Info Junkie
4/17/2011 3:23:00 AM
On Apr 16, 7:09 pm, * US * wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:42:36 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 16, 11:33 am, * US * wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 05:50:58 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 15, 10:40 pm, * US * wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:09:19 -0700 (PDT), Info Flunkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 15, 9:06 am, * US * wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 03:42:00 -0700 (PDT), Info Flunkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Apr 12, 11:51 pm, * US * wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:45:56 -0700 (PDT), Info Flunkie <bondr....@att.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >Keep guessing ...
>
> >> >> >> >> Nobody should have to trust anyone with votes.
>
> >> >> >> >Just let whomever can physically beat any other candidates take over
> >> >> >> >the job, or maybe the one with the biggest wallet that can buy their
> >> >> >> >way in, eh? That way "Nobody" has "to trust anyone with votes."
>
> >> >> >> The biggest wallet already owns the 'voting' systems.
>
> >> >> >Now you just have to prove the owner has manipulated the votes enough
> >> >> >to change elections. The burden of proof is in your "court"
>
> >> >> No, elections need to be transparent and prove themselves.
>
> >> >I have always understood that total reliance on electronic voting,
> >> >especially without a corresponding paper receipt, is not the best
> >> >means to hold elections,
>
> >> Then you should be in favor of a recount and proof
> >> that there were actual voters who produced actual
> >> ballots in this and any election.
>
> >1. An investigation will determine if there was any tampering...
>
> Why do you believe that?
Because I have less belief in your claims
> >...says is leagl [sic]
>
> Elections must be transparent to be valid.
Whatever "transparent" means.
> >> >... not even a shred of credible
> >> >evidence that ...
>
> >> You have no evidence that the tallies were correct.
>
> >Unlike you, I sure do have credible evidence...
>
> So you claim you can prove the original ballots
> were counted correctly?
>
> Go ahead.
>
> Describe exactly how
I provided you my credible evidence, but you "snipped" it. Now provide
your credible evidence that the tallies are not correct.
"Go ahead..Describe exactly how"