Skip to main content

An argument that appears to be scientific is said to be "not even wrong" if it cannot be falsified (i.e., tested with the possibility of being rejected) by experiment or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world. The phrase was coined by theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking.[1] Rudolf Peierls writes that "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong.' "[2]

"Not even wrong" has also been used by Peter Woit to mean proposed scientific theories that are well-meaning and based on current scientific knowledge, but can neither be used for prediction nor falsified. He has applied the phrase to aspects of the super string theory of physics on the grounds that, although mathematically elegant, it does not currently provide predictions or tests.[3]

I distrust Karl Rove as much as anyone after studying his history of using vile tactics in Alabama but I need to see a scintilla of evidence before I will support the conspiracy theory that he would have stolen the election but for hacking by Anonymous. Because the person claiming to be from Anonymous provided no evidence to support his claim that a hack by Anonymous stopped Rove from stealing the election in Ohio, there is no way to prove or disprove the claim. For example, we can't disprove that Rove didn't secretly do x, y, or z with the Romney campaign's software even though it is technically illegal. We can't prove he did. We are just making stuff up because there's no evidence. Claims that Rove attempted to do x, based on no evidence are meaningless. They are noise. They are not even wrong.

Argumentation over "not even wrong" claims frequently involves a logical fallacy called a negative proof.

A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.
[edit]Retort

A common retort to a negative proof is to reference the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster as just as valid as the proposed entity of the debate. This is similar to reductio ad absurdum, that taking negative proof as legitimate means can prove practically anything, regardless how absurd.

Markos has banned conspiracy theories like this one attributed to Anonymous because noise degrades this site. Don't post stuff that is not even wrong.

Jesus Fucking Christ (8+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
GreyHawk, jennifree2bme, Bob Johnson, Crazy Moderate, begone, cap76, emelyn, Diggs
Rove had nothing to do with Orca. This is idiotic. As is this stupid claim that Anonymous stopped anything.

I swear to fucking god, the "Rove was going to steal the election" bullshit is patently ridiculous. And, in fact, it's CT.

So warning here, where people might or might not see it -- I will wield the ban-hammer ruthlessly against anyone who further spreads this shit.

by kos on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 01:24:16 AM EST

[ Reply to this ]  Recommend  Hide

Originally posted to FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:15 AM PST.

Also republished by Science Matters.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (411+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dadadata, social democrat, Sybil Liberty, leevank, dagolfnut, Adam B, Denver11, houndcat, sturunner, MBNYC, litho, back2basics, Murphoney, clambake, realwischeese, HudsonValleyMark, jhop7, real world chick, elziax, palantir, BoiseBlue, coldwynn, leonard145b, ranger995, sideboth, kkjohnson, aseth, divineorder, Wee Mama, charliehall2, literatelib, political mutt, winsock, Via Chicago, Johnny Nucleo, elmo, Dr Colossus, TFinSF, Naniboujou, rudewarrior, kathny, entrelac, hester, Sailorben, gloriana, pateTX, blue armadillo, citizenx, NYmom, Thinking Fella, 88kathy, billlaurelMD, Glen The Plumber, here4tehbeer, CwV, Paulie200, Wordsinthewind, annan, CroneWit, lostboyjim, muddy boots, USArmyParatrooper, dengre, Garbear, jazzence, Skipbidder, Catesby, emidesu, deep, SkylarkingTomFoolery, ms badger, theatre goon, Mike Kahlow, stormicats, means are the ends, shortgirl, Moody Loner, pamelabrown, Limelite, Smoh, stunzeed, Livvy5, middleagedhousewife, marleycat, paxpdx, Nebraskablue, Anima, murphy, Cronesense, Sanuk, leftywright, Onomastic, denig, Safina, GDbot, liberte, furi kuri, tampaedski, Siri, zerone, GreyHawk, Loudoun County Dem, RockyMtnLib, Rhysling, profh, TomP, California06, Curt Matlock, gchaucer2, pat of butter in a sea of grits, Jeffersonian Democrat, lineatus, Eddie L, IndieGuy, Ignacio Magaloni, Sarea, Sharon Wraight, Lujane, Rumarhazzit, gramofsam1, Mistral Wind, blueoregon, danoland, Sun Tzu, Hammerhand, mdmslle, Chi, bwren, Wheever, Pandora, litoralis, MarkC, tgypsy, Lost and Found, jennifer poole, peagreen, Sembtex, raines, Aureas2, PeterHug, nomandates, AlyoshaKaramazov, sagesource, madmsf, BillyZoom, dougymi, wwjjd, ThatPoshGirl, Chinton, pgm 01, democracy is coming, houyhnhnm, joanil, juca, copymark, HiBob, Libby Shaw, Noodles, SueM1121, ItsSimpleSimon, eeff, coolbreeze, ruleoflaw, Temmoku, mconvente, GeorgeXVIII, Glinda, angry hopeful liberal, golem, nickrud, kerflooey, peacestpete, SantaFeMarie, petulans, ozsea1, antooo, pvasileff, fbiots, SaintC, democracy inaction, gulfgal98, ruscle, Time Waits for no Woman, StellaRay, offgrid, ScottAC, rogerdaddy, xaxnar, shesaid, missLotus, Spirit of Life, Ellinorianne, walkshills, Marihilda, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, jamess, General Hubbub, jck, smartdemmg, se portland, DvCM, VTCC73, rsmpdx, Alice Olson, betson08, Ex Con, MarkInSanFran, McGahee220, addisnana, JDWolverton, Steveningen, On Puget Sound, Ahianne, wader, Michael James, ballerina X, yuriwho, sidnora, meg, RyanHarvey, Spit, TexDem, zhimbo, weelzup, dnta, StrayCat, freeport beach PA, mahakali overdrive, ManhattanMan, Alumbrados, Fe, Chris Jay, A Mad Mad World, RebeccaG, realalaskan, Crabby Abbey, psnyder, jennyp, sebastianguy99, Ekaterin, ORDem, erush1345, BalanceSeeker, pat208, Hedwig, sydneyluv, Albanius, shenderson, Justus, Tchrldy, DWG, kat68, regis, Magnifico, Teknocore, Pandoras Box, bara, SnyperKitty, MKHector, MJ via Chicago, Crazy Moderate, eataTREE, terrypinder, akeitz, Dave1955, virginislandsguy, tle, Daulphin, dradams, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, Chicago Lawyer, roses, Argyrios, rexymeteorite, greenbird, Dont Just Stand There, brainwave, CodeTalker, Empty Vessel, Empower Ink, LillithMc, Jollie Ollie Orange, Nowhere Man, shinobi9, blue muon, uciguy30, JaxDem, bythesea, Williston Barrett, ninkasi23, Kysen, Tamar, melfunction, Sassy, yella dawg, MikePhoenix, johnrhoffman, cyberpuggy, chimpy, BigOkie, RandomNonviolence, cv lurking gf, KiB, 1BQ, JoeEngineer, Sharoney, bill warnick, edwardssl, kaliope, Karen Hedwig Backman, IreGyre, PrometheusUnbound, Carol in San Antonio, subtropolis, susans, asym, Mark Tapley, Beetwasher, FlyingToaster, slowbutsure, lastman, lincolnliberal, Miss Jones, Wolf Of Aquarius, anastasia p, pimutant, Poika, Horace Boothroyd III, bluesheep, mrmango, grollen, zooecium, emelyn, TiaRachel, sandblaster, rmonroe, progdog, elginblt, MidwestTreeHugger, FourthOfJulyAsburyPark, ontheleftcoast, janmtairy, Gorette, cka, skybluewater, papercut, Jakkalbessie, jadt65, CalGal47, classico, jennifree2bme, Angie in WA State, Aaa T Tudeattack, zukesgirl64, Alice Venturi, annieli, Armando, Tyler R, FindingMyVoice, TX Freethinker, sawgrass727, Black Max, stevemb, gizmo59, indybend, LABobsterofAnaheim, peachcreek, science nerd, yawnimawke, abarefootboy, Mathazar, Leftcandid, this just in, dRefractor, Hatrax, rb608, Debby, SadieSue, newinfluence, weaponsofmassdeception, JekyllnHyde, emmasnacker, MRA NY, riverlover, Neon Vincent, J Orygun, Involuntary Exile, twigg, Zinman, Tailspinterry, Chrisfs, eric611, Quicklund, Actbriniel, shaggies2009, Robynhood too, plooto, Pat K California, jplanner, ordy, Creosote, bontemps2012, JBL55, Ptown boy in NC, Ice Blue, PhilJD, msgeorgia blue nurse, kevin k, jrooth, Kathy S, KenBee

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:15:07 AM PST

  •  Sounds like a close cousin to (49+ / 0-)

    "eating the menu instead of the dinner." I believe that was Gregory Bateson.

    Meaning mistaking the description (or measurement)  of reality for reality.

    Now that's a good description of the current Reptilian party.

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:24:21 AM PST

      •  Thanks FOW (22+ / 0-)

        This Anonymous saving the election crap is nonsense. It inflates the eveel mastermind that is Ham Rove and brings us and DK down to the level of left wingnut teabaggers.

        "Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others" Robert F. Kennedy

        by realwischeese on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:04:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Worse, it re-enforces beliefs (25+ / 0-)

          that the criteria for stuff that gets rec'd on dkos, are simply often diaries with titles or slogans that resonate politically with active users, regardless of accuracy.   (See: Redstate).

          People should always be skeptical about conspiracy theories, but you've got to have SOME kind of evidence (even made-up shit) to support the notion that your theory is "front page news."

          "Possibly true because I believe it could be true," is not even "truthy."  And certainly not rec worthy.

          Otherwise, this is the World Weekly News.

        •  Thanks. (17+ / 0-)

          Frankly I am too tired of arguing with uninformed, paranoid wingnuts here to say much more. Between that and having just worked 26 days with one day off following 20 hours on election day helping to make the election in Ohio's largest county run smoothly, I am REALLY exhausted. I just got home from the BoE where we finished second verifications of the OK'd provisionals (i.e. the vast majority of them). We just learned that many of us including me have tomorrow off (!!!) before we start opening the envelopes on Tuesday. I can wash clothes! I can go to the market! I can clean my house! I can call people who have't heard from me in two months. I have a pot of red beans and rice with the holy trinity simmering on my stove (New Orleanians will know what I mean) and I think I will pass on spending the evening being attacked as an "ostrich" for not buying into election hacking theories that are not only implausible but nearly impossible in Ohio.

          Oh, and I still plan to HR anyone I catch repeating the myth about Karl Rove's "war room" in Chattanooga in 2004 where he monitored Ohio's vote and flipping the number of votes needed for Bush to carry the state — totals from electronic voting machines that WERE NOT IN USE IN OHIO IN 2004.

          Sheesh.

          Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

          by anastasia p on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:26:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm a poll worker myself (10+ / 0-)

            New Mexico, not Ohio.  But still, election workers are a decent honest lot.  These goofy notions people toss about can be irksome and exasperating at times, particularly if you've been involved in the nuts and bolts of running an election.

            I'd be glad if people pushing some of these fanciful theories would simply do a little public service as poll workers themselves.  It's not a bad way to help make sure things go OK.

            "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!", but "That's funny..." (Isaac Asimov)

            by Land of Enchantment on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 04:53:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Fellow Clevelander thanks you! (6+ / 0-)

            Not long after the election I had a (mercifully short) exchange with a very conservative friend of mine on Facebook.  He's generally a thoughtful, intelligent and compassionate guy but this election got him a little bit bonkers.  He sent me some ridiculous CT message about Cuyahoga County precincts that pulled no Romney votes and about Wood county and 108% of voters and blahblahblahblah.  I took a deep breath and replied that as long as Republicans continue to focus on absurd CTs about why they lost they can't ever sit their asses down to address real problems--even within their own party winning elections, much less those plaguing the country.  It doesn't help to see the same shit, different chapter on our own side.

            •  Of COURSE there are probably precincts (10+ / 0-)

              in Cuyahoga that pulled no or few Romney votes because they are FILLED WITH BLACK PEOPLE who don't vote for Romney. My sister told me that numerous precincts around her general neighborhood in Chicago had no Romney votes (she lives a few blocks from the Obamas, not prime Romney territory).

              Unfortunately, those stories about 108% of the voters voting are holdovers from 2004, when things like that were reported, with batches of Bush votes suddenly added to totals. Whether that was legit or not is hard to tell, but if anything happened, it was done by the county boards of elections in deep red counties like Warren, Greene and Butler.

              But you are so right, and this has been my main argument against buying a piece of these outlandish hacking theories: they deflect from the real problems. No hacking was done. But Husted and his colleagues aren't going to stop trying to discourage voters not friendly to them.

              By the way, one of my best moment last week processing provisionals was when I came across a batch that did not have a single envelope that wasn't perfect — absolutely everything in order, not a single reject or "pending wrong precinct" or questionable ID or suspicious signature. Even my co-workers were marveling, because it wasn't from some wealthy suburban precinct with only 7 provisionals to process. It was an inner-city precinct with 40 provisionals. The best part: that perfect precinct is in the area in Cleveland surrounding where that first "Voter Fraud is a Felony" billboard went up that got all the publicity. It's mostly projects.

              Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

              by anastasia p on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:26:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I will rec you every time you write about it nt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            realwischeese

            "Are you bluish? You don't look bluish," attributed to poet Roger Joseph McGough, for the Beatles' Yellow Submarine (1968).

            by BlueStateRedhead on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 04:58:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  It's fun. (0+ / 0-)

          Next we'll get a porn cartoon with the Anonymous suit getting serviced by a panting, slobbering Karl Rove figure.

          I'd watch 30 seconds of that.

      •  You clearly have been eating at restuarants (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dharmafarmer

        with bland menus.

        •  What is "proof"? (14+ / 2-)

          We have a claim here.  Let's examine the evidence.

          What is the "claim?"  Let's start there.

          The claim is that "Anonymous," or someone claiming to be the "Anonymous" hacktivist group, stopped a Republican election hacking scheme.  This claim is publicly made.

          And now the shouting starts!

          Two errors need to be avoided.

          1.  The first error is that the "claim" needs no further "warrant."

          The error is that the claim "fits," or at least does not contradict other evidence, and therefore is "warranted."

          The type of analysis, called "pattern recognition," is tricky, since it involves the selective use of confirming evidence.

          Of course every empirical approach has this same problem.  Models are always created to explain selected empirical evidence.  That's called "the scientific method."

          2.  The second error is that the "claim" should not be even considered.  Or discussed.

          This argument is of two (2) possible kinds.

          A.  The first claim to non-consideration is that any and all claims to have prevented a non-event should not even be considered without further evidence.

          For instance, a claim to have prevented an asteroid from crashing into earth should not be considered without evidence that an asteroid was on its way in the first place.

          The claim in other words is not falsifiable, and so can be logically dismissed.

          But it that really true in this case?

          After all, "Anonymous" does leave traces of evidence in support of their claim:  the "105" password attempts on their firewall, and their mention of the existence of three off-site data manipulation servers "in three states" - plus other 'dummy' locations.  Further, they anticipate giving further evidence to Wikileaks.

          The problem is that this evidence of Internet traffic in support of the Republican presidential campaign cannot be independently verified.  Confirmation would only be available to Anonymous' (electronic) adversaries.

          It may be right or it may be wrong.  It IS falsifiable.  But it as yet is unproven.  But it is not un-provable.

          B.  The second species of argument for why such evidence should not even be considered is even more common, and more vigorously held, but is (for all that) less supportable.  

          This argument is that discussion and debate of any attack upon elections or democracy is itself harmful and should therefore be avoided.

          Such evidence in support of a claim (a claim to have discovered and to have thwarted wrong-doing) should not even be considered because it fits into a "pattern" of something called "conspiracy theory."

          And respectable people should not even consider what they term "conspiracy theory."  Why?  Well, because . . . that is just not something that respectable people do.

          This is the same "pattern recognition" problem as in #1.

          "Respectable people" in this model are those who believe that government and public institutions are susceptible to public input and debate, indeed that they are designed for such, and that these are not irredeemably controlled by elites and by secret, non-public processes.

          Discussions of "conspiracy theory" in this view is sheer poison because such talk encourages belief that public participation in mass democratic institutions is both pointless and useless (Elites control it all, don't you see?  So why vote?)

          The only thing that could weaken democratic institutions in other words is not a "conspiracy to weaken democratic institutions and processes," but only a "discussion of conspiracies to weaken democratic processes."

          The problem with this argument is that it begins with the view that democratic institutions cannot be subverted by elites, or by secret operations, and therefore insists that such threats should not even be discussed!

          It would be tragic, however, if a reluctance to discuss any and all threats to electronic voting systems makes our elections vulnerable to hacking, and keeps them so vulnerable.

          The problem with this dismissive viewpoint is that "Anonymous" really does believe in democratic elections and specifically in "the rule of law," and has found evidence of an (electronic) attempt to subvert the same.  They hope that Karl Rove will be prosecuted and convicted.  And they say that they (and the people) won this time.

          And it is a matter of record that "Anonymous" publicly warned of the threat to the November presidential elections - back in January 2012.

          nota bene:  What is a "conspiracy?"

          The academic literature on "conspiracy theories" is thick with published contributions from the 1950s and the 1960s.  No doubt this reflects the concern with McCarthyism upon the university authors of the period.

          The literature finds that one necessary aspect of this mindset is a belief in "monism."

          "Monism" in this academic literature is a belief that all events in history are controlled by a single elite.

          "Monism" in other words holds that there are no competing elites.  None.

          In this view the global contest between communism and capitalism would be a mere illusion.  A single elite controlled both, and orchestrated their apparent conflict to serve their own (elite) interests.

          Understanding this "monism" is the key to comprehending why a group like the John Birch Society, for instance, could maintain that President Eisenhower was "conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy."

          Do conspiracies exist?

          It is tough to say that conspiracies don't exist.

          Need proof?  Let's start with a schoolboy question:  Were there no conspirators in the murder of Julius Caesar?

          Probably it would be better to say that "conspiracies" exist, but not "Conspiracy" in the sense of a single monistic process.

          What is "conspiracy," though?

          After all, the word itself is from the the Latin.  con- means "with;" -spiritus means "breath."

          "Conspiracy" basically means "breathing together."

          People "breath together" and conspire to elect high school presidents.

          They "breath together" in a huddle to get the football across the goal line and into the endzone.

          And their "conspire" to nominate and to elect political candidates.

          Which is not to say that they are always successful!  Elites compete, and they fail, too, as do institutions and classes and demographics groups, etc.

          A Single Elite certainly does not control All Of World History.

          That, my friends, would be "Conspiracy Theory!"

      •  Yes, here are TWO much more valid concepts (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chira2, samanthab

        1.  In Science, there is the "precautionary principle" that is widely accepted in Europe.  It means we must PROVE something is good before foisting it on the unsuspecting public.

        2. In Law, there is "res ipsa loquitur" which reverses the burden of proof when the inner working of an alleged faulty mechanism cannot be accesses by the public.  For election machines, eve the Secty of State of California Kevin Shelley could get the answers he wanted from the 3rd party "independent" testing companies when he was upset that every county in California was shown to not have approved software on the election systems.  The ephermeral nature of hidden malicious code --both installed natively and installed wirelessly--are a threat to voting systems that have notoriously inadequate security features.  

        Here's a very popular Daily Kos diary from 2004 where an insider--who happened to also be an attorney-- provided me with information that is the basis for the diary:

        ACTIONABLE FRAUD:
        http://www.dailykos.com/...

         

        Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

        by Einsteinia on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:08:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Absent confessions, conspiracies don't exist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chira2

      Come on, people don't ever act in concert to commit crimes. Particularly, they would never do it if trillions of dollars and the power to basically control the world were the potential reward. In fact, only a loon would think that the people who could control the outcome of such an election with so much at risk would do anything but act with the utmost integrity. Any of those with any ability to manipulate results only want the best, and honest, result for the country they love.

      It is the most vile heresy to suggest Kos could be wrong about this. Unless or until there are confessions, American elections are completely honest.

    •  I believe Bateson coined the phrase "the map (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shliapnikov, chira2

      is not the territory", also.  Meaning, for me, that words and even ideas are not real.  The description isn't ever the reality. And what is real for me isn't real for you, because as I describe my "real" to you, I am using words.   And guess what?  All words are maps.  All words are symbols.  

      Anyway.  In my opinion, I fail to see how discussing whether or not Rove was attempting to steal the election and whether or not it is plausible that Anonymous thwarted that attempt is "spreading the shit".  Isn't it doing exactly the opposite?  

      I have read almost all the comments on all the diaries posted on this topic.  As I was reading, I learned a lot:  about technical issues, about the history of Anonymous (verifiable history, I believe... or is kos denying that Anonymous even exists?), about election fraud techniques, for example.  I also learned more in the comments about what exactly Anonymous was claiming and not claiming.  So I gained CLARITY and this helped me form my own opinion.  For me, it does not taint this website to discuss this issue.  Not at all.  

      If I had gone to a website that was "all in" with this theory, then I wouldn't have gotten the more skeptical analysis that I got here.  So I would argue that accepting discussion of CT issues here is actually quite important for the "immune system" of the political left.  

      CT's aren't a scary germ for me.  I am quite able to discern for myself whether they are believable or not... for me.  I guess I would cast a wider net, personally.  If gaining clarity on a topic that is being widely discussed in the political world is "spreading shit" then personally I am okay with spreading it around.  I would draw the line somewhere else.  But hey its not my website.  I get that.  Just offering my opinion.

      The diaries on this topic seemed to be saying "hey, this is what Anonymous is saying" and "this is what Thom Hartman is saying" etc.  Aren't there lots and lots of dairies that do similarly, such as "Sarah Palin says".... fill in bullshit lies... and those diaries get published because, hey, she said it and it is relevant because she is a "player", a person who wields some power, however undeserving it may be. Is Anyonymous worthy of any coverage here on DKos?  

