Originally posted by Bardock42
Doesn't make your shitty system any better really.
LOL!!! Hardly shitty compared to the current system. Corruption is not nearly as rampant as you guys think. That is just something people throw out there to make themselves feel better about uncertainty.
Originally posted by Devil King
Do I? You don't pay much attention to what I have to say to Deano then, do you?
Sorry, I don't spend my time taking mental notes of your posts...especially to Deano.
Originally posted by dadudemonYeah, your system is shitty. I don't think it is particularly corrupt.
LOL!!! Hardly shitty compared to the current system. Corruption is not nearly as rampant as you guys think. That is just something people throw out there to make themselves feel better about uncertainty.Sorry, I don't spend my time taking mental notes of your posts...especially to Deano.
Still soo shit.
Originally posted by Devil King
Then you might not want to make assumptions regarding my belief in conspiracies.If you did, you might spend just a little less time talking out of your ass.
I was making my posts based off of you responses directly to my posts...durrrr!!! 😕
Eliminate almost all false votes? Shitty? Creating a much faster way of voting in a more secure way? Shitty? Securing the votes to ensure confidentiality? Shitty?
Yup, you are definitely right. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemonYeah, your voting system is pretty shitty. Also giving 9 people such immense power is pretty shitty. It just is that way. In a country where a president can rule even though he got millions of votes less than the "runner up" is shitty.
THe second and third sentences are addressed to Bardock42's post...I couldn't add his quote in there in time.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, your voting system is pretty shitty. Also giving 9 people such immense power is pretty shitty. It just is that way. In a country where a president can rule even though he got millions of votes less than the "runner up" is shitty.
Riiiiight because unlocking records for a review is a "shitty" idea. Tell me, are they locked down right now? All over the place, records are locked down that only a very few people can "unlock" with the federal government and usually, they are unlocked with biometric data and a username password. Ensuring voter confidentiality is not a "shitty" idea. Since a national recount is not very common, I would want the supreme court plus someone else from another branch to be able to unlock. That ensures a very high security for that data. Devil King was concerned about voter confidentiality, this process would ensure that that confidentiality is maintained through a very secure process. Why would those records need to be opened for any other reason? (A recount.) We should never know who or for what someone voted for.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was making my posts based off of you responses directly to my posts...durrrr!!! 😕
Confused? I know you are. I am no conspiracy theorist. What I am is a guy who wouldn't put vote tampering past either party. That doesn't mean I think lizard men control the world and Bush has a micro chip in his fore head. It was an asinine comparison.
It doesn't take much to have learned about voter fraund and the tampering that took place in both of the last presidential elections, not all of which was done by Republicans. There were a number of incidents that involved the Democrats.
You propose, not a solution, but a continuation of the same electronic voting systems that have been the basis of the issue thus far. Because I don't think it's a good idea to have more of the same and said so, you want to call me a looney.
Originally posted by dadudemonSee, you actually have to reply what I am saying. Because...that is what I mean. So, lets start it from there.
Riiiiight because unlocking records for a review is a "shitty" idea. Tell me, are they locked down right now? All over the place, records are locked down that only a very few people can "unlock" with the federal government and usually, they are unlocked with biometric data and a username password. Ensuring voter confidentiality is not a "shitty" idea. Since a national recount is not very common, I would want the supreme court plus someone else from another branch to be able to unlock. That ensures a very high security for that data. Devil King was concerned about voter confidentiality, this process would ensure that that confidentiality is maintained through a very secure process. Why would those records need to be opened for any other reason? (A recount.) We should never know who or for what someone voted for.
Originally posted by Devil King
Confused? I know you are. I am no conspiracy theorist. What I am is a guy who wouldn't put vote tampering past either party. That doesn't mean I think lizard men control the world and Bush has a micro chip in his fore head. It was an asinine comparison.
I am confused as to why you missed what I was referring to. You were stuck on the fact that I mentioned Deano's name. I only used his name because he just made a thread with loads of conspiracy theories...true or not.
Originally posted by Devil King
It doesn't take much to have learned about voter fraund and the tampering that took place in both of the last presidential elections, not all of which was done by Republicans. There were a number of incidents that involved the Democrats.
