that the numbers match upstream.

I don't like how these machines are procured and implemented. It amounts to a method known as 'security through obscurity'. It's a bad practice. The machines could be just genuinely buggy, and outsiders would never know. They could be total vulnerable to outside tampering, and only black or white hat hackers would ever know.


so to resolve this going forward, we should be pushing election boards to move to open source voting machines that anyone can audit, and aren't protected by screams of IT'S PROPRIETARY YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO LOOK like Diebold and co. like to do. Presumably, they use some patents somewhere in the process that derive from their cash machines, and those machines are stupendously robust and reliable, but this isn't an accounting thing. You can't insure an election result. You can't meaningfully sue the manufacturer once the vote is done, if the machines are defective. We have to look at open source machines from the election board level on up. Maybe get legislatures to pass laws preventing lobbying efforts with such boards.

In my state, we don't really have this particular issue, as we moved to all-mail voting in 2008. So we have a paper trail, and traditional optical scans, etc.

Is diebold and friends an actual threat, an actual problem? I tend to doubt it, but I will agree it has the appearance of potential impropriety, and should be eliminated as a threat. Especially with the partisan divide in the business world between left and right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #360)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:10 PM

362. Sincere thanks, once again.

I wish we could have had this exchange prior to the election. You have no idea how many hours I spent worrying about this.

I live in Palm Beach County, FL, the land of the hanging chad. My personal belief is that the whole thing was just a smoke screen for the real tampering that went on. While everyone in the nation was focused on hanging chads the mysteriously purged voter rolls were ignored. As were the polling precincts that were moved without prior notice and in many cases no information was provided as to where those registered in that precinct should go in order to vote. Complaints were filed, to no avail in a republican administration led by Jeb Bush. Because of that bit of misdirection, I was afraid that all the focus on the lines in FL would shift focus away from Ohio and its voting machines.

I have become so paranoid about politics here in FL I don't trust the mail-in approach. We do have a paper trail now which is good. However, during the Allen West v Patrick Murphy recount in St. Lucie County, a box containing 306 uncounted ballots showed up after the
initial totals had been sent to Tallahassee. The recount ended up giving Murphy an even wider margin of victory, which would seem to indicate sloppy procedure rather than an attempt to game the vote, but sloppy procedure is inexcusable IMHO.

Again, thanks for answering my questions. I really do appreciate that you took the time to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:09 PM

171. Agreed.

All Anon would have to do is mail a flashdrive of the evidence to NYT, Reuters, BBC, and several other media. Anon would still be anonymous, and Rove and the GOP would have a lot of 'splaining to do.
Anyone can make an unsubstantiated claim. Every terrorist bombing has several groups claiming credit,. from al Qeada to Basque Separatists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:30 AM

41. You are so right. Maybe they

could wiki-leak some leads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:53 AM

141. love them anyway. put fear into the one percent

Rove had a fix in. He was dumbfounded that he lost... the kind of fear credo got when Michael figured it out. Adelson does biz with the Chinese mob. He was afraid. Good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:08 AM

148. They can dump whatever evidence they have on Wikileaks

They don't have to testify in person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:47 PM

241. All they'd have to do is anonymously send their proof to the FBI. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #241)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:44 PM

309. But who is Anon referring to in this video to give info to? Wish they would turn proof over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glinda (Reply #309)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:43 AM

330. I think they would if they'd actually done this

as opposed to just wanting to take credit for having done this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #330)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:33 PM

359. I have not passed judgement on this at the moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:58 AM

4. Because Anonymous can rest assured that if such info were provided,

Rove would be prosecuted. This wouldn't be a "look to the future" situation, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:06 AM

9. He's untouchable! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:23 AM

27. Like war criminals, no?

So, if Anonymous *is* telling the truth, why should they stick their neck(s) out? It might reveal info that could help prosecute Anonymous, who does not have untouchable-by-the-DOJ status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:39 AM

62. Sure, he's untouchable. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:41 AM

131. I agree Manny. There is no reason for Anon to expose themselves. I doubt that they have any

more faith in the justice system than a lot of people. They warned Rove and then they confirmed their warning. They arent out to convince the doubters.

I dont know whether they did anything or not. But they warned Rove and something did happen that clearly shocked Rove. I also believe Rove was involved in the 2000 and 2004 election theft's and tried again in 2012. I believe that the "masters" didnt try too hard to win in 2008. They knew the public was pissed at the Bush Republican admin so let the Dems have four years of non-cooperation and then come storming back. That would explain why the normally very outspoken Cheney said nothing as he limped out of Washington the DC.

Some wondered why the Republicans choose to run a bunch of idiots for the presidency. The masters thought the fix was in and would rather have a puppet than a real conservative.

This is certainly a conspiracy theory but I believe that those that want to run the country and have more money than God, conspire. In fact that is Rove's job, to conspire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #131)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:04 PM

353. 'No reason', apart from basic honesty, that is, and a desire not to be complicit

If the people claiming to have foiled an attempt to steal the election were honest, then they'd want to see the criminal punished. They'd want everyone to know how it could have been done, so that we could make sure it never happens again.

They are, at the moment, either lying, or complicit in Rove's attempt. I suspect it's the former (I also suspect they are not at all representative of 'Anonymous'), but, if it is the latter, they are enemies of democracy, almost as bad as Rove.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:29 AM

127. His untouchability is determined by his masters.But they have a long history of protecting their own

The list of untouchables is long and included Reagan, Bush Sr., Oily North and the rest of the Iran/Contra criminals, plus those responsible for outing Agent Valarie Plame. In fact all of the Bush Jr. administration are war criminals that are apparently untouchable.

Just because someone isn’t prosecuted doesn’t mean they are innocent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:20 AM

22. On what fucking planet is Rove going to be prosecuted?

Because it damn sure ain't this one, Rove knows where entirely too many very important bodies are buried in DC to ever see a courtroom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:05 AM

143. He may not be prosecuted but . . .

. . . he will get his comeuppance in some unrelated, maybe even "seemingly" unrelated, event along the way. We'll hear about it and some of us will smile and keep going about our business while chalking up one for karma. Others will wipe away the blood and re-sheath their long knives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #143)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:55 PM

240. Kinda like how Mike Connell got his comeuppance when he died in that plane crash...

... before he had a chance to testify about earlier election thefts!

I wonder what planes KKKarl is flying at the moment!...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #240)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:22 PM

256. Yeah

Connell's death is a good example of a "seemingly" unrelated event. Things kind of take care of themselves when you go too, too far over the line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:28 AM

37. "Rove would be prosecuted"

I'm sure you meant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #37)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:29 AM

39. Indeed, I did. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:58 AM

88. Yep..Rove would be prosecuted just like

Bush and Cheney were prosecuted for war crimes right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to INdemo (Reply #88)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:30 AM

154. THey could at least try

Why wouldn't he be prosecuted if there is good evidence? People who think it is so slam-dunk a case that Bush and Cheney could be convicted of "war crimes" never will meet the challenge of stating exactly what international laws there are and what evidence there is. But this is a lot more specific - the Ohio and federal statutes could be identified and the evidence would be specific to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to INdemo (Reply #88)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:00 PM

165. Or Oliy North. Given a fine of $100 and 2 hours community service. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #165)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:00 PM

210. Yep, once the Repukes broke the seal

it became vogue for them to break the law and violate the U.S. Constitution...'in order to save it'.

And I never expect such blatant criminal activity to be allowed to stand...boy what a stupid person I was back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:41 PM

186. But they can be assured that they would be. I just love threads like this.

 

Our government refusing or being blocked from doing its job is not a problem, but ordinary people with a justified fear of having that government abuse its power to destroy them should ignore that and throw themselves over the cliff just because.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:03 AM

5. You need to read and listen to Stephen Spoonamore to understand. They did not use the

King Computer b/c the election was not close enough to switch the vote and hope to get away with it. I think they did it in the Repug primary if you look at how the numbers changed. Let me put it this way, unless they have emails talking about committing massive election fraud, (Rove is not that stupid), you won't have proof. But, they spent 1 billion plus to win and Rmoney was shameless in his desire for the Presidency, do you think he wouldn't spend a couple of million to rig the vote to win? If they can get away with it, of course they are going to do it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:47 AM

72. That is also just a bunch of BS, just like the current deal, piled higher and deeper

How does all this bullshit float when the facts don't fit? Because people want to believe. It is a religion now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #72)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:02 AM

94. certainly no facts this time around

But we look to history,

And the facts are that Ohio was stolen in 2004.........

No reason to think that they wouldn't have tried again, given favorable circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #72)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:18 PM

177. It is a n incontrovertable fact that the primary was electronically flipped.

 

I have a hard time understanding how folks can deny science and mathematics so casually.

How do do you that? Seriously, how do you deny the science? I honestly don't understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #177)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:08 PM

196. Because you believe it, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #196)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:00 PM

246. Of course not.

 

Because I understand it.

It's no different than the earth being round. Honestly. You should look more closely at this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #72)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:19 PM

254. Look, Karl, you lost this time. Call it "Kerry's Revenge."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:05 AM

6. What part of Anonymous ... do you not understand?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:10 AM

10. What part of conspiracy theory don't you understand?

The vast majority of people like evidence before they believe unprovable shit.

I mean, let's create a society the RW loves, one in which people can say whatever and it's fact.

We can all live in an America where President Obama is not a citizen, a Kenyan Muslim, and Rove secretly tried to steal the election!

Maybe I can come up with some tasty unprovable theories. We can replace facts with speculation. What a great world that would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:24 AM

29. I understand

what you're saying. It wasn't really until the plane crash that killed Michael Connell that very many people were seriously willing to consider that the election in Ohio was stolen in 2004, even though the crash inferred plenty but proved nothing. Sometimes I think we're too far down the political rabbit hole to either know the facts or to interpret them intelligently if we do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:51 PM

227. Perhaps unprovable is the point.

Maybe the announcement is false, and there is no proof.

But what if the object is to invite the person looking for evidence to go looking for proof, and find that the answer is... unavailable.

Maybe they're inviting us to try to prove it, and to discover that we cannot, not because it did not happen, but because the information that would prove or disprove it is not available to voters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:52 PM

245. They can supply the proof to the FBI or any other government official

anonymously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:06 AM

7. I'm sure Anonymous isn't out to impress you

 

"Evidence" and "Proof" are two different things.

There is "evidence" in the behavior of Rove on election night.

There is cryptic "evidence" planted in the letter to convince Rove.

But there will be no government investigation, and Rove isn't talking.

So you will get no proof.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eyes of the World (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:11 AM

12. "There is 'evidence' in the behavior of Rove on election night."

Let's prosecute the asshole for acting strange!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:35 AM

53. Gawd . . . if only that were possible. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eyes of the World (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:14 AM

15. Evidence in this case is simple, and necessary: the code

If we are to believe this statement (supposedly from Anonymous), we would have to believe

1) There was code associated with the attempted "theft"
2) Anonymous wrote additional code that disabled that code

That's at a minimum.

