The Bradley Effect

[Kali]

Why wouldn't I be? It's what I like to call Obama's 'Catch 33'. He wins. It's because white people suffering of white guilt just want to vote for a black guy into the precidency. If he loses, it's because white people are racist. Think about it.

What total crap! How about if Obama wins it is because people voted on what would be best for this country? :roll:

 

[Kali]

That is my opinion..........As I have said before without teleprompter the guy is a mental midget............

I would love to see you go a round with him on constitutional law and then see if you still feel the same way:mrgreen:

 

[Kali]

What about all the racist rednecks that are gonna "sneak" and vote for Obama on election day because they know he will do more for them than McSame? Then they go down to the their local pool hall, Moose Lodge, VFW, etc. and say they voted for McCain? A lot of that is gonna happen this year. Yeee Haaawww. :2razz:

 

[rsixing]

Why do you lefties continually play the race card???????

I didn't.

I would not count my chickens before they hatched my left wing friend.....
Like a great American once said.....Its not over until its over............

You're right it's not over. That will be on or about the 4th of November when the electoral college votes are in and Obama is declared the winner. Until then I'm going to throw it in your face the "boy" Obama is kicking the ass of your angry old white man candidate McCain and knowing how much pride you possess that must really hurt.

:rofl

 

[The silenced majority]

Why do you lefties continually play the race card???????

I didn't.



You're right it's not over. That will be on or about the 4th of November when the electoral college votes are in and Obama is declared the winner. Until then I'm going to throw it in your face the "boy" Obama is kicking the ass of your angry old white man candidate McCain and knowing how much pride you possess that must really hurt.
:rofl

:lol: can't help yourself?

 

[Family Guy]

I am telling you my very far out left wing friend that a lot of people will not be voting for Obama and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin......I know you lefties are going to use that as and excuse if he loses but it is just wrong........Most of us believe your boy Obama is of no substance, and empty suit and a mental midget without a teleprompter and that does not even go into how unqualified he is to be president..........

Wow! If this isn't the rant of a soon to be sore loser then what is?

You know it's one thing to dislike Obama's policies, that is one's personal choice. But it is quite another to not be able to recognize that Barack Obama is an intelligent man. I think McCain is a smart guy but I strongly disagree with his politics and his decision making (SEE PALIN).

The anger and hate of your post Navy Pride is quite revealing. I'm still getting to know you but so far I've noticed a pattern of bitterness and somewhat illiteracy regarding truth and issues that make your writings quite fascinating.

Sometimes one's opponents make the best arguments to defend one's point of view by simply expressing their arcane point of view. You know?

 

[ADK_Forever]

I am telling you my very far out left wing friend that a lot of people will not be voting for Obama and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin......

I know. YOur kind can't bring themselves to ever vote for the other team, no matter how much sense it makes. We understand this disability of yours and accept it.

I know you lefties are going to use that as and excuse if he loses but it is just wrong........Most of us believe your boy Obama is of no substance, and empty suit and a mental midget without a teleprompter and that does not even go into how unqualified he is to be president..........

A mental midget? I'm amazed you people actually think this is a valid attack point. Let's see McCain had the 5th lowest GPA in his class at the Naval Academy and Obama graduated from Harvard and was not only president of the Harard Law Review, he was the first black president in the school's history.

And the teleprompter thing is just plain ridiculous. I think neo-cons attack Obama because he can actually read a teleprompter while McCain cannot.

These types of immature arguments are reasons why you're losing Repub voters who have a brain. You people believe, as does a child, if you say something enough times people will start to believe it. :roll: You'll always have your kool-aid drinkers, of course.

 

[American]

Well Bill Maher is an idiot. He should work for MSNBC.

Bill Maher shouldn't work.

 

[Pilots For 911 Truth]

No, that's not true. Where on earth do you get the idea that there's "no such thing as the best software"? I use firefox cause I think it's better than explorer. Others might think differently, but they're not all equally good.

Your lack of understanding really shows, NYC.

That YOU think FF is better than IE is moot. Your opinion is subjective, not objective. Your opinion about FF -vs- is not the same for every user of web browsers. your opinion matters not - relative to "mission critical" software used in a Democratic Process that elects public officials into office.

