Election 2012

[schaabdl]

No, I was against the 'mandate" but I'm against people who deliberately lie as Bachmann resorted to make a point.
***
Still would pass the legislature today in TX with veto proof majority. Until the feds fix the illegal entry this problem simply grows. It is also not like someone gave free tuition; this program does not come without strings attached. Ideal - heck no - but again, reality intrudes on the little world of idealism far more often than not.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

No, I was against the 'mandate" but I'm against people who deliberately lie as Bachmann resorted to make a point.

You refer to the "Lie", but you haven't said what it is.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Still would pass the legislature today in TX with veto proof majority.

We aren't considering the Texas Legislature for President. So I am concerned with the one person, Perry, who has a position I don't agree with and I suspect most of the Republicans don't agree with. Frank Luntz' group on Hannity gave him a thumbs down on those two positions. One of those interviewed repeated my position the illegal is illegal.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Until the feds fix the illegal entry this problem simply grows.

George Bush favored amnesty. Here we have a candidate who wants to reward lawbreakers, and he's against a fence to boot. So you want someone who is not strongly against illegals coming into this country, is willing to reward them, and has demonstrated a willingness to use EOs to rule.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

It is also not like someone gave free tuition; this program does not come without strings attached.

It is still a reward for illegal entry, instead of a deterrent. Giving them a Driver's License is not a gift either. But it rewards them, making coming here more palatable.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Ideal - heck no - but again, reality intrudes on the little world of idealism far more often than not.

It isn't even trying!

[schaabdl]

She said that "mothers and children had no choice" - LIE - simply say NO and that was the end of the issue. That sounds like choice to me and not much of a mandate.

[schaabdl]

In a weak governor state as in 48 others (only one strong governor state by any constitutional manner), the veto was useless. Again, what is the political battle - that is the reality. And, it obviously did him no harm.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

She said that "mothers and children had no choice" - LIE - simply say NO and that was the end of the issue. That sounds like choice to me and not much of a mandate.

Not from what I heard. They would have to apply to be exempted and a board or something would have to approve their request. It wasn't as simple as "simply say no". You know how much red tape there is to "opt in" on just about anything government. Instead of just making the decision you would have to give a reason for being exempted.

So what? You have to sign an affidavit that your "daughter is not sexually active"? Or, your daughter "has been supplied with condoms"? Or, your "daughter is a Christian and wouldn't do something like that"? Is that the pattern you want to begin where you have to justify everything you do to government, in writing?

You accuse Bachmann of lying. You say she is smearing Perry. You are the one making the false accusations.

But again, it was his tactics that were wrong!

[schaabdl]

You heard wrong (do the research) - it was a simple no, my daughter doesn't take the shot, no questions asked. You are makingthings up just like Michelle. Did she say they had

no choice

- YES - she lied, I didn't misquote her. I never said anything about her smearing Perry (I said she was beating him over the head with a misrepresnsation) - you are making the false accusations. Once again, classic jtdc - inserting your thoughts / words into what others clearly wrote.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

You heard wrong (do the research) - it was a simple no, my daughter doesn't take the shot, no questions asked.

I'd have to read the legislation to know the truth. It's irrelevant to whether Perry tried to dictate.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

You are makingthings up just like Michelle. Did she say they had - YES - she lied, I didn't misquote her.

So now you are out and out calling her a liar? Unfortunately just about all politicians lie. And we, like a jury, have to guess who is telling the truth.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

I never said anything about her smearing Perry (I said she was beating him over the head with a misrepresnsation) - you are making the false accusations.

When you say she lied, you have smeared her if it isn't true. If she was wrong show where in the legislation it says all you have to do is say no.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Once again, classic jtdc - inserting your thoughts / words into what others clearly wrote.

I posted my interpretation of what you clearly wrote, once again.

[schaabdl]

Hers was deliberate - she lied. It was in the EO - her job to know, not mine. Naturally, there was paperwork to say no but it was a choice and that is where she was wrong.

And when you post "your interpretation" you write it as if the other person wrote it. When you say "I said something" is not an interpretation. Interesting don't you think that toob accuses you of doing the same thing - not the first time. Clearly state you are interpreting rather than saying someone said such and such and that issue goes away.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Hers was deliberate - she lied.

A matter of interpretation. You can't just not do it. You have to actively choose "no". No choice. If it were "opt in" you would need to do nothing to "opt out". It's politics!

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Naturally, there was paperwork to say no but it was a choice and that is where she was wrong.

A choice you were obligated to make in writing! So you didn't have a choice to not deal with it.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

And when you post "your interpretation" you write it as if the other person wrote it. When you say "I said something" is not an interpretation. Interesting don't you think that toob accuses you of doing the same thing - not the first time.

That often happens when there is disagreement about a subject. You are looking for strength in numbers?

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Clearly state you are interpreting rather than saying someone said such and such and that issue goes away.

My interpretation is you don't know what you are talking about!

[dcannady]

Originally Posted by jtdc

My interpretation is you don't know what you are talking about!

Are you saying that you don't know what you're talking about?

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by dcannady

Are you saying that you don't know what you're talking about?

I didn't say it. I don't think I said it. I don't remember. Could be. Did I?

[FastEddy]

"Researchers Hack Voting Machine for $26" - By Matt Liebowitz - September 30, 2011 at FoxNews.com

"Campaigning for the 2012 presidential race has already begun, but what the candidates don't know is that come election day, hackers could be the ones whose votes have the biggest impact.