So where's the code? This isn't a matter of interpreting Karl Rove's behavior. This is empirically verifiable: X code performs Y functions on Z machine. We stopped X code from working by deploying X' fix.

That's verifiable by any third party. That's what we call...."science." And any programmer with the slightest bit of self-respect would release just that with the claim to have developed a coding fix. You can't be about transparency and science one minute and about tea leaves reading the next. There's an easy way to verify the claim: release the code.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:30 AM

42. I predict we will never see the code

 

It's difficult for somebody to produce something that does not exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:36 AM

56. That's my suspicion, too

of course, I am well within the bounds of scientific claim-making, since I refuse to put stock in a claim that comes with no evidence and no ability to verify. Whether or not the code exists or this supposed event happened is beside the point. We can't even get to that without the requisite evidence. Those promoting this story on this thread are coming up with a million and one reasons why we should not have the only kind of evidence that would verify the claim. That's just religion, faith, and mystery. It's not science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #56)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:10 AM

104. Precisely

 

If there was code that I could look at, I could make a determination as to the veracity of the claims. Without the code, the claims must be assumed to be nothing but bullshit.

Too many people consider Rove to be an evil genius. He's a hack who got lucky in 2000 that Jeb and Katherine Harris was able to purge enough votes off the voter rolls and got lucky in 2004 that Ken Blackwell was able to suppress enough Democratic votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #104)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:22 AM

121. The "anonymous" claims were a joke in my opinion.

Someone's fantasy and way to get a good laugh at Rove. Sort of drew attention to Rove's bizarre response to the election outcome.

The problem with rich people and their friends is that they only take themselves and other rich people and friends of rich people seriously. Rove just did not come in contact with Obama voters. He lives in a Republican cocoon and has no respect for ordinary people who vote Democratic. So of course, Rove really believed Republicans would win. He is deaf to any information that would suggest otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #56)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:53 PM

262. Sorry to pop your bubble, but it is science.

 

The vote totals are the evidence that electronic flipping occurred. You don't need to know the code that produced it, nor do you need to know the names of the individuals involved, in order to know that the electronic flipping did occur. That's just the way things are.

Now, if you were to argue that it was perhaps an accident due to poor programming or something like that, then you would be returning to the real world. But to argue that science isn't science, that math isn't math, well that' just ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #262)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:20 PM

268. So evidence equals speculation?

I have read a few articles containing statistical speculation about the alleged vote flipping, but none have presented any evidence if they have indeed procured any in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Riftaxe (Reply #268)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:09 AM

323. Well, I don't know what speculation you are referring to.

 

I'm talking specifically about the electronic vote flipping from this year's primary election. The fact that it did occur is not speculation. How it could have happened, by what method, is something I have not expressed an opinion about, other than to say I doubt you can find a programmer anywhere who thinks it could possibly be accidental or caused by sloppy programming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #323)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 06:19 AM

333. Are you talking about the 2 -count 'em, 2- malfunctioning machines in PA?

One of which was recalibrated and put back into service? The touch screen sensors malfunction as frequently as anything else. It was no mystery.

Two malfunctioning machines out of thousands mean...two malfunctioning machines and nothing else, absent evidence to the contrary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #333)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 06:55 AM

335. No. That's not the story.

 

Mike Collins has written several good articles on the subject:

http://www.opednews.com/populum/pagem.php?f=Part-II--Rigged-Elections-by-Michael-Collins-121031-324.html


The proof is the official vote totals. They were electronically flipped and there's no denying that fact. You can download the official vote totals and check for yourself, as many have done already. It'll be nice when they start teaching this stuff in high school.

The particular technique that is being used to flip votes leaves leaves a specific linear slope as an artifact in the vote counts. It is a very straightforward routine to calculate what this slope is, then reverse the formula to restore the original data. This can be done with 100% accuracy and to within a precision (margin of error) that can also be easily determined.

They show how to do this in Figure 7, Page 9, of the September 2012 PDF below.




Evidence of Algorithm Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections Layman's Executive Summary

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumZzI2bVlON2VTMnFyYVZZSnpDYnNyQQ/edit?pli=1

Significant Evidence of Algorithmic Vote Flipping in the 2012 GOP Primary

http://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumdkE4d0Y2eWtURTZ2eDM5RmlLc3ZhQQ/edit?pli=1

Republican Primary Election 2012 Results: Amazing Statistical Anomalies August 13, 2012

http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Republican-Primary-Election-Results-Amazing-Statistical-Anomalies_V2.0.pdf

2008/2012 Election Anomalies, Results, Analysis and Concerns September 2012

http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.51.pdf





Here's the image from the paper telling how to determine the original, unflipped, vote count:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #335)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:59 PM

369. The gigantic hole in your evidence

Is you don't show results from any previous election.

Show that this didn't happen in, say, 2000 when these districts were not using these machines. And back that up with results from, say, 1992 and 1984.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #369)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:27 AM

370. That would be a clever response if you had a clue.

 

The fact that similar results are not naturally possible is somehow lost on you. Only electronic flipping can produce this result. If you are not capable of that basic understanding, then you just don't get it yet.

The vote totals themselves, from the primaries, are impossible. They cannot occur naturally. Only electronic vote flipping can produce such outcomes.

There is no smoke, no mirrors. The certified results themselves, are either a miracle, or they were flipped electronically. Here's why:

1) In order for the Romney campaign to intentionally produce these results naturally, each individual precinct would first have to be ordered by size. Not the size of the precinct, but by the size of the actual vote, which means that voter turnout for each precinct would have to be accurately determined far in advance.

2) Then, the actual vote counts in each precinct would have to be accurately predicted, I guess using traditional methods such as polling and demographic data.

3) Now the impossible part, expenditures would have to be assigned on a precinct-by-precinct basis in a manner that suppressed or enhanced the vote in each individual precinct such that it produced a very specific outcome. Each precinct must outperformed its next smaller neighbor while still managing to underperform its next larger neighbor.

How do you think that last part was done? Because it did happen in the certified vote. Fact. I think a rational person would concede that it could only happen by electronic vote flipping. There is no other possible explanation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #370)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:12 AM

375. Your first sentence states something that isn't known.

The fact that similar results are not naturally possible is somehow lost on you.

Sure it is. There's nothing in the laws of physics that requires it to not happen.

So show it never happened before, and you'll have a point. But all this article says is "I don't think that could happen". There's lots and lots of things in history where people were absolutely sure something couldn't happen, and then it did. For example, heavier-than-air flying machines were thought utterly impossible. We now have 747s.

So show that this never happened before, and you'll have shown that there is an actual anomaly.

1) In order for the Romney campaign to intentionally produce these results naturally, each individual precinct would first have to be ordered by size.

Only because you're starting with the assumption that there was manipulation. You haven't proven that yet, so you can't start with that assumption.

the actual vote counts in each precinct would have to be accurately predicted, I guess using traditional methods such as polling and demographic data.

This is a terrible idea - polling requires educated guesses about what electorate actually shows up. That's why Gallup was so wrong this election - they made a different guess about electorate composition.

Which is why you'd be much better served by showing this didn't happen in previous elections. That doesn't require guessing what electorate will show up - it uses the electorate that actually did show up. And by going back to earlier elections, you eliminate the possibility of these voting machines being manipulated - the machines were not in use.

How do you think that last part was done?

So you're surprised that precincts with a lower population produced less votes than precincts with a higher population?

I think a rational person would concede that it could only happen by electronic vote flipping.

Only because we do such a terrible job teaching science. A properly educated rational person would decide "that looks odd. I wonder if it happened before?" and start digging into the stats to see if this is unique, or if it's not all that unusual. Frankly, I have no idea if it is unusual or not.

Instead, you're leaping to vote flipping, which has one major problem - Romney lost. If vote flipping was taking place, then they'd flip enough votes to win. The idea that you'd break the law to flip votes, but not enough to win the state is just dumb. There's no particular reason to limit your flips.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #375)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:21 AM

377. I do understand you much better now. You are definitely on the right track.

 

Imagine rounding up the last ten powerball winners and finding that they all had exactly the same fingerprints. There is nothing in the laws of physics that prevents this from being possible, is there? I would be correct to say that this could not happen naturally. There could be two possibilities; either some miracle has occurred or someone messed up the fingerprint files.
Personally, my first reaction to this situation would not be to go round up the fingerprints of other powerball winners in order to see if this kind of thing ever happened before.

But getting back to the electronic vote flipping, many folks have verified exactly what you have suggested. They have gone back and looked at the historical data. And there were no surprises, everything looked exactly like what they would naturally expect.

So you're surprised that precincts with a lower population produced less votes than precincts with a higher population?


Yes, this is the unusual thing. It doesn't happen naturally. It might be much more likely that a particular candidate would do better or worse in larger or smaller precincts, but there is nothing that could make it a certainty. And that's what were dealing with in these particular returns. None of the precincts break this pattern. It just isn't possible for this to happen naturally.


Only because you're starting with the assumption that there was manipulation. You haven't proven that yet, so you can't start with that assumption.


I was trying to explain how difficult it is to come up with an alternative explanation to electronic flipping. It had been suggested that differing GOTV efforts in different precincts might account for the artifacts in the certified vote counts. Since that is a very reasonable suggestion I was trying to explore that line of inquiry. That's all that was. An effort to show exactly what was necessary to occur, either by human intent or by God's hand, in order to obtain these results without any electronic flipping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #377)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:37 AM

378. The reason you "round up the others" is you have no other reliable measurement.

Polling, by it's very nature, is inaccurate. So you use the actual election results. Which means you have to go back to another election.

Since the questionable machines were in service in 2004 and later, you go back to 2000 or earlier and see what happened. If it looks different, then there's something to dig into.

But getting back to the electronic vote flipping, many folks have verified exactly what you have suggested. They have gone back and looked at the historical data.

Link?

The story you linked doesn't provide such evidence.

Yes, this is the unusual thing. It doesn't happen naturally

More populous precincts do not naturally have more votes. Really.

None of the precincts break this pattern. It just isn't possible for this to happen naturally.

You can flip a coin 5 times and get heads 5 times. Doesn't mean it the coin is fixed. Which is why you pull in more data to figure out the actual probability. More flips. (Or in the subject at hand, previous years)

I was trying to explain how difficult it is to come up with an alternative explanation to electronic flipping.

The rural-vs-urban nature of a precinct influences the political beliefs of that precinct. That is not only plausible, but it's a big part of why campaigns target certain places.

Again, find evidence showing this hasn't happened before, and you'll have an anomaly. Which admittedly is only the first step in proving fraud - you can do 100 coin flips and get 100 heads. You then have to show the anomaly is extremely unlikely. In most scientific disciplines, that means a probability of 0.05 or less. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

You haven't shown there is an anomaly yet. You've found something interesting. But interesting things happen all the time. Keep digging, and you may find an anomaly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #378)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:18 PM

379. Some clarifications.

 

More populous precincts do not naturally have more votes. Really.