Furthermore, in my second career, I spent nine (9) years working in a technical/business role developing, consulting and implementing enterprise technology, both hardware and software inside F-100 and G-2000 type companies, the Pentagon, Congress, the United States Supreme Court, the CIA, the FBI, Naval Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Department of Energy, Wall Street, several global banks, several global model funds, Universities, Hospitals, Aerospace, Airlines, Automobile Manufacturing, Print and Television Media (specifically: CNN), Canadian Health Care organizations and a handful of others.

So, when I give the exact scenario on how to steal a Presidential Election using Object Oriented code and the exact process for executing such a theft/crime, you can count on the fact that I know what I talking about and that the matter goes far beyond your ability to state how you 'feel' about Firefox -vs- Internet Explorer.

That's where "on earth" I get my background on this subject. Where do you get your background on this subject?

1) Horrible analogy, as the Ukraine isn't subject to US laws, removing a massive incentive that US companies have to act appropriately.

The fact that you even bothers to reply in this vein, tells me that you don't yet understand the problem. The Ukraine being subject to U.S. laws is moot. The point is has nothing to do with law. The point has everything to do with "appropriateness" and whether or not missing critical systems and subsystems on-board our military aircraft, should be developed in anyway by a politically partisan entity with a clear bias in favor of a long standing adversary of the U.S.

2) Assuming that the Ukraine was subject to US law and that they did make "the best software" for our planes, then I would expect the responsible agency to conduct an analysis of the expected risk involved in letting that particular company develop the software, and then compare that with the expected benefit of the improved software in order to make a decision.

And, get out combat pilots killed in the process? How silly a thing to even contemplate. You don't seem to understand the gravitas of the question, here. Where are not talking about talking a shipment of paper-clips from the Ukraine, here. The question and this the scenario revolves around whether or not the U.S. would/should allow ANY foreign entity with such a clear bias in favor of our adversaries, to provide ANY mission critical components and/or subcomponents for our tactical feet of military aircraft.

No law written anywhere, can contend with the risk embedded in the reality that such behind closed doors developmental work at a systemic level within a ANY mission critical system/sub-system/component/sub-component, could result in placing our military personnel at needless and unwarranted danger that absolutely has nothing to do with the combat environment itself, but everything to do with inherent systems failure by a third-party seeking to sabotage our tactical fleet of combat aircraft. You seem to not understand the fundamental premise, here.

To put that in concrete terms: Say there's a developing country looking to build its air force. If it uses its own inferior technology, they predict they will lose 500 pilots a year to equipment malfunctions. If they purchase US technology, they can cut that number to 10. Yes, they're taking a risk by purchasing the US software, but can you see why it would be a good idea to do so?

A developing country that was an ally to the U.S. makes those types of purchases each year. In fact, we already have such a successful project with Korean Aerospace Industries and our own Lockheed Martin. I worked on this project in a technical capacity at one of the the Lockheed Martin facilities several years ago. This has nothing to do with my original question and or original concern. S. Korean is "assumed" to be an ally. A company owned and operated here in the U.S. by Conservative Executives are not "assumed" to be allies of the Democratic Party. So, it is absurd to attempt to draw such an extended analogy.

This is the problem when you fail to understand the primary underlying premise. Any extension you make from a failed premise can't help but worsen your argument.

The question is would YOU allow any entity harboring a clear bias in favor of your adversary, to provide YOU with anything mission critical for your survival? The only answer that any sane individual could possible offer is a resounding, no. Presidential elections are key to the survival of our democracy under the current Constitution. Any company dominated at the executive level by one party of the other, does harbor a strong bias toward the other party and should therefore not be allowed to dominate the development/production of any technology used for the purpose of selected the next President and Vice President of the United States of America. This should be crystal clear.

That's not what happening. If you want to be taken seriously, cut the hyperbole.

If you even hope to barely pass as remotely winning this debate, then cut the pretending to know what you are talking about.

No I wouldn't need proof, because I can deduce what happens when you get hit by a train from seeing videos of it, reading news stories about it, and simulating such a thing on a small scale with a model train.

