Posts for: ACP45
Feb 5, 2017 07:58:47 #
(Main)
OK folks. Many of you have expressed your anger and resentment of the problem. Question: have any of you called or written a letter or emailed the representative of your state who voted against this amendment?
Unless or until campaign contributions are removed from the political equation, the only way to effect the necessary change in the political process is to put pressure on your elected leaders by expressing your opinion on issues, and if that does not work, then replacing them in the ballot booth at the next election.
Unless or until campaign contributions are removed from the political equation, the only way to effect the necessary change in the political process is to put pressure on your elected leaders by expressing your opinion on issues, and if that does not work, then replacing them in the ballot booth at the next election.
Feb 5, 2017 07:43:39 #
(Main)
Are you familiar with Jim Willie, the editor of the Hat Trick Letter? Are you an aware, thinking, rational person who is not afraid to question main street thought and propaganda, and are you willing to spend the time and work to get to the truth of a matter? If you answer "NO" to any of these questions, then leave this post right now, THIS IS NOT FOR YOU.
Otherwise, I welcome you to listen to an interview of Jim at this link: https://youtu.be/ZT8igqf-WEY
Jim is irreverent, funny, but always brilliant in his analysis.
Otherwise, I welcome you to listen to an interview of Jim at this link: https://youtu.be/ZT8igqf-WEY
Jim is irreverent, funny, but always brilliant in his analysis.
Feb 4, 2017 07:55:43 #
(Main)
As someone who worked in the financial industry for over 40 years, I found Trump's first choice of financial regulations to tackle a bit puzzling and troubling to say the least.
While (most) everyone would be in favor of rolling back excessively burdensome regulations which unduly constrain the financial services industry, the Dodd-Frank Act does not fall into that category.
"The term Dodd-Frank refers to a comprehensive and complicated piece of financial regulation born out of the Great Recession of 2008.
In simple terms, Dodd-Frank is a law that places major regulations on the financial industry. It grew out of the Great Recession with the intention of preventing another collapse of a major financial institution like Lehman Brothers.
Dodd-Frank is also geared toward protecting consumers with rules like keeping borrowers from abusive lending and mortgage practices by banks.
One of the main goals of the Dodd-Frank Act is to have banks subjected to a number of regulations along with the possibility of being broken up if any of them are determined to be "too big to fail."
To do that, the act created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). It looks out for risks that affect the entire financial industry. It also oversees non-bank financial firms like hedge funds .
If any of the banks gets too big in the council's determination, they could be be regulated by the Federal Reserve, which can ask a bank to increase its reserve requirement, i.e. the money it has 'saved up' and is not using for lending or business costs.
Under Dodd-Frank, banks are also required to have plans for a quick and orderly shutdown in the event that the bank becomes insolvent or runs out of money.
The Volcker Rule is part of Dodd-Frank and prohibits banks from owning, investing, or sponsoring hedge funds, private equity funds, or any proprietary trading operations for their own profit.
Dodd-Frank requires that the riskiest derivatives "like credit default swaps" be regulated by the SEC or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission(CFTC). (Keep in mind that Warren Buffett referred to these financial instruments as [weapons of mass destruction]"
This is a brief synopsis of the Dodd-Frank Act. If you are interested, you can find out more about this at: http://www.cnbc.com/id/47075854
An article in ZeroHedge questions the rollback of Dodd-Frank by stating "Among the targets are rules that protect against predatory lenders, force brokers to lower fees for retirees and ban proprietary trading. Specifically, Trump took executive action ordering the review of Dodd-Frank rules enacted after 2008 financial crisis, and halting the "fiduciary rule" that would require advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients."
So, I ask you, are these the "excessively burdensome regulations which unduly constrain the financial services industry" that Trump should choose as his first foray into the financial services sector?
The ZeroHedge article goes on to say, "While it will take a while to fully roll back the financial regulations, we are confident that Wall Street is already preparing for the next big push into prop trading, major re-leveraging, blowing a whole new set of asset bubbles, and all those other things which brought the system to a near collapse less than 10 years ago.