Really. The percentage of the vote going to a particular candidate is not naturally determined by precinct size. That's the heart of the matter.

There are many factors that can greatly affect the percentage of vote that a candidate gets in a particular precinct, especially gerrymandering.

But that still doesn't explain things.

Again, find evidence showing this hasn't happened before, and you'll have an anomaly. Which admittedly is only the first step in proving fraud -you can do 100 coin flips and get 100 heads. You then have to show the anomaly is extremely unlikely. In most scientific disciplines, that means a probability of 0.05 or less. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value


An investigator recently claimed to have calculated the liklihood of this particular data set to be less than 1 in a google. It is probably significantly more likely to find the ten powerball winners with the same fingerprints than it is to have this data alignment occur by chance.

This extraordinary vote gain from smallest to largest precincts is so out of line, that the probability that this would happen by chance alone is often less than 1 out of a number represented by 1 preceded by 100 zeros and a decimal point, a value beneath the statistical package’s lower limits. As a result, the researchers termed the suspected vote flipping for Romney the “amazing anomaly.”

http://coto2.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/part-ii-rigged-elections-for-romney/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #379)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:53 PM

380. Calculation requires actual data.

An investigator recently claimed to have calculated the liklihood of this particular data set to be less than 1 in a google.

No, that's their supposition. He believes that it shouldn't happen. He's claiming to have done some math based on what he believes the electorate should do.....just like Gallup did with their polling.

Was Gallup accurate? No. Why just assume this guy is accurate when we have actual data he could use to confirm his theory? Why guess that the electorate behaves the way he thinks when he could show the way the electorate actually behaved?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #380)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:02 PM

381. Yeah, he probably is a dumbshit.

 

But that doesn't change the certified vote.

The certified vote is the data. It's the only data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #381)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:08 PM

382. No, he may very well be right. But he needs to use data to show he is right. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #382)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:16 PM

383. Fair enough.

 

It probably isn't as simple or obvious as it seems to me. My third grade teacher used to ask me how I was able to solve trinomial equations without knowing how to do algebra. To this day I don't understand algebra, I just try and memorize it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #262)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:17 PM

287. what

about that vid showing the voter voting for Obama and the vote tabulating for mittshit? If I have to provide a link I don't have it. I saw the report here. I-phone vid and everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #287)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:18 PM

288. Two machines in PA. Out of thousands nationwide.

One of those machines was recalibrated and put back into service.

It was not some sort of coordinated fraud. Touch sensors behind the screen malfunction frequently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #288)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:41 PM

294. okey dokey

if that's all there was to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #288)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:42 AM

326. That could be.

 

Or it could have been intentional to create a false narrative to add to the confusion.

We know that kind of thing has worked well in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #287)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:24 AM

324. I don't honestly know if that was a key element..

 

I don't honestly know if that was a key element of the electronic vote flipping that shows up in the vote totals.

I've read some explanations that say the votes were electronically flipped much later on in the process, during the communications with the central tabulators. I ddn't really know how it was achieved, only that it left unique artifacts in the final results.

It is possible that the vote flipping that occurred on the touchscreens was only a smokescreen to provide cover for the more massive changes that were to occur later down the pipeline. Just done as something to add more confusion, which there seems to be plenty of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reusrename (Reply #262)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:53 PM

310. Statistical abnormalities are real, but they are indirect evidence

so they don't point unequivocally at fraudulent activity.

I understand that there is some reason to believe in vote flipping, but you are overstating your case IMO. If this is really going on direct evidence of it should come to light. Someone will leak documents or code, and the game will be up. If that doesn't happen then no one will talk about this in 10 years, for good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to D23MIURG23 (Reply #310)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:38 AM

325. Well, I agree with your claim, but this isn't really a statistical abnormality, it's an algorithm.

 

The first folks to look at this tried to calculate probability of this being a statistical abnormality but it was beyond the range of their software. I believe that was the Princeton team. More recently, others have claimed to have calculated the probability to beyond 1 in a google.

That's a one with a hundred zeros.

You would be more likely to find that the latest ten powerball winners all have identical fingerprints.

It's an algorithm; it's not a statistical abnormality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:40 AM

64. Wouldn't there be some evidence

within the system itself? Could an IT security group detect something out of the ordinary? Can they detect such an intrusion? Could they distinguish between Rove's fixes and Anonymous's fixes? Surely the code exists somewhere--can it be traced?

(Obviously my questions are those of a non-tech head).

In other words, is this kind of fixing easily detected if the voting system is transparent and auditable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #64)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:46 AM

70. It's remarkable that one of the most exacting scientific practices there is (programming)

could be the scene for such faith-based nonsense as we see in this thread. It really is a testament to the power of faith to envelop and possess any practice whatsoever. In this case, the faith-reasoning is easy: because the unseen force (God, Anonymous, etc.) acts in unseen ways and is all-powerful, it can both interfere and hide its own interference - it can both act and erase all evidence of its own action (other than the results, which prove the action regardless of the presence of evidence).

That the reasoning for believing this claim is God-reasoning is clear enough. We even get the "God doesn't have to answer to (mere mortals like) YOU" statements that are part and parcel of half-assed theology. That such God-reasoning should attach itself to one of the most verifiable and scientifically-geared practices in modern culture (programming) is what's really remarkable here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #70)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:56 AM

85. Could you give me a binary answer please?

Yes 0

No 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #70)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:41 AM

158. Exactly

The only thing approximating evidence is Rove's meltdown on election night. That could be for dozens of reasons - Rove was looking to throw some cold water on Obama's victory - Rove was looking to get attention for himself with an outrageous statement - standard right wing method - Rove really is in a cocoon and was so certain R$ would get Ohio that he couldn't believe it could be true, and all he had to do in his position was blab his disappointment - it certainly does not prove any real fiddling with the voting system.

Rove did not even need to do that - the right thought with all of their money and with their false statements and their obvious contempt of most of the electorate, that they couldn't lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #64)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:54 AM

81. Yes, it would all be right there on the log files, plain as day.

As someone who operates web domains and has access to web servers, I can read the computer address of every single DU user who posts on a thread I start. I know who you all are and where you are sitting if I want. I even scored George W. Bush's computer IP once.

This whole story is built on nothing but someone's imagination and a cheap video imitation of Anon.
But Thom Hartmann got sucked in and now has to try to recuperated his credibility.
He fell hook, line, and sinker LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #81)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:57 AM

87. And Vanity Fair?

---

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:17 AM

150. You're closer to getting this than most. Computer science forensics could find the

method used. The forensics' experts would have to know what computer the code was entered into and where it was directed. Trouble is, that software can be very much like a virus that morphs into different forms over time. It can even delete all traces of itself, and then...even reappear at a designated time, like two years from now during the next election cycle.



edited to add the word "next".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eyes of the World (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:41 AM

65. "There is evidence" -- Where is this "evidence"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eyes of the World (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:31 AM

155. And then Anonymous gets no credit

They can claim whatever they want and some people will believe them. But the real world demands proof of accusations. I don't like Rove and don't doubt he would try such a thing, but that's not enough for the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eyes of the World (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:49 PM

242. Of course they are.

That's why they put out the letter. Because whether they actually did what they say, or not -- they want to get credit for Romney's loss. They want to impress us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:10 AM

11. Where's the code? Where's the code? Where's the code? Where's the code?

Indeed, ProSense.

If there was actually a programming event that happened on election night, there would be code to demonstrate it.

The code for the planned theft (supposedly linked to the laughable ORCA program)
The code that prevented the theft
How both those pieces of code interacted with the voting machine code

Any programmer worth his or her salt would release all this WITH the statement. the fact that it wasn't released is the clearest indication of all that the statement is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:50 AM

75. Shouldn't be up to Anonymous to prove it

--should be up to the State BOE and State govt. in a transparent system.

oh yeah that's right--they don't work for the people of Ohio. They work for Rove.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #75)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:57 AM

86. Nor is it up to zealots to prove their god exists because they already know he does

These perps are probably starting to believe their own fraud by now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #86)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:00 AM

92. God?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #86)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:20 PM

255. Your little laughing guy doesn't mask your disturbed anger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #75)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:50 PM

243. Of course it should -- if they're not just making up a good story

and trying to get undeserved credit for Romney's loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #243)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:16 PM

267. "Credit for Romney's loss"

Doesn't seem likely nor any kind of rational goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:29 AM

317. Precisely. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

A sound principle for ALL human interactions, regardless of the topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:13 AM

13. I'm fairly certain...

... Anonymous doesn't give a flying fuck what you want or demand.

Nor do many other people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:14 AM

14. Strange

"I'm fairly certain...Anonymous doesn't give a flying fuck what you want or demand. "

...I don't give "a flying fuck" about your comment.

Funny how that works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:19 AM

21. Really?

Then why do you feel compelled to respond?




Oh to be so self-important.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:21 AM

24. "Then why do you feel compelled to respond?"

Because I didn't want you to be the only one who felt "self-important" in the world of not giving a "flying fuck."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:18 AM

19. It's not ProSense who "demands" it. It's basic modern scientific claim-making

If Anonymous did what the statement claims, there is no reason on Earth that they wouldn't be able to release the code proving it. The code and its functions could be objectively replicated and verified by disinterested third parties.

That's not a partisan or individual "request" or "demand" by ProSense. That's the minimum condition for believing the stated claim according to basic standards of scientific claim-making.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:22 AM

26. Anonymous doesn't...

... answer to you either.

Get over it. Neither of you are that important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:27 AM

36. "Get over it. Neither of you are that important."

You're condescending, and you are not that important. Did you know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #36)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:34 AM

48. I'm not the one making demands of someone I don't even know.

Also I understand the meaning of ANONYMOUS and what it signifies. Sorry to have to explain to you that not everyone is an attention whore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:36 AM

55. "Get over it"

Did you know that was a demand?

My bad, maybe it's an order!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #55)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:42 AM

66. Have fun tilting at windmills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #66)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:45 AM

69. Demand: "Get over it"

Speaking of "tilting at windmills," fortunately, I don't need the idea of evil Rove to make my day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #66)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:59 AM

91. When you are leaning over to believe something, it looks like others are tilting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #91)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:03 AM

96. Whatever you say, buddy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #48)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:32 AM

319. But you are willing to trust these people you don't know to have done something

so extraordinary, it beggars belief, but oh no, you don't want any evidence to back that claim up.

Okie-dokie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #319)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:09 AM

342. Is that what I said?

Okie-dokie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:31 AM

44. Has nothing to do with me

As much as you'd like to make this about personalities.

This "Anonymous" made a claim about the world. The claim is either true or false. We know how to demonstrate its truth or falsity: with the code in question.

