General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums" Of all the gin joints..." (Black box election fraud just happened to me.)
Good morning, all y'all. Watch this piece about voting machine-enabled election fraud already detected and reported in Tennessee. And of all the people this had to happen to, one of 'em just had to be me.
http://www.wsmv.com/story/26880035/voters-report-issues-at-maury-county-polls
Watch this and join me in getting fucking pissed. Then hide and watch....
I'm so tempted to play Powerball today.
But I know my odds of getting my vote hacked in the Volunteer State's unverifiable DREs beat the beheezus out of those odds.
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)The Garden (and other duties) beckon ...
peace13
(11,076 posts)How ironic. I rec this post with no button. Who knows how often the votes get flipped because so many don't check their ballots. In ohio the screen to check the printed ballot is about 3x4 inches and covered by a cloudy door. Most folks don't even know it is there!
I am so sorry that this happened to you!
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)I appreciate that this has already been shared by eight FB friends. And that a friend (who has 30+ years in the NSA-level cyberworld prefaced his post thusly:
"No way this is an accident.
A zero is not a one."
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Saxby Chambliss case in point.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)Good to see you here!
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)... and so far, the fraud is all in the direction of anti-choice and Rs.
I will await the reaction to this news story. Channel 4 is one of our big stations.
Hide and watch ...
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)never seems to be any consequences.
Please keep us informed.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)The consequences aren't to them.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)it is because the programmer intended you to dial the wrong number, not because either your phone or your finger miscalibrated.
That's why you are presented with screens to check your vote - mis-calibration, both human and machine, can result in the wrong box being hit by the human or "perceived" by the computer. Yes - always check your vote, not because the machine "flipped" it, but because it may not have been recorded in the first place, because either you or the machine screwed up.
Do you really think someone clever enough to accomplish the extremely complex task of programming a voting machine in a way that it can be used to predictably shift votes (when the thousands of unrelated voting jurisdictions enter the candidates - whose names were unknown at the time the software was written - and parties - which might be easier to guess but are still not under the control of the programmers), would be dumb enough to let you see it?
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)You might want to do a littl' light reading on the subject here at DU. Might wanna start in late 2004
You? You're a new reptile to me.
But hey. I bet you live in a beautiful state.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)but rest assured that I have read pretty much everything ever written on DU about voting, from far earlier than 2004,and have first hand knowledge, from a variety of perspectives, of how voting machines work, and what they are, and are not, capable of. I contribute mainly to point out the obvious fear mongering, when it is easy to do so by using publicly available information and logic.
Did the machine display a preliminary ballot with different votes than you entered (or think you entered)? Sure. Was that presentation of a preliminary ballot for you voter fraud? - not a chance. What you experienced was miscalibration, plain and simple. Either human (you have fat fingers) or machine (in which case the machine needs to be recalibrated).
If you believe otherwise, then how about responding to the substance of what I requested, rather than spouting snark.
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)... that I work for a living. I am a busy farmer this time of year and my only connection to this thread is pecking into my IPhone. I wish I could respond to you and anyone else but I'll only be able to touch base every 2-3 hours from the phone.
Besides, if you've already read everything written here at DU on election integrity, then you already know who I am. And what I know. And what I believe. And the six documentaries (so far) that document the above. So why should I have to repeat myself to you ... of all people. Really.
Now if others here want to speak to the issue (or to me), well, I'm happy to give them plenty of time to do so.
If, that is, I could.
See ya', bye. Sorry.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)has addressed the real life challenges I have suggested about specifically how such fraud would be carried out.
Vendor programmers who do the logic programming of the machines are the ones who would need to write the code that would be capable of finding and flipping votes. They are the only ones who have access to all of the software on all of the machines. The fields in the database, however, are not party or candidate specific, so programmers cannot just write a routine which finds the fields labeled "democrat" so that they can shift a portion of the votes to the republican candidate. While the programmers do create - in essence - boxes to hold each candidate or issue, the programmers do not label the boxes by party. They can't just go find the democrat box. Not only that, but within the box although there will be a file for the party name - that party name is not created by the programmers, and there are no rules (aside from field length) about how local officials name the parties - so the vote flipping routine you allege can't even just look in each box, and check the first file in each one to see if it is a democratic candidate, since the local official might have decided to use initials only. Or numbers. Or the first 2 letters, 3 letters, etc. And each jurisdiction can give different party names to each candidate.
