Jubilee Parliamentary Meeting Cancelled

[Omollo]

Chirchir is not that powerful.You sound stupid.Kenya is far from holding electronic elections.We are still very manual.Chirchir cannot electronically rig manually cast and counted votes

You are trying to be willfully ignorant in a bid to fudge and confuse well established truths.

It is clear you still have not read the Court of Appeal Judgement that clearly set out the basic requirements of an election in Kenya. Hence your attempt to deny that hacking or irregular access to the IEBC computers during elections can allow any individual to rig elections. It was clearly documented that Chirchir gained access to the computers and had full privilges to alter and delete results as well upload software, documents etc. We also know from Chebukati that an unlawful account was created in his name with adminstrative privilges whichb deleted thousands of forms especialy those favoring Raila and NASA. Today Murathe has admited that they rigged the election.

Now if I am stupid for basing my position on evidence and you are clever and wise for peddling debunked propaganda, then I would like to not only remain stupid but get even more stupid.

Here is Chebukati's Memo:


Here is Murathe admitting to rigging:

https://venasnews.co.ke/2018/07/03/ruto-delivered-nothingwe-owe-him-nothingmurathe/

Finally before you return read this judgment in Maina Wa Kiai & 2 Others vs the IEBC:
[pdf]http://www.katibainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MAINA-KIAI-JUDGMENT.pdf[/pdf]

[RV Pundit]

Trust MoAS that predicted election with near perfection months before it was dine if you distrust iebc

Chirchir is not that powerful.You sound stupid.Kenya is far from holding electronic elections.We are still very manual.Chirchir cannot electronically rig manually cast and counted votes

You are trying to be willfully ignorant in a bid to fudge and confuse well established truths.

It is clear you still have not read the Court of Appeal Judgement that clearly set out the basic requirements of an election in Kenya. Hence your attempt to deny that hacking or irregular access to the IEBC computers during elections can allow any individual to rig elections. It was clearly documented that Chirchir gained access to the computers and had full privilges to alter and delete results as well upload software, documents etc. We also know from Chebukati that an unlawful account was created in his name with adminstrative privilges whichb deleted thousands of forms especialy those favoring Raila and NASA. Today Murathe has admited that they rigged the election.

Now if I am stupid for basing my position on evidence and you are clever and wise for peddling debunked propaganda, then I would like to not only remain stupid but get even more stupid.

Here is Chebukati's Memo:


Here is Murathe admitting to rigging:

https://venasnews.co.ke/2018/07/03/ruto-delivered-nothingwe-owe-him-nothingmurathe/

Finally before you return read this judgment in Maina Wa Kiai & 2 Others vs the IEBC:
[pdf]http://www.katibainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MAINA-KIAI-JUDGMENT.pdf[/pdf]

[Omollo]

Trust MoAS that predicted election with near perfection months before it was dine if you distrust iebc

Why didn't Chirchir just do it the Azeri way by releasing the "results" to everyone a month before. I know he revealed them to you which formed the basis of your MOASS

Oops: Azerbaijan released election results before voting had even started
Update, Oct. 28: This post has been updated to reflect the government of Azerbaijan's official statements.
The Azerbaijani Central Election Commission sent out these vote totals to its official smartphone app before voting started. (meydan.tv)

In second place was opposition candidate Jamil Hasanli with 7.4 percent of the vote. Hasanli had recently appealed to the Central Election Commission for paid airtime on state TV, arguing that Aliyev gets heavy airtime and the opposition does not. He was denied.

The data were quickly recalled. Initially, the official story was that the app's developer had mistakenly sent out the 2008 election results as part of a test. But that's a bit flimsy, given that the released totals show the candidates from this week, not from 2008.

Government officials later defended the release, which they noted shows fewer than 15,000 votes in a country of 9 million. They said it had been only a trial run, posted in error, showing hypothetical results from one small electoral district.