Finally, while Trump was quick to begin the process of undoing Dodd Frank - no doubt with the helpful advice of numerous former Goldman bankers standing behind his shoulder - he has yet to make any comments on bringing back Glass Steagall, the one law that would truly protect depositors from runaway banker greed, and mandate yet another taxpayer funded bailout the next time the US banking sector is in need of a bailout."
I agree. Re-institution of a new version of Glass Steagall would have been far, far better for the American public. For those interested, Bernie Sanders explains in 5 reasons why it is necessary to implement a new version of this act. https://berniesanders.com/yes-glass-steagall-matters-here-are-5-reasons-why/
It should be noted that before Glass-Steagall was repealed by Bill Clinton in 1999, there was a firewall setup between commercial banking and investment banking. In other words, your deposits were not exposed to a commercial bank's much more risky investment banking activities. Since Glass-Steagall was repealed, your deposits are now exposed to your bank's investment activities, including derivative trading.
Did you know that YOUR deposits are treated as "UNSECURED LIABILITIES" of the bank, and that the bank's derivative's position is given priority over unsecured liabilities?
You may feel comforted by the fact that your deposits are protected by FDIC insurance. To that end, I call your attention to the chart below. In the event of a full blown domestic or worldwide banking crisis or systemic failure, how far will $25 billion go? Have you heard the term "bail-ins"? Look it up here: https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-a-bail-in-and-how-does-it-work-1979089
How will you fare if 20%, or 30%, or 40% of your deposits are bailed in to offset any deficiency in FDIC insurance or any shortfall from additional Treasury support for the FDIC?
So, now do you see my concern for Trump's focus on Dodd-Frank vs. the much more important consumer protection of a new and revised Glass Steagall?
While (most) everyone would be in favor of rolling back excessively burdensome regulations which unduly constrain the financial services industry, the Dodd-Frank Act does not fall into that category.
"The term Dodd-Frank refers to a comprehensive and complicated piece of financial regulation born out of the Great Recession of 2008.
In simple terms, Dodd-Frank is a law that places major regulations on the financial industry. It grew out of the Great Recession with the intention of preventing another collapse of a major financial institution like Lehman Brothers.
Dodd-Frank is also geared toward protecting consumers with rules like keeping borrowers from abusive lending and mortgage practices by banks.
One of the main goals of the Dodd-Frank Act is to have banks subjected to a number of regulations along with the possibility of being broken up if any of them are determined to be "too big to fail."
To do that, the act created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). It looks out for risks that affect the entire financial industry. It also oversees non-bank financial firms like hedge funds .
If any of the banks gets too big in the council's determination, they could be be regulated by the Federal Reserve, which can ask a bank to increase its reserve requirement, i.e. the money it has 'saved up' and is not using for lending or business costs.
Under Dodd-Frank, banks are also required to have plans for a quick and orderly shutdown in the event that the bank becomes insolvent or runs out of money.
The Volcker Rule is part of Dodd-Frank and prohibits banks from owning, investing, or sponsoring hedge funds, private equity funds, or any proprietary trading operations for their own profit.
Dodd-Frank requires that the riskiest derivatives "like credit default swaps" be regulated by the SEC or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission(CFTC). (Keep in mind that Warren Buffett referred to these financial instruments as [weapons of mass destruction]"
This is a brief synopsis of the Dodd-Frank Act. If you are interested, you can find out more about this at: http://www.cnbc.com/id/47075854
An article in ZeroHedge questions the rollback of Dodd-Frank by stating "Among the targets are rules that protect against predatory lenders, force brokers to lower fees for retirees and ban proprietary trading. Specifically, Trump took executive action ordering the review of Dodd-Frank rules enacted after 2008 financial crisis, and halting the "fiduciary rule" that would require advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients."
