Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Google accidentally released Maine election results early!

page: 3
141
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


My comprehension of your post was fine. Your opinion in said post was... let's just say, askew.

IMHO of course.

edit on 10-2-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


If you want to correct me, I'm waiting.



for your reference.


Originally posted by eLPresidente
People...its probably a script error...

There is no way Google can report 100% before the largest chunk of Maine even votes...

And there is also no way Maine is going to get 12k voter turnout when 08 had only 5500.


and whether Ron Paul wins or not, he's still going to get most of the delegates.


It will be a close race tomorrow and of course I got my fingers crossed for Ron...they better turn out the vote...


edit on 10-2-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

There is no way Google can report 100% before the largest chunk of Maine even votes...


You're under the impression that we the people cast votes that are counted, that those percentages aren't already statistically built to appease perception weeks, if not months in advance.
Your vote might pick a mayor or judge, your local sheriff, but at this level of the game? Sorry. We have no say what-so-ever. We're just casting stats to keep tabs on support, we aren't picking anyone, not in this stacked deck.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Did they really put Nazi Racist down inetead of Ron Pauls name there???WTF???
Is that a hoax page a what???
The GOP wouldnt do that would they?
they are sure not gonna dirty up a possible potus ....must be some other hackers.....



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
Did they really put Nazi Racist down inetead of Ron Pauls name there???WTF???
Is that a hoax page a what???
The GOP wouldnt do that would they?
they are sure not gonna dirty up a possible potus ....must be some other hackers.....


Shadow Herder is a troll. Everything (s)he's said so far, and every pic (s)he's put up has been fabricated by him/her.
Ignore it.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


For some reason the screen shot you posted is total bs.


www.google.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


I lol'ed. Thanks for posting!



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


That argument was pretty vague.

Your theory only works if you can prove that none of these votes even mean anything.

That those who vote don't get their votes counted, counted at what level? the precinct level? county level? state level? national level?




Even if that, my original argument was meant to show that google can't logically make a 100% report on the results when the results don't even exist. You cannot disprove that so you went on some spiel about how its all fixed. Please...let's stick to the topic. Google and their 'results'

You want to talk about the election being rigged months in advance, that is what the general conspiracy forum is for, is it not?

edit on 10-2-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


Lol! You apparently didn't see "nazi racist" above Ron Paul. It was a joke, a joke in poor taste, funny tho. I'll bet most people saw Brad Pitt and were thinking, "wonder why he's on there?".

Clever...



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Even if that, my original argument was meant to show that google can't logically make a 100% report on the results when the results don't even exist. You cannot disprove that so you went on some spiel about how its all fixed. Please...let's stick to the topic. Google and their 'results'


Google posting results at 600/600 then quickly going back to 0/600 is kinda proof that they're just throwing out stats for the masses to gobble up. Like another poster said, we'll see tomorrow how close the two results are.



You want to talk about the election being rigged months in advance, that is what the general conspiracy forum is for, is it not?


I was under the impression that this entire site was a "conspiracy forum", a place to seek out the truth under the mound of bull$h!t that is the system. Have you not seen the vids here on ATS where a programmer admitted under oath that not only was voter fraud possible, but he helped to do it during one of Bush's elections? I guess not. It was swept under the rug like so many other issues with our current method of voting. The claim in that vid was that, electronic voting, which was designed to make voting "safer", actually made it incredibly easy to manipulate.

Believe it, don't believe it. No sweat off my back.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Guys and gals, can someone get a screen shot of it saying zero right now before midnight, its best to show they changed it, thanks I would but I don't have that option on this computer



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul


Google posting results at 600/600 then quickly going back to 0/600 is kinda proof that they're just throwing out stats for the masses to gobble up. Like another poster said, we'll see tomorrow how close the two results are.

This is not proof. It is a piece of evidence. It proves nothing. We know that something happened at Google and that for some reason Google posted 600/600 precincts counted when clearly none of them have been counted. But do you really think that, if they have so intelligently rigged the system in advance for hundreds of years now, that they (whoever they are) would make a silly mistake like posting the results early? It is much, much, much more likely that somebody at Google, clearly preparing for tomorrow, made a mistake. Maine has over a million people, the "skewed results" would make no sense because it is supposed to be reporting all voters and there are only 8000 votes counted. Out of 1 million, they can't expect us to believe that only 8000 voted... that is just ridiculous. I think, personally, that this is probably being blown out of proportion.

That is not to say I don't think voter fraud is possible... in fact, I think it happens. It's just, seriously? If they really wanted to pick our leaders completely in advance, do you really think they would choose Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum? It's BS. And, if they had chosen Obama - why? There were plenty of other capable and more likely to be controlled candidates, established candidates like John McCain would have made much more sense because he is ingrained in the system and HAS to play by its rules. In the end, Americans just suck at choosing politicians... they work with what they have, they manipulate us into choosing the best candidate for them, but, I don't think that the election results have been decided well in advance of the elections.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by hapablab
 


Done.

Upper right-hand corner shows my clock time.

11:58pm EST





edit on 10-2-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by litterbaux
 

Yeah, I saw it and thought it was a lame attempt to discredit OP and other poster who got the screen shots that this thread is about. Love your username.
edit on 2/10/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


Oh so awesome, thank you very much FugitiveSoul!, :-)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacekc929

But do you really think that, if they have so intelligently rigged the system in advance for hundreds of years now, that they (whoever they are) would make a silly mistake like posting the results early? It is much, much, much more likely that somebody at Google, clearly preparing for tomorrow, made a mistake. Maine has over a million people, the "skewed results" would make no sense because it is supposed to be reporting all voters and there are only 8000 votes counted. Out of 1 million, they can't expect us to believe that only 8000 voted... that is just ridiculous. I think, personally, that this is probably being blown out of proportion.


Answer. People are fallible.
I can understand building the graph, putting up the names and faces, but why the percentage points? What's the point in doing that if you know the votes are still coming in? That's my point. No one would waste their time doing that unless it were already decided. It's not a real-time graph, obviously. If it were, they would've kept it up and not taken it away so quickly. I know that isn't 100% concrete, but you know what, you said yourself, voter fraud happens. I know it, you know it. If it happens, and we all know it, what are we arguing about?

To answer your other question "Why Obama?"
After Bush's eight years, the people were looking for the exact opposite of 'W', the powers that be gave us an ex-CIA Black Islander. How much more opposite can you get?




edit on 10-2-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
WOW!

This is bad news considering I was all excited about the prospect that Paul could win Maine..

Article and thread here;

Paul could win Maine
edit on 10-2-2012 by defuntion because: blah... Thread promotion...




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DISINFORMANT
 

Because all of the districts are reporting numbers? Just my guess...



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


Are you kidding? People were getting 0% and 100% simultaneously.

Its a script error, they exist, you really think Google is taking part in the election rigging scandal?



Are we really turning this thread into another PTB topic?



By the way, you said they don't count votes and I showed you a clear and recent example of error-proof 'vote counting' but you decided to ignore it.


edit on 10-2-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)









 
141
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join