The party names, are added by local election officials - who have neither the access nor the programming ability (in most cases) to write the logical code that would be needed to shift the votes. Even if one or two local officials figured out how to break in and modify the code, it would be too small a variation to impact anything other than a local election - and it
And - whatever scheme the programmers come up with would need to be manipulable on a national scale without the knowledge of the local election officials (or of specifically how they entered the ballots in their individual counties), since keeping a secret of that magnitude among a cast of thousands is laughable.
If you are going to allege that there is vote shifting going on, rather than the infinitely more likely human or computer miscalibration, then you need to be able to explain the logic by which it happens with the real life restrictions that exist. So far, as I have noted, no one has. Waving your hands and saying that hacking is always possible just doesn't cut it.
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)... does not mean that it does not exist.
To repeat myself, the volumes of credible evidence for this phenomenon discussed here the past decade would cause more timid types to refrain from the "show me" stance on my presentation of empirical experience and my humble logical positivist conclusions regarding that experience.
Show you? Look. Here.
Any time over the last ten years. Including this minute.
With all due respect (sic), I have no more use for your uninformed or willfully ignorant position. We (most of us here) are beyond that. Haven't ignored anyone here for several years but I guess it is still possible. Or we can just stop ... now.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)the question I have asked.
The people who program the logic into the machines are not the same ones (and have not clue about) who enter the candidates and parties. The database is agnostic as to party.
The triviality of moving numbers electronically around fails when it meets the real world reality of how elections are run, and who has access to what information, at a time when voter fraud could be pro grammatically implemented.
But for the record, my opinion is neither ignorant nor uninformed. My involvement in this issue began years before yours. Although it is no longer my primary occupation, teaching programming has been in the past, and I still do some database programming.
It is not that I trust the right not to want to steal elections, it is that from a very intimate perspective I have seen no indication that doing so with electronic voting machines is possible, as a practical matter.
Fly by night
(5,265 posts).
tecelote
(5,122 posts)You're right, it could never happen!
Plus, imagine how many people would need to be bribed! Where would they get that kind of money?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)that in this day and age of awarding the contract to the lowest bidder, that some crappy programmer or crappy touch screen developer can't deliver a crappy product that doesn't reliably do what it is supposed to do?
Why do the manufacturers of touch screen voting machines claim that it is just too expensive and too complex to provide a printed copy of your vote? (Hint: why is that too complex and expensive, when every daman credit/debit card transaction in the world offers a printed receipt showing what you bought and how much you paid for it?)
Why, when these errors occur, they invariably 'flip the vote' to the right?
Why do you so staunchly insist that it couldn't happen when hackers have broken into just about everywhere?
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)Permitting you to prove how you voted would allow you to sell your vote to the highest bidder.
You are aware that party names are not programmed into the software, right? They are entered locally, and there is no uniform set of party names that are used. So how did the voting machine programmers (who have no control over what parties you enter, or which order you enter then in) know which fields would be filled with republican/right candidates in order to always make the change in the "correct" direction?
Anecdotes posted here are going to be people who intended to vote for a left-leaning candidate, so any mis-calibration errors would be reported here as a "flip" to the right, and reading here would give you the impression that everything reported is a single direction shift. Do you have any unbiased, large, studies that support your assertion?
Hacking is certainly possible in any electronic system - but where you see large scale hacking is either in a central database (there is none here) or where the independent machines are linked together via a network. Neither of those situations exist with voting machines. What is being alleged here is massive control over hundreds of thousands of machines which are never linked together, which are infinitely customizable in terms of the data (party names, candidates, and positions), which has to be carried out by a very limited number of individuals in keep the exact details of the plot secret for all these years. That is just not realistic - and if you would like to prove it is, please provide the code outline I requested. So far, no one has been able to do that.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Ballot to put in the BOX.
