It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

VOTE: Government Accountability Office Report Used By Freepress: 04 Election Stolen

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whompa1
No one considers these 3rd party canidates who from what I have found seem to have OUR interests at heart rather then big business.


I'll vote to that, Whompa1!


You have voted Whompa1 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Just goes to show that hey, better to vote on OUR interests, than not to vote at all.




posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Thank you kind sir!


apc

posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
You've got to start voting though


I used to never vote because I've always preferred to remain somewhat off "the grid" as some people lovingly call it. But now, all I see are these electronic voting machines everywhere. Insecure hunks of crap that don't leave a paper trail. Sorry, but I'm not even going to bother pushing those touchscreen buttons. Very unfortunate.

If we ever get another Carter in the running, then I'll vote. Until then, I feel it's just a waste.

[edit on 30-10-2005 by apc]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
I used to never vote because I've always preferred to remain somewhat off "the grid" as some people lovingly call it. But now, all I see are these electronic voting machines everywhere. Insecure hunks of crap that don't leave a paper trail. Sorry, but I'm not even going to bother pushing those touchscreen buttons. Very unfortunate.

If we ever get another Carter in the running, then I'll vote. Until then, I feel it's just a waste.


apc, no doubt I share your concerns about the voting machines, and obviously that had a lot to do with me bringing the article here in the first place. But even if another Carter were to come along, it is not going to fix the lax problems with the machines. Public knowledge however of the problems is the first step. And the second step is voting. For your interests.

I really don't understand the mentality some people have that just because you're not likely to win with a 3rd party vote, that it doesn't mean something. If a 3rd party vote garnered in the upwards of even 20% of the vote in the near future, that would be a very serious concern to the major two parties, let alone something like 30 or 40%. They will be forced to look at why so many people are moving away from the major two parties. And if they keep on without taking notice of the the ideals these parties like the Libertarians and Constitution party are putting forth, the problem for them will only get worse. And I'll bet you anything that they will nip it in the bud before it ever looks like a 3rd party could stand a chance of even winning. They will HAVE to, or will lose eventually to a 3rd party.

Best chance the 3rd parties have IMO is to find common ground, work out their differences, and cummulatively consolidate into one stronger 3rd party that still represents the overall ideals and maintains the interest of returning to an unshakeable US Constitution as the guiding force behind all domestic and foreign policy.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I agree with GradyPhilpott, there is nothing in the report that says the 2004 elections were stolen as the original poster stated.

Are we to assume that all elections in the past have been rigged since the first election occurred, because there are possible ways to rig those elections?....

Anything can be rigged, and just because there are "possibilities" it doesn't mean it happened.

As I have said in the past, i don't mean that we shouldn't have any concerns, or try to work the problems. But it is a far cry for anyone to claim that because of "possibilities," they know for certain the 2004 elections were rigged.

I would also like to see someone post a link, a reliable link of course, on the claim by a few people that the diebold president/owner (or whatever he is) stated that he would do anything to make president Bush win.

Can anyone post evidence on this?



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
You asked for it so here it is. This praticular article was found on Google...I typed in Diebold support for bush and this was the first link to a commondreams.org. 2003 article. There was a list of other links as well dealing with the subject but this should do it. Want more check it out yourselves.

COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
This might interest a few




Programmer claims that he designed and built a "vote rigging" software program




Clinton Curtis the programmer claims that he designed and built a "vote rigging" software program at the behest of then Florida Congressman, now U.S. Congressman, Republican Tom Feeney of Florida's 24th Congressional District.
...
"He detailed, in his own words, that; (a) the program needed to be touch-screen capable (b) the user should be able to trigger the program without any additional equipment (c) the programming to accomplish this needed to stay hidden even if the source code was inspected."

Video Testimony


ATS

The Diebold Factor



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I agree with GradyPhilpott, there is nothing in the report that says the 2004 elections were stolen as the original poster stated.


And so just like Grady, Muaddib, are you discounting what Freepress is saying as false? Please note the two distinct reports, as I have tried to make clear here several times, and the reasons for their differences.