So, I ask you, are these the "excessively burdensome regulations which unduly constrain the financial services industry" that Trump should choose as his first foray into the financial services sector?
The ZeroHedge article goes on to say, "While it will take a while to fully roll back the financial regulations, we are confident that Wall Street is already preparing for the next big push into prop trading, major re-leveraging, blowing a whole new set of asset bubbles, and all those other things which brought the system to a near collapse less than 10 years ago.
Finally, while Trump was quick to begin the process of undoing Dodd Frank - no doubt with the helpful advice of numerous former Goldman bankers standing behind his shoulder - he has yet to make any comments on bringing back Glass Steagall, the one law that would truly protect depositors from runaway banker greed, and mandate yet another taxpayer funded bailout the next time the US banking sector is in need of a bailout."
I agree. Re-institution of a new version of Glass Steagall would have been far, far better for the American public. For those interested, Bernie Sanders explains in 5 reasons why it is necessary to implement a new version of this act. https://berniesanders.com/yes-glass-steagall-matters-here-are-5-reasons-why/
It should be noted that before Glass-Steagall was repealed by Bill Clinton in 1999, there was a firewall setup between commercial banking and investment banking. In other words, your deposits were not exposed to a commercial bank's much more risky investment banking activities. Since Glass-Steagall was repealed, your deposits are now exposed to your bank's investment activities, including derivative trading.
Did you know that YOUR deposits are treated as "UNSECURED LIABILITIES" of the bank, and that the bank's derivative's position is given priority over unsecured liabilities?
You may feel comforted by the fact that your deposits are protected by FDIC insurance. To that end, I call your attention to the chart below. In the event of a full blown domestic or worldwide banking crisis or systemic failure, how far will $25 billion go? Have you heard the term "bail-ins"? Look it up here: https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-a-bail-in-and-how-does-it-work-1979089
How will you fare if 20%, or 30%, or 40% of your deposits are bailed in to offset any deficiency in FDIC insurance or any shortfall from additional Treasury support for the FDIC?
So, now do you see my concern for Trump's focus on Dodd-Frank vs. the much more important consumer protection of a new and revised Glass Steagall?
Feb 3, 2017 11:20:31 #
(Main)
[quote=lpnmajor]Yep. My own State was split, with the Doctor senator voting "yay" and the lawyer Senator voting "nay". Interesting huh? This is a classic example of party before people, something the democrats and republicans are equally guilty of. When are people going to figure out that it isn't democratic policies or republicans policies that are the problem - it is democrats and republicans that are the problem.
_____________________
Our representatives in both parties are subject to the same "need" for campaign contributions in order to sustain their ability to hold office. PACs and millionaires and billionaires behind the scene fund and support the campaigns, and we wonder why our government is the best money can buy. It is the wealthy and influential to whom or elected leaders owe their allegiance, not the people that they have been elected to represent.
Ideas such as "term limits", equal "free air time" for campaigning, public funding of campaigns, and the elimination of PAC's and corporate support for campaigns should be debated as part of a campaign reform agenda.
_____________________
Our representatives in both parties are subject to the same "need" for campaign contributions in order to sustain their ability to hold office. PACs and millionaires and billionaires behind the scene fund and support the campaigns, and we wonder why our government is the best money can buy. It is the wealthy and influential to whom or elected leaders owe their allegiance, not the people that they have been elected to represent.
Ideas such as "term limits", equal "free air time" for campaigning, public funding of campaigns, and the elimination of PAC's and corporate support for campaigns should be debated as part of a campaign reform agenda.
Feb 3, 2017 06:01:55 #
(Main)
It was a Democratic amendment sponsored by Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Bernie Sanders. It was pro-working class and anti-Big Pharma. It even enticed "Yes" votes from 12 GOP senators. And yet 13 Democrats, including Sen. Cory Booker, helped kill a measure aimed at making prescription drugs more affordable. It failed 46-52.