You keep on trying to sell that $hit.
Good Luck with that
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)I was responding to a complaint about not getting a receipt, by the vote fraud reason that voting machines don't give receipts. Printing a ballot to put in a box is a different question - and some machines do.
Pakid
(478 posts)is wrong! Because then I could sell my vote, but of course you don't believe that some programmer might just take a payoff to have a machine change my vote. I am 100% in favor of have a printed copy of how I voted and then another copy that is put under lock and used to prove that the machine counted the votes right. Check and verify anything that a machine does is a very smart idea. Better yet take the voting machines and stuff them up the back side of the fools who made them happen and go back to paper ballots. I can wait a day or two for the result as long as I trust the results and right now I don't trust the result!
quakerboy
(13,901 posts)as long as they are just an aide to help me print out the easy to scan paper ballot that I turn in. Do it that way, and we dont even need a receipt for ourselves. Just make the machine fill out the paperwork to ensure I dont have hanging chads or scribble over something that makes it hard to read.
As a completely opaque, un-recountable, unverifiable voting method, they definitely leave something to be desired, however.
quakerboy
(13,901 posts)Otherwise vote by mail would be disqualified, since you could easily make a photocopy prior to mailing it in. Or even just show it to someone else to prove how you voted, right before you seal it and drop it in the mail.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)is not proof you actually submitted it.
quakerboy
(13,901 posts)Would filling out your ballot in front of someone, handing it to them to stick it in the envelope, and letting them stick it in the mailbox be proof? because one could easily do that with vote by mail.
And yet vote by mail is still allowed, and in some places is the main way to vote. Remaining solid evidence that your argument against a paper ballot verification system is invalid.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)by any board of elections which proves how you voted.
You don't like it, go agitate at the board of elections to give every voter proof of how they voted. Just remember which side has the money to buy votes, on the off chance you succeed.
quakerboy
(13,901 posts)And if you don't like it, I suppose you are welcome to stick your head in the sand and pretend it ain't so.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)and cobble together proof. That is not the same as the board of elections giving you a document you can use to sell your vote - and it is not evidence.
quakerboy
(13,901 posts)But keep on sticking your head in the sand. Maybe if you ignore the obvious long enough, it will go away.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)one spent 30 months in prison for corruption and bribery (Bob Ney); one tried to run for President with the worst campaign ever, and is now a lobbyist for Hollywood with an agenda to censor the Internet (Friend of Countrywide Angelo Mozillo, Chris Dodd); one was indicted for money laundering charges in 2005, convicted years later, and recently had his conviction overturned, all without spending a day in prison (Tom "Dancing with the Stars" DeLay); and the last one has business and financial ties with ES&S (which at one point had a monopoly on vote counting machines, counting 80% of the country's votes), and is currently the Secretary of Defense, the Department which oversees the NSA, which collects every phone call, email, bank record, and Google search of every citizen in the US.
They flip votes with impunity, aided by those who refuse to believe they can.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)What I am saying is that the kind of vote flipping being alleged is virtually possible given the real life division of labor and logic involved in voting machines.
If you believe otherwise, then please explain the logic of the code - and the mechanics of implementing it - which is consistent with the division of labor (party names are not written into the program by the programmers, who are the only ones who have access to the software for all of the machines of one type; local election officials are unrestricted in how they name each party - so in writing this devious routine, the programmers cannot count on them using standard names; and the local election officials only have access to their machines (making any logical hack they do extremely ineffective) and most of them don't have the programming ability to carry it out).
Being evil and wanting to hack votes does not mean they get to snap their fingers and accomplish it. If you really believe that is what happened, then you need to be able to provide a realistic explanation about how they have carried out this massive manipulation. So far, no one has even bothered to try answering that question. Whenever I raise it, I get snark (the OP), or allegations that these are evil people - without any explanation of how they could possibly carry out their evil intentions.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)that demonstrated that vote counters could be flipped with rudimentary computer knowledge and about $8 worth of parts from Radio Shack (or $16 if you wanted to do it remotely from a half-mile away.)