You might call this a sort of Kinsley gaffe on a national scale. (A Kinsley gaffe, named for journalist Michael Kinsley, is when a politician gets in trouble for saying something that's widely known as true but that he isn't supposed to say.) There's supposed to be a certain ritual to an election like Azerbaijan's: demonstrations are put down, reporters are harassed, opposition candidates are whittled down, supporters are ushered to the polls and then Aliyev's sweeping victory is announced. They got the order wrong here.

As of this writing, Azerbaijan's election authorities say they've counted 80 percent of the ballots, with Aliyev winning just under 85 percent of the vote so far. He's been officially reelected.

[RV Pundit]

yeah we decided to release the results months before..in some obscure site ...sometimes you fools need to listen to yourself

Trust MoAS that predicted election with near perfection months before it was dine if you distrust iebc

Why didn't Chirchir just do it the Azeri way by releasing the "results" to everyone a month before. I know he revealed them to you which formed the basis of your MOASS

Oops: Azerbaijan released election results before voting had even started
Update, Oct. 28: This post has been updated to reflect the government of Azerbaijan's official statements.
The Azerbaijani Central Election Commission sent out these vote totals to its official smartphone app before voting started. (meydan.tv)

In second place was opposition candidate Jamil Hasanli with 7.4 percent of the vote. Hasanli had recently appealed to the Central Election Commission for paid airtime on state TV, arguing that Aliyev gets heavy airtime and the opposition does not. He was denied.

The data were quickly recalled. Initially, the official story was that the app's developer had mistakenly sent out the 2008 election results as part of a test. But that's a bit flimsy, given that the released totals show the candidates from this week, not from 2008.

Government officials later defended the release, which they noted shows fewer than 15,000 votes in a country of 9 million. They said it had been only a trial run, posted in error, showing hypothetical results from one small electoral district.

You might call this a sort of Kinsley gaffe on a national scale. (A Kinsley gaffe, named for journalist Michael Kinsley, is when a politician gets in trouble for saying something that's widely known as true but that he isn't supposed to say.) There's supposed to be a certain ritual to an election like Azerbaijan's: demonstrations are put down, reporters are harassed, opposition candidates are whittled down, supporters are ushered to the polls and then Aliyev's sweeping victory is announced. They got the order wrong here.

As of this writing, Azerbaijan's election authorities say they've counted 80 percent of the ballots, with Aliyev winning just under 85 percent of the vote so far. He's been officially reelected.

[Omollo]

You were not the only one peddling the 52 then 53 and later 54%. We had "Prof" Hornsby and "Prof" Cheeseman. Then we had Itumbi and his bots on Twitter. The results were pretty much saturated on social media.

Contrary to what you now say, I think it was a genius idea to test the fraud in small obscure sites. The choice of "obscure sites" can also be strategic. They serve as a focus group. It is a reliable method since it meets the basic criteria for conducting accurate analysis. The "obscure sites" are demographically diverse groups of people already assembled and  participate in a discussion about a particular product (in this case 54%) before it is launched. Political campaigns use the same these days to provide ongoing feedback on a political campaign programs while movie companies gauge television series, etc

We saw Cambridge Analytica use Facebook to tune their message to Kenyans, Brits and Americans.

yeah we decided to release the results months before..in some obscure site ...sometimes you fools need to listen to yourself

[RV Pundit]

You're demented.

You were not the only one peddling the 52 then 53 and later 54%. We had "Prof" Hornsby and "Prof" Cheeseman. Then we had Itumbi and his bots on Twitter. The results were pretty much saturated on social media.

Contrary to what you now say, I think it was a genius idea to test the fraud in small obscure sites. The choice of "obscure sites" can also be strategic. They serve as a focus group. It is a reliable method since it meets the basic criteria for conducting accurate analysis. The "obscure sites" are demographically diverse groups of people already assembled and  participate in a discussion about a particular product (in this case 54%) before it is launched. Political campaigns use the same these days to provide ongoing feedback on a political campaign programs while movie companies gauge television series, etc

We saw Cambridge Analytica use Facebook to tune their message to Kenyans, Brits and Americans.

yeah we decided to release the results months before..in some obscure site ...sometimes you fools need to listen to yourself