This would lock down the system to prevent records being altered. It would take more than an act of congress to open up the records. At that point, the records would be open to tampering with. I also proposed that the districts be isolated from one another that way, if one district is somehow hacked, it would not spill over into the other districts. The idea of the Supreme court members should be a given in this scenario, because they were the ones who decided the outcome of the the 2000 election, in the end. I also said that someone from another branch of the federal government should be required to also provide "unlock" credentials, to ensure the the supreme court members are nto acting all on their own. The supreme court could also refuse to unlock the records for a recount, so a system of checks and balances should be ensured with something like a congress override vote.
My security model comes from the department of defense. It is not something that I just made up off the top of my head. The only thing I didn't include was how the access control list will be setup with the mandatory access control. That should be a given in this scenario.
Originally posted by Devil King
You propose, not a solution, but a continuation of the same electronic voting systems that have been the basis of the issue thus far. Because I don't think it's a good idea to have more of the same and said so, you want to call me a looney.
It is not a perfect solution. No perfect solution can ever exist because humans are involved. As long as humans are involved, it can never be perfect. (That, my friend, is what you call redundant...tee hee.)
You think the the government is so corrupt that a more secure system for storing electronic votes would not help ensure voter confidentiality. If the system is so corrupt that my proposal would not even help, why the hell does any person vote for anyone?
Originally posted by Bardock42
See, you actually have to reply what I am saying. Because...that is what I mean. So, lets start it from there.
WTF?!!?!?!?!??!?! I'm sorry, you REALLY lost me there.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I am confused as to why you missed what I was referring to. You were stuck on the fact that I mentioned Deano's name. I only used his name because he just made a thread with loads of conspiracy theories...true or not.This would lock down the system to prevent records being altered. It would take more than an act of congress to open up the records. At that point, the records would be open to tampering with. I also proposed that the districts be isolated from one another that way, if one district is somehow hacked, it would not spill over into the other districts. The idea of the Supreme court members should be a given in this scenario, because they were the ones who decided the outcome of the the 2000 election, in the end. I also said that someone from another branch of the federal government should be required to also provide "unlock" credentials, to ensure the the supreme court members are nto acting all on their own. The supreme court could also refuse to unlock the records for a recount, so a system of checks and balances should be ensured with something like a congress override vote.
My security model comes from the department of defense. It is not something that I just made up off the top of my head. The only thing I didn't include was how the access control list will be setup with the mandatory access control. That should be a given in this scenario.
It is not a perfect solution. No perfect solution can ever exist because humans are involved. As long as humans are involved, it can never be perfect. (That, my friend, is what you call redundant...tee hee.)
You think the the government is so corrupt that a more secure system for storing electronic votes would not help ensure voter confidentiality. If the system is so corrupt that my proposal would not even help, why the hell does any person vote for anyone?
You can type out paragraph after paragraph, but if you don't actually say anything, it's a waste of time.
I said that I don't think ANY electronic voting system is tamper proof, and for that you called me a crazy conspiracy theorist.
The Results of the Michigan Primary. The delegates from Michigan have been stripped by the DNC as punishment for moving their primary earlier than agreed, but most political strategists predict they will still be sat when the Convention meets in August. Barack Obama and John Edwards both removed their names from the ballot. (100% of precincts reporting)
Hillary Clinton: 55% (327,971 votes)
Uncommitted: 40% (236,600)
Dennis Kucinich: 4% (21,688)
Chris Dodd (withdrawn): 1% (3,852)
Mike Gravel: 0% (2,363)
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nevermind.I am talking about your electional system. You about votes being anonymous.
Seriously man, it is hard for me to make out what you are saying sometimes. I am being dead serious. Dude, I know you original language is German, and that is why I am not making fun of you. I tried to put it all on myself. Try to explain yourself a little more. Refer to things directly and by name. That will make it easier for people to follow you. Usually, I understand what you are trying to get at, so I don't think you have a problem at all so don't take it that way.
Originally posted by Devil King
You can type out paragraph after paragraph, but if you don't actually say anything, it's a waste of time.
I did post something; I responded to you post. I defended my position based off of the content of your post. Also, why are you acting as if my post had no usable content in it at all? You said "paragraph after paragraph" implying that my post was useless to the discussion at hand. Would you like me to go point by point to show you how my post is a response to yours?