Are we to assume that all elections in the past have been rigged since the first election occurred, because there are possible ways to rig those elections?....

Anything can be rigged, and just because there are "possibilities" it doesn't mean it happened.


And guess what, Muaddib, just like you I would have never questioned the vaildity of the results either, except for one slight problem....Ahh no, make that 1000 problems. Please don't make me dig up the reports which are still on this site, of all the problems with the last election, the incredible, statistically improbable exit poll results, and all the testimony that points to fraud. Hell, we've even got one programmer claiming that he was approached by Jeb's people in Florida to invent a way that the election results might be manipulated. There is more than hearsay Muaddib that points to election fraud here.


As I have said in the past, i don't mean that we shouldn't have any concerns, or try to work the problems. But it is a far cry for anyone to claim that because of "possibilities," they know for certain the 2004 elections were rigged.


I'd appreciate it if you'd write a letter to George W. Bush and explain to him that because of "possibilities," it is a far cry that he can claim for certain that Iraq had WMD's to justify the horrendous killing of over 100,000 Iraqis, not to mention at least 2,000 of our own troops.

Do we know for certain that the election was rigged? No. Can I be about 99% sure given all the evidence, and now the FACTS presented by the GAO and Freepress? You bet. And I'll point out that GW operated on a lot less than that to justify killing people over his "possibilities."

[edit on 30-10-2005 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
You asked for it so here it is. This praticular article was found on Google...I typed in Diebold support for bush and this was the first link to a commondreams.org. 2003 article.


You gave an excerpt to a link, but no links.

That first, and second you actually think that site, "Commondreams" is unbiased at all?....

In the same manner that the original poster of this topic jumped into a conclusion based on "possibilities" I see at least a few articles from "commondreams.org" that do the same.

A third party account on this doens't help much, more so when the link provided comes from a site that is obviously biased against the present administration.


Originally posted by grover
There was a list of other links as well dealing with the subject but this should do it. Want more check it out yourselves.


I don't see you posting any links. If you want to prove something you need to present the evidence not me.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
regretably the truth could come up and bite grady and muadip and all the other true beievers in the proverbial ass and they still would refuse to believe it dispite sore butts and teeth marks LOL LOL LOL



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Published on Thursday, August 28, 2003 by the Cleveland Plain Dealer....www.cleveland.com.

Commondreams is certianly a liberal/progressive website but unlike bill o really and mush loosebowels etal, they don't make up the news, they reprint articles from newspapers and magazines that print them in the first place. Remember denial is NOT a river in Egypt.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
TrueAmerican, I was here when we covered the elections in ATSNN. Other members and I posted several links and evidence that there was as much, and even more evidence in some instances that pointed to the fact that there was fraud which benefitted Kerry. I was the one who posted a link in which one of the third party candidates accused Kerry, not president Bush, of rigging the elections and stealing votes from him.

Kerry also hired thousands of lawyers to see if they could find evidence that the election was rigged to help president Bush, and at the end they didn't find anything. Now of course those who have not agreed with the president being in office, have to try to use "possibilities" as a reason for accussing the elections being completly rigged, and of course, Kerry must have been in cahuts with all of this because at the end he acknowledged that president Bush did win the election.

Have there been fraud in past elections? unfortunately yes, but this does not mean it is the rule, and basing a conclusion on "possibilities" doesn't make it the truth.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
regretably the truth could come up and bite grady and muadip and all the other true beievers in the proverbial ass and they still would refuse to believe it dispite sore butts and teeth marks LOL LOL LOL


I actually think it is the other way around grover.




posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Bob Fitrakis, one of the authors of the 'interpretation' of the GAO report, is well known to me. He was (and perhaps still is) a huge supporter of the "chem-trail" hoax, posting a bunch of articles (all of them false) about the 'danger' of "chem-trails".

If you're looking for some really interesting fiction, I suggest you google "bob fitrakis chemtrails". If you're interested in finding some hard hitting and accurate reporting, though, I suggest you look elsewhere.

I also think it's important, as several people have said, to differentiate between the GAO report and the spin Fitrakis and Wasserman put on it.