Yet you fail to be able to "deduce" what can possibly happen when a biased third-party has total unchecked control over the vote tallying technology that has an embedded component that is invisible to the naked eye and classified as "mission critical."

Do you understand the concept of "mission critical" from a technology point of reference? What you classify as hyperbole, NASA would classify as "mission critical" technology. Any technology that you deploy with a "mission critical" function, must have tight/strict protocols wrapped around R&D, Engineering, Testing, Analysis, Implementation and Usage. Otherwise, it is NOT mission critical. Nor, can it be classified as such.

I'm saying that we DO NOT elect our President and Vice President in such a way that fosters a mission critical process, because we violate the very first rule of such a process by allowing disproportionate implementation of a major and critical function in the election itself. Biased, private sector implementation of mission critical functions and procedures is asking for a corrupted system, process and election - and thus, the destruction of a major portion of our Constitution.

Exactly what part of this are you not getting, NYC?

In this case however, you have absolutely no evidence to support your claims.

So, lets get rid of the Fire Department in your town, because there is no evidence to support the claim that your house might be involved in a raging fire next fire season. Try telling that to the people living on Souther California in fire country. Try telling people in third-world countries that there is no more need for more continuing vaccine research, because there is no evidence to support the claim that they need it.

If you know before hand that the process you use to elect the next occupant of the White House, is flawed. If you can prove just how easy it would be code in a biased outcome, as I have done already on this forum in another thread. And, if you know that more than 60% of the error prone code is being developed by a biased third-party behind closed doors - then you have a responsibility to correct what could easy become a shredding of the United States Constitution, by unjustly electing the wrong man/woman into authority.

Again, I ask you: If the Republican party can manipulate the vote so easily, why did they let their candidates get their asses kicked in 06?

Who is to say that the same code was used in 06'?

I've already shown you (in the other thread) just how easy and portable this could be made. I've already shown you from a conceptual/technical point of view, exactly what steps you would need to take to accomplish the entire task. I've shown you conceptually exactly how a developer could easily cover their tracks and leave on trace of biased code after the election was over.

That is why I called for A National Testing Protocol at the very least! My goodness! We don't even have that in this great country of ours - and that is a total shame/sham - take your pick? We are not even testing this stuff properly BEFORE the election.

But, even then, I've shown you exactly how you can write the code such that a test before 11/04/08, or a test after 11/04/08 could STILL be made untraceable for intentionally bias/error. That is why the entire process must be done away with, thrown out and refitted with an entirely new technology development process that is not owned primary by one party or the other. A process that is fully bi-partisan, fully verifiable, open to the public at large for "anytime investigation" and deployed using a strong protocols for chain of custody, monitoring and usage.

We should treat this like a serious Data Center. Building the architecture for it would be no different than building the architecture for any large scale national company and/or organization. We have the technology - we can build it.

The problem is that The People just don't know how easy it is to make null and void the Constitution with the current swiss cheese vote tally process.

 

[RightinNYC]

Your lack of understanding really shows, NYC.

If you spent less time telling everyone how dumb they were and more time actually making sense, you'd be getting somewhere.

That YOU think FF is better than IE is moot. Your opinion is subjective, not objective. Your opinion about FF -vs- is not the same for every user of web browsers. your opinion matters not - relative to "mission critical" software used in a Democratic Process that elects public officials into office.

I know. The point is that for some purposes, some software is better than other software. Lots of people who work with graphics use Macs because they have better software than PC's. I just don't understand how on earth you can argue that there's no such thing as "better software." That's just devoid of logic.

Furthermore, in my second career, I spent nine (9) years

Thank you for the number in parenthesis, I was confused as to what you meant by "nine."

working in a technical/business role developing, consulting and implementing enterprise technology, both hardware and software inside F-100 and G-2000 type companies, the Pentagon, Congress, the United States Supreme Court, the CIA, the FBI, Naval Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Department of Energy, Wall Street, several global banks, several global model funds, Universities, Hospitals, Aerospace, Airlines, Automobile Manufacturing, Print and Television Media (specifically: CNN), Canadian Health Care organizations and a handful of others.

