WCPO news website showing presidential election results!!!

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by NONPOINT21
reply to post by KentuckyMan
 


Well I wouldn't be surprised as OHIO determines the election, if you win OHIO you win!!!!....



Pundits were saying that weeks ago before the first debate.

After the 1st debate, Romney surged in swing states enough to win.

Then the pundits decided if Romney could win those swing states, Romney could win WITHOUT Ohio.




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by SNutley
 


Yes, I saw that, but I also know that I don't believe it was a "mistake". Same day they do that, there was a TV station that did the same thing? Some "coincidence". I think they are trying to discourage voting.


I think you're right. A lot of people will see those screens and NOT know that it's a test with bogus results.

Really a brilliant bit of Psyops.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by AuranVector

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by SNutley
 


Yes, I saw that, but I also know that I don't believe it was a "mistake". Same day they do that, there was a TV station that did the same thing? Some "coincidence". I think they are trying to discourage voting.


I think you're right. A lot of people will see those screens and NOT know that it's a test with bogus results.

Really a brilliant bit of Psyops.


Indeed! I might believe one such "accident", but two in one day? Most people don't bother to even check into such things, either. Heck, I am related to one that doesn't, and who won't even discuss politics at all. Acts like it doesn't affect them. Go figure...



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by AuranVector

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by SNutley
 


Yes, I saw that, but I also know that I don't believe it was a "mistake". Same day they do that, there was a TV station that did the same thing? Some "coincidence". I think they are trying to discourage voting.


I think you're right. A lot of people will see those screens and NOT know that it's a test with bogus results.

Really a brilliant bit of Psyops.


Indeed! I might believe one such "accident", but two in one day? Most people don't bother to even check into such things, either. Heck, I am related to one that doesn't, and who won't even discuss politics at all. Acts like it doesn't affect them. Go figure...


Yeah, it's hard to believe that two out of a few thousand media outlets would accidentally broadcast a test of something related to the Presidential election, just a few weeks before the election.

Oh wait, no it;s not.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by AuranVector

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by SNutley
 


Yes, I saw that, but I also know that I don't believe it was a "mistake". Same day they do that, there was a TV station that did the same thing? Some "coincidence". I think they are trying to discourage voting.


I think you're right. A lot of people will see those screens and NOT know that it's a test with bogus results.

Really a brilliant bit of Psyops.


Indeed! I might believe one such "accident", but two in one day? Most people don't bother to even check into such things, either. Heck, I am related to one that doesn't, and who won't even discuss politics at all. Acts like it doesn't affect them. Go figure...


Yeah, it's hard to believe that two out of a few thousand media outlets would accidentally broadcast a test of something related to the Presidential election, just a few weeks before the election.

Oh wait, no it;s not.


First of all, do you really think they don't have other ways of "testing" their screens, other than actually broadcasting them to countless people?

Secondly, would a "test" screen have to be filled out with real names & real (believable) numbers?

This was no accident. They wanted those bogus numbers seen by God only knows how many people.

Do you understand what a subliminal message is?

It's used in advertising all the time to sway potential customers.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by AuranVector

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by AuranVector

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by SNutley
 


Yes, I saw that, but I also know that I don't believe it was a "mistake". Same day they do that, there was a TV station that did the same thing? Some "coincidence". I think they are trying to discourage voting.


I think you're right. A lot of people will see those screens and NOT know that it's a test with bogus results.

Really a brilliant bit of Psyops.


Indeed! I might believe one such "accident", but two in one day? Most people don't bother to even check into such things, either. Heck, I am related to one that doesn't, and who won't even discuss politics at all. Acts like it doesn't affect them. Go figure...


Yeah, it's hard to believe that two out of a few thousand media outlets would accidentally broadcast a test of something related to the Presidential election, just a few weeks before the election.

Oh wait, no it;s not.


First of all, do you really think they don't have other ways of "testing" their screens, other than actually broadcasting them to countless people?

Secondly, would a "test" screen have to be filled out with real names & real (believable) numbers?

This was no accident. They wanted those bogus numbers seen by God only knows how many people.

Do you understand what a subliminal message is?

It's used in advertising all the time to sway potential customers.


Some real facts. There are:

1,774 full power TV station in the US.

benton.org...

Out of those you've found 2.

So .112% of TV stations have done this. 1/10th of 1%.

So at the VERY best, it's one of the most poorly implemented plans ever.

Second, where's your ACTUAL evidence?

One of the two has already given you a feasible explanation. So they didn't deny it, they explained it.

The other showed it once, in a crawl.

So...

If you think it's rational, based on that, to assume conspiracy, go ahead, but to me, you're swinging at invisible windmills...

I'll make you a deal though, when 1/2 of 1% of tv stations do this, I'll reconsider your evidence. But we both know that won't happen.
edit on 23-10-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by KentuckyMan
 


Dingleberry, you look at the link you posted lately? It says:

"If you are seeing results prior to Nov. 6, 2012, please note that these are NOT results of the election/early voting results, but rather a system test. We apologize for the inconvenience."

In other news: THE SKY IS FALLING!



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by KentuckyMan
 


Dingleberry, you look at the link you posted lately? It says:

"If you are seeing results prior to Nov. 6, 2012, please note that these are NOT results of the election/early voting results, but rather a system test. We apologize for the inconvenience."

In other news: THE SKY IS FALLING!


Thanks for you all inspiring comment lol

Secondly it did not say that when i posted the link in this thread.
They have put that up after ..Maybe people complained i dont know..

This is not GLP so no use in deflamatory comments ..ok thanks



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I just came across this. It may at first seem irrelevant to the thread, but it's just another example of the types of things that were done during the primaries. It is in the same vein because its intention is of course to mislead, make people believe Romney is more popular/has more support than he actually does. If he really did have this support, why the need to fake things like this? (Same in regard to Ron Paul in the primaries- If RP really had no chance of winning, why all the cheating and dirty tactics? If Romney really was ahead by a landslide?)

"Romney Campaign Exaggerates Size Of Nevada Event With Altered Image"

www.buzzfeed.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by curiouscanadian777
 


For every Romeny argument I can provide an Obama equivelant -

Reuters, AP photojournalists describe staging of Obama photo

White House's botched 'op'



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Oh yes, I believe it!
I'm not more for one or the other. They're all liars, cheaters, misdirectionists, etc etc, and completely shameless about it.
But, yes, I don't think these things happen by accident.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Voting machine swaps Obama for Romney - Incorrect inputs irritate voter


MARION — Joan Stevens was one of several early voters at the polls on Monday. But when Stevens tried to cast her ballot for president, she noticed a problem.

Upon selecting “Mitt Romney” on the electronic touch screen, Barack Obama’s name lit up.

It took Stevens three tries before her selection was accurately recorded.

“You want to vote for who you want to vote for, and when you can’t it’s irritating,” Stevens said.

Stevens said she alerted Jackie Smith, a board of elections member who was present. Smith declined to comment, but Stevens says she mentioned that the machine had been having problems all day.

Stevens also reported the issue to Sophia Rogers, the director of the board of elections for Marion County.

Rogers said the machine worked fine when she and others tried voting on it. No one else had reported problems with the voting machines malfunctioning.

Rogers suggested the issue may have been caused by not hitting the button directly or tapping with more than one finger. Stevens was aware the machine had to be operated a certain way.

“I know how to do the voting,” Stevens said.


Im curious how many early voters who cast ballots didnt pay attention to the result on the screen?

edit on 31-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Gary Johnson is the only decent choice.

Man people are still in this left-right daydream.





new topics
 
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join