Interesting person you guys talked with tonight

[RaulVB]

Only 2 alternatives there:

To believe him or not.

I don't. It seems very curious to me that he comes forward to state that "he saw nothing, knows nothing and only long lines of voters were the most exciting episodes that night..."

OK, then!

Bush "won" OHIO. I can go back to bed now.

I did some research in the machines he says he worked with, SHOUPTRONICS. He is correct, those machines can't be accessed at the polling places. But a supervisor can if he has the right key after the voting is over.

I also remember a couple of incidents were those machines were involved in some type of tampering. If I find it I'll post it.

For now, here is this:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4178501.html

[Lisabtrucking]

1. He didn't fool me, but I learned not to call them out or you get pounced.

[jamboi]

7. Raul and Lisabtrucking. Why in the world would you guys doubt he's 4 real?

If you have reasonable points, please make them. Don't just cast unsubstantiated aspersions. My God!!! Attach tin to head and hummm... :tinfoilhat: I'd be happy to write and ask him whatever you want. I think its entirely reasonable that he wants to be anonymous, so don't ask that. Ask for something that will validate him.

[RaulVB]

13. No need for him to come up here to say that everything is normal

If that's the case, I guess we are all going to live a very happy life for the next 4 years, correct?

And he totally underplayed the long lines of voters. I mean, he was "moved" because they waited on line???

Did he mention that a great numbers of voters TURNED AROUND AND WENT HOME because of it?

I don't seem to recall that.

He believes the system works fine. I don't.

Do you?

If you do I disagree. I might respect what you think but I wouldn't follow your rationale on the topic.

I have way too much knowledge of what happened on November 2nd.

[jamboi]

17. Yes, he is insensitive to the long lines and lack of machines. That's

part of what tells me he's for real. The Dems in Ohio are too close to the situation and if you step back you hit your head and go Doh! There's an obvious problem here and the folks there are blind to it. We all have blindspots. That is part of what we have to do is to help open people's eyes to the Election Fraud that happened right out in the open in plain sight as well as the hidden Election Fraud.

[RaulVB]

18. Jamboi:

I see your point but I don't think he would take the time to show up here tonight to say what he said if he were to be interested in learning about the fraud.

He came to provide "expertise" but, indirectly, to state that everything went "swell."

[jamboi]

19. I think for the average person they are so desensitized to the problems

that they are quite blind to them. To most people things did go "swell". They are not conscious of the elephant in their living room.

[Razorback_Democrat]

49. Exactly what he did!

said answers could be provided

maybe



but no real answers other than everything's fine here move along now.

[momzno1]

56. also, he said it in 3 different forums

why? seems like he had an agenda...
he painted way too rosy a picture of the voting experience.

[Stand and Fight]

41. Hmpf... Indeed. Walls have ears -- even in cyber space. n/t

[Razorback_Democrat]

48. Exacacacatly!!!!!!!

pounced

deleted

warned

:evilfrown:

[aquart]

2. Okay, what did I miss?

[RaulVB]

4. A tread below mine

Is called something like "I worked the elections in Columbus OHIO...ask me anything"

This person showed up tonight to, pretty much, "debunk" every claim of suspicious activities in the election day.

He just saw "long lines of voters" and, you can rest assured, if you read his comments that the "America electoral system is safe and sound..."

[jamboi]

8. No, he didn't debunk anything, he just reported what he saw and we

were able to ID some parts of his report that actually confirmed that there were problems that boxed our voters. I would just call those possible blindspots on his part, and ya know what? We all have blindspots, so that is not a reason to rejuect his report.

[RaulVB]

10. I'm not rejecting or accepting his comments

Not my role.

I find the timing and the tone interesting, that's all.

[jamboi]

31. I meant to type "boxed out voters" n/t

[RaulVB]

3. SHOUPTRONICS in New Mexico

Not such a good performance, I guess?

http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/229966elex09-26-04.htm

[jamboi]

12. Did you see the posting I made re: Shouptronics-> Daher? Link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=165113&mesg_id=166341&page=

[RaulVB]

16. No, thanks. I missed this before (n/t)

[Griffy]

5. look MY question... how we know u real?... no proof...

I suspect due to his breakdown of ppl in his precinct, then "no real probs, other than known... nothing specific...

[Griffy]

6. I was so not fooled... nt

[RaulVB]

9. He told you "I guess you can't..."

Interesting.

So you should have "faith" on him because he "knows his stuff..."

They guy seems well read and is an individual to watch in the future.

We'll see if he comes up with something "equally revealing" tomorrow.

[americanwoman]

14. Faith works both ways...

I'm w/ Jamboi. S/he seemd credible. (But then, you don't know me either.)

Anyway, so far, no reason not to believe this person. And FWIW, I didn't come close to taking it as reason to think "ok, everything is duckie. See ya next election!"

[RaulVB]

15. I posted my rationale above

I think his/her timing is very interesting. An "old timer" that is here to tell you that everything is pretty much "smooth", that's what I got.

[americanwoman]

21. I see what you're saying but...

it seems just as plausible that the person just wanted to share what they knew. Anyway, because of your post, I went back and read the thread more carefully. I don't think there's much to worry about, cred-wise.