So, when I give the exact scenario on how to steal a Presidential Election using Object Oriented code and the exact process for executing such a theft/crime, you can count on the fact that I know what I talking about and that the matter goes far beyond your ability to state how you 'feel' about Firefox -vs- Internet Explorer.

That's where "on earth" I get my background on this subject. Where do you get your background on this subject?

Congratulations! Even assuming that any of that is true and that you're not just blowing smoke, it still has nothing to do with whether or not you're completely off-base.

The fact that you even bothers to reply in this vein, tells me that you don't yet understand the problem. The Ukraine being subject to U.S. laws is moot. The point is has nothing to do with law.

No, authority and ability to enforce is pretty critical to the question.

The point has everything to do with "appropriateness" and whether or not missing critical systems and subsystems on-board our military aircraft, should be developed in anyway by a politically partisan entity with a clear bias in favor of a long standing adversary of the U.S.

And again, as I pointed out before, it's an atrocious analogy. You can't compare a US company subject to US laws and US bidding procedures to the national industry of a sovereign nation. There are all sorts of checks and balances in the first situation that don't even come into the question in the second.

The question is would YOU allow any entity harboring a clear bias in favor of your adversary, to provide YOU with anything mission critical for your survival?

So the Republican part is the adversary of the US? I didn't know they were at war with each other. :lol:

The only answer that any sane individual could possible offer is a resounding, no. Presidential elections are key to the survival of our democracy under the current Constitution. Any company dominated at the executive level by one party of the other, does harbor a strong bias toward the other party and should therefore not be allowed to dominate the development/production of any technology used for the purpose of selected the next President and Vice President of the United States of America. This should be crystal clear.

That's great, and you're entitled to your own opinion. Fortunately (or unfortunately), you don't get to decide how the world works. Each institution in charge of selecting voting procedures makes their own decisions based on what they think is best for their people. If anyone thinks that there's even a hint of misbehavior, they can instigate an investigation into what happened and we'll see the facts come out. Until that happens, you've got absolutely nothing empirical to back up your hysterics and hyperbole.

If you even hope to barely pass as remotely winning this debate, then cut the pretending to know what you are talking about.

I couldn't care less about "winning this debate" with you, as you're not exactly someone I'm concerned with convincing. I'm not harboring any notion that you're going to suddenly see the light and understand my perspective.

So, lets get rid of the Fire Department in your town, because there is no evidence to support the claim that your house might be involved in a raging fire next fire season. Try telling that to the people living on Souther California in fire country. Try telling people in third-world countries that there is no more need for more continuing vaccine research, because there is no evidence to support the claim that they need it.

I didn't think it was possible, but this analogy is even worse than your first one. You're analogizing the certainty that there are and always will be fires to the unfounded allegations of some gigantic vote fraud? I know this is hard to believe, but we're not all as prone to believing in conspiracies as you are. Some of us require things like "evidence" before concluding that something is an inevitability.

Who is to say that the same code was used in 06'?

It's called corroborating evidence. If it was as easy as you claim and the companies behind this have such evil motives, then it obviously begs the question of why they didn't rig 2006.

That is why I called for A National Testing Protocol at the very least! My goodness! We don't even have that in this great country of ours - and that is a total shame/sham - take your pick? We are not even testing this stuff properly BEFORE the election.

But, even then, I've shown you exactly how you can write the code such that a test before 11/04/08, or a test after 11/04/08 could STILL be made untraceable for intentionally bias/error. That is why the entire process must be done away with, thrown out and refitted with an entirely new technology development process that is not owned primary by one party or the other. A process that is fully bi-partisan, fully verifiable, open to the public at large for "anytime investigation" and deployed using a strong protocols for chain of custody, monitoring and usage.

We should treat this like a serious Data Center. Building the architecture for it would be no different than building the architecture for any large scale national company and/or organization. We have the technology - we can build it.

The problem is that The People just don't know how easy it is to make null and void the Constitution with the current swiss cheese vote tally process.