I know a poll watcher who told me that the machines are kept unsecured.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)First, you have to be in a jurisdiction with older Sequoia machines. Doesn't work on most machines, because most machines are touch screen, not hardwired panels, including Dominion, the Sequoia successor. There aren't that many who use that machine.
Second, to carry it out you would need physical access (and time) to swap enough panels to make a difference in the vote, Swapping one out one panel at a time, rigging the next panel, swapping it out, rigging the next, etc. makes installing the hack ridiculous. The suggestion that a voter would be able to remove the panel on that monstrosity behind a voting curtain and not be noticed is ludicrous. (Aside from which, the privacy panels on the side replace curtains in most jurisdictions, so you would be removing it in full sight of voting officials.) As for storage - I can only tell you about the place I was an election monitor. Even if you had all the replacement panels prepared, there is no way you could pull the panels and replace them in the storage room without being noticed. And - as for not breaking the seals, I am less familiar with the Sequoia Advantage than others, but I would be extremely surprised if there are not tamper resistant seals on the privacy shields, since opening those exposes the ballot itself.
Third, there are multiple ballots in most jurisdictions to avoid position bias. To make sure you swap the right votes, you have to know the physical layout of every possible ballot so you know which panels to swap out.
Fourth, if you incorrectly predict how people vote, you risk stealing the election against yourself, since all it does is switch all of the votes for one candidate with all of the votes for another.
Fifth, you would need someone within a half mile of each voting location in order to turn hacking on or off. That's a lot of people to keep a secret. Just not happening.
Granted - it shouldn't be possible to switch votes, even on a single machine. But as far as changing the results of an election, it is a cheap parlor trick to generate fear that elections are actually being stolen.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I work in IT security.
Our team regularly stands outside of businesses who hire us to White Hat hack their networks and, well, hack into their network - and you'd only need one person to stand outside one location to get access to the entire network.
There is no such thing as total security and no such thing as "tamper proof."
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)One of the main reasons none of the allegations I have seen of how hacking could be used to commit vote fraud are realistic.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Check out brad blog for the latest atrocities in election fraud.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Simple electronic circuits are readily audited by people possessing sub-PhD skills. That's why machines that scan "fill in the ovals" forms with simple photoreceptors are still considered credible.
BBV is essentially a "computerized" phenomenon. It employs machines based on PC architecture, with many layers of quirky, bug-ridden logic that amount to billions of effective logic gates that cannot be examined. Sometimes even the software is closed to public auditing.
This is what you expect from an essential government function being outsourced and absorbed into the corporate "service economy".
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)I don't find it convincing.
As I've said, I have been involved in voting, in a number of capacities, for more than a decade. I know how the machines operate, and what they are capable of, and what they aren't. The demonstrations of vote modification which appear from time to time are parlor tricks which are carried out on isolated machines, under conditions completely unlike the reality of how elections are run, that electronic devices cannot be made entirely secure.
But there is a vast difference between moving a couple of votes around on isolated machines, and systemically, across the country, being able to hack enough individual machines to make a difference.
The "flipping" is bad calibration - either human or machine. No one who is capable of actually rigging an election using voting machines would be stupid enough to show you what they are doing by displaying an altered vote.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)But I'll base mine on experts who have definitively shown that election fraud has occurred numerous times over the last decade.
OldRedneck
(1,397 posts)I'm an election board officer in a rural Virginia county. We use two types of voting:
(1) paper ballots that are fed through an optical scanner that reads the marks on the ballot and counts to votes, and, (2) a touch-screen machine on which you touch the on-screen box next to your choice, press the NEXT button, etc., etc.