A Kaiser Health tracking poll last year found that 72 percent of Americans favor allowing drugs to be imported from Canada. Ya know who doesnât favor that: pharmaceutical companies. And 13 Democrats. Booker, who has gotten more money from the pharmaceutical industry over the past six years than any other Democratic senator ($267,338), did issue an explanation. The Intercept gives it some context.
In a statement to the media after the vote, Bookerâs office said he supports the importation of prescription drugs but that âany plan to allow the importation of prescription medications should also include consumer protections that ensure foreign drugs meet American safety standards. I opposed an amendment put forward last night that didnât meet this test.â
This argument is the same one offered by the pharmaceutical industry. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which lobbies against importation, maintains that it opposes importation because âforeign governments will not ensure that prescription drugs entering the U.S. from abroad are safe and effective.â [...]
The safety excuse is mostly a chimera, as most of the drugs that would be imported from Canada were originally manufactured in the United States; theyâre just cheaper there, because the Canadian government uses a review board and price negotiation to make drugs more affordable.
âMy first response to that is show me the dead Canadians. Where are the dead Canadians?â former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, once asked during his own push to allow for importation.
Here are the "Yeas" and "Nays"
Now, what are YOU going to do about it????
A Kaiser Health tracking poll last year found that 72 percent of Americans favor allowing drugs to be imported from Canada. Ya know who doesnât favor that: pharmaceutical companies. And 13 Democrats. Booker, who has gotten more money from the pharmaceutical industry over the past six years than any other Democratic senator ($267,338), did issue an explanation. The Intercept gives it some context.
In a statement to the media after the vote, Bookerâs office said he supports the importation of prescription drugs but that âany plan to allow the importation of prescription medications should also include consumer protections that ensure foreign drugs meet American safety standards. I opposed an amendment put forward last night that didnât meet this test.â
This argument is the same one offered by the pharmaceutical industry. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which lobbies against importation, maintains that it opposes importation because âforeign governments will not ensure that prescription drugs entering the U.S. from abroad are safe and effective.â [...]
The safety excuse is mostly a chimera, as most of the drugs that would be imported from Canada were originally manufactured in the United States; theyâre just cheaper there, because the Canadian government uses a review board and price negotiation to make drugs more affordable.
âMy first response to that is show me the dead Canadians. Where are the dead Canadians?â former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, once asked during his own push to allow for importation.
Here are the "Yeas" and "Nays"
Now, what are YOU going to do about it????
Feb 3, 2017 05:47:00 #
(Main)
bggamers wrote:
You can buy your meds from Canada.You just have to get a hard copy I'v used king Canadian pharmacy call register with them and fax you perscriptions.I went on line to make sure they carry my med strength. Also look into who you use some are losey.
------------------
Good to know, and I'm glad that you are able to do this. Most people may not be as knowledgable or diligent as you in finding the best prices for your drugs. The point I'm trying to make is that most people are overpaying for their doctor prescribed medications. (Fortunately, I myself take no drugs, and would only do so as a last resort). While US Healthcare costs spiral, I do not see a major outcry from the American public or it's political leaders. We have yet to see how the Trump Administration handles this matter, and I remain cautiously optimistic.
But it just burns my a-- to see hypocrites such as Corey Booker who accepted over $267,000 from pharmaceutical companies the past 6 years, protect the profit margins of his political donors over that of his constituents.
I am hoping that posts like this will help engage the public to let our political leaders know that there is a price to be paid at the ballot box for acting upon their self-serving interests. I for one have had a profound change of heart on the character and statesmanship of Corey Booker.
Feb 2, 2017 16:46:18 #
(Main)
bggamers wrote:
If I'm not mistaken Trump has also brought this up so maybe it will go through again
__________
Can anyone explain to me if a pharmaceutical company willingly sells it's products at a much lower price to Canadians, why Americans should not be allowed to buy that same product from a Canadian pharmacy? It should be obvious to all why our political leaders do not allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.