Now, it's fine to play games, and it's fine to say "We did X" as some kind of ploy, or whatever. But as to whether that really happened, it's easily demonstrable: release the code and let disinterested third parties test it. This isn't even complicated, nor is it something that's foreign to programming culture. Indeed, it's central to programming cultures to "show your work," as it were, especially lefty programming cultures, in a free and open source sense.

You want to make this about people - precisely because you cannot make it about evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #44)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:17 PM

214. Release the Code... Hell yeah!

You should go down to the elections office and tell them to release the code on the machines.

I'll wait right here til you get back.

Warning: They will tell you to go fuck yourself. They will not release the code to you or anyone.

Hurry back now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #214)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:40 PM

220. All the more reason for Anonymous to release it if they know it

09F9-style.

If they hacked it, they should know it. if it's anti-democratic that it is not released, Anonymous should release it. Why wouldn't they?

Simple: the story is a nice story, but never happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #220)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:47 PM

225. Why don't your officials release it?

If it is used to count your vote, why do they keep it a secret from you?

How is it that you can just sit there and let them keep secrets from you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #225)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:50 PM

226. Why are they suddenly "my" officials

I fervently disagree with secret software tabulating votes.

That doesn't mean that I now agree to claims that are put forward without any evidence.

Your logic box is broken. You think because I request evidence from Anonymous for the claims they make, that I'm suddenly a representative of secret software counting votes? Au contraire. I believe in transparency and verification all around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #226)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:56 PM

229. Obviously you do not

"I believe in transparency and verification all around."

If you did you would be going after the officials. Yes, ask the officials who count your vote, to release the code so it can be transparent.

I know you have done no such thing. Instead you complain about me.

I asked my election officials to release the code and they told me no. When will you go ask your officials?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #229)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:01 PM

230. Wait, are you Anonymous?

I never complained about you once. I have no idea what you mean by "Instead you complain about me."

I am absolutely opposed to secret tabulation. I'm telling you I oppose non-transparent voting processes. I also oppose claims with no evidence. So there it is. If you have some reason to disbelieve my straightforward agreement that non-transparent voting processes are bad, please let me know.

The basic fact is, however, that you are unable to defend the complete non-use of evidence to support Anonymous' claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #230)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:10 PM

234. So, you agree the code is not transparent

Why is it a secret?

Why can't you tell me of anybody in the public who has read the code? If you are opposed to secret tabulations why don't you profess to do anything about secret tabulations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #234)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:16 PM

236. Of course the code is secret

Yes, that's a big problem.

That doesn't mean I accept Anonymous claims without evidence. Indeed, what I have said throughout this thread - you can check if you'd like, if you haven't already - is that Anonymous should release all the code.

Why won't they? Because this event never happened. Lacking evidence, we cannot accept their claim.

You can try to turn this into some weird Statement of My Activist Bona Fides, or whatever it is you're trying to do to avoid the subject of the discussion, but the subject is very simple: should we believe Anonymous' claims to have stopped the theft of the election in Ohio. My answer is "Without code as evidence, of course not."

Everything else is beside the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #236)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:21 PM

239. "Without code as evidence, of course not."

No. Your claim is the point. With a secret code no one should believe what you are being told. You dance around and let the officials keep a secret from you and all you do is ask Anonymous to pony up.

You let the officials slide and make demands of Anonymous instead. That's crazy, and you know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #239)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:08 AM

312. Sorry Robert, the fact that elections in our country have problems

is not grounds for attacking anyone who asks for evidence in response to new assertions of malfeasance. Maybe you should learn how to make a cogent argument before you go accusing more people of being shills for the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #44)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:02 PM

247. It would not be easy for anon to prove

re: "it's easily demonstrable: release the code"

That wouldn't really prove anything. Anyone who could hack into a computer to "fix" malicious code could also hack into it to put the malicious code there in the first place. So even if Anon produced the vote-theft code and the way they disabled it, Rove et al could easily claim that all the code came from Anon, that the bad code was never there in the first place. and that Anon was trying to frame them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #247)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:48 PM

260. Release the code and describe its function

to first establish that what's being described is even possible. of course evidence will be disputed. Most evidence for controversial claims is, in fact, disputed. but that's not sufficient grounds not to produce any. The first step here is to show code and describe its functioning such that it is capable of doing what Anonymous claims. After that, we can deal with provenance. There's no good reason not to do so.

That some people will dispute the authenticity of a piece of evidence is not a good reason to refuse to release that evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #247)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:36 AM

320. Do you have any idea what it takes to develop software for embedded systems?

To test it, make sure it actually works, and then get it onto the hardware?

Do you honestly believe these people hacked into, examined, found a weakness, patched, tested, and installed a code change without fucking up the machines, in a limited timeframe between when the machines were plugged in, and when the election began?

And you don't want to see the code edits they made, to prove it? And you don't find it highly suspicious they haven't published the code?

Uh-huh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #320)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 06:20 AM

334. They're super-heroes. They can do anything.

If Doctor Who can hack a phone app...never mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #320)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 08:35 AM

339. I took no position on that

I was only pointing out that having Anon release code would not, itself, prove that the Republicans/Rove had done anything wrong. The topic of the thread is, "If Anonymous has definitive proof that Rove tried to hack the vote, present it" -- people were saying it would be easy for them to provide definite proof that Rove had done this by simply releasing code, I was saying that I don't think that's the case.

Regardless of whether they release the code or not, there will be people who believe them and people who don't. I'm not sure releasing the code would change anything, actually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #339)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:17 AM

346. If they released code that can be proven to still be ON the machines

and the nature of the exploit they were patching, and the code itself, that would lead me to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I agree, it wouldn't prove who created or initially exploited the vulnerability. So yes, rove might get away with it. But it would at least prove Anonymous or whoever this is that claims to be speaking for Anonymous, is credible.

It would also be something that we could start congressional hearings on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #44)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:21 PM

271. Exactly. Trying to rudely "kill" the messenger. didn't work. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #271)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:29 PM

292. well

I am just very glad that Obama, with all our help, anonymous included, won. If that other one had won, man the threads would be 20 pages long. This a very long thread about anonymous. This individual has caused quite a ruckus. Good for you anonymous. Okay moving on to this Benghazi thing that seems to be erupting because of talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:07 AM

146. Shame on you!!

They will be all day getting their panties out of a wad!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:49 AM

160. Are you more important than we are?

Please explain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #26)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:31 AM

318. That's because Anonymous is mostly just a PR campaign.

Sorry dude, your mythical tech wizards are little more than that: Myth.

But good PR though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #318)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:10 AM

343. Sorry dood.

You have no fucking clue about what you are spouting off about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #343)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:19 AM

347. Uh huh. That's why when I patch code, I can show the before/after edits and explain why.

No fucking idea at all what I am talking about. I don't even know why my employer keeps me in scotch and scones. Apparently all I do is post on the internet all day, eat lunch, and maybe take a shit about 3pm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #347)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:18 PM

350. Wow dooooood...

... you really are so very, totally awesome! You're prolly the smartest high techie on the planet. Nobody could possibly know more than you.

Golly gee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:25 AM

32. And you have a list of "disinterested third parties"

that could handle this?

I think I like it the way it is. If Anonymous was truly able to disable Rove's system with a firewall, he can do it again.

If he's just lying, so what?

Nobody knows who he (they) is/are so nothing is gained by lying.

I like it the way it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stevepol (Reply #32)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:26 AM

35. Any good programmer could replicate and verify

Again, that's science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:28 PM

216. Science is one thing, reality is another.

Evolution is science. How many politicians support it?

Keynesian economics is science. How many politicians support it, and stand by it in times like these?

Global warming is science. How many politicians stand by it?

It would have been quite easy scientifically to verify that there were no WMDs in Iraq pre-2003. Who did it? Who believed the scientific estimates that were given.

To me it's elementary logic that when the vote is counted in total secrecy using electronic voting machines and no audits are done where the vote is counted by hand openly and transparently, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY. The German court that handles constitutional questions outlawed voting machines for Germany (in 09) for that very reason. How many politicians would even hint that they agree with this logic?

I could go on indefinitely. For now I'm glad Anon is remaining anon. I wish them well if they indeed are able to do what they claim to be able to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:28 PM

278. does anonymous make you upset?

 

funny you could not bring yourself to post about unverified electronic voting machines..


but now that anon has made sure to stop voting fraud...you are ALL!!11111!!!!!! concerned





oh and

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to argiel1234 (Reply #278)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:34 PM

279. No, Anonymous does not upset me at all

I laid out what would be the minimum conditions for believing the claims. That's a dispassionate assessment.

Weird that you would think otherwise.



On edit: By the way, welcome to DU. I must have missed your arrival here a little over three weeks ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #279)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:39 PM

280. anon does not answer to you...that is the beauty

 

the deed has been done whether you like it or not.

rove was shown live and in full color to be jaw dropping surprised about his failed attempt to program the election..




it seems you are mad that rove and his incompetent IT team suck at rigging elections


ahahaha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to argiel1234 (Reply #280)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:50 PM

281. Whether Anonymous answers to me is beside the point

You sound like a medieval theologian declaring that God does not have to prove himself to mere mortals. Since your faith in Anonymous goes without any evidence, it really is a God-argument. You're pre-Enlightenment in your standard of proof. This is really dark Ages stuff you're doing, right up to your weird finger-pointing accusation of heresy. I guess religious fanaticism never goes away - it just changes shape.

In any case, for a poster who has only been here three weeks plus a few hours, you seem quick to accuse others of siding with Karl Rove. I've been fighting Rove and his cohort for plenty of years. Not sure about you, though, since you have no background here, and who knows where you came from or why.

Either way, whatever you think about me has no bearing on your weird capacity to believe outlandish claims without evidence. You should just admit a religious attitude toward the matter in question. You certainly don't care about facts or science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #281)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:57 PM

283. anon scares your worldview

 

doesnt it?


visit bradblog for examples.


Its too bad because the elections are over and going forward anon will make sure that repukes and right wingers will be exposed in elections, local, state and countrywide

That must scare you to the core


Its too bad for you.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to argiel1234 (Reply #283)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:21 PM

290. Sure. Every time a CT gains traction on DU, the people asking questions are said to be 'scared'.

When the reality is that those who ask questions are the ones standing up to entrenched beliefs.

I hardly think that qualifies people as 'scared'.

All these threads are pointless since we're arguing about something for which there is no proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #290)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:35 PM

293. anon will come at it again..

 

whether you believe or like it or not


The proof is in the pudding. Obama won. We gained more Senate seats. We also gained more House seats. And the icing is the centrists were kicked to the curb in the House, in particular.

The Senate is now more Democratic and more liberal as well as the House.