The touch-screen machines must be calibrated. In fact, about a month before the election, we program the machines with candidate names and other issues on the ballot. As part of the programming, we must calibrate the screens. It's a simple process -- a series of + signs pops up on the screen and one person must touch the plus sign. If you don't touch it precisely, it starts the process all over.
From time to time, someone using one of our touch-screen machines reports a similar error -- the machine won't take my vote, I voted Republican but the machine showed Democrat as my choice, etc.
In every case of machine error -- except one -- we found the problem was with the voter. The voter, instead of touching the box or circle on the screen, either (1) tapped the screen more than once, (2) made a checkmark or an X in the box instead of a simple touch; (3) swiped the box with their finger; or (4) touched the candidate's name, not the box. In one case, we had to call the machine out of service, recalibrate, and put it back in service.
Now, I'm not saying the author of this post did something wrong -- could have been a machine error or a calibration error -- I suspect calibration. Still, if you are voting on a touch-screen machine, touch the box or circle next to the candidate's name -- touch one time, touch directly, don't make a swiping motion, don't make an X or a checkmark, don't stab the screen with your finger.
In our precincts, we set up the touch-screen machines in an isolated corner to discourage their use because of the possibility of errors and because there's no paper ballot to use in case of recount.
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)Again, I've been involved deeply in this issue for a decade, at the state and national levels. I know the reasons (and the excuses) for what happened. In this case, it is not a calibration issue. If I had more time, I'd discuss the ballot construction but I've got to return some calls.
Glad we agree that DREs are worse than useless.
I knew that.
Just not up close and personal.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)Lars39
(26,093 posts)And thanks for the heads up to be vigilant in the booth.
I've always figured my votes just disappear completely.
Surprised wsmv even covered the topic.
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)Finally.
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)If there are any.
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)Who can we contact - are you in the area?
We've got to flood the local and state election commissioners.
progressoid
(49,825 posts)Keep fightin' the good fight!
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)As if I didn't have enough to do.
But hey, saving (what's left of) our democracy remains always on my "to do" list.
Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)" it helps to unclick the incorrect vote, then re-select the original choice." Is that a joke?
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)When Beverly pressed "no" on Amendment 1 -- before she could leave that page -- her vote switched to "yes". She saw this happen so she immediately pushed the "no" choice again. She could not get the screen to switch to "no" until she FIRST touched the "yes" button to deselect it. THEN her "no" vote finally lit up.
Note: this was trial and error. No info on how to change the machine's mind to reflect something closer to, oh you know, her sentiments on the subject.
So that's that. Now back to cutting hickory wood. Who knows where the times (and our votes) go....
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)to decide whether to permit a new selection to replace the old one, or to required the voter to deselect the first one before choosing the next. In cases where the local election official can't choose how it wants its voters to interact with the machine, one of the two options is programmed (in one of two ways) by the programmer.
There is nothing nefarious in either option. It is just two different ways to accomplish the goal of allowing you to change what it has tentatively recorded as your selection. The latter presumes you made the correct choice first time, and requires you confirm (by deselecting it) that you really do want to change your vote.
Have you really never encountered both ways of changing selections you have made on other electronic devices?
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)I'll check back in after a minute.
valerief
(53,235 posts)And they always claim "recalibration is needed." I don't even know why they bother with the pretense of elections anyway in certain counties.
And, I know, this particular instance was on a ballot question not a candidate. The voting theft works the same way for both.
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)Addressing the real world challenges I have laid out above.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)Vote counting machines have a very simple set of inputs and outputs. They are smart terminals that process only a few things.
The computer code driving the vote tallies looks at a handful of input and tallies the outcome. Extra code can be spliced inside of the legitimate code that can easily alter the tally and even the input data itself. The malicious code and even delete itself leaving no trace of the outlaw code.
Then from the outside, the vote counting box and be accessed from anywhere, manipulated, leaving little or no trace back to the origin.
That's all I've got for you today. Sorry I didn't have time to read all of your posts.