Researchers from the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois have developed a hack that, for about $26 and an 8th-grade science education, can remotely manipulate the electronic voting machines used by millions of voters all across the U.S.

The researchers, Salon reported, performed their proof-of-concept hack on a Diebold Accuvote TS electronic voting machine, a type of touchscreen Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting system that is widely used for government elections.

(Diebold's voting-machine business is now owned by the Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems, whose e-voting machines are used in about 22 states.)

In a video, Roger Johnston and Jon Warner from Argonne National Laboratory's Vulnerability Assessment Team demonstrate three different ways an attacker could tamper with, and remotely take full control, of the e-voting machine simply by attaching what they call a piece of "alien electronics" into the machine's circuit board.

The electronic hacking tool consists of a $1.29 microprocessor and a circuit board that costs about $8. Together with the $15 remote control, which enabled the researchers to modify votes from up to a half-mile away, the whole hack runs about $26.

Two of the takeovers show the researchers controlling the buttons on the keypad despite what the "real" voter enters. But in what Warner called "probably the most relevant attack for vote tampering," the researchers were able to blank the e-voting machine's screen for a split-second after the "vote now" button was pressed. While the screen went dark, they remotely entered their own numbers into the DRE's keypad.

Johnston explained in the video: "When the voter hits the 'vote now' button to register his votes, we can blank the screen and then go back and vote differently and the voter will be unaware that this has happened."

Johnston and Warner say that the ease with which this type of remote hack could be deployed highlights the need for e-voting machines to be designed better, with not just cybersecurity, but physical security in mind.

"Spend an extra four bucks and get a better lock," Johnston said. "You don't have to have state-of-the-art security, but you can do some things were it takes at least a little bit of skill to get in."

----

There are white hat hackers and black hat hackers ... These guys are white hat because they publish their results for any and all to see. The black hat hackers are out there and too many of them work for various government entities, political parties, PACs and "community action" groups to sway vote results to fit their own illicit agenda.

If anyone hears about electronic vote fraud of any kind, that info should be posted here ... Remember: the paper ballot has a paper trail to detect vote fraud, electronic systems do not always and electronic vote paper trails can be hacked as well.

I have never seen an electronic vote system that my employes could not hack ...

[Bemused]

FastEddy, and chance that adaptation of public key - private key security could be implemented to secure and validate electronic voting?

I suppose one negative is the existence of keystroke recording malware, which could potentially compromise even that secure system.

[dcannady]

The problem is the cheaters. We are allowing the parties to control the elections and they not only suck at it, they cheat. It is especially true of the Democrats and in a very big way. The Republicans just try to maintain control over who gets to run, but it comes out the same. We need an independent entity who is contracted to conduct elections. A third party conducting the elections would be held to a high standard by both parties and by the public.

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by dcannady

The problem is the cheaters. We are allowing the parties to control the elections and they not only suck at it, they cheat. It is especially true of the Democrats and in a very big way. The Republicans just try to maintain control over who gets to run, but it comes out the same. We need an independent entity who is contracted to conduct elections. A third party conducting the elections would be held to a high standard by both parties and by the public.

What are the chances that this "third party" could not become corrupted?

[dcannady]

Originally Posted by Bemused

What are the chances that this "third party" could not become corrupted?

Less than the 100% chance that the political parties are already corrupted.

[schaabdl]

Hard to call this a hack as they had to get access to the machine and replace a circuit board. In other words, only through physical tampering and even I could change that if allowed to tamper. Show me where they got into the system AS IS not manipulated by new hardware.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Hard to call this a hack as they had to get access to the machine and replace a circuit board. In other words, only through physical tampering and even I could change that if allowed to tamper.

Excuse me. I know I'm going to get called "blind" again. I didn't read that. What I gathered is the circuit board is like a bug that they attach to the voting machine. Everything from serial ports to USB to Ethernet connections can invade the machine. The way I read it "remotely take full control, of the e-voting machine simply by attaching what they call a piece of "alien electronics" into the machine's circuit board" may be like exploiting the firewalls of various Windows where Microsoft preset them so Microsoft and others could "spy" on your computer. By that method the "hackers" would access the machine while "voting" and install the bug.

I had a program to remotely control another computer. I could mess with the kids playing games in the other room, taking over a game they were playing, locking them out, or moving their mouse to blow a move by them. Of course that had to be installed on both machines.

If, as you say, they have to open the machine up to install the "alien electronics" it would have to be an inside job, whether security allowing "hackers" access to the machines or the manufacturer implanting the alien circuit board some time before they are delivered. That goes way beyond hacking.

[dcannady]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Hard to call this a hack as they had to get access to the machine and replace a circuit board. In other words, only through physical tampering and even I could change that if allowed to tamper. Show me where they got into the system AS IS not manipulated by new hardware.

The computerized system is a hindrance to the vote cheaters. They will make every attempt to discredit anything that improves the integrity of the process. The old way allows Mickey Mouse to vote often and in many places.

[schaabdl]

attaching what they call a piece of "alien electronics" into the machine's circuit board.

Sure looks like they went INTO the machine. Besides, if it is attached, don't you think it would be noticed? Not a hack by any stretch if they have to have access to the machine to attach or manipulate the circuit board. In other words, their remote is useless without first doing a physical change to the machine.