      •  People (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bontemps2012

        writing about Sarah Palin are mocking her. Anyone want to mock the latest conspiracy theory, knock yourself out.

        Those aren't the people getting banned.

        •  There's "CT serious" and there's "CT laugh (0+ / 0-)

          for 5 seconds."

          The ORCA project chewed through $60,000,000 to turn out crap.

          Blaming that failure on Anonymous and claiming that ORCA was demonic-possession election-stealing software... that's funny.

          ORCA doing "69" with Karl Rove ??? Might not be suitable for a family web site. Funny? Well, yes. A long series of GOPer boondogles doing sex with Rove -- good stuff. Happy to email that to true believer GOPers everywhere.

    •  Disagree with usage 'not even wrong.' (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bontemps2012, wytcld

      Speaking as a professional doing hands-on R&D for the last 30 years, 'not even wrong' -- usually attributed to the Nobel laureate physicist Wolfgang Pauli -- is taken  (in the rather large professional circle I frequent) to signify something so absurdly detached from reality that to call it 'wrong' would in fact be paying it a compliment.

      I take no position on the applicability the Anonymous claim.

      The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang, that jurymen may dine.

      by magnetics on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:35:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm 100% sure that no one is saying... (47+ / 0-)

      ...that Rove did this, and that Anon did counter it, besides the ONE Anon individual who made the claim, and provided no evidence.

      Another certainty: everyone is sceptical of this claim.

      That means there is no CT here. Folks are just having fun with it, knowing that there are no facts to prove the individual's claim.

      Seriously, who here doesn't enjoy the thought of a cock-sure Rove, recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars to buy this election, gloating his way through election night, secure in the knowledge that his black hat tech team is intercepting and nullifying all those enthusiastic black votes, only to have his sphincter spasm violently as the real results show up on FOX's display?

      I mean, didn't Rove look exactly like the Bond villain who just realized that his space laser had been reprogrammed and was now pointing at his secret lair on FOX that night? All he needed was a white Persian in his lap.

      Until a non-trolling Anon drops some facts on us (remember HBGary), this will remain awesome Obama fan fiction.

      Fun fun fun.

      "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism" - MLK

      by 3rdOption on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:49:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ehh (14+ / 0-)

        Did you read the comments in that other diary?

        Disclaimer: If the above comment can possibly be construed as snark, it probably is.

        by grubber on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:24:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Def. And I think we can prob agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3rdOption, chira2

        that Rove, given the chance, would do anything to win.

        Unlikely anything like this was within his grasp, either mentally or technically but if it were, would he hesitate? No ethics and can't be trusted alone in a room with a plate full of cookies.

        I'm wondering, though, what the "105  times" comment was about.

        Chaos. It's not just a theory.

        by PBnJ on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:28:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  But, by THAT standard: (7+ / 0-)

        With that standard, nothing is "CT" if one merely prefaces the argument with "I am not saying that Disney did murder JFK, I am just saying that there is evidence here that we should consider and have fun with. . ."

        IF, the statement had been verifiably attributed to Anon, THEN, at least the argument could be whether Anon could be trusted w/o hard evidence, but since that is not even close to established we're simply floundering.

        All that said, the theory that Karl Rove was stopped by Anon is not, in and of itself, akin to a scientific theory like String theory which by its own TERMS, cannot be proven or disproven.  Karl Rove definitely DID or DID NOT plan to use computers to alter vote tabs, Anon either DID or DID NOT threaten Rove and DID or DID NOT act against Rove.  Those ARE provable, the facts did or did not happen, so it is not directly the same.  BUT, until there is confirmation that Anon is behind the messages and THEY provide some evidence. . .

        Then wasting any time on this is CT and makes us sound exactly like teh nutters.

        Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick. Message to Repug Fundies: "DO you really wonder "what would Jesus do?" I didn't think so.

        by 4CasandChlo on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:37:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lee Harvey WAS a mouseketeer. jus' sayin'... (2+ / 0-)

          to republicans rape is "God's will" but homosexuality is somehow a "choice". republican yahweh is a dick.

          by bnasley on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:36:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  There are other ways (0+ / 0-)

          of analyzing the intersection of what happened, what they say happened and what should have happened.

          Let's not go all Spock on me, folks.  

          What emotions are being elicited?
          What mental associations are being built?
          What memes are being established?
          Who benefits from this story?
          Who does it appeal to emotionally?
          Why should Anonymous satisfy your curiosity?
              Part of their power comes from their mysteriousness.

          Consider it may be a strategic maneuver.

          Read the tags.

          This boy is Ignorance and this girl is Want. Beware them both, but most of all beware this boy for on his brow I see that written which is Doom.” ― Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol

          by nolagrl on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:11:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Come on, let's quote the great Peggy Noonan (9+ / 0-)

        “Is it irresponsible to speculate?... (Speaking of whether Fidel Castro had blackmailed President Clinton) It would be irresponsible not to.”

        Anonymous is just punking Rove; which, given his lifetime of rat-fucking is frankly very funny.

        The Book of Revelation is not a foreign policy manual.

        by Dont Just Stand There on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 12:06:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The ULTIMATE straw man logic (5+ / 0-)

        is to brand things "CT" (conspiracy theory) by conflating it with the birthers, etc., to stop the investigations that will lead to the proof that is not easily attainable.

        Here's what we do know:

        1. The Government Accountability Office, the Brennan Center for Justice, the State of California, election officials in Florida and Utah--to name just a few--have all PROVEN that our present election systems are easy to hack.

        2.  Courts are requiring PROOF of wrongdoing before they will allow the public to stop untested software and also precludes the public from violating trademark protected software.

        When it comes to the foundation of our democracy the burden of proof must be on the new systems to PROVE they are BETTER than the decentralized precinct PUBLICLY verified systems (e.g., double check at least some of the races on each ballot by hand to verify the accuracy of the ballots tabulated IN THE PRECINCT before the are mixed in an untraceable batch at the centralized tabulation site).

        Nothing less than our democracy is at stake, and this diary is proposing Reagan's plausible deniability logical device to circumvent the investigations that are warranted to find out whether Anonymous--who has a long provable track record of doing what they say--is telling the truth and whether this news communique was indeed from them.

        Here's what I am saying: DO NOT STOP THE CONVERSATION IN THE NAME OF CT WHEN SO MUCH IS AT STAKE.  

        Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

        by Einsteinia on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 02:41:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The reason to STOP the CT theories (4+ / 0-)

          is BECAUSE so much is at stake, and we are expending energy and credibility on stuff that probably didn't happen or in the case of Ohio almost certainly didn't (based on facts about how Ohio's election systems work) while the GOP is amping up on tilting elections in entirely other ways.

          THIS conversation needs to stop because we sound EXACTLY like the tea party wingnuts. Hey — one thing I've learned from working at the BoE is that voter fraud actually exists (although it's miniscule) so THEIR side is a lot more provable than ours. And when we're spinning off into fantasy territory, the can justify voter suppression. Stop it.

          Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

          by anastasia p on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:37:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What if you are wrong, which I believe you are (7+ / 0-)

            Then what you are saying is because you do not believe the ability to steal votes by way of the electronic machines is happening, then we should just agree with you and shut up?

            Your basic argument is to even discuss the structural flaws in our democracy is somehow diverting energy.

            The ONLY valid reason I think you and other democrats are against this discussion is the fear that it will cause people not to vote.  I think this is unfounded.  

            Let the truth set us free.  There is is our business to do our due diligence and discuss something as fundamental as our election systems.

            I have devoted 10 years of my life on this topic because I was initially a person who did not believe ANY of it.  I decided to disprove it by doing my own homework, and guess what?  I found out that that not only were our election systems shoddy and probably corrupt, but that to even raise the issue made me a person who believed in green martians!

            You and I may disagree on whether there is a problem with our electronic voting systems, but resolution will come with discussion and investigation--not name calling and straw man arguments).  

            The courts ought to allow us to have access to the proprietary software, but they do not.  The elections officials should let us hand count our votes, to at least double check the tallies, but they do not.  

            A whole lot of speculation could be resolved if we had access to the tabulation of our election systems AND the conversation did not have to be suppressed.  

            McCarthyism was at one time accepted, and now it is seen for what it was.  I think the election integrity cause consistently branded as at conspiracy theory is equally wrong.

            Thanks for listening!

            Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

            by Einsteinia on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:55:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am so sick and tired of this.... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bradreiman, Nowhere Man
              I found out that that not only were our election systems shoddy and probably corrupt, but that to even raise the issue made me a person who believed in green martians!
              This diary actually isn't about our election systems. It's about a screwy story about Anonymous vs. Rove.

              I don't know why that distinction is hard to make. In fact, it isn't.

              Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
              Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

              by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 04:11:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am sorry that you are sick, but (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ZAPatty, Cobbler, chira2

                logically:

                a.  how you feel and what your tired of is not relevant

                b.  if you don't think that this diary is about election integrity, but instead is actually a story about "Anonymous" and "Karl Rove," then you might want to read the actual press release that is allegedly from "Anonymous" that details how they put a fire wall in the election systems to stop some illegal vote tallying.

                Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

                by Einsteinia on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 04:17:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  logically (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nowhere Man

                  a. If it's irrelevant how many people you gratuitously alienate, then I have to wonder what you think actually matters

                  b. I'm fairly sure you're capable of understanding my point if you want to.

                  c.

                  that details how they put a fire wall in the election systems to stop some illegal vote tallying.
                  That's an interesting interpretation of "details."

                  Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
                  Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                  by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 04:57:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, you are loud and clear with your (2+ / 2-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ZAPatty, chira2
                    Hidden by:
                    bradreiman, BlueStateRedhead

                    Bush "My way or the highway" badgering.  I get it that you do not agree, but you fail to cite reasons other than how it makes you feel.

                    My hope is that you cite the specific things you disagree with and cite a valid reason  it, and allow yourself to hear things are the most inconvenient of truths.

                    Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

                    by Einsteinia on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:07:25 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  see what I mean? (2+ / 0-)

                      What crime have I committed that I deserve to be likened to Bush? Is it that I criticized you for saying that our election systems are shoddy? Nope. G'head, spell it out and document it.

                      My hope is that you cite the specific things you disagree with and cite a valid reason
                      I disagree with the statement I quoted, because you haven't supported it, and because I see you actually (1) misrepresenting critiques of specific arguments as something else and (2) recklessly smearing me, which I admit doesn't make a good impression.

                      Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
                      Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                      by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:16:11 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  This conversation has devolved (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ZAPatty, chira2

                        from the topic.

                        But as to (1) above, I have not

                        (1) misrepresenting critiques of specific arguments as something else
                        , I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  Then as to (2) above
                        recklessly smearing me, which I admit doesn't make a good impression.
                        , I again have no idea what you are talking about--except calling you on your ad hominem arguments and seeing how you like it.

                        But enough.

                        What exactly is wrong with discussing the vulnerabilities of our election systems in light of this alleged communication from Anonymous that claims to have intervened in election theft.

                        This is what I fail to understand.  I think this topic needs to be discussed.  Because what I am "sick" of is how election integrity is ignored until the days before an election.  Let's look under the hood, see what needs to be corrected, and deal with it--even if it is unpleasant.

                        Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

                        by Einsteinia on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:24:44 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  hmmm (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          bradreiman
                          I again have no idea what you are talking about--except calling you on your ad hominem arguments and seeing how you like it.
                          I must have missed where you did that.
                          What exactly is wrong with discussing the vulnerabilities of our election systems in light of this alleged communication from Anonymous that claims to have intervened in election theft.
                          Well, why don't you? In what way does this communication shed light on the vulnerabilities of our election systems?

                          I don't think it sheds any light at all. If you think otherwise, you should say why.

                          Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
                          Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                          by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:37:56 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm on to your game now (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            chira2

                            I thought you wanted a serious disussion.  You're all about citing your exhaustion, huffing and puffing and then no substance--except to pretend to have substance with block quotes.  

                            Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

                            by Einsteinia on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:57:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so, you refuse to discuss the topic yourself (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            HoopJones

                            And instead, you continue to attack me.

                            Just to review, at the risk of hurting your feelings with another block quotation:

                            In what way does this communication shed light on the vulnerabilities of our election systems?
                            I don't think it sheds any light at all. If you think otherwise, you should say why.
                            The fact that you refused to answer that question is almost immaterial. The deeper problem is that people like anastasia p have come to expect that people who raise concerns about voting systems probably either won't know what they are talking about, or will be too busy telling off the anti-conspiracists to say anything about voting systems at all, or both.

                            What are you doing? Is it working? If your intention is to address voting system problems, it certainly isn't working.

                            Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
                            Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                            by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 02:50:07 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  absolutely not true (0+ / 0-)

                            First of all this began your bashing me and branding the discussion of this diary as CT.

                            Then you supported your attempt to shut down the conversation by citing how "sick and tired" you were.

                            Nothing progressed after that except to find fault in ME.

                            If you want to discuss the issues, then raise the issue of this diary that you want to dispute, and please support it with facts!

                            Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

                            by Einsteinia on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 10:19:28 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  factually, it didn't (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            HoopJones

                            We all can look upthread and see how it started.

                            But hey, let's suppose for the sake of argument that it started with me "bashing" you. How would that justify your refusal to explain how Anonymous v. Rove sheds light on the vulnerabilities of our election systems?

                            Yes, I consider this failure to draw logical connections as a hallmark of CT. You can get mad at me for ever having used that epithet, but a lot more constructive would be to, y'know, draw logical connections.

                            Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
                            Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                            by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 10:28:43 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  ...but there's no argument if that distinction is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                HudsonValleyMark

                allowed to be clear.

                and the lines were so long because anonymous screwed up the software so they had to switch each vote manually.

                It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

                by Murphoney on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 04:20:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hmmm? No, the lines had nothing to do (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  chira2

                  with what was allegedly going on behind the scenes with the software tabulation.  The press release that is allegedly from Anonymous claims they put in a firewall to prevent some illegal back-door tabulation that was getting routed through various servers.

                  Election suppression by way of too few voting facilities is an entirely separate means of disenfranchisement.

                  Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

                  by Einsteinia on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 04:46:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  right, there is no argument (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Murphoney, BlueStateRedhead

                  As long as I've been active on Daily Kos, fraudsters -- by which I do not mean anyone who raises the issue of shoddy election systems, as I do myself, FFS -- have acted as if any challenge to any election fraud CT is somehow an attempt to discourage discussion of election problems.

                  Some serious discussion happens, too, but rarely any thanks to the folks who bring up Karl Rove and Mike Connell.

                  Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
                  Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                  by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:08:52 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you. (57+ / 0-)

    It's amazing how, even here where we proudly call ourselves 'reality-based', magical thinking about the big, bad, all-powerful GOP menace persists. These people can barely tie their shoes, let alone carry out multi-state black ops.

    Fuck you, I put on pants yesterday.

    by MBNYC on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:40:18 AM PST

    •  You seem to have forgotten the addage... (4+ / 0-)

      'If you have a problem, throw money at it.'

      'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

      by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:54:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I was one of those (27+ / 0-)

      that believed rove "stole" the 2004 election in Ohio. But I've come to believe that you are right MBNYC. The only black op election rigging these assholes are capable of are the ones they do openly, like bullshit voter ID laws, early voting shenanigans and not supplying enough damn voting machines so folks don't have to stand in line for 10hrs to vote.

      If Anonymous truly did what they say they did, and they "did it for the citizens" they need to release all of the details to the FBI. Until then .....bleh  

      "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

      by fugwb on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was in Ohio in 2004. (21+ / 0-)

        Majority-minority precinct in Columbus. A complete shambles, people waiting in line for hours starting at dawn. In my nice little white precinct in New York, we never wait more than a few minutes, by way of comparison.

        It was a massive clusterfuck, no question, but foul play? Doubtful, not with everything the GOP was able to do perfectly legally.

        Fuck you, I put on pants yesterday.

        by MBNYC on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:11:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My daughter (20+ / 0-)

          waited 9hrs to vote in Columbus and just a couple miles away in Gahanna (upscale) people walked in and out. Probably legal what blackwell did relating to how much time it took to vote, but definitely immoral....

          "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

          by fugwb on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:26:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It was not legal disenfranchising tens of thousand (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chira2

            of voters.

            There were many crimes committed, and one of the crimes was to provide too few voting machines in Democratic districts, to such an extent that many were still voting in Cleveland hours after the polls closed, and thousands were not able to stand in line for long enough to vote.

            Obama's appointee, Eric Holder, and the DOJ decided not to prosecute - because they thought that they should bend over backwards to accommodate the Republicans on Capitol Hill (a completely failed strategy).

            There should be an investigation now, even though it is 4 years later, and there is still a need to disentangle the details of the sorry affairs in OH, 2004, 2012.

        •  There was plenty of foul play (6+ / 0-)

          but there was more than enough obvious foul play (like phone jamming, or making sure there weren't enough machines in Dem precincts) that no hunting for subterfuge is really necessary.

          Occam's razor almost always wins the day, and it certainly won on 12/06/12.

          BTW, it appears that our wonderful new voting system here in NY has fixed it so that we, too, can wait in line for hours; the LH waited about 90 minutes on Election Day morning.

          "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

          by sidnora on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:13:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Machine delegation / distribution was a huge deal (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MJ via Chicago, avsp, MBNYC, fugwb

          in 2004, at least in Franklin Co. (my Downtown polling place was a Senior Center, so those lines were pretty slow regardless :)  But there was a demonstrable shift of machines away from some traditional Dem-heavy wards to the more reddish wards which kept the voters per machine numbers (and hence the lines) comfortable in the 'burbs and horrific in the 'hoods. The name Damschroder(sp?) rings a bell regarding that mess.

          This was in addition to the state-wide ballot requirement shenanigans Blackwell was pulling, topped with a shiny white layer of "Issue 1" to bring out the fringe.

          I was as shell-shocked the morning after Bush was re-upped as I'd imagine Romney's folks were a couple of weeks ago, but I always took the "stolen election" stuff with a lick of salt even after (and perhaps especially after) reading all the stuff Fitrakis and Kennedy Jr. put out in the months that followed.

          Not that I'm devoid of little CT now and then -- I can remember more than a few blazed nights laying on a blanket in Dealey plaza absolutely convinced I'd magically figured out where the rest of the shooters had been standing :)

          “General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee.” John McCain, 27th March 2007

          by here4tehbeer on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:04:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That WAS the election theft (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cobbler, chira2, BlueStateRedhead

            There was no hacking or a war room in Chattanooga — just a shorting machines in the cities of Columbus and Cleveland and on certain liberal college campuses like Kenyon and Oberlin (mysteriously not at nearby bible colleges, though). Problem is we will never know how many voters were forced to leave without voting. It was surely a large number because no one expected it — there had never been lines before and have not been lines since. Tragically for Jon Husted and fortunately for the rest of us, that probably CAN'T happen now since such a large percentage of Ohio voters now vote early. If our Republican legislature tries to tamper with that, we have our petitions and volunteers ready and we will repeal, repeal, repeal. We are experienced!

            Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

            by anastasia p on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:30:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you know about SMARTech? (0+ / 0-)

              Have you read the details about the Tennessee electronic vote counting firm?  It seems like you're just throwing out the idea and not taking any of the actual facts of the case seriously.

              It appears that perhaps this post is that of a lower level person who works at the precinct and is relying on the grapevine rather than tracking the national stories.  Admittedly, some of those stories require a bit of effort to track down all the way back to 2008 and 2004.

      •  Ironically, It Was All The Mass Disenfranchisement (7+ / 0-)

        attempts that pushed me firmly out of the camp of those willing to at least entertain the possibility of an existing tabulation conspiracy.  If you can manufacture the vote count there is no NEED fight so hard to keep opponents from voting.

      •  I still believe that the 2004 election... (4+ / 1-)

        may have been stolen.  I agree that without solid proof (of which I have not seen any) this is just a suspicion.  But there is a small sliver of direct evidence for me.  I remember watching the election, switching channels and seeing the projections.  My personal experience agrees with the article below.

        So while there is no conclusive proof, I remain unconvinced that it was not stolen, one way or another.

        The Ohio Computer Crash in 2004

        On the night of 2-3 November, 2004, the computer designated to count Ohio votes was cut out of the loop. Its web address was diverted to a private company in Chattanooga, TN, named SMARTech.

        The web redirection on Election Night of 2004 went a step beyond this: Not only did the official website of the Ohio Department of State look just right, but it had the right address: http://election.sos.state.oh.us . Any citizen or press service looking for real time election results from the state of Ohio would have been directed here. In every sense, this SMARTech site became the official vote tabulation for the state of Ohio.

        SMARTech leases computer servers to the Republican National Committee, and the 12-digit ISP address to which the Ohio Department of State was diverted for the 2004 vote count falls between two ranges known to be leased to the RNC. This raises the suspicion that it was an RNC computer, impersonating the state of Ohio computer, that performed the official vote tabulation in 2004. This diversion is so unusual (and brazen!) a ruse, that it is inconceivable that it happened without Blackwell’s explicit consent.

        "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

        by Candide08 on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:12:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  your unreferenced source offers false information (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlueStateRedhead
          In every sense, this SMARTech site became the official vote tabulation for the state of Ohio.
          "In no sense" would be far closer. There is no "official vote tabulation" on election night. At best, the data posted on the SoS website are more authoritative unofficial results.

          You write:

          I remember watching the election, switching channels and seeing the projections.  My personal experience agrees with the article below.
          What does this mean?

          Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
          Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

          by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:03:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I posted my opinions... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IreGyre, ZAPatty, chira2

            and agree there is no conclusive proof.

            I remember watching the election, switching channels and seeing the projections.  My personal experience agrees with the article below.
            What does this mean?
            This means I watched the election results.  I remember seeing projections and exit polls reported on TV.  Kerry was leading and there was a moment when - it switched.

            Coincidence?  Maybe.  But afterwards when I heard reports about the "manual data center failover"  (from multiple sources) it struck me as odd.  All I was trying to say there is that I had a personal moment that reinforced some allegations.