Would it not be a simple fix to legislate that any drug sold in the United States cannot be priced at an amount greater than that which it is sold to a wholesale pharmacy in any country other than the United States. Give Medicare administrators the ability to negotiate the price of drugs that Medicare will pay using the same pricing guidelines that pharmaceutical companies sell to other countries.
After all, most pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising and lobbying expenses than they do on research and development. I also have been led to believe that most research is done with funds spend by the National Institute of Health which is your tax dollars at work.
Feb 2, 2017 05:28:09 #
(Main)
bggamers wrote:
I use a blood pressure patch and here it cost 280.00 for 4 patches (1 patch per week ) my portion is 80.00 just for this. From canada I can get 12 patches (3mo supply) 196.00. This is a big difference
________________
Does it not infuriate you to see politicians such as Corey Booker and the other Democrats and Republicans who voted against this bill, use such asinine excuses to justify their screwing of the American people?
Feb 1, 2017 14:55:59 #
(Main)
JFlorio wrote:
I am not saying we need or don't need immigrant's. I am curious to know what you think. The pros and cons of immigration. Could be an interesting topic.
---------------------
I think that Stefan Molyneux does a great job answering this question, or at least focusing the problem that exists today with the immigrants coming from the middle east. https://youtu.be/6b0bIEMsHwM
Jan 31, 2017 16:13:35 #
(Main)
The US Healthcare system is the most expensive of the developed nations. While there may be numerous reasons for this, let's examine just one for now.
In mid-January, Bernie Sander's proposal to make drug imports from Canada legal was voted down in the Senate 52-46, with 13 Democrats voting against his bill. Notable among the Democrats was Corey Booker, who also happens to be one of the largest recipients of Big Pharma campaign contributions.
According to the post in Jesse's Cafe Americain site, "Booker used the Big Pharma talking point that 'the bill did not include provisions requiring the protections of the FDA.'
Oh really? We think that the Canadian government's regulation of medicine is weaker than in the US? Please, Cory, tell us exactly where they fall down on the job.
And oh by the way, most it not all of those drugs are the same drugs being sold in the US by the same manufacturers, so the point could be moot. Just allow the imports of drugs the FDA has already approved.
But a real solution, which appears to be far too much for our pampered plutocrats, would be to repeal the US law that prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug prices as is done by the government health services in Canada. But I would not expect the US political establishment to seriously consider overturning that sweet monopoly deal with the drug companies."
Take a look at the chart below compiled by Bernie Sanders comparing drug prices for identical drugs sold here in the US vs. Canada. If this does not make your blood boil, then I suggest you no longer have a pulse!
Check out the short video by the "Young Turks" as they discuss this issue singling out for special mention "that weasel Cory Booker" and his "treachery." https://youtu.be/BEAB9aXXcwU
In mid-January, Bernie Sander's proposal to make drug imports from Canada legal was voted down in the Senate 52-46, with 13 Democrats voting against his bill. Notable among the Democrats was Corey Booker, who also happens to be one of the largest recipients of Big Pharma campaign contributions.
According to the post in Jesse's Cafe Americain site, "Booker used the Big Pharma talking point that 'the bill did not include provisions requiring the protections of the FDA.'
Oh really? We think that the Canadian government's regulation of medicine is weaker than in the US? Please, Cory, tell us exactly where they fall down on the job.
And oh by the way, most it not all of those drugs are the same drugs being sold in the US by the same manufacturers, so the point could be moot. Just allow the imports of drugs the FDA has already approved.
But a real solution, which appears to be far too much for our pampered plutocrats, would be to repeal the US law that prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug prices as is done by the government health services in Canada. But I would not expect the US political establishment to seriously consider overturning that sweet monopoly deal with the drug companies."
Take a look at the chart below compiled by Bernie Sanders comparing drug prices for identical drugs sold here in the US vs. Canada. If this does not make your blood boil, then I suggest you no longer have a pulse!