Originally posted by Devil King
I said that I don't think [b]ANY electronic voting system is tamper proof, and for that you called me a crazy conspiracy theorist. [/B]
You are not remembering what you said correctly. This is what you said:
Originally posted by Devil King
Thus putting the authority into the hands of a small group of people, or perhaps a branch of the government whose members have been apointed by members of one party or the other?If this system is electronic, then how does it change the nature of the problem as it already exists?
It sounded like to me that you subscribed to the same corruption conspiracy theories as Deano. That is why I made my statement.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, no, just had no major competition.
No.
She had no major competition. Since she was the major front runner, she won by a virutal default.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Seriously man, it is hard for me to make out what you are saying sometimes. I am being dead serious. Dude, I know you original language is German, and that is why I am not making fun of you. I tried to put it all on myself. Try to explain yourself a little more. Refer to things directly and by name. That will make it easier for people to follow you. Usually, I understand what you are trying to get at, so I don't think you have a problem at all so don't take it that way.
That's sooo nice of you. Not making fun of me for using your language in a correct fashion and certainly better than you. How can I ever thank you.
" Yeah, your voting system is pretty shitty. Also giving 9 people such immense power is pretty shitty."
That's my post. Remember? That's what I said. Everything I said there is pretty clear. If you didn't understand it, it's due to your comprehension limitations, not my inability to be accurate or make use of the English language.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No.She had no major competition. Since she was the major front runner, she won by a virutal default
See, What you had to do was say
"Yes
She had no major competition. Since she was the major front runner, she won by a virutal [sic] default."
Then everything would have been fine. Since you said "no", you made it seem like you said something different.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's sooo nice of you. Not making fun of me for using your language in a correct fashion and certainly better than you. How can I ever thank you." Yeah, your voting system is pretty shitty. Also giving 9 people such immense power is pretty shitty."
That's my post. Remember? That's what I said. Everything I said there is pretty clear. If you didn't understand it, it's due to your comprehension limitations, not my inability to be accurate or make use of the English language.
Yup, you missed it. Let me explain it to you very very specifically, douche.
You said
"See, you actually have to reply what I am saying. Because...that is what I mean. So, lets start it from there."
What does, "See, you actually have to reply what I am saying." mean? that doesn't make very much sense in English.
Furthermore, "Because...that is what I mean." makes even less sense when it follows your above sentence.
Then we end up with "So, lets start it from there." That sounds totally random and off the wall. It would have helped a lot if you referred to points specifically by name or description in addition to posting complete sentences.
After I replied and told you I had not idea what you were trying to say, you said the following:
"Nevermind.
I am talking about your electional system. You about votes being anonymous."
My "electional" system? Electional is not a word. "You about votes being annymous." is utterly ridiculous as a sentence. It shouldn't even make sense in German. I pretty much got that you were referring to my "electional" system...that is a major "duh". But what, specifically, about it? I will not point out typos such as your misspelling "annymous" because typos will happen on a friggin' message board.
You said "nevermind" so we don't have to talk about it anymore. You are, as usual, trying to play me off as an idiot and you are trying to portray yourself as very smart, perfect in your statements, and on a much higher plane than I am. I can't understand you because you don't make f***king sense.
Originally posted by Bardock42
See, What you had to do was say"Yes
She had no major competition. Since she was the major front runner, she won by a virutal [sic] default."
Then everything would have been fine. Since you said "no", you made it seem like you said something different.
You corrected someone who was right with something that was only partially correct. Therefore, you were wrong in complete correctness of your statement...you know...what you were trying to correct with the other person's post. I pulled a Bardock42 with you, just like you were trying to pull with the other poster.
I was mocking you.
I originally typed out, "No, you are not fully correct either. This is what you should have typed:" But I changed my mind because I figured you would nit pick at what ever would come after. I changed the wording to make it "mock" you and at the same time, I try to word what came afterwards so that it would be more difficult to nit pick at what I said.
Obviously, my post worked. You didn't nit pick at what I said about the election, rather, you tried to find something else wrong with my post.
Is something that is partially correct, correct? What if the entire point is to make the point completely correct?(In this case, it is.) In which case, if any part of the point is not entirely correct, then it cannot be correct. It doesn't work that way in logic and it doesn't work that way in this conversation. Since your statement wasn't completely correct, then I started off by saying, "no"....as in, "your statement is not completely correct and I am mocking you by using your own words coupled with childish corrections of other posters on the internet."