            In addition there have been court cases about this.  It is not totally an "outlier" opinion.   Please Google "King Lincoln Bronzeville v. Blackwell"  to see many references to one court case.

            Whether or not there was/is proof does not mean that it didn't happen.

            Please feel free to disagree and have a different opinion.

            "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

            by Candide08 on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:26:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you missed an important point, so I will repeat it (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              melfunction, Nowhere Man

              Your unreferenced source offers false information. That is not a matter of opinion: it is readily verifiable that the state doesn't have official vote counts on election night.

              This means I watched the election results.  I remember seeing projections and exit polls reported on TV.  Kerry was leading and there was a moment when - it switched.
              What was that moment? Do you remember what network you were watching?

              I have documented, here on Daily Kos, that Kerry was trailing in the vote count long before the ballyhooed Tennessee servers got involved. It should not have been necessary to document that, because people should remember it from election night. Many of us kept hoping that the vote counts would eventually align with the initial exit poll projections, but that doesn't mean that they did at any point.

              In addition there have been court cases about this.
              If you have something relevant to say about King Lincoln Bronzeville, why not say it?

              Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
              Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

              by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 12:20:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No I did not miss your point. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kevvboy, ZAPatty, Cobbler, chira2

                You say the info I posted is false, yet you offer no proof, no attribution - where is YOUR backup and basis for that?  I do not think just because YOU said it is false that I should accept it.

                I was watching TV with a bunch of politically minded friends.  We had two TV's and numerous mobile devices checking various websites.  Why does that matter to you?  Are you looking for some minor inconsistency or detail to pounce upon?

                The '04 election happened 8 years ago, so my memories are not as fresh as they used to be.  You asking me to recount with photographic detail is just a debate tactic.

                Why are you so ironclad sure that your opinion is correct and superior to others?  

                You obviously have a strong and different opinion about this, which is fine.  My opinion is different than yours.  However I think further public conversation between you and me would not be productive.

                Agreed?

                "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

                by Candide08 on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 12:31:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  it should be common knowledge (0+ / 0-)

                  Heck, you can go to the Ohio SoS website right now and see a link to "Unofficial Election Results." How could election night results be official?

                  If you intended to challenge me on the facts, you could have taken a moment to look something up, right?

                  I was watching TV with a bunch of politically minded friends.  We had two TV's and numerous mobile devices checking various websites.  Why does that matter to you?  Are you looking for some minor inconsistency or detail to pounce upon?

                  The '04 election happened 8 years ago, so my memories are not as fresh as they used to be.  You asking me to recount with photographic detail is just a debate tactic.

                  Not at all. If you think you remember that "Kerry was leading," I don't expect you to have "photographic detail," but it's only reasonable to wonder what you are talking about.

                  Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
                  Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                  by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 02:58:12 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MRA NY, Nowhere Man
              I posted my opinions and agree there is no conclusive proof.
              While there may be no "conclusive proof," there are demonstrably false claims being spread around on blogs.  The claim that a Tennessee computer was "tabulating" the votes is a bogus claim based on a misunderstanding of what a web site is.  

              SmartTech provided a backup web server to report election results if the main SOS website went down.  Neither of those servers was counting the votes or casting the votes.

              Taking jokes seriously is the exact mirror activity of laughing if someone says they have cancer. --jbou

              by Caj on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 01:35:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Broke And Unemployed, ZAPatty
                there are demonstrably false claims being spread around on blogs
                Prove the claims false.  Prove that no votes were altered.  

                If the claims are "demonstrably false" that should be easy - demonstrate it.  I look forward to your exacting QED.

                Explain the reports of a "manual" data center failover that were circulated at the time.  

                Like I said 8 years later proving anything, one way or the other, is more difficult.

                "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

                by Candide08 on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 02:02:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Okay, sure (4+ / 0-)

                  You want me to prove that a web server reporting the election results did not alter the results.

                  I'm surprised this needs to be proven, but here it goes:

                  First, the election results were entered into the web site after those totals received from the precincts.  This data was entered by SOS employees through a web interface---the web site does not have direct access to the voting machines or tabulators from the precincts, so of course it could not alter the ballots.

                  Second, the web site could not misreport the totals from the precincts, because this would have been noticed when the election results were certified.  

                  Taking jokes seriously is the exact mirror activity of laughing if someone says they have cancer. --jbou

                  by Caj on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:46:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  SoS data posted election night are official (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Caj

            though incomplete. They reflect ballots processed to that point. It is the media that project ultimate results, not election officials. Speaking as an elections worker though not in Ohio. Official certified or final results are provided later, on a date specified by state law here in Oregon and probably elsewhere.

            •  at best, this is an equivocation on "official" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dnta, HoopJones

              I don't know how long it will last, but for now, anyone can go to the Ohio Secretary of State's website and read at the top:

              Click here for Unofficial Election Results
              Why does it say that? Because the results are unofficial. The counties are making a good-faith effort to provide correct data, but they haven't conducted the canvass.

              This is not just a semantic distinction. It's really a problem if someone believes that it is possible to steal an Ohio election by hacking a web server because the "official count" is on that server. One needs a way to alter the counts that get canvassed.

              Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
              Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

              by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:55:33 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  ABSOLUTELY the current claim requires proof (12+ / 0-)

          from Anonymous, but as an IT professional with some fraud and security reporting experiencing, the 2004 Ohio incident still makes me feel nauseous. I despise CT theories, but the particulars of this case are red-flag-worthy.

          I've commented before that it is exceedingly simple, requiring few lines of code, to make the values saved in a database different from what appears in a "paper trail" and have seen it happen, due to programmer error. If it can be done by accident, obviously it can be done on purpose.

          My concern is that we, as a nation, have so far officially ignored indications that it may be possible to steal an election thru manipulation of the data, and that possibly, it's already been done at least once.

          It seems like we might not wish to investigate this in order to deny the truly horrifying implications for our democracy on the one hand, to avoid the appearance of political motive, in the case of high level law enforcement, and to avoid appearing unhinged and irresponsible at a personal level.

          Perhaps this is analogous to Clinton unwittingly facilitating the disasterous deregulation of the financial sector in order to demonstrate his trust in the "free market." It could also be analogous to journalists who should know better reporting false equivalencies in order to not appear to be "biased".

          Fraud and self-dealing are endemic in the MIC sectors where many Republican operatives work on their day jobs. It's reasonable, not paranoid, to predict that they behave in the same fashion when running elections.

          •  That's nice but all your IT skills are irrelevant (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Caj, FishOutofWater, BlueStateRedhead

            to talking about a state that in 2004 was NOT USING ELECTRONIC MACHINES and was mostly voting on PAPER BALLOTS counted by the counties. The only official counts came from the counties, and they could not be massaged by the secretary of state or anyone else. And there were very few electronic votes to flip. Up here in Cleveland, we were still on punch cards. The theft of the election, if it occurred, was in the creation of long lines and long waits.

            Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

            by anastasia p on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:39:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  thanks for your contribution on this (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FishOutofWater

              and I respect your view, coming as it does from knowledge of Ohio. I also agree with you on the long lines and lack of access.

              Anonymous has told an extraordinary story, but so far we have not seen the requisite extraordinary proof.

              I still think we need to respond to the risks of hack-prone machines and tabulation  wherever they are used (my state doesn't have this problem) and that the time to do this is now rather than during a campaign. I was irritated to see these stories here coming out 3 days before the election, going on and on about black boxes and vote-flipping. Yes, we've known for years now that the machines can be hacked. How does it help to be focused on this a few days before the election - it doesn't - it's more likely to do harm.

              That said, the electoral process, needs to be regulated by some non-partisan body or agency to ensure that every vote in every county and state really does count.

        •  You were warned above (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cobbler, FishOutofWater, dnta

          In fact, I agree with your top-line premise. The 2004 Ohio election MAY have been stolen. Other posters above have described how: creating chaos and long lines in inner cities so that many economically challenged voters had to leave to get to their jobs with the hourly wages they would otherwise lose. In addition, some questions arose about the vote counts in the blood-red southwestern counties we call the "Blackwell counties" because they were the only ones (plus Holmes) that he carried in the 2006 gubernatorial election. If anything happened there, it almost certainly involved PAPER BALLOTS, which have been used to rig elections for decades if not centuries.

          Once again, there WAS no computer "designed to count Ohio voters." All voters were counted in the individual counties, at that time mostly by hand, although a handful of counties had electronic machines and a number already had scanners. But in 2004, most did not. Results from the counties were fed to the Sos website and perhaps that is what was meant by "real time." But the counts were done by and kept by the counties and could not be massaged outside of the county boards of election.

          No "official vote tabulation" is done by the SoS, who only amassed information fed to him by counties. By the way, we did a recount and found little evidence that anything was amiss. The glitches that occurred (such as the sorting of ballots in Cuyahoga) almost certainly had no impact on the count.

          And I will continue to automatically HR anyone who naively passes on this story as if it were a real possibility.

          Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

          by anastasia p on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:37:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Katrina changed my thinking (16+ / 0-)

      I used to be much more amenable to the thinking that the Bush/Cheney/Rove team had evil mastermind capabilities.

      But that was before Hurricane Katrina.  The response was so bumbling and terrible.  That group of incompetents couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag, let alone steal an election or conspire to create 9-11, and ESPECIALLY coulndt do it without the info leaking.

      Nothing is as evilly imaginative as the mind of a teenage gamer. -- Sychotic1

      by Sarea on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:09:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sarea

        People can be evil without being evil geniuses. To the extent he has been successful in politics (and I think he hasn't been as successful as many believe) Rove has  relied on old fashioned lying, smearing, and appealing to people's worst instincts and fears. You don't need to be a genius for that to work some of the time, especially in an election like 2004 when people were terrified of the world.

    •  Oh I think it's unwise (5+ / 0-)

      to think they can barely ties their shoes or carry out multi-state black ops. Especially with Darth Cheney Vader in their ranks. I'm not saying the Anonymous claim is correct, I'm just saying it's always good not to underestimate the opposition.

    •  So is it CT to post that XX said/wrote that they (7+ / 0-)

      did something unless we have proof that XX indeed did it?

      It would be one thing if I wrote "Bugs Bunny was altering the carrot vote count until Casper stopped him with an invisible net." as though I knew it  than if I say "Hey, Casper just reported that he threw an invisible net over Bugs to stop carrot vote fraud" because I am passing on what Casper said. I'm not saying if it is true.

      Look Casper is invisible so I can't prove it is really Casper. I know there was a diary here where it was reported that Casper publicly warned Bugs he'd be watching and stop him if he tried anything. It is the kind of thing Casper does. We often write about Casper here.

      What if I started and ended the diary with disclaimers, don't know if it's true.
      Look, Bugs is a tricky rabbit and we know he'd alter the carrot vote if he could. We know that many professionals have claimed it's possible and have done demonstrations of how easy and undetectable it can be. The Argonne National Laboratory Vulnerability Assessment Team , under by the Department of Energy, have been warning that up to 1/3 of machines are vulnerable to easy alteration of results.
      Well I think they say an 8th grader with $20 worth of equipment could do it.
      And sometimes tricky rabbits.

      So I am not clear...
      accusations are not the way to go.
      But the possibility, the ease leads to probability somewhere, some time
      Silence doesn't address it and neither does Congress.

      But what can we quote or not quote?

       

      •  Long-settled journalism question (0+ / 0-)

        You quote someone when they make sense, have knowledge, and maybe can show you documents. You make sure you know who they are, even if you go to jail to avoid telling anyone else.

        It was possible (also true, but bear with me) that everyone up to the President was conspiring to obstruct justice in the 70s, but Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have gone to print based solely on an anonymous phone call alleging it.

    •  Let's avoid CT but not go so far in the other (4+ / 0-)

      direction that we can't even discuss what is possible.  I would tend to agree that we shouldn't give to much creedence to the claim we are discussing here.  It is far more believable, given the apparent incompetence regarding the intertubes on the Right, that the Orca system was not properly designed and simply malfunctioned on election day.

      We can't even say that the claim comes from Anonymous (ironically-- that is the thing about staying anonymous-- you can't even prove you are you).

      But let's not call this:

      magical thinking
      Reality is--- computers can be hacked if they aren't properly protected.  Some of the voting systems out there have been tested and shown to be highly hackable.   The Bush team had a computer expert with the skills to do it in 2004.  We have no proof that this was done and the computer guy can't say, since he is dead, but he apparently testified in a deposition that there was nothing illegal done in 2004.  This was headed for court, though-- there was enough evidence that the Bush team had the capability to tamper with the tabulation of the Ohio vote--- to convince a judge to look into the matter.

      As for Anonymous--- I don't see any major press reports on Anonymous hacking Orca, but there is this:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...Anonymous is Hacking Israeli Web Sites

      •  OOPs-- credence, not creedence. nt (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shenderson
      •  [citation needed] (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shliapnikov
        This was headed for court, though-- there was enough evidence that the Bush team had the capability to tamper with the tabulation of the Ohio vote--- to convince a judge to look into the matter.
        The judge allowed Connell to be subpoenaed. That isn't a very high standard of "evidence."

        What makes this "magical thinking" is that the people who talk about it rarely mention that the vast majority of Ohio votes in 2004, and all Ohio votes in 2012, were individually recorded on paper. That doesn't make fraud outright impossible, but it certainly undermines the credibility of people who talk about vulnerabilities of the voting systems without knowing what the systems are.

        Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
        Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

        by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:17:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But were they counted by humans? (0+ / 0-)
          vast majority of Ohio votes in 2004, and all Ohio votes in 2012, were individually recorded on paper.
          That doesn't mean much if all counting is done by machines.  I don't know how it's done in Ohio, but in Florida, ballots are fed through tabulators.  Ain't no way I'm trusting a machine to be correct.  A Reaganism seems appropriate here;  "Trust, but verify".  (Although that always seemed like a stupid phrase; of course you don't trust, that's why you verify).

          I know Florida has a provision for doing a manual audit of 1% of the precincts.  That should be some help.  Naturally, I missed the one in my county; it was done Nov. 16.  Nothing posted yet as to the results of the audit.

          I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

          by tle on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:45:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  right, the ballots and records should be audited (0+ / 0-)

            Ohio has an audit, but it's a late audit.

            However, I can't tell whether you understood my point. You didn't respond to it.

            Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
            Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

            by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 12:22:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What on earth is that supposed to mean — (0+ / 0-)

              "late audit"? You DO know we have to count the provisionals, don't you? And that there are a shitload of them? And that if provisionals didn't exists most of those people wouldn't have gotten to vote, for good reason? I suspect you have NO IDEA what going into processing provisionals, something I have been doing for the last ten days.

              Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

              by anastasia p on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:41:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  the audit is post-certification and can take weeks (0+ / 0-)

                If someone managed to hack the actual scanners and/or DREs, that would probably be uncovered by the audit (depending on how widespread the hacking was) -- but possibly not until after the presidential electors were chosen. That is not best practice for audits.

                FWIW, this isn't just a problem I'm complaining about on Daily Kos; it's a problem I actually work on, by helping to develop more efficient auditing methods.

                You DO know we have to count the provisionals, don't you? And that there are a shitload of them?
                Hey, if you ever have a chance to talk with Jane Platten, I think she will vouch that I am not one to trash election officials and workers. I'm just talking facts about the calendar.
                I suspect you have NO IDEA what going into processing provisionals, something I have been doing for the last ten days.
                Thank you for your hard work, but your assumption is faulty.

                Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
                Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 05:56:31 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Guess not. (0+ / 0-)
              However, I can't tell whether you understood my point. You didn't respond to it.
              You said
              What makes this "magical thinking" is that the people who talk about it rarely mention that the vast majority of Ohio votes in 2004, and all Ohio votes in 2012, were individually recorded on paper.
              and I responded that, if it's still machines doing the counting, having votes on paper doesn't count for much.  I took your statement as refuting the whole idea of campaigns being able to hack the vote,  whereas the use of electronic tabulators makes the existence of paper ballots only relevant if humans get involved in the counting.

              Oh, well.

              I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

              by tle on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 06:52:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  look at what you didn't quote (0+ / 0-)
                That doesn't make fraud outright impossible, but it certainly undermines the credibility of people who talk about vulnerabilities of the voting systems without knowing what the systems are.
                Not "refuting the whole idea of campaigns being able to hack the vote."
                whereas the use of electronic tabulators makes the existence of paper ballots only relevant if humans get involved in the counting.
                At the risk of repeating myself: Ohio has an audit. Ergo, humans do get involved in the counting.

                Moreover -- and more pertinent recently -- the scanners and DREs produce printed records of totals. Checking those records against the reports is another place where humans can get involved.

                If we're stuck in a false binary of whether hacking is undetectable or impossible, of course we won't get very far.

                Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
                Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 07:02:46 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  From Wikipedia article-- (0+ / 0-)

          King Lincoln Bronzeville v. Blackwell is a court case filed on August 31 2006.

          Claims of suit

          The plaintiffs of the case, Willis Brown, Paul Gregory, Miles Curtiss, Matthew Segal, and Harvey Wasserman[2] filed a civil rights action case on behalf of the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association, the Ohio Voter Rights Alliance for Democracy and the League of Young Voters.[2]

          Blackwell, the defendant, was cited in the original complaint as "having conspired to deprive and continue to deprive Ohioans of their right to vote and have, in fact, deprived and continue to deprive Ohioans of their right to vote by, in a selective and discriminatory manner, unfairly allocate election resources (such as voting machines), institute a system of provisional ballots, purge voter registrations, and broke the bi-partisan chain of custody ballots".[2]

          In July, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a document purporting to be a contract between Secy. of State Ken Blackwell and Republican computer consultant Michael Connell, specifying the computer architecture that would allow the White House to have access to Ohio vote counts in real time as they were reported on election night, including the ability to modify those numbers remotely. [11]
          Judge Marbley dismissed the case, on February 7, 2012. [12]
          The court found that: (1) the Eleventh Amendment precludes subject matter jurisdiction before this Court, and this case is now DISMISSED without prejudice (2) Plaintiffs have failed to provide factual or legal bases for deposing local Chamber of Commerce members, and therefore their request to depose local Chamber of Commerce members is DENIED; and (3) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate an evidentiary basis for the Secretary to continue storing the 2004 election ballots, and therefore their request to retain the ballots is DENIED.
          •  That there was discrimination (0+ / 0-)

            in the distribution of voting resources in 2004 is overwhelmingly likely. Where Wasserman et al fucked up is in claiming that there was some kind of capacity for remotely altering results. They should have known better, and this is a perfect example of why we need to stop with the CT contentions. They were fishing, just as Wasserman's colleague Bob Fitrakis was, I believe, when he filed for an injunction to stop the scan count in 39 Ohio counties last week, just in case there was some magical secret software patch installed on the scanning  machinery, which there almost certainly wasn't. Luckily, he failed. If not, we would be counting ballots until Christmas, and Ohio's result would still be up in the air.

            Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

            by anastasia p on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:44:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, I was also relieved that we didn't end up (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chira2, tle

              counting much of Ohio by hand, but I admit that I am not without concerns as far as election security goes.  Frankly, I'm glad that Wasserman and Fitrakis let Ohio know that someone was watching.

              Where Wasserman et al fucked up is in claiming that there was some kind of capacity for remotely altering results. They should have known better, and this is a perfect example of why we need to stop with the CT contentions. They were fishing...
              How do you know that Wasserman and Fitrakis were "just fishing"?  My point is that tampering with an election using computers would not be rocket science for anyone who had knowledge of the system and a few passwords.  I will not say it would be easy, or that it did happen, but these computer systems are in the hands of partisans in many cases and we need to make sure the systems are secure.  So let us avoid CT, but that shouldn't mean that we can't discuss real vulnerabilities or election security.  

              I don't know whether something happened in 2004.  I don't know how much of the information available is actually fact, but the info I've found is this:

               GovTech (owned by Bush's computer guy) was hired by Kenneth Blackwell to set up Ohio's election system---this right here  is something that should never be allowed to happen.  GovTech apparently shifted control of the vote tally late in the day to a company called SmartTech (Republican connected).  Now, if these are the facts... well, I'm glad somebody was at least drawing attention to it.   I'm glad Wasserman and Fitrakis let Ohio know they were paying attention this election as well.

              From Jonathan Turley's website on the case regarding Ohio in 2004 :

              The lead attorney on the case, Cliff Arnebeck, consulted with IT security expert Stephen Spoonamore about the network setup. Specifically, Arnebeck asked Spoonamore whether or not SmarTech had the ability to alter the results of the election.  “Yes. They would have had data input capacities. The system might have been set up to log which source generated the data but probably did not,” Spoonamore responded, further explaining that SmarTech would have had “full access and could change things when and if they want.”
              So...you say that there was no capacity to change results, but Stephen Spoonamore says otherwise.  Can't speak to Spoonamore's credibility, but here is a video interview from 2008 which is actually quite interesting, but long.  I haven't watched the whole thing yet ( he seems knowledgeable-- I don't see any CT here):

              http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/...

               

              •  Spoonamore's assertion makes little sense (0+ / 0-)

                Presumably SmarTech could change things on the web server. But how would that alter the results of the election?

                Here, I pinched myself to make sure that I wasn't making this up -- from Spoonamore's declaration:

                During the evening and early morning on the 2004 General Election in Ohio, on my own computer was watching the results of incoming counties and precincts.   I believed there was a more than likely chance County Tabulators had been programmed to manipulate votes.  
                Oh-kay. So I guess he should have been well situated to collect supporting evidence.
                As early results showed Kerry ahead, at about 11PM, I noticed a trend in a very few counties (I believe I noted 8 counties on  election night) that at about 11PM suddenly began reporting radically different ratios of Kerry to Bush votes.   All in favor of Mr. Bush.
                I don't know what "early results" Spoonamore is talking about, but Kerry was quite stubbornly behind well before 11 PM.

                It's certainly possible that the ratios in 8 counties shifted in Bush's favor, but the lack of specifics is unnerving.