CT?


ahahaha




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to argiel1234 (Reply #293)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:41 PM

295. That's the proof? That we won an election?

That's a result, not a proof. Anyone can claim to be Anonymous. And anyone can claim that they won the election for us.

We won because Obama and the Democrats did it right this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #295)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:45 PM

296. We won because anonymous didnt allow electronic voting fraud

 

which allowed Obama to win by a landslide, as that is how the people actually voted.

I still see you ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room called electronic voting fraud.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to argiel1234 (Reply #296)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:50 PM

297. You have no evidence of that. Neither does Anonymous.

You're believing what you WANT to believe. I refuse to do that. Facts and evidence are more important to me and I will go wherever they lead, no matter if it proves I'm right or wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:26 AM

34. exactly

I'm glad there is a secret counterbalance to snakes like rove or at least the threat. Anon DO NOT because of ego, pride or whatever give in to these demands for exposure. NO!!!! NEVER!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:32 AM

45. I'm 100% certain

 

The entire story is a made up fairy tale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:02 AM

95. Worst than a fairy tale, it is disinformation supporting disinformation, intended to deceive voters

It all begins with the Ohio 2004 cover-up. This is part of the 2004 cover-up, designed to keep people from the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:51 AM

139. It reminds me of faith in the supernatural. Proof is irrelevant, the Savior is coming.

If one refuses to believe in the unexplainable, one is a heretic to the new religion. Those who ask for proof of the goodness of the unknown are abused. The new cults work just like the old ones. And if one questions cult members, all hell breaks loose, since that's offensive to the faithful. Meh.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #139)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:02 AM

142. I've been putting the cultists on ignore

 

I notice a lot of them have been responding to my posts questioning the cult of BBV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #142)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:58 PM

192. Might as well. Going in circles, like arguing with repukes. Just believe, it'll all gonna happen!

And if you dare to not believe, it won't happen, so it'll be your fault. Don't spoil the magic!

Easier than hard facts like 63 million votes for Obama, not produced by faith in the invisible hand and media, but real hands working together.

Another day, another media phenomenon funded by TPTB to entertain us. Meh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #139)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:41 AM

321. Precisely. Parsimony and skepticism are practically a lost art.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:48 AM

159. And most people don't give a flying fuck about Anonymous' claims

They are just hot air until backed up with real proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:16 AM

16. any evidence Anonymous may have was illegally acquired

Thus it is inadmissible ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evasporque (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:19 AM

20. Great, one conspiracy theory and two crooks?

What a wonderful world!

If the code is provided, it doesn't matter how Anonymous obtained it. There is such a thing called whistleblowing, and Rove can be prosecuted on tangible evidence. No other party need be involved...the code please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evasporque (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:08 PM

169. You're thinking of law enforcement agencies.

Info acquired illegally by private citizens/companies and provided in a court case is admissible. They open themselves up to criminal and civil prosecution for the theft though, sometimes even if they are whistleblowers, unfortunately. We really need stronger whistleblower protection laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evasporque (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:31 PM

180. How the information is obtained doesn't matter to the media,

As long as it can be verified.
If Anon's claim is true, they provide proof, media reports it, Dems and AGs are on lookout for future attempted hackings...which accomplishes the purpose of cleansing the democratic process. Evidence admissable in court isn't necessary.
Making an unsubstantiated claim is just a publicity stunt intended to sucker in true believers of the Conspiracy Religion. Hell, why not just claim Batman saved democracy from the evil Rove? Same thing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evasporque (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:47 PM

187. Anonymous is not a part of the government, so the evidence would be admissible. The problem

 

is that they would be vulnerable to persecution prosecution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:17 AM

17. ORCA is a smokescreen; wrong place to look.

I believe it was Husted who was defending his last-minute "software patches" as not being about the voting, merely the tabulating, as if the two are unrelated. He crowed about how everybody would be able to go the SoC web site and see the votes tabulated in real time, and therefore there was nothing to fear.

ORCA was about GOTV and demographic targeting. These Ohio "software patches" we're about taking the votes after they're cast, and flipping after they've been sent on to the SoC. Husted also bragged about how his new system would allow everyone to know the winner virtually as the polls closed. This goes a long way toward explaining Rove's reaction, and actually lends plausibility to Anon's claim.

ORCA is a red herring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:24 AM

28. Then the evidence

"These Ohio 'software patches' we're about taking the votes after they're cast, and flipping after they've been sent on to the SoC."

...should be easy to find.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #28)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:39 AM

61. Why would it be "easy" to find?



If everyone is focused on ORCA, why would they be looking at Husted software patches?

I'm not saying I necessarily believe Anon's claim, especially since they claimed ORCA in the letter. I'm saying that I the focus should not be on ORCA, since the SoC expressly stated his patches were about tabulating the votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #61)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:49 AM

74. "why would they be looking at Husted software patches?"

If that was the mechanism, how hard can it be to find?

A lot of people are not focused on ORCA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:17 AM

18. yes or no?

doesn't matter. This organization, whether true or not, whether claims of defeating rovian machiavellian schemes can be proven or not is irrelevant. This a secret weapon that will keep thieves like rove and future roves looking over their shoulder. Come on people. All I need to know is that it's a possibility that rove's machine tried to steal the election again. Duh! Do you doubt that? Why can't people demanding proof on this site of anonymous just fucking chill. Whether this is someone full of shit or not DOES NOT MATTER. If just the threat of someone smarter than rove being out there keeps things on the up and up. I don't need a face or concrete proof of claims. YOU GO ANONYMOUS!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:25 AM

31. I love the idea of a deterrent

I prefer the idea of Rove being investigated and indicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #31)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:55 PM

189. Ya...that's sure to happen.



"I prefer the idea of Rove being investigated and indicted."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:38 AM

58. Yeah! Who needs pesky facts or evidence?

"Why can't people demanding proof on this site of birthers just fucking chill"

"Birtherism, whether true or not, whether claims of Obama being a secret Kenyan Mulsim or not can be proven or not is irrelevant"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #58)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:09 AM

103. Ego

is a terrible thing to waste on me, because it makes the person using it, irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #103)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:17 AM

113. Apparently facts are a terrible thing to waste on you as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #113)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:18 AM

117. your

need for facts, yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #117)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:19 AM

151. Any thinking person would want facts.



Birthers, creationists, flat-earthers -- those are the types of people that don't need evidence or proof for their theories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #151)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:56 PM

191. and

any non thinking person can demand something that is by and large irrelevant to the ultimate outcome of the election.. Anonymous is one of my heroes. Keep em looking over their shoulders anonymous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #191)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:09 PM

212. Well, keep spreading the meme that Democrats can't win

without the help of some bunch of anonymous hackers. Keep spreading the meme that Rove and the Republicans are all-powerful super geniuses who are capable of doing anything they want. Democrats have no chance against those brilliant Republicans!

Me? I'll focus on real-world problems like voter suppression and voter ID laws that do far more damage.

Obama won fair and square. Rove is not a genius. Romney and the Republicans are incompentent idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #212)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:35 PM

218. Oh please.

geez. We won. Your point on outside help is moot. Voter suppression and I.D. laws must be addressed also. No problem from me. Rove STOLE two elections. He is smart. Just a gut reaction. Mittshit and rethugs, incompetent idiots? +1000. No argument from me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:05 AM

97. If Rove created this whole false flag, how is Rove deterred by it?

Rove is ROFLHAO at this silliness and the way he has everyone so conned, they are furthering his con job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:20 AM

23. Anonymous will provide proof in 24 business hours.

(forgive the inside baseball, but it fits here, and you are DEAD ON!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:29 AM

38. NO HE'S NOT!!!!

Get your ego out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:34 AM

52. She. And my ego has nothing to do with this--either Anonymous

provides proof, or their story is as believable as an Orly Taitz filing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #52)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:09 AM

102. Hey, Orly Taitz is much more believeable than this cup of tea

Orly Taitz says there is no birth certificate when there really is one.

This claim begins with there is something that does not exist.
Who is going to believe there is something that never existed?
It is easier to believe something that exists doesn't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #52)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:12 AM

107. I

am glad that anonymous, real or not, rovian false flag or not, is ignoring a questionable call to expose themselves. I repeat, if there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:32 AM

46. ROFL



It's beginning to look a lot like Anony-mas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #46)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:36 AM

57. Can the hymns be far behind? A favorite:

Don't Rest Ye Merry Democrats

Don't rest ye merry Democrats
Although they booked DeLay
Remember that indictments
Will come on Fitzmas Day
To save us all from Bush's hacks
Who led us all astray
O charges of treason and more
Treason and more
O charges of treason and more

From Karl Rove and Libby too
The name of Plame did slip
Once Wilson proved the liars wrong
Back from his Niger trip
Behold the rot that caused the leak
On Bush's sinking ship
O charges of treason and more
Treason and more
O charges of treason and more

To Rove the Great Deceiver
And Libby, Cheney's bitch
The plan to sell their pointless war
Went off without a hitch
But Karl's just a conjurer
And Scooter’s just a snitch
O charges of treason and more
Treason and more
O charges of treason and more

Patriots can speak freely now
That Rove is behind bars
And Cheney's booked, and Libby's done
For starting groundless wars
Our press will come alive again
But not without its scars
O charges of treason and more
Treason and more
O charges of treason and more

Good Fitz will throw the book at them
Or so my sources say
Hark! The time has come at last
To make these traitors pay
Our flag will stand for freedom now
On glorious Fitzmas Day!
O charges of treason and more
Treason and more
O charges of treason and more



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:21 AM

25. There was no vote hacking in 2004

 

Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.

There is no alien spaceship in Area 51.

The US landed 12 men on the moon and returned them safely to the earth.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:33 AM

47. There was a commission that found several irregularies, including

vote tampering. That is a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:06 AM

101. Now that is funny



Anybody who can state "there was no vote hacking in 2004"...has gotta be a stolen election denier.

You sound so 2005.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:12 AM

105. Funny how easy it was to hack punch cards in 2004

and how difficult is was to hack e-voting in 2012

You don't hack punch cards, you move them to the next precinct to change the votes.
Don't people remember how to fix elections the old way anymore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:24 AM

30. I agree they should release all proof of vote hacking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:25 AM

33. This just in: ProSense stands up for poor put upon Karl Rove who has been accused of evildoing



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:29 AM

40. This just in: Prove Rove is a criminal not a myth or a legend

Provide the evidence to send "poor put upon Karl Rove who has been accused of evildoing" to jail.

He really doesn't care that you're laughing at him.

I'll join you in laughing when he is under investigation. I'd roflmao if he ended up indicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #40)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:34 AM

49. Bravo

 

You restore.my faith in the capability of people to think rationally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #40)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:40 AM

63. Rove has far too much dirt on our political system to ever go to court

If he is actually indicted he'll never make it to the courtroom and everyone involved knows it, particularly him.

I don't see Rove as being a stand up guy in the original sense.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #63)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:47 AM

71. He's an evil genius, untouchable

When he steals the next election, we just have to live with it.