Check out the short video by the "Young Turks" as they discuss this issue singling out for special mention "that weasel Cory Booker" and his "treachery." https://youtu.be/BEAB9aXXcwU
Jan 31, 2017 05:38:47 #
(Main)
eagleye13 wrote:
Is it really possible for US foreign policy to be that stupid?
Arming ISIS to take out Assad.
We have Libya as an example of that "stupidity".
The Covert Origins of ISIS
Americans better figure this out in time. Who will pay attention to covert US foreign policy and share?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI&feature=player_detailpage
Arming ISIS to take out Assad.
We have Libya as an example of that "stupidity".
The Covert Origins of ISIS
Americans better figure this out in time. Who will pay attention to covert US foreign policy and share?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI&feature=player_detailpage
----------------------------
Great video Eagleye13. The statement made by General Wesley Clark at the 19:00 minute mark 10 days after 9-11 should be enough for every thinking, aware American to appreciate this problem for what it is.
Jan 30, 2017 16:06:55 #
(Main)
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard just returned from a secret trip to Syria and gave an interview to Jake Tapper at infamous CNN. There are NO MODERATE rebel groups in Syria.
https://youtu.be/NRVcLS-EHJU
https://youtu.be/NRVcLS-EHJU
Jan 30, 2017 05:41:26 #
(Main)
"We are a nation of immigrants.. but we are a nation of laws"
"Our nation is rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country...
Illegal immigrants take jobs from citizens or legal immigrants, they impose burdens on our taxpayers...
That is why we are doubling the number of border guards, deporting more illegal immigrants than ever before, cracking down on illegal hiring, barring benefits to illegal aliens, and we will do more to speed the deportation of illegal immigrants arrest for crimes...
It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that has occurred in the last few years.. and we must do more to stop it."
OK now..... who made these statements?
"Our nation is rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country...
Illegal immigrants take jobs from citizens or legal immigrants, they impose burdens on our taxpayers...
That is why we are doubling the number of border guards, deporting more illegal immigrants than ever before, cracking down on illegal hiring, barring benefits to illegal aliens, and we will do more to speed the deportation of illegal immigrants arrest for crimes...
It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that has occurred in the last few years.. and we must do more to stop it."
OK now..... who made these statements?
Jan 29, 2017 15:52:20 #
(Main)
[quote=roadster]Voter Fraud? Another who do you listen to? Certainly, a review of our Constitution, including Amendments, with a little (uncommon) common-sense and we could come-up with an answer.
_______________
Roadster,
In addition to the previous issues that I raised previously, I would like to know if you watched the video "Hacking Democracy". If not, I urge you to watch a brief segment at this link. https://youtu.be/t75xvZ3osFg
Here is what the video will discuss: "The disturbingly shocking HBO documentary HACKING DEMOCRACY bravely tangles with our nation’s ills at the heart of democracy. The film the Diebold corporation doesn’t want you to see, this revelatory journey follows tenacious Seattle grandmother Bev Harris and her band of extraordinary citizen-activists as they set out to ask one simple question: How does America count its votes? From Florida and California to Ohio and Washington State, filmmakers Simon Ardizzone, Russell Michaels and Robert Cohen starkly reveal a broken system riddled with secrecy, incompetent election officials, and electronic voting machines that can be programmed to steal elections. Equipped only with a powerful sense of righteous outrage, the activists take on voting machine industry, exposing alarming security holes in America’s trusted voting machines. They even go dumpster diving at a county election official’s office in Florida, uncovering incendiary evidence of miscounted votes. But proving our votes can be stolen without a trace culminates in a duel between Diebold voting machines and a computer hacker from Finland – with America’s democracy at stake."
If this does not convince you that we have a real problem with our voting process, then I urge you to watch the short video called "Fraction Magic" which you can watch here: https://youtu.be/8ezmpqwVEnM
You should also check out the site BlackBoxVoting.org ( http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/ ). Here is a summary of what they have found:
"This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.
gems-usaGEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.
Fractionalized vote:
Instead of “1” the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.
What fractionalized votes can do:
They allow “weighting” of races. Weighting a race removes the principle of “one person-one vote” to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.