                1. This sudden rate of change allowing a tuning of the system resembled a fraud technique called an Intelligent Man In the Middle, or KingPin Attack.
                "This sudden rate of change allowing a tuning of the system" resembles technobabble, to be frank. But maybe Spoonamore just doesn't write very well.
                2.This Kingpin position in which a central computer sees both ends of a system would explain the wide divergence in results reported from the limited group of counties now referred to as the "Connally Anomaly".
                The "Connally anomaly" isn't anomalous. So it doesn't really need to be explained by a "Kingpin position."
                3. My second analysis, found that my suspected 8 counties, were part of larger group of 12-14 "Connally Anomaly" counties where the results of a down ballot judicial race indicated wildly different voter preferences than the Presidential Race.  
                Did I mention that the Connally anomaly isn't anomalous?
                4.Other experts in voting and statistics have conducted analysis of this event and deemed it "impossible" or "beyond 1 in a Billion" likelihood an election could have had such an outcome.
                [citation needed]

                I don't know who these "experts" are, and Spoonamore isn't telling. The whole argument seems to boil down to: "trust me, I know things -- and people."

                Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
                Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 10:18:31 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Karl Rove tried to eat my cereal this morning (30+ / 0-)

    But I got to it first!

    When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

    by Sun dog on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:46:15 AM PST

  •  I paused in reading your good thoughts (31+ / 0-)

    to tip and rec as I chuckled -- relievedly, I must admit -- to that beautiful zinger from Dr. Pauli and its application in this instance.  That first quoted paragraph so well encompassed your meaning and echoed my own misgivings that it worked quite well on its own as an, apparently, much needed mental balm.

    I hadn't realized how disturbed I'd been by the celebration of this cyberghost story.

    Thanks for the candle.

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:48:00 AM PST

  •  Thank you (33+ / 0-)

    I was embarrassed by the other diary about this.

    Hey, guess what? I stopped Karl Rove from stealing the election. I said I did so I must have, right?

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:49:28 AM PST

  •  What is this accomplishing? (30+ / 0-)

    I don't understand what being the "diary police", attacking diaries in their comment threads and posting "don't post that" diaries accomplishes. It's embarrassing, just like the "47%" debacle. This site is "reality based", but denying realities that are happening because of some  minor detail you disagree with is not being reality based, even if you scream "REALITY BAAAAAAASED!!!!!!" while doing it.

    I agree that the Anon story is a little sketchy. But are you actually accomplishing anything? Voter suppression was rampant in Ohio, and I'm tired of people saying it didn't happen when I saw it myself.

    I'm getting tired of it. What's really embarrassing is you guys comparing people to rightwingers. I don't have time to find examples, but I'm tired of hearing people compared to Freepers or called "the Tea Party Wing" of the left. I see this all the tiime. If any behavior should be banned it's that.

    So that's pretty much all I have to say.  I've said my piece and now I'll move on instead of calling people names, flooding comment threads, and starting HR wars. Because someone else's diary is like someone else's house. I'd like to see that rule actually enforced.

    "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

    by Broke And Unemployed on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:49:43 AM PST

    •  I don't think anyone is saying that. (31+ / 0-)

      I welcome a discussion on the topic but that discussion has to include facts and supporting evidence.  

      You can't just go on the intertubes in a mask and make wild claims without any sort of proof.  For all you know, I posted that video.

      Again I welcome the discussion but that discussion has to start with the party making the claims laying out concrete facts to be examined.

      •  disagree (5+ / 0-)

        When a crime is committed, the first thing investigators do is to look to those with a known track record of committing similar crimes. For instance, after a bank robbery cops look for known criminals who are suddenly flush with new cash.

        Means, motive, opportunity, and circumstantial evidence must precede the gathering of "concrete" evidence. And in the absence of provable evidence, it's still legitimate to raise pertinent questions and take a closer look at the suspects.

        I admit that this is tangential to the "Anonymous" diary, which laid out unprovable claims as fact, but I feel that in this context my point has a place in the discussion.

        Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

        by drewfromct on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:02:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, there were people saying (23+ / 0-)

        a lot of that last night.  I thought a bigger point was being raised about voting integrity -- whether the Anon story was intriguing folklore or not.  I had argued that the discussion was at least a valid one to have until Markos threatened with the ban wand again.  I thought it was inflammatory at best to loop some of the folk there in the same boat as the tea baggers, especially when some of them clearly understood IT matters.

        I think the bigger issue as I see it, is not so much whether Anon stopped anything, but whether this kind of election fraud is actually possible with the equipment that we use today.

        I did a lot of reading as a result of last night's thread and I can tell you that I'm not comfortable with foreign entities' ownership of proprietary code software systems that some states rely upon to process and tabulate votes.  That should give pause to any American who is serious about voting integrity.  I'm no longer  comfortable with 50 states having 50 different ways of collecting and processing the vote.  The Constitution does allow for the government to put into place uniform standards.  

        If the states cannot demonstrate that they can do a better job at this process, then some steps need to be taken.  

        Voter integrity in my mind involves both eliminating voter suppression tactics as well as transparency with the voting process to have a reasonable assurance that no election fraud can occur from the voters who vote to the people and institutions responsible for taking care of our vote.

        "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

        by smoothnmellow on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:20:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I just said the same thing above (4+ / 0-)

          and then saw your comment where you stated it more eloquently.

          I did a lot of reading as a result of last night's thread and I can tell you that I'm not comfortable with foreign entities' ownership of proprietary code software systems that some states rely upon to process and tabulate votes.  That should give pause to any American who is serious about voting integrity.  I'm no longer  comfortable with 50 states having 50 different ways of collecting and processing the vote.  The Constitution does allow for the government to put into place uniform standards.  

          If the states cannot demonstrate that they can do a better job at this process, then some steps need to be taken.  

          Voter integrity in my mind involves both eliminating voter suppression tactics as well as transparency with the voting process to have a reasonable assurance that no election fraud can occur from the voters who vote to the people and institutions responsible for taking care of our vote.

        •  Your comments were excellent, IMO (8+ / 0-)

          We need a full discussion of the integrity of our elections.

          look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

          by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:37:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I would go for that. (10+ / 0-)

            I do think it's important.  I don't want to have to worry every two years or so whether I can trust the results coming out of Ohio or even New Mexico or Arizona for that matter -- I think those states also had massive problems with counting the vote.  

            And I just plain get tired of Florida's 18th century way of freaking collecting the damn vote.  This is America, 2012 on its way into 2013 and we can't come close to getting this right?

            I for one will no longer ignore this problem.  We have GOT to insist on a better voting process all around or we are just begging for these folklore stories to turn into fact based reality.

            "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

            by smoothnmellow on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:47:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  credibility (24+ / 0-)

      the site has more credibility because of this tendency to police ourselves.  If we ran off with everything that sounded true because it fits in with our expectations of the world, we would wind up pushing all kinds of crap that winds up being proven untrue.  That the anon story was put up in a diary isn't the problem.  The facts are that someone claiming to be from 'Anonymous' is making a grandiose claim about saving the election.  No evidence is given.  It's just something we could believe because Rove is an evil piece of shit.  But believing just any and everything that sounds plausible without any real world evidence doesn't do anyone any good besides people who want to point to this site as a crackpot haven that serious people can ignore.  

      I wouldn't be here after all these years without the pesky "police."  

      It should have told people something when that diarist ended the CT piece with

      To borrow a slogan, I report, and you decide

      When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

      by Sun dog on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:56:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This diary police thing is killing our credibility (7+ / 0-)

        It's having the opposite effect of what is intended. Many diaries have been attacked and HR'd in the comments that were true, like 47% or Bainport.

        When people click on a diary like and see all these childish fights in the comments it makes people think twice before taking anything they see on DailyKos seriously. It's just sad.

        "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

        by Broke And Unemployed on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:01:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Most appropriately attacked (10+ / 0-)

          That just doesn't make any sense.  Avoiding CT is important for this site's credibility. There are other places to go on the internet if you want to chase around every crazy claim.

          It was good to wait until the 47% comment was verified. What does "being first" matter?  

          •  "It was good that the 47% comment was verified"??! (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chidmf, dennis1958, RMForbes, ivote2004

            Which is Newspeak for "it was doubleplusgood that the 47% video was ruthlessly attacked even though it was true"

            Wow. I'm starting to think this site is beyond help. I thought the piefights were just election stress, but you guys actually belieive this crap, that ruthlessly attacking things you disagree with somehow helps this community.

            "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

            by Broke And Unemployed on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:20:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe if that diarist hadn't taken the (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Smoh, IndieGuy, erush1345

              cloak and dagger approach to presenting that information and played it straight instead, they wouldn't have been doubted off the site?

              Hmmm?

              You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

              by kenlac on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:57:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe if members hadn't demanded (4+ / 0-)

                that a newbie diarist needed to suck up to them or get autobanned? None of the things the diarist did and got HR'd for were against the rules.

                That was a case of diary police making up rules to suit them.

              •  Well, that's what the comment section (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FishOutofWater

                is for -- to agree or disagree.  Many expressed very strong comments against the diary and they were all duly noted.

                I mean, we all adults here or so I hope.  At some point, we progressives need to understand that we are going to disagree on many things.  This is what makes us different from the right.  We should be able to do so without a nuclear meltdown or cyber bullies attacking posters or concerned or not so concerned trollers commandeering the flow of conversation.

                Of course, I also say this in concert with the rules established for this forum.

                "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

                by smoothnmellow on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:32:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  There are lots of people yelling on street corners (0+ / 0-)

              If they try to push their way into your house, there's nothing wrong with pushing them out until they make their case.

              In a better world, unsupported accusations could be regarded neutrally. In a world where they're being used as deliberate poison, they should be vomited out before they make us sick.

          •  I am very much *NOT* the diary police (18+ / 0-)

            Kos does that job.

            I was explaining why I think Kos is correct in this case. I don't like net scolds and I don't intend to be one. However, I am sick of CT on climate change and I don't want to let this site end up looking like the comments section of a MSM news article on climate change. The noise kills rational discussion.

            look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

            by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:41:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  FOW, I really support your work on Climate Change (5+ / 0-)

              and follow and read you with regular interest.

              However, I wonder, how did you see a parallel between the diary that reported a letter from Anonymous and:

              I am sick of CT on climate change and I don't want to let this site end up looking like the comments section of a MSM news article on climate change.
              There are crimes that are being committed against humanity by climate change deniers and the helplessness and fury in the face of them is limitless.  

              However, how does discussing a report re. a letter from Anonymous and considering its reality, equal to the magnitude of climate change denial?  The letter may or may not be true and if I understand the discussion, most people were able to hold that undecided but inquiring position.  How is that a CT?

              Are you perhaps justifiably sensitized on CT theories on climate change and perhaps a little to ready to see CT very quickly in other areas as well?  I say this with utmost respect of you.

              I think that your diary is a good contribution to the discussion and thank you for what you have brought to the table, however imo, it is not a conclusive one. This discussion must continue and not be silenced.  There are more sides to be looked at and I think some of the minority voices are trying to bring those sides to the table.  And are being shouted down.  

              I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the Anonymous story re. Rove.  I am open to it and would like to investigate it.  This is an opportunity for this community and the world at large to educate itself and inform itself more about Anonymous and the range of cyber warfare of all kinds.  I believe our future will be defined by it.  And 'hacktivists' will be/are our new warriors or terrorists, depending on your point of view.

              So, it becomes very, very important that we learn to separate the wheat from the chaff on this subject.  Open, rational discussion is the pathway to do that.

              Thank you for your important contribution to the discussion.

               

              It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. ~~Joseph Stalin

              by SeaTurtle on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:24:48 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  But that diary was not talking about (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FishOutofWater

              climate change and I don't think I would lump this in with the Anon discussion.  The whole CT thing on CC was coming from a very well orchestrated manipulation on the right as well as the complicity of the main stream media not doing their jobs as journalists.  I have to say again that our real problem is the press and the deregulation of media by the FCC.  This is yet another issue that at some point needs to addressed.  For all our sake.

              "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

              by smoothnmellow on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:37:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think that everyone is in agreement (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Einsteinia

            to what constitutes CT.  I certainly do not think that avoiding any such stories hits at DK's credibility because of the self-policing that goes on here.

            But it does make for ugly pie fights.

            Of course, that's just my opinion on the matter and does not reflect the actual rules of this forum.

            "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

            by smoothnmellow on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:27:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Did you miss the diary (4+ / 0-)

              from James Carter III (under pseudonym) offering the 47% videos? Or Markos' reaction well after the fact when HuffPo revealed the source? The diary police were disgusting then, no more disgusting when Kos finally weighed in with his whine.

              Do we know the name of the wait-service employee who planted the recorder to get the 47% videos? No - to this day we don't have a name. That didn't invalidate the videos one bit, did it? Though to judge from the diary police here, it was the biggest Conspiracy Theory since the grassy knoll.

              You can't have it both ways. Markos set the no CT rule and turned the self-appointed diary police loose to use nothing more than their personal disagreement as reason to make hash of any diary's comment section. According to this diary he is once again re-enforcing that sort of thing, against a diary that merely reported a news story and made no claims of veracity. If ever there is an official investigation of Rove's program based on evidence provided by Anonymous to those whose job it is to investigate such things, I for one don't want to see another whine from ownership.

              •  How do you know it was James Carter III? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ballerina X

                P.S. I am not a crackpot.

                by BoiseBlue on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:34:02 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  To clarify, how do you know that is who was (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau, erush1345

                  posting the videos here? I know how he was involved in this, but I've never seen anything about him being the person posting the videos here.

                  P.S. I am not a crackpot.

                  by BoiseBlue on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:34:51 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  wasn't that poster suggested to be a female by (0+ / 0-)

                    some 3rd-party poster?

                    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

                    by Murphoney on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:43:12 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I can't recall (0+ / 0-)

                      I was absent during most of it, but this is the first time I've heard the claim that it was actually James Carter III that was posting the videos here and banned.

                      But there was another poster who was banned shortly after, who seemed to be carrying a grudge on behalf of the first banned user. That's probably the person you're referencing.

                      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

                      by BoiseBlue on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:53:10 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Hmmm... come to think of it, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    la urracca

                    we don't know for a fact it was him. Could have been the food-service employee his/herself. Though when HuffPo did the legwork his is the credibility that got attached to it.

                    Either way, the video clips were entirely straightforward - Mitt Romney in a "quiet room" full of his rich minions saying what he really thinks. It was one of the more damaging revelations of the entire election season. CT troll-rated into oblivion here more because there were a number of diaries with different segments than because the clips were to be considered fake.

                    Didn't make the diary police pile-ons seem very smart, very perceptive, or anything remotely resembling noble. Quite the opposite, in fact.

              •  Actually, yes I did see the diary. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joieau

                The point that I was making is that we as progressives are very strong and varied in our opinions.  We don't march in lockstep and we couldn't even if we tried to.  Pushback is a good thing, but the trick is when to note when things are becoming unbalanced -- either way.  Rules are good things to enforce the boundaries, but there are going to be times when Admin has to make that call to either let it flow or shut it down.  I don't fret about the diary police too much, or at least I try not to.  The biggest thing to do (and the hardest at times) is to walk away when the discussion is pointless.

                I don't want to push this much further, because Markos has sided with the policing faction and that's the way it goes, but I never got the impression that the OD in the other diary was pushing a meme supporting the story, rather than reporting on it.  I had already heard about the story and I wondered why it hadn't been diaried before last night because it was a story being reported, that's all.

                But if we aren't to diary on stories that is being reported because it falls into a conspiracy theory, then I guess that's the way it is to be here.

                "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

                by smoothnmellow on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:57:51 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  It's editing that makes a newspaper (0+ / 0-)

                That wouldn't have been a "news story" in any newspaper with an experienced editor.

        •  When they come on to the site (9+ / 0-)

          and see insane gibberish posing as factual argument, that also leaves a bad taste.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:09:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Like the Repubs' current Benghazi insanity. (14+ / 0-)

            It's like they are speaking in tongues on right-wing sites, and it's totally repellant to actual sane people.

            So sad. And I'm cheering them on as they shoot themselves in the foot, just as Romney did in the debates.

            That is where unpoliced (or encouraged) conspiracy theorizing leads.

            And may I just add that I have always appreciated the Daily Kos ban on conspiracy theory. I have seen it keep this community on track, and reality based.

            And in the run-up to the Iraq war, when I came here, having reality as I was seeing it confirmed was primary to me, as I was surrounded by nonsensical propaganda. I was surrounded, in other words, by the media propounding utter and transparent bullshit, even on the front page of the New York Times (yeah, I know, I was so naive). That is in some ways the genesis of this site--as the reality based alternative to lies and propaganda in a right-wing controlled media messaging.

            There is no substitute for reality, and for reasonable proof.

            And may I say, I sincerely thank you, Kos. And all my fellow Kossacks who insist on remaining a reality based community. Thank you all.

            Life is a school, love is the lesson.

            by means are the ends on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:47:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  This post is insane gibberish (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Broke And Unemployed

            posted by an anonymous member who hides behind the handle "CwV". Keep digging.

            •  You really think so? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              IndieGuy, ConfusedSkyes

              And your real name is Angela Quattrano?
              Whatev.

              If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

              by CwV on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:10:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  My name is not Angela Quattrano (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joieau, Broke And Unemployed, Thumb

                any more than yours is CwV. It makes no sense whatever to demand that nothing be posted on this site until long after it has made every other news source and then been proven by an investigation that results in a conviction.

                Unless, of course, you are trying to say that the sole purpose of this site should be bonding between members.

                Neither one of us has any credibility as a function of this site, which is why setting yourself up to be a site cop is so absurd.

                •  I'm not a "cop" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  houyhnhnm

                  I didn't set the rules, I don't enforce them, I'm not able to H/R even.
                  But, as someone who has a few conspiracy theories of my own, I'm respectful of kos and the other longterm, high-mojo players here that I generally keep them to myself.
                  And actually, CwV are my initials, in f2f world, I'm "CV" to many of the people around me but I couldn't get away with just two letters.

                  If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                  by CwV on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:34:14 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Childish fights? (9+ / 0-)

          I could care less.  What I like about dkos is that if a story lives here I know it has passed the smell test with some pretty sensitive noses.  If a few things get missed because they are poorly sourced or presented, that's a fair price for having credibility.  

          What you just said makes absolutely no sense.  You're arguing for Stephen Colbert's 'Truthiness.'  We should just shut up and not demand proof is a story feels true.  In that case, this site would have blended in with all the other noise in the world a long time ago.  

          When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

          by Sun dog on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:11:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You could care less. (0+ / 0-)

            Got it. Who cares about this community. Diaries you disagree with must be TAKEN DOWN!!!! NOW!!!

            "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

            by Broke And Unemployed on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:26:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I enjoy argument and disagreement (5+ / 0-)

              And I'm not making anyone do anything here.

              However, Kos has been known to ban people very quickly. I miss Stranded Wind and Mary Scott O'Connor. I don't like seeing good people get banned.

              look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

              by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:13:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  That's perfect (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zett, salamanderempress

              You sound like kids I knew in third grade.  

              Like I said, I don't care about the childish fights because they're inevitable on a forum like this.  What has kept me coming back for years now is the fact that all the sound and fury of childish clowns doesn't drown out the truth in the long run like it does in most of the 'mainstream.'  

              I saw that Anonymous saved the election thing on the rec list and thought, Really?!?  And then I saw there was zero evidence.  It was a story someone wrote and finished with the FOX NEWS slogan!  And I knew that because this is dailykos, the story wasn't going to have legs.  And if it did have legs, it was going to be because someone came up with actual evidence that the story is real.  

              This is such a stupid argument.  You're trying to insult me because I'm arguing for verifiable facts over truthiness.  Grow up and quit wasting people's time.  

              When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

              by Sun dog on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:54:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  What you like about this site (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Broke And Unemployed

            is that no news is ever posted until after the investigation is complete, convictions have been obtained, and it has long been forgotten by every site that deals in timely news.

            I like the edgy stuff. You don't. You need safety and security. You want obedience to authority, even if it is self-appointed and gets to make up rules as they go.

            •  Wow you know me so well (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              salamanderempress
              I like the edgy stuff. You don't. You need safety and security. You want obedience to authority, even if it is self-appointed and gets to make up rules as they go.
              With all due respect, fuck you and the strawman you rode in on.  :-)

              When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

              by Sun dog on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 02:03:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Fuck you and the straw man you rode in on"... (0+ / 0-)

                That's what you said, somehow thinking it helps this discussion.

                I'll go back  to not commenting, just thought everyone should see what you said without having to click on the comment. Everyone should be aware of the tactics the conspiracy hunters use. You guys seem to think that the nastier you are, the more you insult people, the deeper the wedge you drive into this community, that it somehow helps this site's "credibility".

                "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

                by Broke And Unemployed on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:06:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  THIS (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            InsultComicDog, Lost and Found

            I'll gladly trade a missed story for a community that rejects pure conspiracy theories.

            Not even close.

            And for everyone mentioning that 47% diary -- the diarist never included the full video. It was audio-only. And just 5-8-second clips at that. Had that person diaried the full video (which is what the younger Jimmy Carter convinced him to do), the results would've been much different.

        •  You seem to be the only one in this diary (10+ / 0-)

          Who views this as a fight, let alone a childish one, just as you appear unable to see the difference between voter suppression and vote fraud.

          Your objections are noted, but this seems to be a childish fight in and of itself.

          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

          by BoiseBlue on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:17:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Wait, what? (5+ / 0-)

          You're saying that banning conspiracy theories is hurting our credibility?

          Maybe it hurts our credibility among the truther and birther crowds, but beyond that I don't see how anyone can rationally reach this conclusion.

          Taking jokes seriously is the exact mirror activity of laughing if someone says they have cancer. --jbou

          by Caj on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:31:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Broke And Unemployed

        This is a site where the majority of members use handles that makes them essentially anonymous and with zero credibility.

        Only front pagers and others who use their own names have any credibility. You are an anonymous poster who goes by the handle of "Sun dog". You have zero credibility.