"If he is actually indicted he'll never make it to the courtroom and everyone involved knows it, particularly him."

And this is a reason not to investigate him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:49 AM

73. Rove is the Devil; Anonymous is God...It's time to leave the faith-reasoning to the theologians

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:55 AM

84. You think TPTB are going to let Rove sing in the courtroom?

What I think should happen is neither here nor there, of no consequence.

What I think is *going* to happen is that Rove won't see the witness stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:30 AM

43. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #43)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:34 AM

50. Rove is laughing too.

+he got away with it.

Funny shit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #50)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:14 AM

108. So is Bush and co.

And there is a ton of evidence and even confessions.


How many times do people have to stick their fingers in the light socket to know it's bad?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aandegoons (Reply #108)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:15 AM

111. Rove just lost $300 million dollars, and his funders are not happy

Nail his ass instead of holding him up as untouchable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #111)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:19 AM

119. Oh I would love to see it.

I am pretty sure it won't happen. No matter how little or much the evidence.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:52 AM

78. Right On

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:14 AM

109. Too many fumes maybe?

ProSense is standing up for facts and the truth. You sir are falling for Rove's lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #109)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:17 AM

115. I'm not falling for anything

I just think it's funny that now the election is over ProSense has switched from standing up for Obama to standing up for Rove.

Not surprised but it is amusing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #109)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:08 AM

147. You Madam seem to be defending Rove

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #147)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:53 PM

188. I am defending Rove. I think he failed all by himself w/o any help from a bullshit story!

Rove did not need a fake Anon to fail. He did just fine on his own

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:55 AM

164. Even Rove cannot be convicted without evidence

I would believe Rove did whatever he could, but that's just belief - I can tell the difference between that and the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:20 PM

178. no shit. blind and unquestioning partisonship no matter which party makes for strange bedfellows!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:34 AM

51. as their slogan says - "we are anonymous, we are legion"

 

Like a shadowy group of super villians, asking to know their secrets is futile. You may as well ask for a tour of the secret military bases located deep underground, where the top secret projects are worked on and the mind blowing classified archives are kept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:36 AM

54. I helped investigate 2004.

The people in charge are NOT interested in prosecuting Rove.

When evidence is presented, it is dismissed. The concern is more that voters have faith in "the system" regardless of what happens behind the scenes.

I will join your call for prosecution. I sincerely doubt EVEN WITH OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that anything would happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #54)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:51 AM

76. Exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #76)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:58 AM

89. Yes, exactly:

As the poster states: "I will join your call for prosecution. I sincerely doubt EVEN WITH OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that anything would happen."

That cannot happen without evidence. Regardless of where it leads, evidence removes the uncertainty. It will empower people to demand accountability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #89)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:25 AM

125. Just like the banks were held accountable for this depression?

Really, now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #125)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:37 AM

129. "Just like the banks were held accountable for this depression?"

You appear to have a thing against evidence. Regardless of where it leads, evidence is a good thing.

In the case of the banks, evidence at least exposed what they did, and some people were actually prosecuted.

Former BofA Exec Indicted For Fraud
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002990749

Three former UBS execs convicted of fraud involving contracts for muni bond proceeds investment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021250815

The Justice Department just entered into the largest criminal settlement in U.S. history with the giant oil company BP. BP plead guilty to 14 criminal counts, including manslaughter, and agreed to pay $4 billion over the next five years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021841131

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #89)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:06 AM

145. Sounds like your defending Rove from slander , thats Too funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #145)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:44 PM

275. Not to me, it doesn't.. It sounds like she's asking for accountability and for that

proof is needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #54)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:18 AM

116. I helped investigate 2004.


The people in charge WERE interested in my evidence.

When my evidence was presented, it was considered.
The concern was election integrity.

You say "I sincerely doubt EVEN WITH OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that anything would happen" but you do not have "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE" of anything at all.

Show us your " OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE" please or please shut up about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #116)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:19 PM

238. So "the people in charge" were interested. Then what?

Their concern was election integrity. Ok and what happened?

"Show us your " OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE" please or please shut up about it." It's not necessary to get nasty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:38 AM

59. Blah Blah Blah

Nothing will ever come from this now that Karl's dirty tricks didn't work. Even if they did try to do something electronically and you can or can not prove, they still tried blatantly to steal the election by doing everything they could from redistricting, ALL of the shit the Florida and Ohio republicans did to try to keep people out of the polls, making sure that lines were long and not enough time was given. They were willing to take the media heat for their blatant obvious attempt to suppress voting. You know if they are willing to do this they are willing to do anything it takes to get themselves in power so they can loosen restrictions on their theft and perpetuate the lie machine so they can continue the fleecing of the American people.
My question is
"How long is the populace of this country going to sit by and let a small group of rich white guys do anything they have to legal, illegal,moral, immoral to steal everything they have before they wake up?"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:38 AM

60. You are correct. They need to put up or shut up. If they cannot or will not provide proof,

that is fine. Just keep their mouth shut. The only thing printing unproven data does is promote conspiracy theories and make Democrats look as nutty as Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:44 AM

67. If Velvet Revolution didn't have a DONATE button, would this "Election Fraud" even exist?

This is a new form of election fraud, use the election to do a fraud and get donations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:44 AM

68. If...

Election fraud is to be a real issue...not one shrouded in tin foil...it's time to prove it. If someone is manipulating the machines, come out with names, push for an indictment, have a trial and lets see what shakes out. This issue needs to have a name and face attached with it...someone who actually was caught tampering with the machines and then lets learn how it was done.

The problem with this issue is that its easy to claim fraud when your candidate loses or, in this case, blindly believe that some great plot was scuttled (with no proof other than someone's "word"). We've been dealing with electronic voting since the middle 80s and one would think that if the systems were that easy to hack or that it was a common occurrence, someone would have come forward by now.

So...if turdblossom or anyone attempted to manipulate the votes, time to put up or shut up. This is the perfect time to do it...nothing like hitting an asshole like Rover when he's down...and to start the process of electoral reform in time for the 2014 and 2016 elections.

If "annonymous" has information or proof of election fraud, bring it forward! If not, it's just more blowing smoke...and more tin foil hats...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KharmaTrain (Reply #68)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:55 AM

83. +1, I agree 100%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:51 AM

77. I'm inclined to see this as a horse's head in the bed

That is, a message from Anonymous to Rove saying, "We can get to you any time. We have the keys to all your locks. Let us make you an offer you can't refuse."

There is enough cryptic language in that letter to suggest that Anonymous is furnishing proof to Rove and his buddies that they really can penetrate their system -- mixed in with obfuscating claims about Orca to confuse the message for outsiders.

"Real" and "hoax" aren't the only alternatives, and many Anons operate in a territory where real events can masquerade as hoaxes. They're not just computer hackers -- they aspire to be reality hackers as well.

I believe that something definitely happened in Ohio on Election Night. Exactly what that something was -- and how it relates to this Anonymous message -- are yet to be determined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:53 AM

79. Wouldn't this be better peddled on Free Republic? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #79)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:54 AM

82. Yeah, they're all into evidence. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:54 AM

80. How to Rig An American Election - A 10 Page Historical Analysis, Harpers

It was a hot summer in 1932 when Louisiana senator Huey “Kingfish” Long arranged to rig the vote on a number of amendments to his state’s constitution that would be advantageous to his financial interests. Long was no stranger to rigged votes. This time around, however, the fix delivered by his machine was blatant and sloppy: his favored amendments won unanimously in sixteen New Orleans precincts and garnered identical vote totals in twenty-eight others.

Eugene Stanley, the incorruptible district attorney for Orleans Parish, presented evidence of fraud to a grand jury. Louisiana’s attorney general, the less morally encumbered Gaston Porterie, stepped in to sabotage the case for Long. Nonetheless, two judges demanded a recount, at which point Governor O. K. Allen obliged Long by declaring martial law. Intimidated jurors found themselves sorting ballots under the supervision of National Guardsmen, who stood by to “protect” them with machine guns.

When this effort failed, another grand jury was convened. Their eventual finding of a massive conspiracy led to the indictment of 513 New Orleans election officials. Once again, Long used his famous powers of persuasion. At his behest, the Louisiana legislature modified the state’s election law, giving ex post facto protection to the defendants. Election rigging, Long might have quipped, had become downright exhausting. But it worked.


-snip-

As recently as September 2011, a team at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory hacked into one of Diebold’s old Accuvote touchscreen systems. Their report asserted that anyone with $26 in parts and an eighth-grade science education would be able to manipulate the outcome of an election. “This is a national security issue,” wrote the Argonne team leader, Roger Johnston, using the sort of language that would normally set off alarm bells in our security-obsessed culture. Yet his warning has gone unheeded, and the Accuvote-TSX, now manufactured by ES&S, will be used in twenty states by more than 26 million voters in the 2012 general election.

Johnston’s group also breached a system made by another industry giant, Sequoia, using the same “man in the middle” hack—a tiny wireless component that is inserted between the display screen and the main circuit board—which requires no knowledge of the actual voting software. The Sequoia machine will be used in four states by nearly 9 million voters in 2012.


This comprehensive article is very very long, but provides historical perspective and details in re the GOP and their long history of manipulating the vote, along with reference to 'she who shall remain nameless'. From the 11/12 edition of Harpers, it predates the election by a few weeks.

Harpers

“There is no more exquisite method of silencing dissent, or shutting down inconvenient inquiry, than to charge someone with conspiracy theory.” - Mark Crispin Miller

*On Edit: Added 2 paragraphs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Melinda (Reply #80)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:06 AM

100. How would you explain the massive push ongoing by some here

to define the threat of GOP vote stealing and the claims being made by Anonymous in foiling GOP plans this election cycle as nothing more than "tinfoil hat conspiracy" stuff, and attempting to shut down any such discussions with endlessly repeated mantras of "Bullshit", "Nonsense", "It's a crock", "Utter crap"? It is obviously a coordinated effort, but to what end or for what purpose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #100)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:23 AM

122. Easy to explain

How do you explain a mega-church full of idiots believing the same "Bullshit", "Nonsense", "It's a crock", "Utter crap"?

Use that explanation here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #100)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:28 PM

273. Whenever there's a massive push

to discredit something it makes me think there's MORE to it--

There are a LOT of people who have a vested interest in keeping the US voting system in RethugliCon hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #273)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:27 AM

316. There has been a massive push to discredit creationism,

do you feel that creationism has "more to it"?

I think sometimes there are massive pushes to discredit things simply because a lack of evidence alone is often not enough to stop people from wasting their effort and resources on a catchy idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to D23MIURG23 (Reply #316)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:06 AM

340. A "lack of interest" in a topic

may be justification for a single post in response to the OP expressing your opposing view, but not antagonistic responses to those responding in a positive light to the OP which is generally how the coordinated efforts work here. The goal is not to add your 2 cents to the discussion, rather it is to harass responders and attempt to shut any further discussions down. Big difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #340)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:29 PM

384. Two points.

1) you don't get to tell me how to post.

