|
|
On October 24 2012 00:15 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 15:55 Lmui wrote:http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.51.pdfNo idea about the reliability of the source. It's one of the top posts on reddit though and if we take the results inside at face value which, considering the ease of doublechecking/verifying the results seems fair, it's rather alarming to me as a canadian that there's no secondary independent verification method of electronic voting machines. Back in February 2012 during the South Carolina primaries, a keen observer noted that Republican
candidate Mitt Romney had an unusual gain of votes in larger precincts. Analysts noted this effect
violated expected statistics. Specifically, the percentage of votes in each precinct strangely increased as
a function of precinct size (vote tally). The vote gain is correlated to precinct size, not the precinct
location, be it in cities or rural areas. This anomaly is not apparent in other elections that don’t include
Republican candidates. In 2008, Mitt Romney had the benefit of this anomaly and then the gain
switched to John McCain once Romney exited the campaign. The Democrat Party elections we looked
at don’t show this problem. The reproduction method near the bottom is pretty straightforward but it's pretty scary that it's even possible for something like this to occur. Before posting, I'd hope that you'd read through the first 17 pages of the pdf (~5-8 minutes of reading, max, you can skip the methodology if you'd like) Edit: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/11wryn/the_greatest_case_of_election_fraud_ever_to_occur/The reddit link. The second post summarized it pretty well + Show Spoiler +They studied the precinct reports on vote distribution and discovered that the larger the precinct (block of voters) the larger the percentage Romney was receiving during the primaries in this election cycle and the last. They show very nicely that this is unusual, does not happen on it's own, and is very specific (in candidate) and very broad (in where it crops up)
Without getting in to the depth of why this is not explained by anything other than fraud (that's a lot of the paper) let me just simply say this:
This anomaly was only seen with one republican at a time.
It was only seen with Romney in 2008 until McCain got the Republican nomination, and then it switched to him.
It only shows up with precincts with electronic voting or centralized tabulating machines.
It appears extremely well behaved and predictable mathematically, ie a software program.
The evidence points towards some entity flipping a portion of the votes cast or tabulated electronically towards a chosen candidate. My opinion is that the republicans have done enough this election cycle that's been in the legal grey area as far as election fraud is concerned. There's no telling how widespread it is on a larger scale though. I think posting this at the time of night I did meant that this got buried a bit deeper than I'd like. It's some research into serious voting abnormalities and possible election fraud that's happening on massive scales in areas with electronic and/or centralized tabulation. Essentially, in larger precincts, some incoming votes seemingly get switched to a different candidate and this switching is pretty strongly correlated with precinct size.
thx for repost, else this would have escaped me completely (dont use reddit)
Kinda interesting, reading it now.
I do get a feeling this is a hoax though, as i can not imagine people would commit fraud wich is this easy to detect.
(ok you have to look for it but once you look, the anomaly is pretty obvious)
Still think there are some logical explanations possible for the anomaly
The simple statement at the start of the studys,that the anomaly can not be explained by demographic differences does not satisfy me at all without further clarification, and i can think of several decent explanations for this effect.
|
Which brings me to this post. Apart from the EMU experiment (of which national policy isn't a part, meaning your criticism is misguided) where national governments have not been able to control their governments through a central bank or other national measures the real problem has been liberalization. I'm just going to sit back in my comfortable chair here in Sweden and keep observing though. Feels good.
EMU experiment =). Haven't heard of that one. My point was pretty simple: The abundance of posts "Vote Obama, Signed World" in this thread and elsewhere are pretty funny considering how poorly the EU (1993-Present, 19 years) does with many European powers weighing in. Just as there is ongoing debate on Liberalization in the EU, and you label that as a problem, here in the US we have debates similar in nature, and my stance on them is much closer to Romney than Obama. Don't mind me if I repeatedly hear the world opinion on the US Presidential election with some skepticism over how well able they are to offer good advice. And, to reiterate, those purporting to speak for the world miss out on countries like Mexico, and many in the Middle East deeply unsatisfied with Obama.