        •  I think you're confusing two things here (8+ / 0-)

          Anonymous claims, presented with no evidence, have no credibility.  If we claimed to have hacked Rove's secret vote-hacking software, with no evidence provided beyond a vague (and oddly confused) letter, then yes, that would have no credibility.  Its anonymity is part of that---we don't know if this was a security expert, a CS professor, or a 13-year-old who just watched "The Net" with Sandra Bullock.

          That doesn't mean anonymous people have no credibility.  An anonymous person posting something independently verifiable, like evidence, or logical argument, is perfectly credible---the anonymity is not an issue in that case, because it does not interfere with the verification process.

          In this case, there's no way of knowing if this Anonymous letter was wishful thinking by a junior high school kid who wants to be L33T.  If you are at all familiar with hacker culture, you'd know that happens pretty frequently.

          Taking jokes seriously is the exact mirror activity of laughing if someone says they have cancer. --jbou

          by Caj on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:41:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I've left a message board because of CTs (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sun dog, melfunction

        It covered an area that fascinated me. I had to leave because it was taken over by garbage. The first person to go on my ignore list there said that the Haiti earthquake was a secret US weapons test. 9/11 nuts and anti-vaccine people followed. When I got to four dozen people on my ignore list and was still wading through offal to get to interesting things I gave up.

        Crap attracts crap. It has to be stomped on before it's too late.

    •  Confusion. (25+ / 0-)

      Mentioning "voter suppression" in the same sentence with the Anonymous claim is a complete non sequitur.

    •  No one is disputing that voter suppresion occurred (22+ / 0-)

      That DOES NOT equal Karl Rove stealing the election.

      Those are two different things. One of them is a reality, the other a paranoid fear.

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:56:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Voter suppression (18+ / 0-)

      is accomplished via visible, quasi-"legal" manipulation of actions, closing of of venues, limiting machinery, and other such things.

      It can be fought and beaten through collective action taken by aware, informed, and active citizens.

      Election theft via secret hacks, codes, and software worms controlled from afar by secret servers is beyond the ability of most activists, voters, and "normal" (i.e. not computer experts) people.

      The former requires action and cooperation, and the latter invites despair.

      The fact that the latter has never be actually demonstrated, nor has any actual documented proof of long-term, long-distance actual vote retabulation been presented.

      Conspiracy theories are not frowned upon because they're silly (silly is good!), nor are they frowned upon because they're a waste of time (caturdae pooties!)... they're frowned upon because they're deadening, enervating, hope-stealing, cooperation-killing, empowerment-derailing psychobabble dressed up to look pretty.

      As I said on the prior thread: show the documentation via server logs, attempted log-ins, time-stamps... or shush.

      The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

      by RedDan on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:01:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I personally appreciate (30+ / 0-)

      the occasional diaries that caution us against sloppy and/or self-indulgent thinking. There are many benefits to this community of shared attitudes, but there are also pitfalls such as mutual back-patting, becoming our own echo chamber.

      If the political pendulum does swing back to the left, some incisive self-criticism will extend the amount of time we remain effective and relevant.

      I'd like to pause here to remember George Carlin, who used to call us on our smugness and remind us that we are all assholes.  It's up to us to carry on without him.

      Thanks, FishOutofWater.  Nice work.

      •  political mutt wins the diary comment thread (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh, political mutt

        More seriously, though, I have been guilty a time or two myself of accepting as gospel things that make the other side look bad and are emotionally satisfying but have zero basis in reality.

        I didn't read the diary in question at all, much less the comments. But just looking at the title my bullshit detector went off right away. That story didn't even put the ball in play as far as my "smell test" is concerned.

        liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

        by RockyMtnLib on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:20:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually... (8+ / 0-)

      ...the rule involving CT explicitly notes that people posting or spreading CT on this site should expect ridicule and derision.

      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

      by Addison on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  nu? (8+ / 0-)
      This site is "reality based", but denying realities that are happening because of some minor detail you disagree with is not being reality based
      I agree with that in the abstract. I have no idea how it applies here.

      Moreover, I've found that people who are predisposed to CT tend to think that CT diaries and comments somehow reflect "reality" regardless of how wrong they are.

      Voter suppression was rampant in Ohio, and I'm tired of people saying it didn't happen when I saw it myself.
      That might be a good point, but only if you can explain the connection.

      Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
      Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

      by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:07:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Read the diary to the bottom. The problem w noise. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, Smoh, liberte, terrypinder

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:27:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  ASDF (8+ / 0-)
      So that's pretty much all I have to say.  I've said my piece and now I'll move on instead of calling people names, flooding comment threads, and starting HR wars. Because someone else's diary is like someone else's house. I'd like to see that rule actually enforced.
      Or not, eh?

      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

      by Addison on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:34:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I'm done. (0+ / 0-)

        I didn't expect such an immediate, forceful response so I ended up responding to just about all of them. But I'm done wasting my time in this diary. We'll see how this "small tent" strategy works in 2014 though,.

        You won't have Broke and Unemployed to kick around, because gentlemen, this is my last comment in this diary.

        "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

        by Broke And Unemployed on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:40:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're quite the expert pugelist. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Smoh, virginislandsguy

          That straw man is in about 50 pieces. Equating calling out CT bullshit with wanting to censor diaries because of mere disagreement, and then accusing us of wanting a small tent: Wow! Just, wow (smh)!

          liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

          by RockyMtnLib on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:26:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The straw man in action (3+ / 0-)

            There is a misunderstanding here about the difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories. Real conspiracies, where 2 or more people work together in secret, happen all the time.

            The demand that no true conspiracy ever be suggested on the site because conspiracy theories like Area 51 exist is just a convenient way of calling for censorship and suppression.

            You want a feel-good bonding place where nothing will ever challenge your preconceived notions. If you convert this site into that place it will indeed be a small-tent site where the only "news" is really old news.

            •  My preconceived notions have been (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              virginislandsguy, melfunction

              challenged on a regular basis here. But in exactly zero cases have I had to rethink anything because someone posted an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

              Remember the rule? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

              liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

              by RockyMtnLib on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:22:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  res ipsa loquitur (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                teehsu

                is a legal concept that places the burden of that PROOF on the people with the insider knowledge -- YET the courts keep on upholding the trade secret privilege of voting companies using OUR money and OUR democracy.  

                Btw, we have tons of proof on the hackability of our systems, but if you think it is easy for any of us mere mortals to have the ability to invade the computers systems to have that extraordinary proof you want, then IF this allegations of wrongdoing are correct, the perpetrators will never be caught at this rate.

                Heckuva job!

                Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

                by Einsteinia on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 02:50:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  but if someone is accused of a crime (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Einsteinia

                  the burden of proof still lies with the accuser. It doesn't change when it's election law.

                  liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

                  by RockyMtnLib on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:05:38 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please read this previous DailyKos (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bluezen

                    diary that explains there are times when the burden of proof is reversed, and election systems would seem to be a prime candidate for the reasons outlined in this diary (which went viral when published and the co-author I later discovered is a highly reputable insider and attorney):

                    http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

                    by Einsteinia on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:15:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  wow. what a diary! thank you so much for the (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Einsteinia

                      link.  any thoughts of reposting it as a rebuttal to the naysayers?  i don't know who's right in the case of anonymous' claims but that diary is fucking mind-blowing!

                      it was quite a trip, too, to read the comments & the old recommend system.  i think that was still being used when i originally joined in 2008 (under another name -- which i forgot/lost!).  ahh, memories :)

                      •  Thank you! Yes, the ol' days (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bluezen

                        which unfortunately are still these days.

                        The unbelievable back-lash to even trying to discuss election integrity without the PROOF, yet this is not within our reach.  

                        This diary is superb thanks to Major Tom (who I later found out was/is a VERY important person).

                        Feel free to use that diary and repost.

                        Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

                        by Einsteinia on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 04:39:39 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  i would repost it but i don't know how to do it! (0+ / 0-)

                          i tried to link your link (that sounds odd, doesn't it) to a comment downthread where someone said, "hey, where's the proof that voting machines can be tampered with? until i see the proof . . . " etc., but i couldn't do it right, so i gave up.

                          hopelessly tech-challenged, i guess :)

                    •  Read that previous diary (0+ / 0-)

                      and fair enough. Still the issue in FOoW's diary here and the diary from yesterday it referenced isn't whether Republicans in general or Karl Rove in particular have engaged in election chicanery. I know of no non-troll here who denies that.

                      The issue at hand here is narrow: whether Anonymous uncovered such activity. That's not a claim I would just accept at face value.

                      liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

                      by RockyMtnLib on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:39:25 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

    •  am with you, B&U (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Broke And Unemployed

      tx for comments

      It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. ~~Joseph Stalin

      by SeaTurtle on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:02:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "denying realities that are happening because of s (0+ / 0-)

      Is anyone denying voter suppression?

    •  But it really wasn't about the diary; the diary (0+ / 0-)

      Is a case in point and not unique. This diary is about a mode of thinking that is toxic to rational discussion. Also, Kos has set very few strictly enforced rules for this site, and the policy against CT's is the rare exception to that. Kos has asked for community policing on this front, and there's absolutely nothing wrong withe diarist taking steps to affirm the community that Kos has built. If you don't want to take larger lessons from this diary, that says something about you, not the diarist. Nevermind that you're doing some policing here yourself. If you don't like it, there's always the option of ignoring it.

  •  What about a simple gut check? (6+ / 0-)

    No, we cannot prove or disprove that Rove attempted to rig the election, but it is simple common sense that he had the motivation, even if not necessarily  the means and the opportunity to do so. So the notion that he might have done so should ring true to any intelligent observer. And I would also say that the same analysis should apply to Anonymous, if, in fact, Anonymous or any analog to it could even be proven to exist.

    I don't like the ban on "CT" here because it seems to go so far as to also rule out fair questioning and honest speculation. People should not make unprovable claims, yes, but I see nothing wrong with raising legitimate questions.

    Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

    by drewfromct on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:51:47 AM PST

  •  I was hoping that shit show would be gone this am (13+ / 0-)

    But it's still on the rec list.

    How embarrassing.

    Thanks for this.

  •  CJ Cregg (From The West Wing) (17+ / 0-)

    "There is no group of people this large in the world that can keep a secret. I find it comforting. It's how I know for sure that the government isn't covering up aliens in New Mexico."  
             - C.J. Cregg (The West Wing) on conspiracy theories.

    “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

    by RoIn on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:53:47 AM PST

    •  Um, no. (3+ / 0-)

      Secrets can be kept through compartmentalization, motivation, and discipline. Thousands of workers were employed on the Manhattan Project but didn't tell what they were doing because they didn't know. Two or three of the top scientists did leak details to Stalin because they believed that the secret should have been shared, and security was lax enough to let them get away with it. Compare that to the Soviet atom bomb project which was successfully kept secret until they detonated their first test weapon.

      Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

      by drewfromct on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There are ways for a small tight group of insiders (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DarkestHour

      can make a large conspiracy work. What I call the Bank Shot method:
      (This is for explanation purposes, not a CT that I'm championing) Say you are Dick Cheney and you want to move the country from relatively satisfied, relatively peaceful, relatively prosperous, to one where your personal and party interests can be fed. If you can p!ss off a bunch of hardline Jihadists enough, you can get them to attack US without having any ties to them. They become your co-conspirators without being part of the in group. And because they were bumped rather than convinced, if they are caught, they can't point the blame back at you, in fact the deeper you dig, the less evidence there is for an agreed upon conspiracy. It's a bank shot, off the bumper, into the pocket.
      This is where the "Truthers" fall down. They fully believe that there was a massive conspiracy that must have encompassed thousands of people and not one of those people has  written the Kiss&tell and collected the $20Million.
      An effective conspiracy, even one of massive proportions, can in this way, limit the number of possible leaks while moving large forces who have no awareness that they are being manipulated.
      That said, I'd want to hear from the software engineers that actually worked on ORCA (if they haven't died of embarrassment over how poorly their system worked) before signing on to the idea that they were poised to hack swing state tabulators or whatever.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:33:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  total conspiracy bullshit (8+ / 0-)

    thanks for this!

    Victory is sweet-November 6, 2012

    by al23 on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:55:17 AM PST

  •  I think an easier way for anyone to judge this (5+ / 0-)

    idea about Anonymous is -

    IF Karl Rove had the capability to rig an election without anyone finding out, do you think he would?

    A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people ... restore their government to it's true principles.

    by maddrailin on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:55:29 AM PST

  •  The complement to "not even wrong" is the (12+ / 0-)

    story about the quantum mechanics seminar at Columbia in the early days of that theory. Coming out of it a senior scientist said to the presenter, "We are agreed that your approach is crazy. What we can't agree about is whether your theory is crazy enough."

    Quantum mechanics is pretty much the only realm I know where "crazy enough" is one of the criteria for the theory.



    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:56:17 AM PST

  •  If it can't be falsified (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    it isn't science.  It's that simple.

    •  that cuts both ways (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hooper

      can't falsify that Anon did anything

      also can't falsify that they never did anything.

      So abstaining from debating one way or another is the only option

    •  If no investigation ever takes place (0+ / 0-)

      how can any crime be proven or falsified? The purpose here is to keep investigation from taking place.

    •  Fortunately, issues of (0+ / 0-)

      crime and punishment have little to do with science. Instead, we've got "reasonable doubt." Lots and lots of people convicted of crimes over the years weren't guilty of committing them, and many who were acquitted were in fact guilty. Human justice doesn't lay claim to scientific discipline. It does, however, rely upon evidence, and that can be circumstantial rather than physical.

  •  I refused to even open that other diary (8+ / 0-)

    but eagerly opened this when I saw it was from FishOutofWater.

    I was not disappointed! Thank you Fish!

    •  ugggh (0+ / 0-)

      firstly, sycophancy is nauseating.

      I was not disappointed! Thank you Fish
      What makes you so smart? Can you add anything other than an arbitrary choice to not believe? How's this better than the choice to believe?

      You're piling onto one point of view without any cogent reason or basis with the implication that you're better. And you toss in your sycophantic paean - makes me feel ill.

      If you can't add to it, then abstain. At least give substantive reasons - just saying "t'aint so" is so 5-year old.

      If you only ever want to read stuff you agree with why are you here?

  •  "Not even wrong" has another meaning: (22+ / 0-)

    Something so nonsensical that it doesn't scan.  When grading mathematics homework, you have right answers, wrong answers (a proof with a mistake), and brain dumps that are so confusing and amorphous that you are sucked in, deer-in-headlights style, unable to even explain what's wrong with it.  

    The alleged letter from Anonymous (anyone can claim to be Anonymous) is a little like this.  It talks about putting a firewall on the three "tunnels" that Rove's ORCA users would follow to connect to a server.  That doesn't seem to click with what a firewall is, or how the Internet works.  

    If I write an app that allows lots of people to connect to a  server, there isn't like 3 Internet "tunnels" that connect the cell phone to the server---routing is more sophisticated than that---and you don't put a firewall on a route to block it, either.   Firewalls are used to filter traffic passing into/out of a network.  

    So this letter is like telling someone that you stopped a burglar by installing a deadbolt on the 3 roads between his house and yours.

    Taking jokes seriously is the exact mirror activity of laughing if someone says they have cancer. --jbou

    by Caj on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:59:14 AM PST

    •  So you are telling me that Ted Stevens and his (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      liberte

      merry men blocked the minute McCoup.  105 times.  And do the winds blowing in the barn door mean what I think it means.

      Hey, GOP - Get In, Sit Down, Shut up, & Hang On!

      by 88kathy on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:07:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  ah, but that was explained: (4+ / 0-)

      the letter was anonymized, and that's why it makes no sense!

      Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
      Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

      by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:13:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wasn't sure if this meaning applied. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      liberte, Smoh, pgm 01

      I don't know enough about the inner workings of the internet to know if the claims about the hack are nonsense. I am aware of this meaning which is discussed at the rational wiki.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:33:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's always hard to tell with technical articles (7+ / 0-)

      that use terminology incorrectly where the incorrect terminology was first used.  It's unclear whether the person claiming to be representing Anonymous was "dumbing down" the message for public dissemination or was actually using terminology incorrectly out of pure ignorance of the real meanings of the words used.

      I am falling on the side of "this is most likely untrue" because if actual computer experts wrote a release like this, they would have done one of two things:

      (1) - Dumbed it down for public dissemination, and therefore avoided using technical terms that have precise meanings at odds with what they're saying, so that it's perfectly clear to the computer professionals out there that it was dumbed down deliberately.

      or

      (2) - Left it "smart" so people in the know could check if what they were saying made sense, in which case they'd have used correct terminology and left it up to others to translate it into common speak.

      But what they would not want to do is use precise terminology, but use it incorrectly on purpose.  They wouldn't want to do that because it would detract from the verisimilitude of their claim.  If there really was a problem like this, the last thing they'd want to do is say "We stopped it this once.  Problem solved we're done here now."  They'd want to give people a better explanation so an investigation wold have something to work with.  Simply announcing they stopped Rove, does nothing more than tell him to change his methods next time, if it was true, so it would be a stupid thing to do.  That's why I don't think they did it.

      •  agreed! Not a suffient response. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dogs are fuzzy, Dr Seuss

        If anyone hacked into the secret vote stealing software, the absolute best approach would be to publish what they found.  

        Expose the vote stealing software so computer experts around the globe could pick it apart and show how it would have worked.

        It is too incredibly easy to steal an election on electronic voting machines if you control the software that records the votes (and there is no effective paper trail to catch you after the fact).  

        I am a computer professional and I cannot believe that we do not require our governments to force voting machine companies to turn over all of their software to experts of each state's choosing (or better yet, make completely open to the public all software).  Without a thorough review of the code of all voting software which runs an election, it CANNOT be proved that the election vote counts are accurate.

        What TN does to "verify" the accurate workings of its voting machines is to run some trials on the machines before election day.   If the totals in the trial are accurate, they assume the actual election will be similarly accurate.  Most counties, including mine, do not have a paper audit trail, so if votes are stolen, there is NO (none, nada, zilch) way to prove it after the fact.

        It's child's play to write a software hook that only triggers on election day, and which then, despite what shows onscreen to the voter, records that voter's vote to a different candidate.  You wouldn't steal all votes - that would be obvious even without a paper trail; just steal every twentieth vote (or choose your own favorite percentage).  

        It would also be child's play to write software to roll a percentage of votes from one candidate to another, at any point in the process.   Again, without a paper audit trail (or without a recount based on the printed audit trail), there is no way to prove theft.

        Show me the software!!!

        Without software exposed to the light of day, we are at the mercy of the good intentions of those who control the voting machine software companies.  Strangely, these are almost always extreme Republican partisans.  I've got a bad feeling about this.

        •  Exactly! (0+ / 0-)

          The claim that election software works is also one that needs to be tested.

          •  Yeah. One annoyance I am having with (0+ / 0-)

            kos's recent talk aobut the CT in the Anonymous claim is that he's whitewashing ALL complaints about voting machines as part of the same CT when that is emphatically false.

            The burden of proof is on the company producing the voting machines.  THEY have to prove that the machine is reliable, which you can do by, among other things, producing a second record of what's happening that can be independently verified in a trial run. They don't get to just say "trust us, it is accurate" and then leave it up to others to try to prove a negative and prove it's not.

            If you are a company selling a product the burden of proof is on YOU to show that it does what you claim.  It is the responsibility of the voting machine sellers to provide what would be needed to make that proof.

    •  Worse than that (0+ / 0-)

      "like telling someone that you stopped a burglar by installing a deadbolt on the 3 roads between his house and yours"

      And installed a password so he could get through it if he got lucky.

    •  The nature of Karl Rove's alleged plot... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caj, Hatrax, kos

      that Anonymous uncovered and allegedly foiled is also "not even wrong." As described in a few of the comments to the diary initially describing the hacking, what Rove/ORCA are purported to have attempted to do---change vote totals by inserting a digital middleman somewhere between the reporting precincts and the secretary of state---is probably impossible, or at the very least very, very easy to discover.

      Precinct level totals are known---by the official poll inspectors at minimum, and they are often also publicly posted---before being reported to the state.  There are also independent records of precinct-level votes---either in the form of paper ballots or memory sticks from the voting machines, in the case of electronic-only voting.  In addition, secretaries of state publish official vote totals by precinct.  If the precinct numbers as publicly reported by the state don't match the numbers the poll inspectors at the precinct reported (e.g., because of some cloak-and-dagger middleman), such a discrepancy would be very easy to spot, and there would be actual, physical evidence that would show precisely what the totals should have been.  Whatever technical prowess might be involved, whether the computer serving as the middleman could be traced or not, is beside the point; the alleged scheme is amateurish and admits a lack of understanding of how votes are counted and reported.  Essentially you would need both the Republican and Democratic poll inspectors at all affected precincts on board with the plot---literally thousands of people, at least half of whom would be vehemently against it.

      Not to mention that anyone involved in running such a scheme would face a host of federal charges (including, in addition to state and federal voting fraud, wire and mail fraud, money laundering and RICO), spend the rest of his or her life in federal prison and forfeit significant assets (so his or her family would be screwed too).

  •  Rove must have gotten to you too FOoW (15+ / 0-)

    or stolen your account via sophisticated hackery!

    Really, thank you for writing this diary.

    It is amazing to me how close we really are, at times, to the folks that we make fun of.

  •  I understand what you're saying, but (15+ / 0-)

    We still need to keep an open mind about the possibility of computerized vote tampering.

    To pretend it doesn't exist or could never happen is dangerous.  We know computers are not tamper-proof, especially when they're used to tabulate votes by state and local governments who may not have access to the advice of experts.  

    As much as we'd like to believe otherwise, our election systems are a patchwork, run by partisans who don't always know how to manage them properly or keep them secure.

    Let's not bury our collective heads in the sand or fool ourselves with grandiose ideas about how safe the system is.  

    Please stand by. I'm looking for a new sig line.

    by Betty Pinson on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:05:40 AM PST

    •  I know. We are the USA. If we can't hold an (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Broke And Unemployed

      election, who can?  