[RaulVB]

22. I guess I'm too "sensitive" to this types

People talking the "mainstream language" is not very "atractive" to me.

[AntiFascist]

30. I agree...

and I don't think (s)he would point us at yet another type of voting machine knowing that there was any possibility we would dig up evidence of past election fraud involving the use of that machine.

As I pointed out in my question to the individual, I don't feel the information that was relayed in the thread was directly relevant to the election fraud investigations because, apparently, the precinct in question was not one of those which has any chance of being closely investigated. It is likely that there were some democratic precincts where there were very few problems and even voter lines were not that big of an issue if they had plenty of machines. There is also no reason I can think of why we should take the experience at this one small precinct and then conclude that everything went fine throughout the rest of Ohio! Maybe the motivation was to demonstrate to us that there are parts of Ohio which do not have corrupt election setups?

The person was obviously not highly technical and it really takes someone with technical knowledge of the machine to know what is possible and what is not.

[RaulVB]

32. I agree, we should not...

And I hope that will not be the case.

It would be highly irresponsible.

[jamboi]

11. Egads! okay please breakdown very specifically why you didn't think

that was real.

[jamboi]

20. Give me some good questions and I'll ask him for you.

You can state them here, or PM to me. Either way I'd be happy to ask.

[jamboi]

23. Here are links to other places he's posted

Looks solid to me. Went to Ohio protests.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1066033
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=172&topic_id=4623
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=153095
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=145362

[RaulVB]

24. He/She was there...

I guess what "bugs" me is that he/she doesn't understand what's going on.

Hard to take well, Jamboi.

[jamboi]

25. He struck me as an middle aged or older guy. Okay, well what question

or series of questions can I ask that will help you decide whether its :thumbsup: or :thumbsdown: ?

[RaulVB]

27. Just two,

Did he saw more or less voters this year than in 2000?

Does he thinks is possible to tamper the machines he worked with, not at the polling place, of course?

I just want to read his responses. I'm not voting either way.

[jamboi]

28. First one he answered already. Here's his response:

in the 2000 election but we had never gotten over 400 voters before. In 2000 we only had about 1000 registered voters. We usually do about 30 percent or less for primaries and never over 35 percent for presidential. Other elections are real low, 25 percent and down to 15 percent.

[lizzieforkerry]

54. Did you see the other pictures with the rally pictures?

If they belong to this person, I really don't think this is a middle aged guy!

[The Judged]

26. was it New York, Yonkers 24 or more machines? check NY Times :)

[jamboi]

29. I'm not following your question. Could you repeat that please? n/t

[The Judged]

34. my post was in direct response to RaulVB's post to start the thread.

RaulVB posted: ... "I also remember a couple of incidents were those machines were involved in some type of tampering. If I find it I'll post it." ...

Sorry for any confusion. I should have made the quote in my original response.

[RaulVB]

36. Ok, thanks for the tip (n/t)

[jamboi]

38. Ah good tip. I looked but couldn't find an article on this. Any links?n/t

[ewulf]

33. Am I not to be trusted,

'cause when I was canvasing in Las Vegas on election day I didn't see much that was that suspicious. There was a guy who was on my list, a black guy, no less, who said that he had voted (very enthusiastically), but, later, when I checked the poll records, his name was on the list of registered voters, but it wasn't checked off. The explanation was that he could have voted early, but then his name should have been taken off the precinct's list of eligible voters (even if the party didn't know to take it off of my canvassing list).

Could be that the system was bad, perhaps the man could have voted twice (probably, since he was black, and on a list of Dems, both times for Kerry), or maybe he lied to me, or maybe he voted, but they figured out a way to make it not count, and took his name off the list so we'd think the black vote hadn't turned out.

But that was it. At 7;00, there was a line of only, say 10 people waiting to vote at the polling place; they were probably all done by 7:30. From my personal experience, I actually have less to complain about than our good friend from Ohio did. He talked about lines lasting until 1:00! That is real, tangible voter suppression. He also documented massive, largely Democratic turnout, also backing up our thesis that people did, in fact, turn out for Kerry.

I still think that Kerry probably won in Nevada, but that the Sequoia voting machines in Vegas flipped things around. Statistically, given how well we did in the rest of the state, we should have done better in Clark County than we did.

Personally, it seemed like our get out the vote effort was quite successful, and that the Republicans had essentially no ground game. (They did have guys with PDA's taking data from the voter list, like we and several other groups did also, but there was no one walking, no door hangers, etc.. We were not in the most strongly democratic part of town, we were in the North, near near the air force base, in some new developments; it may not have been the strongly Republican and affluent west of Vegas, but it wasn't the working class Latino and African American heart of the city either. The Republicans did manage to match us in raw signage on public land, though.)

Still, seems like seriousstan laid out a better case then I did, and his post counts higher, so before you start questioning his credibility, question mine.

[RaulVB]

35. Apples and oranges

To your request I would say: "OHIO is not Nevada."

[ewulf]

37. Because it was stolen differently?

Because the exit polls showed it very close in Nevada, such that Bush could actually have legitimately won, whereas in Ohio theres no way in hell Bush won?