You are sitting pretty in Sweden, I long for the day when our education choice and accountability rises to Sweden's level. So far, the growth of government spending in your country hasn't stunted the largely efficient business sector and the regulations aren't as burdensome as elsewhere. I see the United States declining in economic freedom relative to Sweden if Obama is reelected, as the red tape layers on and taxes being forced to rise in the absence of sensible spending reductions. Every country is different. I can point to some of them with a declining ability to pay for their social programs. The EU is not an exact mirror, being as you point out, of a national government, but its formation and continued maintenance by European country (How many news stories are there about the sovereign nations of Greece and Germany related to the EU, or Spain). So I'm not building a case for European nations being more screwed up than US, just the point of view of Americans on the world's (I primarily hear Western Europeans identifying themself as the signess "the world") opinion. It's not without some basis for skepticism.
|
On October 24 2012 00:55 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2012 00:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 00:29 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 24 2012 00:19 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 23:58 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:39 DownOnMyNiece wrote:On October 23 2012 23:26 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:
Well, I think the idea is that we should help them so that they will like us and then have a democracy that likes us. Outwardly that is the idea without a doubt, historically though the support that has been lent to these groups by the US specifically has not yielded the desired results. Historically speaking, the US-involvement in finances and war has brought an entire continent to a captitalist, pro-USA democratic paradise when it could just as easily been a communist hell-hole. There have been success stories to be certain, and in many respects some of the states Cold War policies did affect positive democratic change. I should have been more specific about states where there were contentions by proxy with the USSR and the Soviet model for Communism relative to other examples, you are correct. Most, if not all, of the states that America helped and didn't become democratic were NOT (or were not going to be) democratic if we didn't intervene. For instance, I don't think anyone really expect Afghanistan to turn into a first-world capitalist democracy after we helped them overthrow the Soviets. Contextually speaking, the idea of our intervention in Afghanistan was not establishing democracy rather it was making the Soviet military effort much more difficult. From the vague nature of Romney's statement it is difficult if not impossible to extrapolate what his intentions would be beyond providing some level of support for Syrian rebels while not directly involving US military personnel. The implication from both candidates does seem to be that the US would be more involved in the post conflict Syrian affairs than we were in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That kind of hardware/technical support that Romney seems to be in favor of providing is very similar to the role we played with Afghan fighters during that conflict though. In which case, why not support a stable and secular government, democratic or otherwise? I would rather have Syria be more like Egypt under Mubarak than Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood. See and thats the bit where the rest of the world facepalms. Yes i would rather have a democratically chosen government that isnt willing to dance to your every tune then a dictator who murdered his own people. Oh no but there Muslims. they must be the scum of the earth... We dont get to chose who rules America. You dont get to chose who rules the rest of the world. Egypt under Mubarak wasn't that bad. Now Egypt is on the verge of a civil war between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood. Democracy in an Islamist country like Egypt is like three wolves and a chicken on what to have for dinner. Even if the elections were free and fair (which they weren't), a major aspect of a truly democratic country is respect for the rights of the minority, which is non-existent in the new Egypt.
You mean like the U.S. respected minority rights when it was first established? It's a process. They're far from perfect, but that won't happen overnight. They seem to at least be moving in the right direction.
|
On October 24 2012 02:26 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 02:24 Lmui wrote:
wtf the random religious talk.
Anyways, I'm curious why allegations of election fraud, especially by the republican party aren't being taken more seriously. The voter registration fraud, inconsistencies in voting results and generally the apathetic response to the undermining of a democratic process worries me. Democrats like to call any form of voter registration laws to be "racist," then again, they call everything they don't like "racist."
I'm referring to stuff like the destruction of voter registration forms by the GOP in Virginia, the association by the GOP to Sproul when he was known for the last 8 years to engage in shady practices, hiring him in 2012 after telling him to create a new company that wasn't associated with his old one.
The appearance of extreme anomalies in election results in certain districts.
http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.51.pdf
for example which I've posted a few times in the last dozen pages.