      Hey, GOP - Get In, Sit Down, Shut up, & Hang On!

      by 88kathy on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:11:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  who pretends it cannot exist? I haven't met them. (5+ / 0-)

      It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

      by Murphoney on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:17:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The collective derision (8+ / 0-)

        of people who are open to the idea that Rove tried to hack this election are giving the appearance of denying the existence of such practices.

        Please stand by. I'm looking for a new sig line.

        by Betty Pinson on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:21:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're reading too much into healthy skepticism & (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erush1345, Dogs are fuzzy, emelyn

          misidentifying the object of its derision almost entirely.

          No, I don't believe Rove could have pulled off the Batman episode as it was described, but that's not the half of it.

          It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

          by Murphoney on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:25:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Regarding healthy skepticism (5+ / 0-)

            I would make the same argument to you.

            I have no problem viewing the Anonymous claims with an open mind. They warned of this problem beforehand and reported on it afterwards.  

            Sure it may be wrong, but it may be right.  I prefer to wait and see if further proof is forthcoming.  

            I'm not afraid to be skeptical of the safety of our vote tabulating systems, especially here in Ohio.  The vote was hacked in 2004, there's no reason it couldn't happen again.

            Please stand by. I'm looking for a new sig line.

            by Betty Pinson on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:31:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Someone claimed Anonymous made a claim... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RockyMtnLib, BoiseBlue, hooper, emelyn

              That's a fact.

              How that fact actually affects the insecurity of our vote tabulation is inconclusive.  That's also a fact.

              That's about all there is to it.

              It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

              by Murphoney on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:40:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Betty, your words are cool, clear words (2+ / 0-)

              thank you for that

              It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. ~~Joseph Stalin

              by SeaTurtle on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:52:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  "The vote was hacked in 2004" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                emelyn

                Evidence, please?

                Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
                Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                by HudsonValleyMark on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 12:10:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, the election of was 2004 stolen. references (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Broke And Unemployed

                  I live in Central Ohio and saw the long lines that discouraged voting in 2004.

                  Richard Hayes Phillips has a Ph. D. in geomorphology who has taught courses in geology, geography and history. Invistigatged environmenatl pesticides and done other research.

                  He spent 3 entire years of his life on the 2004 election in Ohio.

                  "Wittness To A Crime: A Citizens Audit of an American Election"

                  Another book is:

                  Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?: Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count
                  Steven F. Freeman (Author), Joel Bleifuss (Author), John Conyers Jr. (Foreword)

                  I now have 4 additional books that I am getting into. Have you read any of the literature? Did you read the Robert Kennedy Jr. article in Rolling Stone?

                  There is another comment I made on this diary with links to Columbus Free Press articles about the 2012 election.

                  •  That RK Jr piece was embarrassing CT (4+ / 0-)

                    but I do see you make the same mistake so many do -- conflating voter suppression (long lines) with voter fraud (changing vote totals).

                    The former happens, a lot. There's not a shred of evidence that the latter has happened.

                  •  not every day does kos pick up my thread :) (0+ / 0-)

                    Yes, I've read everything you've mentioned, and I believe I've even discussed some of it with you personally.

                    "Scientific creationism" has a literature, too. If I had to rebut it page by page, I would never finish.

                    Many of the exit poll results in 2004 weren't remotely credible, so they aren't much use.

                    I've plowed through Phillips' entire book. He has remarkably little evidence of misfeasance, never mind that Kerry actually should have won.

                    I'd be happy to discuss specific points.

                    Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
                    Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                    by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 06:28:38 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Further discussion - in future (0+ / 0-)

                      HudsonValleyMark - I would like to continue this discussion

                      too many things are happening on the home front right now

                      Kos made it crystal clear his views about this whole thing as CT

                      I do not think it is CT, but it will take a lot more work on my part

                      I agree that Phillips bool alone are not enough to make the case. I read that book years ago and was almost convinced. It was only in the last couple of weeks that I have swung all the way based on spending time with the local folks at Columbus Free Press.

                      I just finished "Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention" by Malcolm Marbable about the complexity of his life and the political times he lived in. It is an intellectually serious work. I was at Berkeley as a student demonstrator and we knew the FBI was all around, but to see how Malcolm X effort was subverted is incredible. More important is the political connections that he made.

                      Most of the US political dialogue is surface stories about personalities. At a time when we face huge dangers, we need to really understand the complexities of what is going on.

                      I am going to send this to you at kosmail. I don't know how long it will be until I can engage in a dialog on election integrity. Maybe a phone call would be better. These are really complex issues that need careful attention.

          •  Some doubters were jerks about it; never helps (0+ / 0-)

            Classic rebuttals that seldom go over well:
            I'm an expert because...

            HR abuse  

            Suggestion that one should shut up/go offline

            any variation of "you're deluded", "you know bugger all about  the subject",  "Teabagger wannabe", "you're harming the site or the country" , "go back to Red State",  "ZOMG! Violation!!!"  

            In years of having to listen to a person who made counterfactual assertions on a regular basis, I found that aggressiveness always hardened their position.  Make the point once and politely, then back off; don't get sucked into the drama.  

            "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold...The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity" -W.B. Yeats

            by LucyandByron on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:01:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "I'm an expert" (with unverifiable credentials) (0+ / 0-)

              blast, forgot that part

              "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold...The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity" -W.B. Yeats

              by LucyandByron on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:02:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  None of that excuses nor disguises the absolutist (0+ / 0-)

              attitude that Betty Pinson is putting forward

              -- whereas she was largely addressing people in this diary who are talking about the incomplete nature of the information regarding the claim about Rove that claims to be from anonymous and regarding with a healthy skepticism the monumental events that the claim vaguely suggests, she takes that to mean 'everyone' believes in 'nothing' and that their minds are closed to 'every possibility'.

              The simplistic condescension would be insulting, if it were plausible but, as it is, her attitude reflects an unwillingness to be questioned because (as you describe it) she's had her ego bruised, elsewhere, on this topic.

              It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

              by Murphoney on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 04:32:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  we can do both (8+ / 0-)

      keep an open mind and not have a CT as a stand in, while we wait for something concrete and fact based.

      CT can only hurt us, there is no upside.

      •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

        You guys really believe that the deeper the wedge you drive into this community, the more it "helps" us. You really believe it 100%. Wow. I don't know what to say.

        "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

        by Broke And Unemployed on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:32:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, actually we can't, if (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Beetwasher, teehsu, Sylv, blueoasis

        the ban on discussing CT is the way you think things should be done.

        The problem with the ban on CT (admittedly unenforced) is that it also prevents proper skeptical analysis as well because the TOPIC is banned.  Consider the following two statements:

        (1) I'm suspicious of a thing.  Let me describe it.  I think this might be a real conspiracy.  Is it?  Does this constitute enough evidence?  Discuss.

        (2) I'm suspicious of a thing.  This conspiracy is definitely true.

        The problem is that people should be shitting all over #2 but not #1, but they tend to treat #1 and #2 as the same thing.

        And treating #1 as an HR'able CT post is basically redefining CT to mean "any hypothesis I disagree with".

    •  The lack of QA/QC on our voting systems (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, pgm 01, Dogs are fuzzy

      bother me a great deal.

      Perhaps the NRC of the National Academy could come up with recommendations to make our voting systems reliable, trustworthy and unhackable.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:36:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Other possibilities (0+ / 0-)

        The NIST has some computer security expertise.

        Think laterally: who has big money riding on machines working right? The Nevada Gaming Commission has admirable design and testing standards for gambling equipment. The voting machine makers have, by comparison, almost nothing.

        This is a good application for crowd sourcing, too. it would be really hard (possible, but hard) to get a problem past every interested security professional with an Internet connection.

      •  They are not all equal (0+ / 0-)

        Many of our systems have a LOT of quality assurance built in. It depends on how they do it. Most of Ohio is probably reliable. I cannot speak for other states. Why do you think our secretary of state went out on a limit and risked destroying his reputation and giving Democrats ammo for 2014? He has no control over the county voting systems, some of which work too well for his purposes.

        Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

        by anastasia p on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:42:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yea kinda like (0+ / 0-)

    anyone that doesn't believe there is a chance for rampant fraud and abuse of the system just look at Florida every time there's a crazy partisan Governor in charge.

    There should have been outrage by the media at them cutting back the early voting, the same in Ohio - and everywhere else they did it, but it was pretty much - oh, haha - them silly republicans, there they go again.

    A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people ... restore their government to it's true principles.

    by maddrailin on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:18:16 AM PST

  •  Kos was wrong on this. (7+ / 0-)

    Obviously, there is no direct proof for the claim that has been made by the group Anonymous.  

    Nor will there be any such proof offered by it because it is a loosely organized extreme leftist radical fringe element of individuals who (among other things) routinely engage in what society deems cyber-criminal activity; but who at least as far as we can deduce seem to primarily engage in such cyber-activities for the greater good as they see it.  

    The claim that Anonymous has been made, however, in reality.  

    The idea that discussing a real claim by a real group with respect to what the majority of us know or suspect is a real problem - vote tabulation irregularities and fraud - is in no way CT.

    Particularly so when the well-documented history of Anonymous is acknowledged and considered.

    •  "Real claim by a real group" (9+ / 0-)

      And you write that just after writing this:

      Nor will there be any such proof offered by it because it is a loosely organized extreme leftist radical fringe element of individuals who (among other things) routinely engage in what society deems cyber-criminal activity;
      So, essentially, you're suggesting that because someone (could be anyone, even me) posted something claiming to represent a group called Anonymous, then, therefore, the claim, itself, is "real" because... Well, because... Because it just is.

      Or something.

      •  Absolutely not, Bob. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Broke And Unemployed

        It seems very obvious, however, that you know close to nothing about the group Anonymous.  

        You really should do some research.  

        And attacking me is weak.

        •  Heh. (6+ / 0-)

          So you're 100% sure that the note that was highlighted in the other diary was from the group that calls itself Anonymous?

          Really?

        •  He didn't attack you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emelyn

          He disputed your argument. We're no better than the right if we can't attack someone's logic without assuming it's a personal attack on ourselves. That's Sarah Palin logic.

          "Because Romney's a clown . . ."--Henry Francis

          by LeftCoastTimm on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 04:06:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  An empty and baseless disputation. (0+ / 0-)

            He simply had no basis to dispute my argument or logic.  Where I come from, if someone has no knowledge of or rational basis for something they are postulating about, it is best to just be quiet.  

            I find it to be quite silly to assert that the message was not from Anonymous.  

            This is, of course, a totally different matter than conclusively deciding the message was truthful and accurate in its entirety, or believing any of the facts asserted in the message have been proven or were in any way likely or probable.  

            None of which makes it any less newsworthy or deserving of consideration and discussion here.

            The point of this diary is the entire matter is BS CT.  My point is this is obviously wrong given the very well-established history of radical cyber-activities by Anonymous.

            •  Why would it be necessary to assert that the (0+ / 0-)

              missive was not from anonymous in order to question whether the missive was from anonymous, or even to question how and why someone else would conclude that the missive was, in fact, from anonymous?  Especially in the absence of a definitive response.

              To suggest that someone asking a question should shut up because they don't know something (assumably the answer to the question they are asking) seems particularly disconnected, if not purposefully off-putting.

              It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

              by Murphoney on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:07:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for this. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SquirmyRooter, SeaTurtle

      We can discuss this without saying it's 100% true, and without engaging in childish piefights.

      "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

      by Broke And Unemployed on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:29:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  but when was stopping the bad guy anon's only goal (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      liberte, nickrud, Dogs are fuzzy

      they certainly splashed the proof around when they busted open the "corporate security" corporations.

      in the past, anon has taken steps to expose wrongdoing, not merely counter it.

      It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

      by Murphoney on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:35:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  thank you for logical and rational words (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Broke And Unemployed

      It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. ~~Joseph Stalin

      by SeaTurtle on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:52:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can you link me to where they make this claim (0+ / 0-)

      about Rove?

      I respect Anonymous and have followed them for years.

      I didn't see them say anything about Rove, however.

    •  Sorry but it IS CT (0+ / 0-)

      to merely "suspect" something with no evidence and promote it so heavily it appears you think it's likely. It's about as likely as what one of our supervisors said one night when the mandate to get the early ballots from the board of elections to the warehouse where the counting is done got ahead of the means.

      He said, "I just need to get them there. I don't carry if fairies fly them over in the middle of the night, precinct by precinct."

      And if they did, people here would claim that Karl Rove had deployed an army of operatives with anti-fairy missiles to lurk in Jakprints' parking lot and shoot them down as they flew over Perkins Avenue.

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

      by anastasia p on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:45:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Help (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    means are the ends, pgm 01

    I've been here over 8 years, but for the life of me I have no idea what CT means. Can anybody help?

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:19:00 AM PST

  •  Agreed. Not only does it hurt DKos' credibility (7+ / 0-)

    It degrades the content for those of us who enjoy this site.

    News outlets all make decisions for their viewers about what is the top story. Many times I'm quite frankly uninterested in the top stories of the day. On a slow news day they will simply at a new twist or over sensationalize old news.

    In those instances it's nice to be able to visit cites like DKos to find new stories that I might actually care about. It it would also be nice if the community as a whole could vet those stories, but frankly that doesn't always happen.

    Please proceed, Governor.

    by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:20:37 AM PST

    •  But wait (0+ / 0-)

      Anonymous is a real organization - reported on by REAL news organizations - such as -

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

      A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people ... restore their government to it's true principles.

      by maddrailin on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:27:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't dispute that Anonymous is real. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RockyMtnLib, Smoh, mahakali overdrive

        And their nunchaku skills and computer hacking skills are renowned.

        But their mere existence doesn't validate this story. If it is real this puts watergate to shame.

        Please proceed, Governor.

        by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:42:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well ok (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dogs are fuzzy, teehsu

          Sit down and read this from gao.gov from 2005.

          • Cast ballots, ballot definition files, and audit logs
          could be modified.
          • Supervisor functions were protected with weak
          or easily guessed passwords.
          • Systems had easily picked locks and power
          switches that were exposed and unprotected.
          • Local jurisdictions misconfigured their
          electronic voting systems, leading to
          election day problems.
          • Voting systems experienced operational
          failures during elections.
          • Vendors installed uncertified electronic
          voting systems.

          I mean - people aren't making this shit up - it would be easy for a 12 year old to get into some of these machines.

          A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people ... restore their government to it's true principles.

          by maddrailin on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:49:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I don't understand why people can't just read (12+ / 0-)

    diaries with skepticism and avoid rec'ing ones inadequately sourced or that sound fishy, thereby avoiding all the meta-handwringing.  All of us are capable of critical thinking, are we not?

    Corporations are driven by the bottom line, not by concerns for health, safety or the environment. This is why we need government regulations.

    by the dogs sockpuppet on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:27:24 AM PST

  •  I would very much like it to be true (10+ / 0-)

    which is why it demands extra-critical examination and extraordinary evidence.

    Because accepting something as true because we like how it sounds is the road to Fox News and the Tea Party.

    Are you on the Wreck List? Horde on Garrosh.

    by Moody Loner on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:28:20 AM PST

  •  I really appreciate you introducing the (4+ / 0-)

    concept of "not even wrong".  It was an interesting read and offers another way of thinking about these kinds of topics.

    Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

    by Smoh on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:31:18 AM PST

  •  Makes one wonder what other h***sh**t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    have they been putting out.

    Or maybe I shouldn't have gone to see Skyfall yesterday.

    (And btw, the new Q does not impress me.)

    I must be dreaming...

    by murphy on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:41:37 AM PST

  •  Kos is not being helpful to the nation on this. (3+ / 0-)

    Remember the ban on the topic of just how lazy / complacent / indifferent the Bush administration was before 9/11? How it was verboten to support the position that they were incompetent and/or in some way indifferent?

    So of course Kos apologized when the New York Fucking Times came out and reported that there were MANY more briefings than just the one, right?

    May 1
    June 22
    June 29
    July 1
    July 24
    THEN the august 6 "bin laden determined to attack in US"
    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    It used to be CT to discuss the idea that BushCo missed the signs, that 9/11 was preventable.
    On July 9, two months before the twin towers fell, the counter terrorism unit had raised so many alarms to BushCo that they shifted to the step of trying to avoid the fallout.

    Once upon a time, Kos thought such discussion was conspiracy theory. Guess the fuck what, it turned into conspiracy FACT.

    Now Kos thinks this vote rigging discussion is conspiracy theory. Guess the fuck what - stuffing the ballot box is an age old activity of the unscrupulous.

    Whether through slipping extra ballots into the tally box, or by preparing rigged tally boxes to switch out the real boxes before votes are counted, or by changing a few numbers on a screen, it is all the same activity of stuffing the ballot box.

    The elephants were WAY too sure of having the election in the bag. In a close race, OF COURSE the staffers have a concession speech prepared - that speech being well written and with the right tone would be a good mark on their resume going forward.

    Kos is doing us - Dems and the deceived Repub rank and file and the unaffiliateds - no favors by labeling discussion over the reasons for the Repub campaign's confidence as CT.

    To paraphrase Kos on this issue "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

  •  Thank you n/t (5+ / 0-)

    "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey

    by Onomastic on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:43:20 AM PST

  •  Or another way to put it, this falls (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, zett

    into the "big lie" category - something so egregious that polite people who wish to remain influential simply cannot affort to entertain it.

  •  very good post. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive

    I'm glad Barack Obama is our President.

    by TomP on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:55:41 AM PST

  •  Watergate (0+ / 0-)

    was a seminal moment in the understanding of how the American political system truly works, and its lessons can be continually applied in judging conspiracy theories that are otherwise unprovable.
    When Watergate pulled back the curtains on how powerful but small-minded men were incapable of creating or listening to checks on their inherent incompetence, it unveiled a template that has been seen many times in its aftermath.
    9/11--Bush conspiracy or Bush incompetence?  easy answer if you think about it.
    ORCA--Rove conspiracy or Romney incompetence?  easy answer if you think about it.
    and so on.

  •  Did the claim ever explain (6+ / 0-)

    How ORCA was supposed to be connecting with the vote tallying software? That seems like a significant missing piece. If he was going to use it to mess with the vote count it would need to be able to get into a range of different local systems. ORCA was being used on the laptops and phones of volunteers who walked in to the polling station. That doesn't mean they could connect to the counting software. Maybe I'm missing something...?

  •  Well put. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hooper

    I personally think the term "conspiracy theory" turns people brains off, including otherwise brilliant people. I've seen it make people dismiss hard evidence prima facie, because they are SO irrationally wed to the idea that some idea or other is bullshit. That said, unless hard evidence presents itself, all we can say is, "fun story, but no hard evidence for it." Kind of like a religious tale. Believe it if it makes you happy, but don't call it established fact.

    If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

    by rhetoricus on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:59:27 AM PST

  •  It would be cool if the GOP believed it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spit, zett, Beetwasher

    I'd like them to think Anonymous is that powerful. Lol.

    If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

    by rhetoricus on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:04:39 AM PST

    •  They DO believe it in reverse (0+ / 0-)

      Only they believe that some DEMOCRATIC Rove equivalent hacked the machines and flipped Romney's votes to Obama. That's how THEY explain Karl Rove's shock and denial. A Republican friend of mine I was working with at the BoE warehouse yesterday said a teabagger showed up at their meeting this week presenting this theory (He didn't buy it).

      See the thin line between them and us?

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

      by anastasia p on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:50:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This kind of thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anastasia p

    is an insult to the Democratic GOTV efforts and an insult to Barack Obama's ground ops in general.  "Gee, you guys all did what you could, but it was this Anonymous dude that won it for you!"
     What an ego this guy has.  As of today, he's claiming credit for hacks into Israeli institutions.  Sadly, a lot of people are buying into this one, too.

  •  I think, although maybe I'm wrong, that most (8+ / 0-)

    Daily Kos readers missed the news in this diary, "Are They Calling Uncle?" which reported on this post, "Is It Time to Roll Up the Welcome Mat Here?," by Erick Erickson and other RedState editors regarding how their own conspiracy theorists (vote fraud conspiracies, birtherism) and successionists were not welcome.

    We also had a rec'd "conspiracy theory" diary by Jessalyn Radack recently, "Petraeus-gate: It's Not About the Affair, But Leaking of the Highest Order," without even the pretence of a shred of evidence, just a lot of assumption and "negative proof." aha: since the FBI doesn't investigate "affairs," and early reports had the FBI investigating the "affair," that's proof that the FBI was investigating "leaks of the highest order."

    As a commenter to Erick Erickson's post wrote: "Don't make it easy for the Other Side, OK?"

    Yes, we need paper ballots. Voting machines run by software have bugs and defects, just like any other software, especially that written on deadline by low-paid contract employees and inadequately tested before release, and to rely on software to correctly report results, without a paper backup, is just plain foolish. No conspiracy theory needed.

    •  The Republicans I've been working with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jennifer poole

      don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. They think Obama had a superior GOTV effort and one of them thinks Romney didn't go negative enough early enough (I'm not so sure I agree with that. Josh "The Empty Suit" Mandel started going negative on Senator Sherrod Brown a year ago and tens of millions were pumping into negative ads. All they did was make people hate Joshie, including many Republicans).

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

      by anastasia p on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:53:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Other election irregularities in the primaries (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    NYT: Santorum wins in Iowa

    Rick Santorum’s campaign claimed a belated victory in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 19 — more than two weeks after the contest — when certified results showed him leading Mitt Romney by 34 votes, a reversal from the eight-vote edge than Mr. Romney held on caucus night.
    And the Maine caucuses
    1.Congressman Paul's support was strongest in two counties: Aroostoock and Washington 1.The Maine GOP postponed the election in Washington county under very questionable conditions and then stated that because of that delay those votes would not be counted. They eventually reversed this position....

    2.The Maine GOP announced Romney as the winner when he was leading by less than 200 votes with entire counties yet to vote and numerous municipalities showing no votes where votes were known to be held
    3.Governor Romney had recently suffered a string of losses and losing a north eastern state to a different rival would have been very detrimental to his campaign.