I actually completely agree with you on most of this. Not because I think there's anything wrong, but because I agree that there is an issue of perception. I think it would be best for faith in the system if it were indeed made more transparent.

 

[Pilots For 911 Truth]

...The point is that for some purposes, some software is better than other software...

You are still missing the point. You’ve taken a false first cause (first premise) and you’ve now turned it into the “false argument” which you have embedded into a 100% nonsequiter response as you faint a false rebuttal.

The thread was about the Bradley Effect. In my reply to the merits of the thread, I linked (logically) the possibility that the Bradley Effect might collide head-on with vote tabulation fraud by way of corrupt vote tabulation software (a possibility). You then injected how silly the notion was that such a thing could happen, without knowing the first thing about OOP or enterprise technology or, how such technology opens the door to a type of fraud that can be made completely undetectable before/after November 4th.

Even assuming that any of that is true and that you're not just blowing smoke...

1) If you think somebody is blowing smoke, pay attention to the prose with which they write. People blowing smoke are detectable because you cannot write with constant fluidity on a subject with integrated predicates and clauses, when you are merely blowing smoke. I write in declaratives about the things that I understand. I don't waste time trying to declare that which I don't understand.

2) You can always run one's words through a good search engine. That will help you to know whether or not someone is stealing someone else’s words and claiming them as there own.

3) I come here to pick the brain of other people and see what other people know in depth.

4) I strongly suggest that more people on this forum actually write about what they know and have experienced instead of what they faint to know.

And again, as I pointed out before, it's an atrocious analogy.

Again, you still miss the point. The point could not be more simply put: You DO NOT allow a biased single entity to control the vote tabulation mechanism(s) for BOTH political parties. Pure and simple.

You do not allow the Ukraine to provide mission critical technology for our Fighters – period. They have an inherent bias in favor of our stated adversary, Russia. Thus the inherent and unnecessary combat risk faced by our Raptor Drivers against their Flanker Drivers would be unnecessarily high. It matters not, that the Ukraine might be filled with smiling faces and friendly looks. Or, that they might be “bound by U.S. laws.” How many people will break U.S. laws today, Tuesday, October 21, 2008? This is about proper protocols that eliminate/remove high levels of inherent and unnecessary risk. People who develop and work with mission critical technology already understand this.

If we are going to use this kind of technology, then there MUST be a bi-partisan, open to the public, set or rules and protocols for the development and deployment of such technology that includes (among many other things) a very strict set of protocols that govern chain of custody throughout the engineering/develop, testing/analysis and installation/deployment process. No one understanding the technology being used and the mission critical nature of electing a President, would continuously fail to realize this.

So the Republican part is the adversary of the US? I didn't know they were at war with each other.

I CLEARLY said a “bias for or against a particular candidate.” Furthermore, I should never have had to clear that up. You should know full well what I’m talking about here. A corporate entity working behind closed doors (their own closed doors) on technology that can easily be manipulated to throw an entire election, being managed, owned and operated by predominantly Conservative people with Conservative views, clearly presents a risk of bias against the other party(s) involved in the election.

What is it about this that seems so difficult to understand?

That's great, and you're entitled to your own opinion. Fortunately (or unfortunately), you don't get to decide how the world works. Each institution in charge of selecting voting procedures makes their own decisions based on what they think is best for their people.

At this point, I think this subject (amazingly) is a bit beyond your ability to understand. No one can read what I’ve written on this subject (not here or in my original thread where I layout the problem) and possibly get it this far off the mark, unless they are intentionally trying to be loose.

The problem is with the entire system. The States should have the right to decide how they elect their own officials – I’ve said that at least three (3) times already. So, if you continue to miss that fact, that’s your fault at this point. However, I’m saying that the State should NOT have the right to determine the election protocols for the President and Vice President of the United States of America, because that office is only National Executive office in the land. It is, the Executive branch of government and it is a position where the occupant is determined by We The People from ALL fifty (5) States. Therefore, there needs to be top/down uniformity, law, rules and protocols in place that govern the entire process. Logically and succinctly.