Nowhere in the GAO report, as Grady Philpott et. al. have mentioned, is there any intimation that the election was stolen; it is the Fitrakis/Wasserman spin that tries to make it look that way. Here's an example:


...did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected...It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate...Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level...access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected…


This is proof, that Bush stole the election, right?

Of course not! It said that the system was vulnerable. Had that same report been issued after a Kerry victory, there would be exactly the same evidence that it was the Democrats who stole the election from the Republicans....

...none at all.


Other stuff you see is a quote by F&W:


... election run in Ohio by a Secretary of State simultaneously working as co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign."


The horror!!

The Kerry campaign in Arizona was run by Janet Napolitano, who is the boss of the Secretary of State who runs Arizona elections! MY GHOD!!

You know what this proves, don't you?

Right. Nothing at all. Statewide office holders are usually tapped by national candidates as campaign chairs or co-chairs!

Here is a real interesting thing, though: True American says:


But what also should not be overlooked is the fact that the GAO report was not partisan.


True. But True American ignores the corollary:


But what also should not be overlooked is the fact that the GAO report did not say there was any wrongdoing -- merely that there was the potential for it.


The only "report" that impugns the Republicans for "theft" of the election was that of "Chem-trail" Bob Fitrakis, who thinks that we are all stupid enough to automatically equate "it is possible for there to be wrongdoing" with "there is wrongdoing".

Now don't get me wrong; I've never voted for Bush; I wouldn't want to elect him dog-catcher. However, that doesn't mean that, because I disagree with someone's politics, I'm going to lie to you.

But then, I'm not Bob Fitrakis, either.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
ok, Muaddib and OTS, positions noted. I will need time to reply, and right now gotta go into a recording session. I will have something to say soon. In the meantime OTS, I would like for you to prove that he is lying with the freepress report. I don't care about chemtrails or the work he has done on them. Disprove what he has stated in the freepress report please. That is the concern here as it relates to this. TTYS, and I am interested in getting to the bottom of this.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Published on Thursday, August 28, 2003 by the Cleveland Plain Dealer....www.cleveland.com.

Commondreams is certianly a liberal/progressive website but unlike bill o really and mush loosebowels etal, they don't make up the news, they reprint articles from newspapers and magazines that print them in the first place. Remember denial is NOT a river in Egypt.


I see, they don't make up the news but they don't seem to mind to twist it just a bit to further their agenda.

As an example one of the articles in commondreams is named "A Patriot Crashes Bush's Party", no bias there and no twists right?.... Riiiiight....

www.commondreams.org...

Yes grover, denial is not a river in Egypt....take your own advice to heart buddy.

I could find you a couple of ultra conservative sites that would prove the contrary to what is said in that specific site grover... would you accept the news from those sites as true even if I present proof to back up the content of the site?

I asked for proof and all I see is a biased website that is trying to bring down the present administration, but no real proof and no neutral links that can back your argument.