    ...

    6.There are documented specific cases of incorrect results which favored Governor Romney.
    7.The results presented by the Maine GOP remain incorrect 1.The spreadsheets presented as the results contain errors that any nominal election official would have sought to resolve prior to publishing the data yet no effort was made to do this.
    2.This means that we cannot for sure what data is correct and what is incorrect.

    ...2.The results of these changes harmed only Congressman Paul and benefitted every other candidate evenly.

    These are the cases which were detected.  I believe that there were others which were not.  

    As any retail establishment knows, you probably won't catch the majority of shoplifters.  But it's happening.

    www.tapestryofbronze.com

    by chloris creator on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:26:33 AM PST

  •  thank you (0+ / 0-)


    "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous..........got me?" - Don Van Vliet

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:27:09 AM PST

  •  Hypocrites! (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Einsteinia
    Hidden by:
    Murphoney

    How many times have I seen, oh so well, documented diaries drawing conclusions that are not really based in reality. Flimsy evidence and supposition, subjective analysis, all leading to the certaintity that republicans are bad, bad or 'this or that' is their aim, their true purpose. Their motives are plain to see if only you look thru this lense here.  
     I get it finally I think. This site is dedicated to an elite group of thought where all others are simply, not welcome. You can't say that, you can't think that way. This site isn't for you or your concerns. It's only for us! Go away! The tent's not big enough for you!
     But we are NOT like a RedState, no no, not at all.
     I get it finally I think. Paychecks matter more than a free exchange of ideas here. Ok, well, everyone has a right to make a living I guess, except those who do so in ways we don't approve of course.

    Hypocrites!

     The Anonymous story was current event news. People all over America were talking about it.
    But I get the message now, finally. Go look somewhere else for news, this is a strictly controlled propaganda site.

     I'm disgusted.

    Later the fuck on Dkos.

  •  This is the kind of stuff (5+ / 0-)

    that convinced me to stop going to Democratic Underground.  Because of so much hysteria ending in "there is no there there", for example, over the voting machines.  

    We had our share of that here as well.  In my memory I can't even distinguish anymore whether the particular woman who shall not be named with her hair-on-fire CT including digging through the trash and constant promises of "proof" that never materialized took over this site as well as DU.

    Sadly, even if it or this CT were true, running around hysterically claiming it without proof just makes it seem ridiculous.

    It's all well and good to point out that someone has a CT.  Wow, look at that guy who claims X!

    But having seen this sort of stuff set folks' hair on fire, and from the outside look like we've lost our fucking minds, we need to make sure we're not going there again.

    An article I read yesterday (forgive me, you guys have so many great resources that I can't remember where this came from) but it was stating that the right doesn't mind being lied to and will pick up CT and other outrageous bullshit. and run with it because it shows they're part of the team.  

    We don't do that - we're reality based.  We don't want to be known "will believe anything" voters.  And that's what distinguishes us from that nonsense.  

    I'm not saying this is true or false.  I have no idea.  But "it's not even wrong" is totally apt, and is the methodology of the right - "just say it, no one can prove it's wrong, and our voters will eat it up!"

    Let's not go there.

    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

    by delphine on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:32:10 AM PST

    •  Please note (3+ / 0-)

      however, that this is a mushy thing as well.

      "CT" can also be the first inkling of something that proves to be real, like the 47% video.

      So I have no issue with a diary like "Anonymous claims credit".  I don't even care if people speculate.

      I don't have to read it if I think it's bullshit.

      But at some point we have to let it go if it's just going nowhere, turns into a pie fight, etc.

      What that point is, I can't say and I wouldn't try to dictate.

      Kos made a decision to just ban it outright, and that pissed me off because "you can't even TALK about vote fraud" was unfair (I believe it's possible, if not probable, and therefore a worthy subject for discussion).  But perhaps in his view that's the only way to avoid endless jawing about stuff that takes us nowhere.

      If there is a less stringent solution, let's find it.  My guess is that we won't be able to.  

      CT is here to stay - let's just be mindful of its limitations and repercussions, which I hope this diary helps us to do.

      Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

      by delphine on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:39:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think Anonymous (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345

    even posted this video - there's no info about it on this site where they post all their activities

    A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people ... restore their government to it's true principles.

    by maddrailin on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:33:00 AM PST

  •  Smoke.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DarkestHour, Beetwasher, maven98

    I don't know FishOutofWater;...I got mixed feelings about this. I agree on your insistence of not making claims without proper evidence, but again, some of the "evidence"in some cases do merit further consideration, even if they are not scientifically sound. What do I mean by this? Well, Rove's behavior on Fox, when told Ohio was a goner, was not the natural behavior of a political hack like Rove who is disappointed by the results. We know what disappointment is like and therefore what Rove revealed in those very short minutes tells me that he couldn't accept the results only because he was counting on something else. His reaction was not natural, in other words. He was expecting a different result beyond the poll calculations and predictons. He was too sure. So sure that he lost his usual smug composure.

    Rove was expecting different results not because he bought into the illusion built by the right wing media machine. He is the master of illusions.

    He knew the polls were lying. He knew Fox was lying. He knew all about the lies involving Romney's so called "poll numbers." He was not an idiot Foxbot.

    For all purposes, if Rove didn't have something up in his sleeve, something beyond the poll numbers told by the FoxNews and the right wing media, he should be among the most pessimist of the Republican establishment that evening. I am saying, Rove could not have been fooled by the rightwing media lies. He should not have had high hopes.

    He had something else, however. He was counting on it.

    That's why he had a meltdown, not because he had believed the FoxNews lies.

    There.

    I don't know if Anonymous did what it is said it did, but, although it is unscientific as 'evidence,' when there is smoke, there really is fire, and in this case, the smoke was sooooo thick, it was hard to breath, even.

    Regards.

    "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

    by zenox on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:37:35 AM PST

  •  Wait one fricken minute (5+ / 0-)

    The title of my diary was Anonymous CLAIMS to have foiled Karl Rove's Plans to Steal Election and I just gave the information they presented. How on earth are we going to get to the bottom of this by ignoring these claims?

    Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

    by RMForbes on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:39:34 AM PST

    •  No claim should ever be publicized (0+ / 0-)

      until after investigations are complete, even if that means no possible crimes should ever be investigated. That is how it works on this site.

      •  Then how does it investigated (0+ / 0-)

        If we don't know that people are working behind the scenes in our interests or at least they say they are, how does the investigation start? This isn't happening in a vacuum, there were irregularities in the 2000 and 2004 elections as well. Why can't we take a closer look?

        Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

        by RMForbes on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:09:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I thought you did a good job in your diary (0+ / 0-)

          of making your language sound enough like opinion that I didn't donut you... because generally speaking, speculation is fine as long as people are clear that you are speculating; what troubled me is that in the comments, people were very much taking what you stated as "fact."

          Also, the site owner has declared this topic off limits saying he doesn't want to see it here, more or less. There are certain topics like that on this site: election fraud and 9/11 are two of them. Obviously, if a story came out tomorrow in a credible journal of record that everything we knew about 9/11 was a coverup or that the election was stolen through x-y-z means, he'd ease up and let that be discussed. Otherwise, no dice. Can't discuss it.

    •  Quoting Peggy Noonan, I see (0+ / 0-)

      “Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.”
      http://www.opinionjournal.com/...

      •  I agree with Peggy Noonan about almost nothing (0+ / 0-)

        However just because she is suggesting an investigation of some right wing conspiracy theory does not change my views that this needs to be investigated by the feds. Karl Rove has an entire history of dirty tricks, he was a protege of Lee Atwater after all. It's about time to put this slime ball in prison where he belongs. If we just ignored this story as many here seem to suggest then Rove wins. Do you really want that?

        Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

        by RMForbes on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:19:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you feel it needs federal investigation (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zett, erush1345, ballerina X

          contact the FBI and explain it to them. I'm being serious.

        •  It won't be investigated. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Murphoney, ballerina X

          Even if it's 100% true. Because, 1) Anonymous (as one individual, apparently) hasn't provided any evidence of either their hack or that ORCA was designed to sway the election by manipulating tallies, and 2) Rove isn't going to complain to the feds that Anonymous dashed his evil plan.

          So far we have only one demonstrable crime here, if the Anonymous source is telling the truth. That crime is hacking into the Republicans' GOTV ground game system so it didn't work on election day.

          The election turned out in our favor despite considerable efforts put forth to suppress the votes of targeted minorities and Democrats overall. Because the voters saw clearly what was going on, and it only made them MORE determined to vote. No matter what. That, far as I'm concerned, was the Republicans' biggest FAIL of this election cycle. As well as America's biggest WIN.

    •  Proof (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zett, erush1345, mahakali overdrive, T100R

      For me it isn't so much the diary as it is two other related parts:

      1. Comments in the diary jump to the conclusion that the claims are fact, and hence, go off on wild unsupported tangents.

      2. Meanwhile, people who understand the technical merits of the claims are asking for supporting data.  Comments in the diary claim to have evidence, but decline to publish that evidence, and then go on to attack people who doubt the story.

      The net effect is that these stories only serve to create chaos and anger.  I will repeat what I said over in the other diary:

      If Anonymous or anyone here has proof, publish it.  Otherwise it becomes pure CT speculative nonsense.

    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

      The diarist is probably not referring to your diary, but to this rec-listed one, which not only posts the claim by Anonymous but argues that it should be believed.  The diarist writes

      There is no doubt that Anonymous, however ambiguous or loosely affiliated it may be, is real. And frankly they have proven themselves to be less bullshit prone than our politicians and broadcast media outlets.

      Do you remember the hubris with which Karl Rove entered the election? How he was devastated and apoplectic at the Fox News brain trust for having called Ohio for Obama?  Mitt Romney didn't even have a concession speech prepared, and while it's easy to chalk that up to yet another inept step in his stumbling campaign, it's easier to believe that it was a concrete example of his entitlement in action.

      Taking jokes seriously is the exact mirror activity of laughing if someone says they have cancer. --jbou

      by Caj on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 01:49:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The claim has gone viral (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RMForbes

      So everyone is talking about it on other websites. Thom Hartman weighed in with his thoughts about the claim. I can't see why this has become such a problem here. I thought you handled yourself appropriately. Cheers

  •  I read that post (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau

    then clicked the little X

  •  What I despise most about CTs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T100R, Dogs are fuzzy

    Is that their crying wolf not only hurts their own credibility but other peoples'. To a moderate or conservative or LIV in denial, there is little superficial difference between someone promulgating stories about Husted intentionally stalling the levers of democracy and a shadowy Rove conspiracy stealing the votes. If one group comes up short then it sets back the other group.

    There is some real, documented, actually-in-the-MSM voter suppression going on. It is not receiving as much attention as it should. And it probably won't in time for the next electoral cycle either. When people screech about Rove electronically stealing the vote and only come up with hot air it hurts the people presenting related complaints about voter suppression.

    The battle for democracy isn't won in the courts or classroom, but in the halls of public opinion. CT diaries like that and the culture it entails fucks over real activists.

    And I don't appreciate you idiots feeding your ego at the expense of other leftists.

  •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345

    That other diary was pure CT.

    "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

    by nosleep4u on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:46:17 AM PST

  •  this should kinda resolve this whole thing (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zett, Joieau, Sylv, ballerina X

    cause if Anonymous really had posted this video and made this claim it would be posted here.

    They have a way of releasing their info, which is why the MSM picked up on the Israel story about them - there is no info on this site about the Rove/Ohio situation.

    A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people ... restore their government to it's true principles.

    by maddrailin on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:46:37 AM PST

  •  Diary deserves constant applause (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345

    (Any snark is directed to proponents of the unproven merits of Anonymous' claims).

  •  To Be Fair (3+ / 0-)

    the description of this diary is consistent with the description of Anonymous' methods of thwarting ORCA.

    their passwords didn't work and attempts to reset passwords through the site also failed
    it wasn't until 6:00 PM on Election Day that the team running Orca admitted they had issued the wrong PIN codes and passwords to everyone in those states, and they reset them. Even then, some volunteers still couldn’t login.
    person next to me could get in. We had zero access to Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania
    I posted a previous diary that showed the romney anomaly regarding disproportionate vote counts going to romney in ohio (and mccain in Wisconsin and Ohio) according to the size of the polling location.  Once the precinct level results are released for these states I will redo for the current election and see if the anomaly still persists.

    here is a link to one of my diaries.  I put a significant amount of work to understand the issue and recognize the inability to disprove its validity (and thereby make it unprovable).  Still it is interesting.  If this anomaly goes away completely then we have another indication of grand manipulation of electronic voting machines.

    37,000 volunteers in swing states, who would station themselves at the polls and track the arrival of known Romney supporters
    btw, setting up specific targets at polling locations would be consistent with the manipulation assumptions made in my analysis (targeted polling locations based on precinct size).
  •  Voters stopped Rove from stealing the election (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, Dogs are fuzzy

    That's the conspiracy that the GOP wants to investivate and put an end to.

    How dare they.

    The other diary is embarrassing trash.

    "Republicans have been fleeced and exploited and lied to by a conservative entertainment complex." - David Frum

    by Glinda on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:52:41 AM PST

    •  Going by your quote: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345

      Apparently what certain leftists hate about the conservative media isn't that it spreads lies and propaganda but because liberals don't have their own similar lie machine.

      Personally, I like having an unconventional media where I don't have to worry about being led astray by my supposed allies with CTs and JAQing off.

  •  I've been thwarting alien invasions since 1992 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T100R, citizenx

    Can't prove I haven't.

  •  Big problem with banning stuff as crazy (7+ / 0-)

    And that is that so much of what is going on IS crazy but accepted as common wisdom. Watch any Sunday morning talking head show to see it on display.

    Then there's horrible stuff going on that is actually happening - but you're called crazy for trying to get people to acknowledge it as real. Like the insanity the Austerity Policy has proven to be - even as people freak out about a Fiscal Cliff that is a self-generated 'crisis'.

    We're losing the war on reason.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:20:56 AM PST

  •  Anonymous 2012 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Broke And Unemployed

    The conversion of Ohio votes from Kerry to Bush is pretty well documented - google Michael Connell 2004 Ohio, and see article 'None Dare Call it Stolen' by Mark C. Miller, Harper's Magazine, August 2005, if you don't believe it's possible for this to happen.

  •  Moreover, Anonymous is losing it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, richardak, ballerina X

    Definitely jumped the shark when the decision was made that stealing my credit card and that of a bunch of friends of mine in NGOs was somehow in the self-appointed interests of the people.

    Anonymous' pronouncements are rapidly approaching the level of credible newsworthiness of a Bin Laden VHS tape.

  •  I stopped Karl Rove from stealing the election (6+ / 0-)

    You know how I did it? I voted. And I volunteered with my local Democratic Party on canvassing for several weeks before the election, and then on Election Day I gave people rides to the polls.  It was a crazy conspiracy of probably a million other volunteers, all working toward the goal of getting President Obama re-elected.  And it was just crazy enough to work.

    "Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes." -Henry David Thoreau

    by Offbrand RachelMaddow on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:46:01 AM PST

  •  This is bullshit. (4+ / 0-)
    An argument that appears to be scientific is said to be "not even wrong" if it cannot be falsified (i.e., tested with the possibility of being rejected)
    So what now?  The existence of God is "not even wrong?"  Intelligent design is "not even wrong?"

    These are bullshit claims being made by anonymous.  These claims can be proven easily.  The fact that they're not being proven tells you all you need to know.

  •  I'm sorry, but this post isn't correct (4+ / 0-)

    While I understand Fishoutofwater's desire to dismiss this highly improbably conspiracy theory, it's inaccurate and a bit lazy to dismiss this as "not even wrong."

    In fact, the claims made on behalf of Anonymous can be falsified in a number of ways.  Their claims could be falsified by the answers to any of these questions:

    Was there a system crash at the time specified?
    What was the cause of this crash?
    Is data sent out of state to be tabulated?
    Did attempts to send this data fail?
    Do the three "tunnels" mentioned by anonymous correspond to anything in reality?

    I agree that the claims about saving the election are very improbable, but the author of this diary hasn't shown that they are unfalsifiable.  Frankly, I would have appreciated a diary that falsifies this particular theory (and that perhaps teaches me a little about vote tabulation along the way) to this diary that only casually asserts that this theory can't be falsified.

  •  Pauli's "nicht einmal falsch" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Unduna, FishOutofWater

    didn't quite mean "too hard to test". In principle there could be evidence to support or falsify some version of string theory. We may even get some from the Planck satellite soon. Likewise various claims of vote fraud schemes are certainly either true or false, with potentially hard-to-get evidence pointing one way or the other.

    "nicht einmal falsch" really refers to the type of fuzz that seems to say something but ultimately falls apart as just meaningless word play. Arguments about "true causes" are frequent examples.

    So let's save that ultimate epistemological insult for the truly deserving, an not dilute it by use on statements that are just very hard to evaluate in practice.

    Michael Weissman UID 197542

    by docmidwest on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:58:09 AM PST

  •  Thanks. (5+ / 0-)

    I blame the people who recced more than I blame the poster.

    Everyone is entitled to a stoopid diary, once in a great while. But one of the things that defines "community" is that we have each others' backs. That includes not encouraging bad, and bannable, diaries.

    "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

    by sidnora on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:03:56 AM PST

  •  Thanks, I went back and forth wondering (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, FishOutofWater

    if that diary was C/T last night and wasn't sure if it was stated enough as "opinion" or not, decided it was, but also felt it was C/T since there was, as you point out, no evidence, and stayed out of it because of that.

    Glad to see I wasn't the only one thinking about whether it crossed a line in our reality-based community.

  •  I want evidence, but I really want to believe.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    6412093, FishOutofWater

    as well. I can't deny it, the thought of Turdblossom being thwarted by these guys just feels so right.

    Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture

    by nezzclay on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:34:19 AM PST

  •  The Problem with Unverifiable Voting Machines is.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pandoras Box, roycej

    You'll never know if an election's been stolen or if that suggestion is just a wild conspiracy theory.

    So, what we do know is that Ohio SOS Husted had a non-certified software patch installed on machines in 39 Ohio counties two weeks before a presidential election. We also know that he was sued in federal court over that software patch and the court suit was throuwn out on election day. We also know that using those machines to count the votes produced a significant Obama victory.  Good result. However...

    We also know that John Kerry led by 3% in Ohio exit polls in 2004 and then lost the state by 120,000 votes. We also know that there are images of about 12,000 altered ballots from that election--available by contacting the author of Witness to a Crime. We also know that five Ohio election officiails went to jail for manipulating results in the recount of that election.

    We also know that the votes for the 2004 Ohio election were routed through a server farm in the basement of a Chattenooga building that also hosted the servers for the Republican National Committee. We also know that Michael Connell, who was Ken Blackwell's software expert, died in a mysterious plane crash on his way back to Ohio to testify in the lawsuit brought by the Constitutional Party candidate in that election.

    BUT, what we don't know and can never know is whether the electronic votes in that election were legitiamtely assigned to the correct candidate or not.

    That's the problem with electronic voting. In an instant tens or hundreds of thousands of votes can be switched and no one can ever be sure.

    The answer is to return to all paper ballot elections and have those ballots counted by hand, with two observers, one from the Republican Party and one from the Democratic Party--just like Ireland and Germany and Canada have now done. It is a safer, more replicable way to count and confirm votes and there is a paper trail if you need to go back and determine the validity of an election.

    •  "Mysterious plane crash" (6+ / 0-)

      Not really.

      His plane crashed in a freezing mist and the NTSB:

      ... "no anomalies were noted with the flight control system that would have precluded normal operation." The report notes that damage to the propeller is consistent with a power-on impact and the landing gear was extended. The NTSB found that the instrument-rated Connell had received radar vectors that provided an intercept to the ILS approach for Runway 23, about two miles from the outer marker. The report states that, as the plane was inbound from the outer marker, "ATC advised [the aircraft] that it was left of course." After that, things -- including already poor weather conditions -- got progressively worse.
    •  And the final NTSB report published in Jan. 2010 (5+ / 0-)

      ... said pilot error and weather conditions caused the crash.

      So much for the conspiracy theory claim that it was some sort of "mysterious plane crash."

      •  Oh heck, don't you know Rove has a top secret (0+ / 0-)

        freezie machine that can change weather in Ohio? And why do you think Sandy focused on blue states? Coincidence? I think not!

        You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

        by kenlac on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 12:06:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe, But The Other Points Still Stand (0+ / 0-)

          You find yourselves feeling so superior, because what is suggested is a conspiracy theory? Arguing that something is invalid because it is a conspiracy theory is no more substantive that arguing it is true because it is a conspiracy. Connell's plane, well, you've quoted what the NTSB said, and it may well be true. The timing like, Wellstone's plane crash and Carnahan's plane crash was disturbingly convenient for the Republicans. This does not mean that all three were not just random mechanical failures, but, while, Karl Rove may not have a freeze machine, but it also doesn't mean that he doesn't have a mechanic who could put the wrong fuel additive into a gas tank. Yes, planes do go down, quite regularly, because of mechanical errors, and, like electronic voting results we may never know--and yes, investigative commissions don't always tell the whole truth. BUT, they were going to whitewash the Challenger disaster results until David Feinman pulled his little home o-ring test kit from his pocket. The Ukraine did have demonstrable voting machine fraud that was proven and that then changed an election. The exit polling in 2004 was highly suspicious. There were definitely altered ballots and a lot of them in Ohio. They definitely and intentionally limited number of voting machines in Columbus on election day. (I was there. I saw the results.) Blackwell definitely tried to reject write-in votes because they were on the wrong weight of paper. So what makes you think that if Ken Blackwell, that son of a bitch, could have altered the software, he would not have done so? Various computer security experts are adamant in their belief that the voting machines are highly susceptible to direct or indirect attack,  including Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, Dr. David Dill of Stanford, Dr Barbara Simons a former IBM research scientist, and the voting security scientists in Illinois (Argonne National Laboratory Remote Voting Machine Hack), who concluded,

          “We believe these man-in-the-middle attacks are potentially possible on a wide variety of electronic voting machines,” said Roger Johnston, leader of the assessment team “We think we can do similar things on pretty much every electronic voting machine.”
      •  Plz see your Kosmail for an important message. n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:37:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And I reviewed the weather and agree (0+ / 0-)

        There was very heavy icing which can make small planes sink like a rock.