2) It was a legitimate counter example IMO. I can be as contrarian as the next person, but that often doesn't lead to well thought out positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to D23MIURG23 (Reply #316)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:08 AM

341. Not really

There's no massive push to discredit creationism that I can see. Creationists have made great strides in America, considering the stupidity of it all.

HOWEVER since 2000-04 I have seen a massive push to discredit ANYONE who suggests that American elections can be stolen, manipulated and compromised.

This is really the RepubliCon Modus Operandi = control the 47% at the ballot box. And they have been very successful in doing that.

There are LOTSA people invested in this system, from the top down. Whenever I see these complaints, I know somebody doesn't want a transparent election system in America. Because--why would there be such a big push back against addressing major voting reforms and bringing America up to world standards? (Duh)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #341)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:57 PM

385. I suppose it depends on where you are looking.

We have had major court cases, such as Kitzmiller vs. Dover area school district dedicated to keeping creationism out of schools. Additionally there are national organizations like the NCSE with this focus. Even beyond that, fighting creationism is a major focus of prominent members of the atheist movement such as Richard Dawkins.

I personally haven't seen as big of a push to discredit election fraud reporting. Fraud tactics that are well documented get national media attention. I heard about the ID laws and the Rick Scott voter purges on Rachel Maddow. By contrast I don't hear much about electronic voter fraud outside of DU, and I think the main reason is that a lot of what is said about electronic voter fraud doesn't stand on very good evidence.

Finally, when you imply that I don't want a transparent electoral system, you are basing it on a non-sequitur. I don't have to let poorly founded arguments in favor of electoral reform slide, in order to be in favor of it. I happen to think that we would advance our cause more effectively by focusing on the places where there are clearly problems i.e. voter suppression, than by going out on a limb and focusing on problems which are poorly demonstrated at best. Advocating for electoral reform on the basis of screwy arguments is also not likely to help us be taken seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #100)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:38 PM

367. Because the truth is important to some people.

Comfortable truth, and uncomfortable truth alike.

In this case, it would be trivially easy for the claimants to prove their claim. They have offered no such evidence.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be fairly dismissed without evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Melinda (Reply #80)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:12 AM

106. PLEASE PEOPLE read this article!!!

THIS IS THE BEST most comprehensive article to date on the subject--just came out in Harper's.

READ IT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:58 AM

90. I still think they stole Ohio in 2004

I don't buy the explanations for the exit polling discrepancies I've seen.
Why not do it again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #90)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:25 AM

124. Me too, and I know exactly how they did it and who did. That's why I know this is BS thru and thru

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #124)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:33 AM

128. Are you saying that

this Anon stuff is BS? Just not clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:01 AM

93. The President's narrow victories in numerous states laid to rest the issue


that the Republicans had some sort of sophisticated software fix that altered the results of both touch screen computers and the easy to verify paper ballot tabulators, something that didn't hold much logic anyway.

Moreover the rather significant effort at voter suppression also raised the question "why bother" if the 'fix' was already in.

Anonymous can't offer proof because it doesn't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #93)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:05 AM

98. anonymous

there or not. The IDEA of our own watchdog is GREAT!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #98)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:58 PM

193. Blind faith without evidence is no protection.

Some anonymous group claims to protect the vote, without providing proof, so no need to worry. No need to hold govt and elections officials accountable. We can all go back to watching DWTS and Jersey Shore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #193)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:26 PM

198. I

don't watch much regular entertainment dumb down television and no accountability is not the case here. Of course they must be held accountable. I gave up on 'blind faith' and blind trust when I left american christianity. too narrow minded and racist/sexist/homophobic. Someone like anonymous keeps the rethugs and others wondering, that's all. Blind faith is one thing, trust is another. and my trust MAY be misplaced, but I trust anonymous before I trust that rove wasn't trying to steal another election. He was way too twitchy election night not to have had an expectation of a sure win. I watched the idiot meltdown, he was serious. If anonymous is a fraud, one day it will come out, one way or another. I choose to accept him at face value. Just like I choose to accept Barack H. Obama at face value as being a better man than mittshit, lyinaynryan, rove and the rest of that cabal. If that means I am blind in my faith, so be it. I am not asking anything from you or all the rest of Barack's disparagers on this site. I will never accept that I have to answer to any of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #93)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:21 PM

197. Voter supression makes a fix possible.

That's why they go in tandem. Doesn't make it plausible, just possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:14 AM

110. If Rove is EVER prosecuted,

it will be over some pedestrian crime such as tax fraud or perjury. That is the only way many people ever see the inside of a jail. I wouldn't count on that.

In addition, a prosecution based on Anon's proof would be questionable. Somebody could claim to be Anon and post something tomorrow and how would you know who really did it? That's the beauty of Anon. It keeps people guessing and wondering as they go about their mischief.

If you think the Dems are lily white in the area of voter fraud, I have a bridge to sell you. Somebody is researching it and messing about as we post. It isn't a one way street. The GOP has just been more ruthless and open about it to an extent.

Nobody will be prosecuted except for low-level dabbling. Any trial about a large effort will never happen. Rove will be protected by powerful people or die in a plane crash.

Just the fact that Anon can get into people's heads is enough for me. They don't have to provide you, me or anybody else anything. You may have your knickers in a twist to prosecute Rove. They don't.

Lastly, if Anon can do this, the government has to have somebody who can ferret it out too. They aren't acting on it if they do because they aren't going to expose what probably would be a nest of snakes.

Does Anon exist and do everything claimed in their announcements? Who cares. It keeps the PTB on their toes. If they treat it as a real threat it is effective and part of the mission is accomplished.

Demand away. Chase Rove. That will keep you busy and that's a mission accomplished too, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Are_grits_groceries (Reply #110)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:17 AM

112. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Are_grits_groceries (Reply #110)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:24 AM

123. "If you think the Dems are lily white in the area of voter fraud, I have a bridge to sell you."

You're not selling a bridge, you're selling a bogus false equivalency.

"Voter fraud"? Tampering is election fraud. There is no such thing as massive "voter fraud."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #123)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:28 AM

126. My bad.

Election fraud then. Whatever.
Anon sent me an email that they are monitoring you. An announcement will be made shortly so that gawd and everybody knows they are after an important person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Are_grits_groceries (Reply #110)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:21 AM

344. exactly

there are a lot of purposely contrarian individuals who, I feel, are drama queens/divas/kings on this site who like nothing better than to add baseless, useless arguments to a definitive statement such as yours. I basically had to learn to ignore a lot of immature people on this site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:17 AM

114. The anonymous claim that it hacked into Rove's vote-tampering

software is something that I have believed to be just rye humor, a joke, from the beginning. I think that Pro Sense's challenge is great, but I don't believe that Anonymous actually did what is claimed here.

The polls stayed open. Democrats voted early. We got the vote out. Democrats supported Obama.

The real question is will we support Obama and get out the vote in 2014. We need to regain the House and keep our lead in the Senate -- at least until the Republican Party becomes somewhat relevant.

And Obama needs to hold tight. Cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will negatively and very negatively affect every American, every man, woman and child. Those programs have to be shielded from Republican greed at all costs. Same for medical care for wounded veterans. The rest of it -- up for grabs. Especially farm subsidies to large farm corporations. Totally unnecessary except in years of severe flooding or drought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:18 AM

118. K&R

very well said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:40 AM

130. If you want "evidence" vote for someone who will give you "investigations"

 

I would support that use of taxpayer money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:42 AM

132. Just maybe this anonymous stuff is all made up.

Or, at least some of it.

I am highly skeptical that anybody hacked like is portrayed in the alleged Anonymous "transmissions". This has scam written all over it.

It may be real, but let's get real here folks. This is most likely Bullshista.

Unless you just like fictional grand conspiracies.

Meh! Indeed, present evidence!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:45 AM

133. Snicker

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:45 AM

134. No, Anonymous is not going to take the risk....

...of revealing the true identity of any of their members to you or anyone else because of your rather petulant request to do so on DU. Why? Because what they do is "not a game" and can result in arrests, fines, and prison time.

Have you done any research on Anonymous and what they've been able to do since 2003? Do you remember the attempt to pass SOPA and the response by Anonymous? Why is it such a stretch of your imagination to accept their claim that they were able to keep the 2012 elections from being stolen by Rove's operatives?

Where's your evidence Anonymous was not able to do what they claimed to have done?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #134)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:49 AM

137. "Where's your evidence Anonymous was not able to do what they claimed to have done?"

Why do you need evidence?

I mean, you want me to present evidence that Anonymous hasn't presented evidence of what they "claimed" (operative word) to have done?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #137)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:03 PM

231. LOL. You're normally a smart poster, but you just don't get Anonymous, do you? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #134)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:13 AM

149. Right. There is no way for them...

...to release the information without exposing themselves. That's why most of us don't believe them. If you're going to advertise yourself as a big anarchist hacking organization and can't figure out a way to leak info without signing your name, you have zero credibility.

Go to Walmart, buy a cheap thumb drive, load info, insert thumb drive into unmarked envelope, seal (with water...no DNA), stick stamp on envelope, drive to some rural area, find mailbox, stick envelope in mailbox and send off to authorities. Oh, be sure to put one of those little Anonymous logos on the envelope to advertise your omnipotence and stealthiness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:48 AM

135. There is plent of evidence from 2000 on why does the Obama administration need

Anon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:49 AM

138. And if the Republicans win in 2016

 

Anonymous will claim they chose NOT to stop the vote hacking to "teach the Democrats a lesson".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:52 AM

140. The real problem with the bogus Anon Rove Idiocy is

it justifies retaliation computer attacks on Democratic GOTV efforts.

This may work just fine to get 1.) a few more donations down that Velvet rabbit hole, but the net effect is 2.) a lot more disinformation and misinformation is promulgated.

If those are the two objectives, all is flowing smoothly according to plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:06 AM

144. Where is the evidence that Anonymous claims they hacked the election

Let's remember that "Anonymous" isn't a traditional hacker group like the Legion of Doom or the Computer Chaos Club. Anonymous is anyone claiming to be a member of anonymous. The only "official" Anonymous group with any credibility is the one that goes after Co$ and that group is largely street theater. They have only one cause that they truly care about and that is completely unfettered free speech.

Once they started spinning off Antisec and Lulzsec in the wake of Wikileaks takedown and OWS, all sorts of individuals jumped on the bandwagon calling themselves "Anonymous", many of whom never hacked a line of code in their life. The arrest of Sabu and Topiary pretty much put an end to the whole "We are Legion" technical threat and you now have a shell of whatever quasi hacker organization actually existed in 2008. What was posted to Pastebin is likely nothing more than act of one of the new breed "hacktivists" who are pretty good at PR stunts, but have no real hacking skills. If Anonymous really did participate in an election day hack against the Romney campaign or Rove's Crossroads GPS, we'd see a lot more dox on pastebin than a single post.