The closed nature of the electronic voting machines which ensures that no one ever knows what everyone actually voted for because the code is proprietary and there is no secondary verification procedure.
Just off the top of my head.
I'm Canadian, I have no say in the election results but even the appearance of such large abnormalities/issues, should merit more attention than it's received so far.
|
|
|
Just filled out my ballot, mofos. That's right, my voice is being heard. go democracy
|
Should have done a mail-in ballot. I really don't feel like driving back to Vegas to vote lol. Alas, it is my duty.
|
On October 24 2012 02:16 paralleluniverse wrote:A note on "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". Romney called us to look at the record, here it is: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.htmlCatchy headlines aren't always a good idea. I bet Romney is kicking himself in the ass for writing a headline that's so easily misquoted. Although Obama didn't misquote it. At the end of the article it says: Show nested quote + The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check. Romney called for a managed bankruptcy, i.e. privately financed. He says that the government should guarantee financing AFTER the bankruptcy. He did NOT call for the government to bailout the auto industry, which is what happened. In the last sentence, he even rejects a government bailout. But, no private financing was available at the time, because this happened in the middle of the global financial crisis. It had to be a government bailout. So not only was Romney wrong about what he said, what he said wasn't possible.
You have this completely wrong. Romney was exactly right about what he said and it was Obama who misquoted him. Also, Romney's position makes perfect sense. Your statement that there was no private financing available makes no sense. Do you think that bond markets closed down during the recession?
Here is a link that summarizes the exchange in the debate and the facts about what Romney said in his editorial. You may disagree with Romney's view but you have to admit that he was right and Obama was inaccurate about what he said.
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/false-claims-in-final-debate/
Obama got it wrong when he insisted over and over that Romney never advocated “help” or “government assistance” for automakers if they went through bankruptcy. In fact, Romney called for a “managed bankruptcy” that would include federal “guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing,” which qualifies as indirect government assistance by any definition. What Romney opposed was the direct federal aid Obama implemented.
Here’s an edited version of the candidates’ long and contentious disagreement:
Romney: I said they need — these companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy, and in that process they can get government help and government guarantees, but they need to go through bankruptcy to get rid of excess cost and the debt burden that they’d — they’d built up. …
Obama: Governor Romney, that’s not what you said. …
Romney: You can take a look at the op-ed.
Obama: You did not say that you would provide, Governor, help. …
Romney: You know, I’m — I’m still speaking. I said that we would provide guarantees and — and that was what was able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy. Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry — of course not. Of course not. …
Obama: The — look, I think anybody out there can check the record. Governor Romney, you keep on trying to, you know, airbrush history here. You were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn’t true. They would have gone through a –
Romney: You’re wrong. You’re wrong, Mr. President.
Obama: I — no, I am not wrong.
Romney: You’re wrong.
Obama: I am not wrong. And –
Romney: People can look it up. You’re right.
Obama: People will look it up.
Romney: Good.
In fact, people can easily look it up. Romney’s 2008 op-ed, published in the New York Times with the well-known headline “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” said he was against the government bailout. But Romney wrote: “A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.”
|
On October 24 2012 02:16 paralleluniverse wrote:A note on "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". Romney called us to look at the record, here it is: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.htmlCatchy headlines aren't always a good idea. I bet Romney is kicking himself in the ass for writing a headline that's so easily misquoted. Although Obama didn't misquote it. At the end of the article it says: Show nested quote + The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check. Romney called for a managed bankruptcy, i.e. privately financed. He says that the government should guarantee financing AFTER the bankruptcy. He did NOT call for the government to bailout the auto industry, which is what happened. In the last sentence, he even rejects a government bailout. But, no private financing was available at the time, because this happened in the middle of the global financial crisis. It had to be a government bailout. So not only was Romney wrong about what he said, what he said wasn't possible.
Maybe. It would certainly have been difficult to get the private financing together in a timely manner but I'm not sure that it would have been impossible. DIP financing is generally very safe and $60B or so of it wouldn't have been the craziest transaction to take place during the crisis.