        Really, the fix was not in with the NTSB.

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

        by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:18:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  i said this yesterday and i'll repeat it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sparko, FishOutofWater

    nothing about Anons' claims would surprise me and i'd like to believe. BUT if they're true Anon needs to give all the documentation, etc. to a)wikileaks so we can all look at it, b)relevant govt. investigative agencies and c) some of the larger liberal leaning news outlets (i.e. Rolling Stone, atlantic, New Yorker, etc.)

    Anonymous has little to lose and everything to gain by showing proof.  It would go a long way toward improving their image in the mind of the average citizen.

    Until then...

    to republicans rape is "God's will" but homosexuality is somehow a "choice". republican yahweh is a dick.

    by bnasley on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:44:21 AM PST

    •  It is interesting that they said this in advance (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bnasley

      of the election, possibly after understanding some of the Rove infrastructure.  Rove's election night meltdown does the whole thesis justice, too.  He seemed to freak out the way a gambler who is cheating freaks out when someone out cheats him.  Reminds me of the card game in "The Sting."  But all in good time truths are revealed.

      •  A man distraught or a man angry? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        6412093
        Rove's election night meltdown
        I've watched election night coverage in 5 different decades now, and never saw anything quite like Rove's behavior on election night, 2012.

        It was that remarkable and that focused - as if he were truly incredulous that Ohio was called for PBO (and with it, the election) - it's hard to put in words...

        He seemed to freak out the way a gambler who is cheating freaks out when someone out cheats him.
        That's the only way to characterize it.  Why did he freak out to that degree?

        No CT here.  I'll opine that Rove freaked out simply because he believed the lies he told, then he got his ass handed to him on election night, and finally realized that his last big grift had run its course.  

        If there was a little electronic shenanigans going on behind the scenes (either GOP or Dem or both), meh, we'll never know. It's beyond the point of mattering at all.

        "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

        by Richard Cranium on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:25:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not beyond the point of mattering, (0+ / 0-)

          because Rove is still a player, because he has no moral fiber, and he'll do whatever he can to win, just as he's done all of his life, no matter how much destruction he causes. He's likely already building his case for 2014.

          We should not have any doubts that Rove is capable of hacking the votes. He's done far worse when working for the Bush White House. Hacking the vote is peanuts for him.

          Even though Rove failed in three of the last four elections, his donors/customers know that they will get tens, perhaps hundreds of times the return on their investments if Rove wins and his cronies manage and exploit the treasuries and the legislative process.

  •  Thank you FishOutofWater (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, alicia

    The other diary pissed me off royally.  We won this election--not because some group of anonymouse geeks saved the day but because a coalition of Americans worked their asses off to support the President's reelection.  This includes all the phone banker, canvasser volunteers, the GOTV volunteers, and a highly skilled group of tech saavy folks who knew what data to mine and how to do arithmetic.  

    To suggest that all of the people in this coalition would have been victims of Karl Rove's dastardly scheme but for a heroic anonymouse group who hacked his system is insulting to all of the rest of us.  

    Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. ~Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler

    by Tchrldy on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:51:57 AM PST

  •  The falsification concept may predate Pauli (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FishOutofWater, Murphoney, samanthab

    Anthony Flew wrote in his 1950 paper "Theology and Falsification" the logically similar argument, in his treatise against the then popular idea that the existence of God can be established as a consequence of the beauty of His (Her?) work. If there are no set of imaginable circumstances or facts that could prove an assertion false then the assertion is meaningless. Pauli is alleged to have made his "not even wrong" statement in the 50's by biographers after his death - the exact date of its utterance is unknowable. (Ironic that the fact that Pauli said it, or not, is itself an unfalsifiable assertion). But to me Flew's argument against God's works sounds closer to that of Anonymous' protection of us against Rovian evildoers. If there is no set of circumstances by which we can prove Anonymous has indeed saved us, then the assertion can be said to be meaningless.

  •  2000/2004 left a lot of us cold (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Broke And Unemployed

    I would never have thought that some of the things which transpired were even possible.  They were egregious and in our faces daring us to stop the long knives or vandalism. It is when minority parties are allowed to exercise majority prerogatives that this nation is imperiled (see 1856, 1860, and 2000).   I would prefer that we become a nation of laws and not one of propaganda and dirty tricks.   I hope that someone was watching Rove.  Remember the "lost" official emails over an extensive period of time which conveniently covered criminal conspiracies?   Vigilance is the price of liberty.

  •  Excellent diary FooW n/t. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345

    As long as we have love, we will always triumph over hate, for love is the most powerful force in the universe. There is nothing greater.

    by Crazy Moderate on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:19:16 AM PST

  •  excellent. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    samanthab

    conspiracy theories are so boring, and 9 times out of 10, not even close to reality.

    pseudoscience can kill

    by terrypinder on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:25:43 AM PST

  •  Let's assume that Rove intended to steal Ohio... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Simian, Sylv, FishOutofWater, citizenx

    I was watching the election returns on CNN election night.

    Just prior to the call for Ohio, CNN called Iowa which put Obama at 256 EVs.

    That's when I realized that Obama had, indeed, won the election.

    Why?

    Because Ohio was not even necessary at that point.

    Florida wasn't necessary at that point.

    Hell, the combination of Florida and Ohio would not have pushed Romney to 270.

    All Obama needed at that point was Virginia and one other state that was outstanding (Colorado or Nevada) and that was it.

  •  yay! Sanity and reality visit the rec list! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hatrax, FishOutofWater

    thank you thank you thank you for this. I thought that diary was complete bullshit when I commented on it yesterday. Good to know kos is putting a stop to this batch of CT.

  •  All set up to throw the election in OH (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FishOutofWater

    There were many things in place that might have thrown the election to Romney in Ohio this year.

    "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?: Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count "
    Steven F. Freeman (Author), Joel Bleifuss (Author), John Conyers Jr. (Foreword) in the appendix says that the reporting from the Columbus Free Press, Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, was more than the entire main stream media. And without paid staff. They have been on this issue for over a decade.

    This year the Columbus Free Press broke two major stories.
    They publicized the story about Romney's son owning voting machines. His machines failed all 12 security tests which makes them the easiest to Hack. The second world wide story was untested software introduced into counties to tally the vote. Bob Fitrakis took them to court on Monday the day of the election. The judge didn't stop the election, but did order that there be a 5% recount across the state if the election was close.

    There were Justice Dept people and FBI all over that state. Colorado and VA has already gone for Obama, so there was no need to throw the election.

    All this is factual.

    Here is speculation.

    Rove came on TV 1 minute before he did in the 2004 election. This year in 2012, he said machines were crashed in Hamilton and another county and we had to wait until they came up to determine if the votes from those counties would change the election.

    In 2004, Kerry was ahead, the tally machines went down in much of the state, when they came back up, W Bush was ahead and he won the election.

    The election integrity effort is an inside game and gets very complex. I live here in Ohio and have read one book on the 2004 election. Getting into more of them.

    http://www.freepress.org/...

    http://www.freepress.org/...

    http://www.freepress.org/...

    http://www.freepress.org/...

    Search for Wasserman to get a few more articles.

    also can find out more from www.bradblog.co

    •  Rove's and the GOP's election night (0+ / 0-)

      behavior pattern doesn't suggest a conspiracy theory.

      It suggests that criminal behavior occurs in patterns, and that there is a correlation between voting tallying anomalies, "computer crashes" in identified counties and precincts, and Karl Rove's timely entrance into the election media spotlight.

      It's important to carefully review what happened in 2004 when Ohio flipped for Bush, as mentioned by Don. Rove plays for keeps and doesn't have an issue with cheating. He never has. That's HIS behavior pattern. That we can expect that Rove has or will act in an honorable fashion is a recipe for being robbed blind. Rove WILL do what he can to win. That's who he is. He's sociopathic. That's a fact.

      Everything Rove does cannot be trusted. Everything.

  •  I am extremely unimpressed with "Anonymous" (0+ / 0-)

    In general, it seems to me that their stunts have damaged their own causes more than anything else. The wrongdoing targets of their attacks end up instead looking like the victims of wrongdoing.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    by richardak on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 12:34:29 PM PST

  •  wait, so (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FishOutofWater

    the fact that there was no evidence that Iraq didn't have WMDs didn't mean that Iraq had WMDs?  Someone tell Donald Rumsfeld!

  •  Yeah, I saw that one last night (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Murphoney, FishOutofWater

    and had written a snarky comment, but then deleted it and moved on.  I wasn't in the mood to get in a fight (some CT believers get very indignite when you question their CT).

    Thanks for the diary.

  •  yes, but it was "THE anonymous" who made the claim (0+ / 0-)

    I larfed aloud when i saw that update in the diary.

    All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

    by subtropolis on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 02:50:18 PM PST

  •  Anonymous counts coup. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv, ballerina X

    I haven't seen such in my feeds and I'm fairly tapped in on twitter to their celebrations.

    "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:40:06 PM PST

  •  Yes. Thank you. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FishOutofWater, citizenx

    I missed kos's comment, but definitely am on board with the intent.  I was more than a little surprised/bemused that a diary pushing that CT theory found itself a home on top of the Rec List.

    My own take on the subject, posted previously:

    Yeah, but (15+ / 0-)

    ... ORCA wasn't a Karl Rove thing, it was a Romney Campaign thing.  It had its problems, but was intended to be a kind of "who's voted" checkoff, not unlike Houndini of the Obama campaign in 2008.

    I don't give this story any more credence than the RW CT that Philadelphia was all cheat because there were big areas Romney got no votes.  No reason to believe this.

    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!", but "That's funny..." (Isaac Asimov)

    by Land of Enchantment on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 04:49:46 PM PST

  •  As a "conservative" Republican (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment, David PA

    that voted for Obama let me say that if it was proven that if people, from either party, were attempting to hack the voting system that this would be an act of treason.  I'm not saying that the death penalty is automatically the punishment but attempting to pervert democracy itself is worthy of the most extreme punishments.

    While I don't like what my party has become it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that a person as prominent as Rove would do something so fundamentally undermining to democracy as hacking the vote.  It should be investigated thoroughly, and at some level I'm almost hoping that it is true because that would be the death knell for my party (and we can rebuild a conservative party based on reality not fundamentalist, reactionary thinking), but I just don't see it being a likely outcome.

    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

    by theotherside on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:02:23 PM PST

    •  why not, specifically? (0+ / 0-)
      ...it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that a person as prominent as Rove would do something so fundamentally undermining to democracy as hacking the vote.
      I don't believe that Rove did this. But I'm not relying on the fact that it would fundamentally undermine democracy.

      Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
      Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

      by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 05:45:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  String theory does predict something (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FishOutofWater, ballerina X

    It predicts gravity.


    Strange Angels - a progressive online dating site.

    by Zackpunk on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:08:44 PM PST

  •  one needs to see more evidence than the meta /nt (0+ / 0-)

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:24:52 PM PST

  •  Watch... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loose Fur, FishOutofWater

    Anonymous will target DK next for not believing them.

  •  Why are you all wasting time on this? (0+ / 0-)

    Perhaps Anonymous did actually do something against Rove, and perhaps Rove did try to hack the election. It's an interesting scenario/theory, nothing more.

    But to waste all this time debunking? I smell an agenda here.

    "Alcohol enables Congress to do things at eleven at night that no sane person would do at eleven in the morning." - George Bernard Shaw

    by Loose Fur on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:04:41 PM PST

  •  Using diarists' logic (0+ / 0-)

    one could not conclude James Hoffa was murdered. You couldn't prove it. He could have just gone incognito, because people were really getting on his nerves.

    I'm not taking sides as to whether this particular story is true or not. I just don't think Pauli's dictum applies speculating about human action. No human could provide definitive proof of string-theory. But there are probably several people in this world who have a very good idea whether this Anonymous story is true or not. Especially the people in Rove's camp. If one of them confessed tomorrow and brought incriminating documents forward would you still say it's unprovable?

    We have evidence of Anonymous attacking right-wingers servers. We have evidence of Republicans fucking with the vote: "Voter ID, which will deliver the state of Pennsylvania to Mitt Romney: Done." So in a way this story does fit into a prior narrative. That would be germane to a criminal investigation.

    The people who refuse to think outside the box when it comes to protecting our rights and liberties remind me of Bill O'Reilly who says traditional America has passed. Some people on this site still want to believe in the America where the Democratic party will save us. I think we are past that point. It's up to us.

    "...on the (catch a) human network. Cisco."

    by hoplite9 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 02:11:44 AM PST

  •  umm anonymous isn't a person (0+ / 0-)

    it's a group of hackers.  so one person is not making a claim.  of course it's impossible to prove this one way or the other unless the group would reveal their methods.  they aren't going to do that.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 04:12:10 AM PST

  •  This isn't quite a Negative Proof situation. (0+ / 0-)

    That depends on claiming that there's a dog-that-didn't-bark fact in the mix, "Hound of the Baskervilles" stuff, where the didn't-bark event is falsely constructed.

    ORCA didn't work properly.

    That does in fact prove that ORCA was either badly conceived, badly executed, hacked, or some combination of these and other bad-effects factors.

    ORCA sucked on Election Day.

    It's not that proof cannot exist. It could.

    Anonymous could very well have hacked ORCA and done some damage. That's not Rove's stuff, but who cares?

    It would be possible for such proof to show up, here at DKOS, despite there being nothing in hand today.

    And please, consider Republicans and their intimate relationship with situational paranoia. Everything is a plot.

    So... let the GOPers think that Anonymous trashed their $60,000,000 ORCA.

    Let them obsess over it.

    For years......... Take their minds off Benghazi.

    •  There are a number of reports of incompetence (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bontemps2012

      I read them after I wrote this post based on links provided in comments to the other diary.

      I have seen negative proof type arguments in the comments of that diary. Of course, if Anonymous, or whoever is making the claims, provides evidence to support the claims we can start to eliminate false hypotheses and move beyond groundless speculation.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 05:45:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  a possibility? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bontemps2012

        Assuming for argument's sake that anonymous was involved, is it possible that the reason concrete evidence wasn't put forth is because it would have put them at risk of exposure and/or made any future blocking operations more difficult?

        The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing; they tell us how the media is doing.

        by Thumb on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 07:06:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Actually... (0+ / 0-)

    If there's one thing about conspiracies that we know, it's that they always succeed.

    The fact that this Rove thing didn't work is proof that it's not a conspiracy.

  •  Just so you know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizenx

    I am currently commanding a joint Klingon/Sontaran battle fleet which which is keeping a pending invasion by the Moonites from the moon against our planet.

    Your welcome!

  •  Heads They Win, Tails Doesn't Count (0+ / 0-)

    On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

    by stevemb on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 06:49:26 AM PST

  •  Thats what makes this website so great! (0+ / 0-)

    That's what makes this website so great! Logic counts!  Where can you find another political website where logic and facts count for something?  OK, there are a few but not many.

skybluewater, Sharoney, social democrat, RedDan, Pat K California, Spit, Federalist, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Ed in Montana, Angie in WA State, Armando, Chi, G Spot1, jennifer poole, hester, lowkell, grollen, copymark, dalemac, Sparhawk, ORDem, houndcat, wph, NYmom, madmsf, BigOkie, PeterHug, karlpk, dengre, Shockwave, Wintermute, meg, Caj, belle1, waytac, akeitz, eeff, rlamoureux, ltsply2, Walt starr, emelyn, Ahianne, patop, MarkInSanFran, Poika, Creosote, Theodoric of York Medieval Liberal, Paulie200, Addison, bara, eyeswideopen, alain2112, jackspace, raines, Zinman, missLotus, 88kathy, susans, sponson, indybend, litho, Wee Mama, mbayrob, nyceve, Time Waits for no Woman, CoolOnion, sparko, bluesteel, CatFelyne, boadicea, AlyoshaKaramazov, themank, Dont Just Stand There, roses, denig, Ignacio Magaloni, gloever, Toktora, CodeTalker, jbeach, Fe, jennifree2bme, ornerydad, bwren, PeteZerria, Glinda, sidnora, Chrisfs, wader, Garbear, recontext, hopesprings, psnyder, Moody Loner, annan, ManhattanMan, TexDem, plan9pub, Miss Jones, coldwynn, virginislandsguy, ranger995, leevank, elmo, brainwave, Noodles, chrismorgan, Steven Payne, houyhnhnm, betson08, liberte, RebeccaG, riverlover, Sophie Amrain, walkshills, FlyingToaster, Sembtex, tomjones, Black Max, eve, realalaskan, Jen Hayden, Sybil Liberty, sebastianguy99, Limelite, J Orygun, mrmango, Bluesee, NoMoreLies, jrooth, tle, Jeffersonian Democrat, yuriwho, kalu, subtropolis, HudsonValleyMark, Chinton, democracy inaction, Alice Venturi, kitchen sink think tank, citizenx, EJP in Maine, Laurence Lewis, Beetwasher, Sun Tzu, stevemb, Ice Blue, SheriffBart, paxpdx, kaliope, kazoo of the north, ScottAC, Rydra Wrong, coolbreeze, Ekaterin, JanF, jbfunk, kkjohnson, Land of Enchantment, terjeanderson, kathny, bently, xaxnar, Nowhere Man, sideboth, Sanuk, BalanceSeeker, irishwitch, golem, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, rcbowman, keeplaughing, Mr Bojangles, edwardssl, dopper0189, Gorette, ruleoflaw, Catesby, Magnifico, Shakludanto, anastasia p, kck, SarekOfVulcan, global citizen, StrayCat, twigg, Libby Shaw, SadieSue, Spock36, middleagedhousewife, MBNYC, SingerInTheChoir, democracy is coming, CA Nana, profh, zhimbo, suspiciousmind, The Lighthouse Keeper, Mindtrain, means are the ends, blueoregon, bstotts, Hedwig, Temmoku, Quicklund, Nulwee, Aaa T Tudeattack, Thinking Fella, Tamar, pgm 01, A Mad Mad World, Cronesense, Truedelphi, peagreen, Loudoun County Dem, blue armadillo, tgypsy, ninkasi23, moodyinsavannah, gloriana, linkage, DvCM, LillithMc, Via Chicago, mommyof3, DWG, US Blues, millwood, jhop7, gchaucer2, RudiB, yella dawg, Rumarhazzit, uciguy30, Sarea, leonard145b, Don midwest, aseth, South Park Democrat, mathGuyNTulsa, TomP, Empower Ink, gizmo59, JDWolverton, rogerdaddy, seriously70, mconvente, misterwade, Argyrios, TX Freethinker, JaxDem, MikePhoenix, zerone, Johnny Nucleo, Sixty Something, Tchrldy, Aureas2, Involuntary Exile, dadadata, bythesea, lineatus, Sharon Wraight, Akonitum, jamess, Lujane, pamelabrown, RandomNonviolence, hwmnbn, smartdemmg, bluesheep, dagolfnut, Kathy S, petulans, emidesu, Karen Hedwig Backman, palantir, Ellinorianne, lgcap, shortgirl, lostboyjim, JBL55, Sun dog, Bule Betawi, Rhysling, McGahee220, danoland, rudewarrior, Neon Vincent, rsmpdx, litoralis, divineorder, hummingbird4015, juca, clambake, fearisthemindkiller, Michael James, Carol in San Antonio, CanyonWren, LeftOfYou, Nebraskablue, Sarge in Seattle, Methinks They Lie, jmknapp53, dRefractor, elziax, lastman, Kysen, metro50, realwischeese, mdmslle, astral66, Essephreak, Livvy5, winsock, Leftcandid, ruscle, HoopJones, CalGal47, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, ribeye, YellerDog, TFinSF, Captain Marty, gramofsam1, Susan Grigsby, piers, fidellio, stunzeed, Anima, CS in AZ, Crabby Abbey, LOrion, ordy, Lost and Found, freeport beach PA, mjbleo, 2questions, Dexter, Eddie L, gulfgal98, samanthab, ItsSimpleSimon, melfunction, nickrud, addisnana, science nerd, progdog, nosleep4u, wwjjd, JanG, rmabelis, upaithric, Onomastic, kerflooey, MidwestTreeHugger, I love OCD, zooecium, ozsea1, LordRobin, Wolf Of Aquarius, Teknocore, Zutroy, Mistral Wind, Hatrax, kevin k, California06, nezzclay, Alice Olson, RyanHarvey, Chicago Lawyer, marleycat, zukesgirl64, cyberpuggy, Cinnamon Rollover, Wheever, Mark Tapley, political mutt, muddy boots, Coastrange, General Hubbub, SueM1121, rexymeteorite, Empty Vessel, antooo, peregrine kate, Safina, PhilJD, Daulphin, sound of progress, VTCC73, Crazy Moderate, JoeEngineer, Marihilda, Vatexia, jolux, theatre goon, dradams, PrometheusUnbound, erush1345, Mathazar, Dream It Real, stormicats, KiB, Williston Barrett, stills999, Mindful Nature, Siri, charliehall2, IndieGuy, Jakkalbessie, rexxnyc, joanil, pimutant, a2nite, Horace Boothroyd III, shanesnana, AmyU, Tyler R, lincolnliberal, Murphoney, thePhoenix13, jennyp, Vote4Obamain2012, avsp, Denver11, Glen The Plumber, Spirit of Life, deconite, Robynhood too, Hammerhand, Candide08, Graypets, nomandates, Dallas L, gotmooned, entrelac, Jollie Ollie Orange, eric611, Smoh, literatelib, Mike Kahlow, tampaedski, bontemps2012, poppenjay, grubber, plooto, shinobi9

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site