GEMS fractionalizes votes in three places:
The “Summary” vote tally, which provides overall election totals for each race on Election Night
The “Statement of Votes Cast”, which provides detailed results by precinct and voting method (ie. Polling, absentee, early, provisional)
The “undervote” count
Fractions in results reports are not visible.Votes containing decimals are reported as whole numbers unless specifically instructed to reveal decimals (which is not the default setting). All evidence that fractional values ever existed can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the decimals will fail to reveal they were used.
Source code: Instructions to treat votes as decimal values instead of whole numbers are inserted multiple times in the GEMS source code itself; thus, this feature cannot have been created by accident.
Fractionalizing the votes which create the Summary Results allows alteration of Election Night Web results and results sent to the Secretary of State, as well as results available at and local election officials.
Fractionalizing the “Statement of Votes Cast” allows an extraordinary amount of precision, enabling alteration of results by specific voting machine, absentee batch, or precinct. Vote results can be altered for polling places in predominantly Black neighborhoods, and can parse out precincts within a mixed batch of early or absentee votes.
Fractionalizing the undervote category allows reallocation of valid votes into undervotes.
Voting rights abomination
According to programmer notes, a weighted race feature was designed which not only gives some votes more weight than others, but does so based on the voter’s identity. Ballots are connected to voters, weights are assigned to each voter per race, stored in an external table not visible in GEMS. Our testing shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero.
The study was prompted by two issues: (1) Anomalies in elections in Shelby County, Tennessee, which uses the GEMS election management system, in which inconsistencies were observed in reporting of results by GEMS; and (2) Concerns raised regarding the presence of middlemen during the election process, such that a single individual gains remote access to the election management program, in some cases in multiple jurisdictions.
The questions we examine are these:
Can election outcomes be controlled with enough versatility to allow a national impact? Does any mechanism exist that would enable a political consultant or technician to capture elections for repeat customers?
If the necessary features exist within the election management system to facilitate this:
Were such features embedded accidentally or on purpose; for what stated purpose were such features installed; if a reason was given, is that reason justifiable?
Bottom line, we need a thorough investigation and a plan of action on how to make our voting process secure, and unable to be hacked or affected by fraud.
_______________
Roadster,
In addition to the previous issues that I raised previously, I would like to know if you watched the video "Hacking Democracy". If not, I urge you to watch a brief segment at this link. https://youtu.be/t75xvZ3osFg
Here is what the video will discuss: "The disturbingly shocking HBO documentary HACKING DEMOCRACY bravely tangles with our nation’s ills at the heart of democracy. The film the Diebold corporation doesn’t want you to see, this revelatory journey follows tenacious Seattle grandmother Bev Harris and her band of extraordinary citizen-activists as they set out to ask one simple question: How does America count its votes? From Florida and California to Ohio and Washington State, filmmakers Simon Ardizzone, Russell Michaels and Robert Cohen starkly reveal a broken system riddled with secrecy, incompetent election officials, and electronic voting machines that can be programmed to steal elections. Equipped only with a powerful sense of righteous outrage, the activists take on voting machine industry, exposing alarming security holes in America’s trusted voting machines. They even go dumpster diving at a county election official’s office in Florida, uncovering incendiary evidence of miscounted votes. But proving our votes can be stolen without a trace culminates in a duel between Diebold voting machines and a computer hacker from Finland – with America’s democracy at stake."
If this does not convince you that we have a real problem with our voting process, then I urge you to watch the short video called "Fraction Magic" which you can watch here: https://youtu.be/8ezmpqwVEnM
You should also check out the site BlackBoxVoting.org ( http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/ ). Here is a summary of what they have found:
"This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.
gems-usaGEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.
Fractionalized vote:
Instead of “1” the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.
What fractionalized votes can do:
They allow “weighting” of races. Weighting a race removes the principle of “one person-one vote” to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.