If you want to drive 85 mph in your State, lobby your legislature for that privilege, or get the idea into a Proposition and onto a Ballot – then vote on it – it will ONLY impact YOUR State – not the entire nation. If you want to lower your State sales tax, then lobby your legislature for that tax provision, or hammer the idea into a Proposition so that it can be on the Ballot – then get out the vote!

But, don’t sit here and tell me that each State should be able to determine their own rules for electing our President and Vice President, when one single State with a corrupt vote tabulation process, can rebuke the will of The People simply because a single source corporate entity controlled by one party or the other, was able to defraud the entire country and steal a tight election by tweaking the votes for their candidate because of their own bias. That impacts the entire nation and that should not be the way we conduct our business in this country.

I’m saying the process is seriously flawed and ranks up there with ANY national security concern that our nation could ever have.

I couldn't care less about "winning this debate" with you, as you're not exactly someone I'm concerned with convincing. I'm not harboring any notion that you're going to suddenly see the light and understand my perspective.

Convince yourself that you are clueless on this, don’t waste you time trying to convince me. You’ve already lost this debate, as you can’t even see the crux of the problem. I find your attitude rather amusing. One the one hand, you support the Wolfowitz Doctrine which later became the Bush Doctrine. So, you don’t have any problem with marching into Iraq without a single solitary shred of evidence that was provable, other than the falsified, ONA guided trash that Bush pushed to feed to the American People, Congress and the United Nations. Nope – you have no problem with being preemptive on that subject.

Yet, you can’t seem to see the most simple concept of removing the clear and present threat to our Constitution, by disallowing a politically biased corporate entity from providing more than 60% of the software used to determine the next President and Vice President, even when the threat has been clearly articulated and spelled out for you, step-by-step.

I find the level of hypocrisy in that to be staggering, IMO.

I didn't think it was possible, but this analogy is even worse than your first one. You're analogizing the certainty that there are and always will be fires to the unfounded allegations of some gigantic vote fraud?

I’m no longer amazed at how you simple can see the forest for the trees on this subject, or how you twist what has been so clearly written. But, if you insist on being this thick on a matter so crystal clear, then that’s up to you.

I’ve given you the scenario. I’ve outlined the technical concept for how it could be done step-by-step. I’ve demonstrated the effects on the Constitution and our sovereign Republic. I’ve shown you how the technical tracks can easily be covered. I’ve proven that full POC testing has NOT been conducted in every State. And, I’ve shown you have a Presidential Election can be easily stolen by allowing a corporate entity with political bias to control more than 60% of the vote tabulation technology. I stated, and re-stated a billion times in this thread alone that the issue here is one of unacceptable risk not what has or will happen. Yet, you are sitting here still confused, still trying to minimize, still attempting to twist clearly written English into what you want it to be. I’ve got on problem with that, lets just make sure that we both understand that this is exactly what you are doing.

It's called corroborating evidence.

It is called Inherent Risk Reduction. There is an inherent and unnecessary risk being taken by all Americans, when we allow a corporate entity, owned predominantly by people having a clear political bias (Republican or Democrat, it does not matter), to control the technology development process behind closed doors, that will be deployed in 60% or more of the precincts that are used to tabulate the final vote for the President and Vice President of the United States of America.

That fact that you cannot see this glaring contradiction is mind-blowing, yet very predictable.

I actually completely agree with you on most of this. Not because I think there's anything wrong, but because I agree that there is an issue of perception. I think it would be best for faith in the system if it were indeed made more transparent.

Ok, lets go head and allow Iran, to develop the launch, tracking and recovery technology (software) for our national STS program (NASA’s Space Shuttle). Huh? How about that? To reduce overall costs, lets just had that mission critical element of our Space Program to Iran.

Lets put faith in having an entity that we know has a bias toward us (behind closed doors) research, design, develop and deploy mission critical technology into our Shuttle. Faith in the system? That’s not the point and it never was. Try common sense inherent risk reduction for KNOWN probable causes of fraud in our system as it relates to electing our President and Vice President.

Faith is fine. I have faith – just not in very many things of this world. But, blind faith, when you KNOW that a potential problem exists, is not only foolish, but reckless, dangerous and holistically unwise.