In short, not only is there no evidence Anonymous hacked the election, there's no evidence Anonymous even claims to have hacked the election. Everyone is here and elsewhere is likely being trolled for lulz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toddaa (Reply #144)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 04:17 AM

331. This is the most sensible "no they didn't" post in this thread. I suspect you are 100% correct,

although you don't seem to claim to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:24 AM

152. They have said enough that any competent ivestigative/intelligence organization should be able

to pick up the trail if it exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:25 AM

153. Totally agreed

They can stop taking credit for something they may not have had anything to do with unless they come up with proof.

And the point about Rove is even better. He and his cohorts would get away with it if Anonymous does not prove it and if they have that information they have a duty to share it with the DOJ and state DOJs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:32 AM

156. Karl we are watching

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/11/real-reason-karl-rove-sweating-his-election-fraud-scheme-has-been-exposed-and-his-fing

"We watched as Karl’s speared ORCA whale was beached, rotting with a strong stench across his American plalyground, unable to be resuscitated."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipewrench (Reply #156)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:50 AM

161. "We watched as Karl’s speared ORCA"

This is why there needs to be clarity. There are two claims floating: One implicating ORCA and the other dimissing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:33 AM

157. It started...

 

...before 2004. The State of Georgia converted to the Diebold voting machines for the '02 mid terms and we lost both a Senate and Governor's seat due to it...and the evidence has long since been revealed. Only nobody's believed it. By the way, the Diebold folks referred to the 'last-minute' patch - similar to the one they were to install in Ohio - RobGeorgia. And the arrogant smucks got away with it...and still are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:53 AM

163. I prefer that Anonymous keep their info to themselves

After all, the 'proof' or 'evidence' would just give the crooks a blueprint for avoiding the computer sleuths next time around. Better IMO to keep the crooks guessing and looking over their shoulders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #163)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:07 PM

168. Yup, better to protect the crooks from being investigated. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #163)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:41 PM

221. Exactly

Who would ANON give their information to anyway? The "good guys"? Clearly they do not have much trust in any political party. They also would not be stupid enough to reveal any of their methods or tactics, so any proof will be elusive at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:02 PM

166. We the people have the right to bring to light from the shadows.

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:43 PM - Edit history (1)

those that are determined to destroy America.


I SAY RELEASE EVIDENCE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:04 PM

167. Rove's behavior to me proves he

 

thought they had something that could work. This reminded me too much of what they pulled with Bush.

The problem is republicans thought their narrative in black communities was working. Their storyline that President Obama didn't do anything for black people and having some ministers suggest his support of gay marriage would turn off black voters. Then there was the whole attempt to divide with voter suppression by claiming they were only after illegals.

They underestimated the backlash from black voters offended by their behavior. Record turnout by black voters put a halt to whatever dirty deeds they had planned. They were betting on the election being close enough to steal and I do believe Rove was up to some rotten stuff. They didn't plan on a landslide going to President Obama.

Now whether Anonymous has actual proof is debatable but I have zero doubts about Rove.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:09 PM

173. Does anyone seriously think Rove did NOT try to tamper with the results?

 

He just fucked it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:12 PM

174. I thought the statement explained that.

In that statement that "someone" released, it said that they considered catching Karl in the act, but decided instead to make it impossible for him to steal it in the first place. So there should be little or no evidence that Karl tried, because he was prevented from getting close enough to do it.

Even if it is a substance-less propaganda piece, it is a thoughtful one. The letter is pretty careful to note that the infiltrators did not interfere with Republican get-out-the-vote efforts, but instead disabled that software after the polls closed on the West Coast.

If other accounts that claim ORCA had access to read/write result pages are true, the intent of disabling ORCA after the polls closed is clear: Republicans wouldn't be able to use the monitoring software to change the results...

... so aside from the circumstantial evidence of hundreds of attempts to access the software after its use was purportedly at an end, there should be no direct evidence of a theft.

The backdoor allowing Rove to change the results in three states was unexpectedly protected with some sort of a firewall; that was not the ORCA/GOTV software. The writer made certain to distinguish between the two. Those backdoors were shut with a separate operation.

And if Karl couldn't get through his rat-holes, there would be no direct evidence of a theft there, either. But producing the code would be direct evidence that Anonymous was breaking the law.

Producing code that exposes the existence of a backdoor does nothing to implicate Rove or anyone else. It would have been dismissed as a harmless and unknown backdoor left behind by a software engineer--as intended, no doubt. The press would have immediately been directed to ask whether or not Anonymous stole the election, not Karl.

Furthermore, if Anonymous really did interfere with Rove's plans, they would be suicidal to present actual evidence against Rove instead of using it to protect themselves.

There is no rule of law in the United States and there hasn't been in a decade, at least. These people are going up against the person who invented that state of affairs--the very guy who destroyed American justice, possibly forever. These kids have no real protection, legal or otherwise. It's all about the muscle you bring to the fight, and once they're caught, these kids have none.

Karl Rove has a dozen US Attorneys in his pocket, the state of Texas, hundreds of millions in pocketed campaign cash, and one dead IT guru notched on his belt already. One or more of these script kiddies always gets busted, eventually, unless....

...Unless Karl stands to lose more than he gains by pursuing vengeance. Then nobody gets busted, and this remains a conspiracy theory. The people who did it--if they did it--are only safe as long as the action remains in doubt, and if they can hold something over the GOP's head to make it stay in doubt, they might live to see another election.

Or, it could all be crap. But it's clever crap, one way or the other. Whoever wrote that letter (it looks like more than one person wrote it, to me--watch how the "kingmaker" paragraph changes its voice) thought carefully about what was said and how.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #174)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:09 AM

313. Great post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:15 PM

175. Responses indicate that we're pretty scattered on this election fraud issue.

I didn't take the Anonymous comments as being truth. But I didn't take the next step that asked for evidence.

I don't know either way. I do know the system has failed. It failed in 2004.

Even if no one "stole" anything, it failed. Voter's intentions were not fulfilled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:17 PM

176. Anonymous and tactics

There are several possibilities, including

1) Anonymous has been known to use disinformation in the past. A surprising number of these guise have read the "The Art of War". This may have been a spoof, intended to deter action by Rove's group or (as likely) cause them to react so that the reaction itself could be monitored and a vulnerability identified thereby.

2) If there is truth in this, then it is likely the case that a leaker contacted Anonymous and gave them the information. In that case, divulging the details could expose the leaker. This could be very bad for the leaker. (Didn't a 2004 Republican operative mysteriously run out of fuel while flying a small aircraft ... just days before he was to testify under oath?) Anonymous does take the anonymity of its sources very, very seriously. Almost religiously.

3) If Anons had detected a security vulnerability, and had exploited that to get inside the infrastructure of a vote rigging operation, releasing the details might well divulge the vulnerability, effectively closing the door. They might be reluctant to allow that at this point.

Anonymous operates by its own rules, and not necessarily in accordance with our opinions or desires. The hive mind does not particularly support either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and a person of the mask and hood is just as likely to be a conservative as a liberal. (Though by "conservative" one should, I think, largely rule out social conservatism ... Anons tend to be rigidly supportive of human rights and solicitous of the "different". But that is just a pronounced tendency, and not a universal rule.) It should be noted that Obama is not particularly popular in Anon circles due to the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA, the over use of drones, a perception that he has let the bankers off the hook, SOPA, CISPA, etc.

The motivation behind the announcement (whatever it actually represents) was simply to help protect the right of people to vote, a right which is held dear in those circles. I'm not sure the hive mind (or this particular crew) cared about the outcome. I think it perceives that its work would remain much the same regardless of who won the election. Both political parties are seen as instruments of a corrupt system, a system they intend to transform. And there is no detectable consensus as to what the "end state" of such a transformation would actually look like. Anons tend to like to argue about that a lot.

And so, ProSense, while I agree with you ("this is not a game") and would like very much for such evidence to be divulged, we must accept that the objectives of Anonymous are not the objectives of Democratic Underground or Democratic Party supporters. You are of course free to suggest, encourage, and even demand such disclosures ... but the crew involved is unlikely to consider those expressions in its decision making process.

Trav

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:26 PM

179. What Sort of Evidence?

Seriously, there's really nothing they could present to prove their claims. Anything they present as evidence could be dismissed as forgeries, fake and phony and in addition, in order to determine authenticity one would need full cooperation from the GOP and Romney, because any investigation would need to dig into the guts of ORCA and the entire GOP/Romney operation.

What you ask is not possible, not feasible and also not in anons best interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #179)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:38 PM

183. That's why she's asking for it

Not in Anon's best interest.

The other two are just icing on that oh so delicious cake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #179)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:41 PM

185. "Seriously, there's really nothing they could present to prove their claims."

Yeah, anyone can say anthing and not have to prove it, right?

"Anything they present as evidence could be dismissed as forgeries, fake and phony and in addition, in order to determine authenticity one would need full cooperation from the GOP and Romney, because any investigation would need to dig into the guts of ORCA and the entire GOP/Romney operation."

Are you seriously arguing that even if they present evidence, there is no way to verify it as credible? Investigations are never easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #185)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:40 PM

201. Yes, What Do You Think Would Suffice to "Prove" Their Claims?

How could they convince you? Show the logs ? How would you know its legit? Code? How could they prove it was implemented? Nothing would suffice to those who wish to dismiss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #179)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:55 PM

228. There's always a counterclaim to any evidence

That's not a good reason not to present it.

The code would have to exist. They would have to know it. At the very least, if they presented the complete code in question, a third party could verify that it could have happened like that. Instead, they present nothing. It's all very faith-based. From a scientific point of view, it is disturbing to see how many people believe this unsupported claim simply because they desire to believe it and without any evidence to support it. Not only that, many people are twisting themselves into knots coming up with reasons why the claim cannot, in principle, be supported by evidence! It's not even post-Enlightenment theology. This is Dark Ages stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #228)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:54 PM

298. Just Because People Believe It's PLAUSIBLE Doesn't Mean People Believe It Definitely Happened

There is certainly circumstantial evidence to support it, this is not a scientific hypotheses, but a claim of a possible criminal conspiracy and an attempt to thwart it. I would draw no conclusions at this point, but to have suspicions and to discuss speculations on the internet is hardly out of bounds. It's not disturbing in the least and hardly faith based to ask questions and speculate about the veracity of the claim and in fact discuss what circumstantial evidence we do have at this point in what would seem to be a developing story.

You sure are getting your panties into a twist about it. I mean the dark ages cuz we're speculating about a juicy story on the internet? You give the word hyperbole a new meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #298)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:57 PM

299. There isn't even circumstantial evidence.