GEMS fractionalizes votes in three places:
The “Summary” vote tally, which provides overall election totals for each race on Election Night
The “Statement of Votes Cast”, which provides detailed results by precinct and voting method (ie. Polling, absentee, early, provisional)
The “undervote” count
Fractions in results reports are not visible.Votes containing decimals are reported as whole numbers unless specifically instructed to reveal decimals (which is not the default setting). All evidence that fractional values ever existed can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the decimals will fail to reveal they were used.
Source code: Instructions to treat votes as decimal values instead of whole numbers are inserted multiple times in the GEMS source code itself; thus, this feature cannot have been created by accident.
Fractionalizing the votes which create the Summary Results allows alteration of Election Night Web results and results sent to the Secretary of State, as well as results available at and local election officials.
Fractionalizing the “Statement of Votes Cast” allows an extraordinary amount of precision, enabling alteration of results by specific voting machine, absentee batch, or precinct. Vote results can be altered for polling places in predominantly Black neighborhoods, and can parse out precincts within a mixed batch of early or absentee votes.
Fractionalizing the undervote category allows reallocation of valid votes into undervotes.
Voting rights abomination
According to programmer notes, a weighted race feature was designed which not only gives some votes more weight than others, but does so based on the voter’s identity. Ballots are connected to voters, weights are assigned to each voter per race, stored in an external table not visible in GEMS. Our testing shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero.
The study was prompted by two issues: (1) Anomalies in elections in Shelby County, Tennessee, which uses the GEMS election management system, in which inconsistencies were observed in reporting of results by GEMS; and (2) Concerns raised regarding the presence of middlemen during the election process, such that a single individual gains remote access to the election management program, in some cases in multiple jurisdictions.
The questions we examine are these:
Can election outcomes be controlled with enough versatility to allow a national impact? Does any mechanism exist that would enable a political consultant or technician to capture elections for repeat customers?
If the necessary features exist within the election management system to facilitate this:
Were such features embedded accidentally or on purpose; for what stated purpose were such features installed; if a reason was given, is that reason justifiable?
Bottom line, we need a thorough investigation and a plan of action on how to make our voting process secure, and unable to be hacked or affected by fraud.
Jan 29, 2017 09:27:38 #
(Main)
Pennylynn wrote:
It is time to review voter registration and require identification for voting. And it is constitutional: In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2007), the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana state law that required all voters to present a photo ID. The majority opinion found that the burden placed on voters was “offset by the benefit of reducing the risk of fraud” and that the law was “eminently reasonable.”
------------------
I am very much in agreement with you on this. I personally would be in favor of requiring a fingerprint and or picture of each voter that could be tied back into his or her vote. This would by itself reduce fraud because there would be a paper trail in which violators could be prosecuted for voter fraud.
I cannot understand why any law abiding citizen would object to such a common sense requirement. After all, you need to show ID proof to get a drivers license, why not do the same when you vote.
I hear and read calls from minorities claiming that this is voter intimidation. If you are one of those individuals, please explain to me your rationale. I cannot understand that fear or concern, and I really want to know your basis for objecting to what Pennylynn or I would be suggesting.
It is time to review voter registration and require identification for voting. And it is constitutional: In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2007), the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana state law that required all voters to present a photo ID. The majority opinion found that the burden placed on voters was “offset by the benefit of reducing the risk of fraud” and that the law was “eminently reasonable.”
------------------
I am very much in agreement with you on this. I personally would be in favor of requiring a fingerprint and or picture of each voter that could be tied back into his or her vote. This would by itself reduce fraud because there would be a paper trail in which violators could be prosecuted for voter fraud.
I cannot understand why any law abiding citizen would object to such a common sense requirement. After all, you need to show ID proof to get a drivers license, why not do the same when you vote.
I hear and read calls from minorities claiming that this is voter intimidation. If you are one of those individuals, please explain to me your rationale. I cannot understand that fear or concern, and I really want to know your basis for objecting to what Pennylynn or I would be suggesting.