[edit on 30-10-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Ok Muaddip dismiss Commondreams but what of the Cleveland Times and what it wrote? That is where the article came from. As for the "Patriot Crashes Bush Party" comment...why the hell can't someone be opposed to Bush and his splendid little war not be a patriot? If you think the two (opposing bush and being a patriot and/or opposing the war and being a patriot) are incompatibile you are the one with blinders on but that doesn't surprise me at all...you are the one who always has to be right...talk about arrogance. I could produce dozens of links proving that O'Dell of Diebold said what he did and you would find fault in every single one and refuse to consider them but ya know arguing with you just isn't worth my time.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   
You know I could really care less one way or the other whether I win this arguement or not. I learned a long time ago that to be inflexible is to all but admit being brittle and fragile. I am not so committed to the idea that Bush etal stole the last election that I have to "prove" my point though I do believe that there was collusion among state and the national Republican parties to to tip the vote where ever they could. Have the Democrats done this as well? Of course they have, the difference is that now with the technology we have, it can be cooridinated nationwide and there is no need to burn ballots in the Texas outback or have the deceased vote in Chiago. It is all moot now though because like it or not Bush is president. What all this is really about is a difference of opinion and nothing more. Dispite all the conservative whinning about liberal bias in the media, all the major outlets are in conservative pockets and you very rarely hear a truely liberal voice and the kid-gloves treatment Bush has recieved for most of his presidency vs. the go for the juglar attitude that prevailed during the Clinton years proves it. What the difference of opinion is that some all but worship the ground Bush walks on and that he can do no wrong, or at the very least it seems like it and then there are those, and I am one of them, who feels that the Bush presidency will in the long run prove a disaster for this country, if it already hasn't. Does that make me "wrong"? No, no more than fervent support for Bush makes a person right. In the long run only time will prove who is correct and who is not. I am entitled to my opinion without being called a traitor or have my patriotism questioned...Samuel Johnson's comment about "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundral" still rings true to this day. I love my country, I support our men and women in uniform, after all I served my time as well, but I will be damned if I do so blindly. I am no my country right or wrong jingoist. It is my duty as a citizen to stand up and protest when I feel my country is doing something wrong and that is the rub, it is my concious that dictates whether I feel my country is in the wrong or not and that is the rub when I am called a fool or a traitor or anti-American when I express my misgivings, no other person has the right to gainsay my concious anymore than I do theirs. There is an old adage that expressse an attitude that is in great shortage today, and one we need more of..."I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Ok Muaddip dismiss Commondreams but what of the Cleveland Times and what it wrote? That is where the article came from. As for the "Patriot Crashes Bush Party" comment...why the hell can't someone be opposed to Bush and his splendid little war not be a patriot? If you think the two (opposing bush and being a patriot and/or opposing the war and being a patriot) are incompatibile you are the one with blinders on but that doesn't surprise me at all...


grover the point I was trying to make is that the owners of that website are biased and that can be seen in the articles they post. They have an agenda against the present administration, so all their articles will have only one goal, to bash and blame the present administration.

If you can't find a neutral website where that story can be corroborated, it is highly probable that the comment was either taken out of context, exagerated, or it is a flat out lie.

Nowadays people can write almost anything they want in websites, this doesn't mean that all of it is true.



Originally posted by grover
you are the one who always has to be right...talk about arrogance. I could produce dozens of links proving that O'Dell of Diebold said what he did and you would find fault in every single one and refuse to consider them but ya know arguing with you just isn't worth my time.


I can probably produce dozens of links where people claim to be vampires....does that mean it is true?

I don't think I am always right grover....now you are turning this into personal attacks....

I have never claimed that I am always right, and quite a few times I have acknowledged this....

The point is that, first of all the information from the article the original poster gave does not say at all that the 2004 election was stolen, as he claimed. If you can't provide neutral links where we can corroborate this story, it is not my fault.

I would really like to know exactly how I can be considered arrogant for not believing the 2004 elections were "stolen" due to "possibilities."




[edit on 31-10-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs,

Uhhmmmm, WHY?!

This single fact means that, minimally, electronic voting machines CANNOT be used.


2. "It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

? How's it change it then, I don't understand. Do they mean it says 'touch here to vote for nader' and then its logged as a vote for bush? But how would anyone know that? And why would anyone complain afterwards, not during voting? Or were these affadavits and complaints made in the polling stations?




This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not

would not require, not 'did not'. They did not find any evidence of tampering. They found information that suggests that there was tampering, and that there certainly could've been undetecable tampering, but not evidence of tampering.













Would the war on terror have proceeded the same way if Kerry had been elected?

It had already started, if kerry was around there might be an earlier pullout, or not, who knows. *shrugs*


Have all those people died because of the actions of private, partisan voting machine companies?

The destruction of the american democracy is a far greater concern than this tho.


get a non-partisan, reputable government agency such as the GAO to manage, control and oversee any future elections.

But we have that. Any time that there is a government office that is reponsible for something, its going to farm the work out to private companies to do the actual work.


On the one hand, these reports are disturbing because they show that, despite the assurances of the people pushing these machines, that they are not at all secure and are very open to tampering. That in itself shows either gross incompetence, or a conpsiracy.
On the other hand, they didn't find any evidence of widescale tampering.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join