The raw discrepancies were similar. Of course, Ohio determined the election, and unless a lot of other states flip, or we have disloyal electors, or the Ohio delegation is just discounted or split, it wont matter?

Overall, it seems like similar stuff happened in both places, and they both had Republican secretaries of state.

The Greens though enough of Nevada to request a recount, but they were shut down by the SOS's demand for an exorbitant sum of money. Is that what makes the difference? Is it the was the recount is subverted?

[RaulVB]

42. Your original premise

"Am I not to be trusted?"

Is not my role to "certify you."

I am voicing an opinion about this individual feeling the need to say...nothing.

[ewulf]

52. OK, fair enough.

I'm not demanding to be certified or anything, I was just questioning the need to attack the honest of someone who gave, all in all, a reasonable enough account. Although the fraud in Ohio may have been perpetuated in a great many precincts, maybe even most of them, it seems it was mostly done behind the scenes, by changing small numbers of votes during the tabulation process rather than by doing anything blatant that an election monitor would see. He did see long lines that amounted to voter suppression, which was a common sight in Ohio and which was, in itself outrageous. He didn't say that he saw technicians come in and fix the machines, or any more of the inelegant screw ups that were seen in some places, but that, it itself, isn't the weird.

Still, you have a right to believe what you want, and maybe your right, maybe it is kinda strange that someone without and interesting election fraud story would want to discuss there experiences on 11/2. But please, don't belittle the importance of Nevada, even if its warranted. I spent to much time there to want to think about that.

[jamboi]

39. Here's some more interesting articles related to Shouptronics.

http://www.politicalsoundoff.com/display/ShowJournalEntry?moduleId=68441&entryId=65946&printerFriendly=true
http://www.geocities.com/texalina/county.html

[kk897]

40. I'll say this, since I live there

I live in Bexley, which was a suburb in the 20s but now is sort of in the middle of Columbus. Before that, I lived for more than 10 years in Columbus proper. Everything seriousstan described was accurate as far as location, demographics, etc. Also saw his/her pix of the rally and can verify they were real. He/she lives here. Also, why would he/she go to the rally if he/she didn;'t think there was something wrong with the system? He/she was just reporting his/her experience.

If he/she was a plant of some sort, it's pretty deep.

Also, there are areas that didn't have any shenannigans, I'm sure of it. Perhaps his/her area was among them.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. There weren't problems in every single precinct

I live in Pennsylvania, and there there were problems reported. But not where I voted. I was in and out in no time.

[crispini]

44. I haven't read the entire thread in question,

but IIRC the poster worked in ONE precinct. That says NOTHING whatsoever about whether or not the election as a whole was free & fair, NOTHING whatsoever about tampering at the tabulator level, etc.

The poster himself said:

"As election judges at the polls we do no tabulations so I am as far in the dark as the rest of us. "

Why are you even questioning this guy's bonafides? He essentially told us that he worked at ONE precinct. He told us ONE story. His account may be 100% true and have nothing to do with the quality of the election as a whole.

[RaulVB]

45. Right on the money

He came forward to say NOTHING. And that tread got a lot of atention.

A distraction, perhaps, like one more is needed?

[crispini]

46. Oh, jeez.

Not every other person who posts on here is Karl Rove. Puhleez. Why on earth can't you just take the guy at face value? So he got a lot of attention. BFD. :shrug:

[RaulVB]

47. Oh, jeez?

Crispini, if you think that Rove (obviuosly not himself) is not sending ANY OF his minions to read what is posted on this site or other similar forums, you're are making a mistake.

The dynamics of this regime are similar to those of any fascist apparatus. Propaganda and counterpropaganda are Rove's "bread and butter."

This forum is a trove of information and you can be sure they are perfectly aware of it.

[Razorback_Democrat]

50. Well we should all say hi then!!!!

[henslee]

51. Hi, Agent Mike.

[crispini]

53. It is entirely possibly that "THEY" are watching us,

*and* that the thread referenced is on the up and up. It sounds like a pretty ordinary account of a day at the polls to me.

[Igel]

55. Maybe he came forward to say nothing, but s/he said a few

things that I found interesting. Here's one. It's consistent with what you'd expect if there was a sudden increase in voter turnout and what is the "default hypothesis", how you'd expect things to go.

In his (her?) precinct they had a surge of voters. There was no difference in the number of voting machines between this and the previous election; over the course of the last 15 years, turnout shrank, and so the number of voting machines was reduced. We'd expect that if the county had population growth in some areas but not others and didn't want to buy new machines. But it belies an intention to suppress turnout--you can't plan for exceptional voter turnout every where and justify your budget--and it provides a plausible reason for having an unequal distribution--differences in turnout as a percentage of registered voters. While there's a requirement to have one machine per every so many registered voters (1/1500 is it?), if I were running the elections I'd try to keep it to a relatively consistent number of machines per actual voters. That's the condition to falsify, I'd think, and I'm surprised the people with the numbers haven't taken that as the condition to check for supression against.

That a lot of voters gave up and went home before they voted isn't in question.