I see no signs that the governments at the local or national level are taking the threat of vote counting fraud seriously. To me, that suggest that they have an ulterior motive.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)Those who have access to programming all of the machines with the logic do not dictate where, in the database, the democratic candidates will end up - or how they will be designated, or how the positions they are running for will be designated. The fields are party agnostic. That decision is made by local election officials, who may choose any label they want so long as it fits within the field.
So now you are down to hacking individual jurisdictions where you know the detailed information about how the election was coded. In most instances, rigging a single jurisdiction (particularly in a way that is not blatantly obvious) would not be significant enough to swing a large election. And doing more requires too many people keeping quiet about election fraud to be practical.
Yes, the mechanics of modifying data in an individual database are trivial. What is non-trivial is when you move beyond the code and have to account for the human behavior in thousands of jurisdictions across the country; when you are talking about modifying content which could be stored anywhere in any candidate field, with unpredictable (and different from database to database) party names, and you have to successfully implement this hack across the country (for a presidential election) or statewide (for pretty much any race that would be worth the criminal charges that would follow if you were caught).
ladjf
(17,320 posts)programming expertise. By doing so, you could answer your own questions.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)and still work fairly extensively with databases. My challenge comes from that perspective - combined with fairly extensive real world experience with elections. It is that combination - the trivial matter of how to move numbers around, combined with the practicalities of who (and how many people) have access to which pieces of the puzzle, and when, that make it non-trivial.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)choice for consistent reliability as so many variables can be encountered in their use as has been mentioned in the thread. IMO an optical scan with 'fill in the circles' on hardcopy is more reliable. I can believe there are isolated instances of machine fraud, but to pull it off in massive numbers, at least to me, is doubtful. I think the elections official that replied earlier in the thread made a lot of sense.
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Will make sure the husband checks his review page.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Not too subtle anymore these days....
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Laffy Kat
(16,356 posts)On PAPER ballots. Pissed right along with you, FBN!
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)14 Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
http://rense.com/general37/char.htm
Docross
(39 posts)Trying to remember which states, etc, - but during the 2004 election, Dan Rather broadcasting results...
saw that in 3 important states, Bush's votes suddenly went up by 5 per cent -- in all three states,
exactly at the same time. Dan Rather still on microphone was heard muttering ... "Deibold!".
(They got rid of him, too).
Odds on that are like tossing a penny up 10 times and having it come down on.....IT'S EDGE!
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)nikto
(3,284 posts)About all those votes that flip to Democrats and win election after election for the Democratic Party.
Now that would be a problem, no?
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)Thanks kindly for taking on this thread's only ... (What are we allowed to call each other these days here?) ... shall we say, black box booster and DRE enabled election fraud denier. They're always here, they're always long winded, and they almost always are alone. In my day, it was OTOH. Now it's another reptile.
Thank the Goddess, I do know how to walk away. There is always the Garden.
Thanks for the chance to reconnect with DUers like y'all once again. As for the one TALKer here, I repeat.
You live in a beautiful state.
For those of you who don't catch my drift, ask a Navajo someday what it means to them.
See ya', bye. Got more wood to cut and (obviously) more folks to drag behind the woodshed.
Such is life, in the land of eternal vigilance.
Y'all come.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)they both seem/ed to come into these conversational threads as if there's a battle to be won. it's dissonant.
glad to see you, btw! hope all is well in Tennessee!
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)Things are well in my deep hollow and on my berry and hickory ridges.
At the Capitol, the flying monkeys reign.
We'll see soon how isolated our experience was/is in coming days. If nothing else, we've alerted people to review their ballot before casting their vote and to speak up if anything hinky occurs.
But, as we all (minus one) know, with these machines, anything is possible.
And we're STILL not allowed
to see the software.
Still.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)We really need some sort of watch-dog agency to stop this kind of thing. The corporations that program and service these laughable tallybags need to be destroyed.
Fly by night
(5,265 posts)I'd love to sit around a bonfire with Anon and discuss the issues of the day in the "No means Yes" state. And how to remedy them.
Nothing underhanded or illegal, you understand. Because, in the words of a once moderate Republican president,
"That would be wrong."