For example, quite a bit of FDIC guaranteed debt was issued during the GFC ($600B according to Wikipedia) so other guarantees did spur quite a bit of lending during the crisis.
Regardless though, Romney's OP-ED piece probably shouldn't be treated as some sort of fixed plan where if one detail is found to be incorrect then the whole thing collapses.
|
It would have been impossible to get financing on the markets at that time, let alone financing against reasonable conditions.
The company was bankrupted, bund buyers dont want buy bunds from bankrupted companys, and at that time they didnt have the liquidity either (the whole system had a liquidity crunch)
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Oh my God, all hail King Charlie.
It's nice to have a bit of humor in this thread every now and then.
|
On October 24 2012 02:57 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 02:26 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 02:24 Lmui wrote:
wtf the random religious talk.
Anyways, I'm curious why allegations of election fraud, especially by the republican party aren't being taken more seriously. The voter registration fraud, inconsistencies in voting results and generally the apathetic response to the undermining of a democratic process worries me. Democrats like to call any form of voter registration laws to be "racist," then again, they call everything they don't like "racist." I'm referring to stuff like the destruction of voter registration forms by the GOP in Virginia, the association by the GOP to Sproul when he was known for the last 8 years to engage in shady practices, hiring him in 2012 after telling him to create a new company that wasn't associated with his old one. The appearance of extreme anomalies in election results in certain districts. http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.51.pdffor example which I've posted a few times in the last dozen pages. The closed nature of the electronic voting machines which ensures that no one ever knows what everyone actually voted for because the code is proprietary and there is no secondary verification procedure. Just off the top of my head. I'm Canadian, I have no say in the election results but even the appearance of such large abnormalities/issues, should merit more attention than it's received so far.
They already have the election results and anomalies and analysis of the results and anomalies? That's cool as hell, the election hasn't even happened yet!
No one cares about the machines because no one has ever proven any fraud, just "Oh well it could happen and the guy I didn't like won so... it happened! It definitely happened!" You think that in a country where 4 of the 5 biggest media organizations are pro-Democratic Party, it wouldn't be found out? Is every Diebold employee involved in their voting machines a Koch brothers robot?
Just read that analysis. The Republicans have decided to falsify vote totals by one of the dumbest, most obvious ways to do so? Okay. They spent so much money, time and effort to set up this system, and then made no effort to conceal it? I see...
Meanwhile, hoax letters are being sent to registered Republicans in Florida telling them their citizenship status is in doubt so they shouldn't vote. Guess what, individuals in both parties do dumb and illegal things to get the other side's voters to not show up. They aren't acting on orders or off a vibe from their superiors. They're renegades. Being caught at a massive vote fraud scheme would mean insta-loss in the current election and for the next 2 or 3 elections after that minimum for either party. It's too big a risk.
Let's not even mention Al Franken winning a Senate seat by 300 votes thanks to felons illegally voting...
|
Did those felons vote for Franken? Source? I hadn't heard about this, but I don't usually search for that kind of thing so I'm not surprised.
|
|
|
Meh, doesn't show who they voted for. It's concerning, and a point in favor of voter-ID laws (which I would have no problem with if voter IDs were free and this had happened with enough time for people to prepare for the election. As it is they're shady as shit laws passed by Republicans trying to tilt the vote in their favor), but nothing in that says that's why Franken won. It's suggested, but not shown.
Edit: I'm smart enough to click the link within the link, but I'm glad you edited it, regardless 
|
|
|
|
|
That's besides the point. I still have no issues with voter ID laws on principal. I have a problem with how they were enacted so close to the election in a clear attempt to reduce Democratic votes by Republicans being pussies.
Run on your ideologies, not on bullshit. If your ideologies are the right ones you will win.
|
It's the strategy Obama's been using since the election season started, of course you'd think it's brilliant
Also it is brilliant.
|
On October 24 2012 04:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:It's the strategy Obama's been using since the election season started, of course you'd think it's brilliant Also it is brilliant.
Hasn't Obama been in the lead the whole time, though? So it's not really a false strategy from Obama like it is from Romney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
