Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, slackline said:

Hidden Brain podcast episode from Oct 26 is a fascinating listen. Super interesting. Says the bigger problem and divide in the US isn't so much between Rs and Ds, but people who love to talk about politics and those that don't. Point taken, I'm backing out of this world for a while. Gotta stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll check that one out, thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DosXX said:

It's never zero, but it is very low.

If you look around the 7 second mark of this video you linked for the first row (name is Adams in that row) you can see it has a ballot return date on it on his data source. I found the data source from the PA gov website from Nov 13 and it does not have a return date on this row, or on many other rows in the first page. Seems like the data was faked in this twitter video. I'm using the web archive of the official gov website he says he used so not sure what other explanation there could be for his excel sheet not reflecting the same data.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201113013037/https://data.pa.gov/Government-Efficiency-Citizen-Engagement/2020-General-Election-Mail-Ballot-Requests-Departm/mcba-yywm/data

Additionally, even if it were true that all these suspiciously dated ballots were for Biden, it would not be enough to make up the deficit in PA. Certainly not saying that's not enough of a reason to look into this as a fraud case if it were true, but this video is not very convincing.

Not sure why educated people here are still taking TikTok videos shared on anonymous twitter handles over what the President's own lawyers are putting forward in court.  We had 4 years of the admin screaming fake news, but this is what the Republicans are going to line up behind?  🤨

It's like arguing with anti-vaxers.  "Here's all the evidence showing it doesn't cause autism, poison you, etc."
"We'll, @real_doc_189432 on Twitter said there's mercury and live virus in the MMR vaccine!  Plus my FaceBook group, "Mom's who actually care about Vax" just had a post about someone's who's twins died due to the flu shot."

Also, here's a pretty good bot detector for twitter.  It's not perfect, nothing is (including voting machines, or F22's), but it'll provide you with more information about where some of you might be getting informed. https://botometer.osome.iu.edu/

Ben Shapiro's podcast goes over the latest lawsuit nonsense.  Dude is right with the facts as usual...and guess what, Trump's latest nonsense lawsuit - tossed out         (here's the ruling). 

Of course the failure that is Guiliani goes right to "Obama appointed judge" not have any facts that Judge Brann - "He also spent years as a Republican Party official in Pennsylvania and was active in the Federalist Society and National Rifle Association."

Welcome Pres-Elect Biden?  We'll see what happens in the Senate in GA, I'm guessing they're both elected as Republicans because that's how the election has gone everywhere else: reject the chaos that is Trump, reject the Democrats as a party.

Edited by 17D_guy
Add actual ruling.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Not sure why educated people here are still taking TikTok videos shared on anonymous twitter handles over what the President's own lawyers are putting forward in court.  We had 4 years of the admin screaming fake news, but this is what the Republicans are going to line up behind?  🤨

It's like arguing with anti-vaxers.  "Here's all the evidence showing it doesn't cause autism, poison you, etc."
"We'll, @real_doc_189432 on Twitter said there's mercury and live virus in the MMR vaccine!  Plus my FaceBook group, "Mom's who actually care about Vax" just had a post about someone's who's twins died due to the flu shot."

Also, here's a pretty good bot detector for twitter.  It's not perfect, nothing is (including voting machines, or F22's), but it'll provide you with more information about where some of you might be getting informed. https://botometer.osome.iu.edu/

Ben Shapiro's podcast goes over the latest lawsuit nonsense.  Dude is right with the facts as usual...and guess what, Trump's latest nonsense lawsuit - tossed out         (here's the ruling). 

Of course the failure that is Guiliani goes right to "Obama appointed judge" not have any facts that Judge Brann - "He also spent years as a Republican Party official in Pennsylvania and was active in the Federalist Society and National Rifle Association."

Welcome Pres-Elect Biden?  We'll see what happens in the Senate in GA, I'm guessing they're both elected as Republicans because that's how the election has gone everywhere else: reject the chaos that is Trump, reject the Democrats as a party.

Shapiro is the most honest conservative in the media, hands down.

 

This is the primary problem with politics now, and it's probably due to the lack of a third (and fourth, and fifth...) party. Way too many Americans view their party as a team. And you don't stop rooting for your team just because a player fucks up. You also don't give the other team credit over your own. 

 

I don't see an end in sight in the short term, but we probably need to get away from the idea that a voter has a party affiliation. Why? You vote for whoever represents your interests best during that election cycle. Political parties are for the politicians. Convincing we-the-people that we are in the party as well is a cynical way of protecting votes without having to keep promises or follow through. 

 

Trump is one of the most successful presidents on a policy and effects basis in decades. He's also a miserable piece of shit who makes up for his wild inadequacies by being a delegation savant. He lost because of shitty luck. Who expects a pandemic? But he still lost.

Edited by Lord Ratner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Not sure why educated people here are still taking TikTok videos shared on anonymous twitter handles over what the President's own lawyers are putting forward in court.  We had 4 years of the admin screaming fake news, but this is what the Republicans are going to line up behind?  🤨

It's like arguing with anti-vaxers.  "Here's all the evidence showing it doesn't cause autism, poison you, etc."
"We'll, @real_doc_189432 on Twitter said there's mercury and live virus in the MMR vaccine!  Plus my FaceBook group, "Mom's who actually care about Vax" just had a post about someone's who's twins died due to the flu shot."

Also, here's a pretty good bot detector for twitter.  It's not perfect, nothing is (including voting machines, or F22's), but it'll provide you with more information about where some of you might be getting informed. https://botometer.osome.iu.edu/

Ben Shapiro's podcast goes over the latest lawsuit nonsense.  Dude is right with the facts as usual...and guess what, Trump's latest nonsense lawsuit - tossed out         (here's the ruling). 

Of course the failure that is Guiliani goes right to "Obama appointed judge" not have any facts that Judge Brann - "He also spent years as a Republican Party official in Pennsylvania and was active in the Federalist Society and National Rifle Association."

Welcome Pres-Elect Biden?  We'll see what happens in the Senate in GA, I'm guessing they're both elected as Republicans because that's how the election has gone everywhere else: reject the chaos that is Trump, reject the Democrats as a party.

To be fair, I said it was just a fun example. I didn't advocate for or question it's authenticity. I didn't prioritize it over any claim, evidence, or other assertion. It popped up on my Twitter feed, I knew it would be controversial, and I posted it. You made the giant leap in saying this is what Republicans are lining up behind. That seems a bit of a stretch. Then you proceed to say it's like arguing with anti-vaxxers and talk about your Mom's facebook feed or something. You lost me there.

What I did ask, was what is the probability there is anything to this. DosXX did a great job in substantiating his rebuttal. I certainly wasn't going to download the data. But he did, and he said in this case the probability was low, but not zero. I think he's right. Are you saying it's zero? Are you willing to acknowledge that fraud most likely occurred in this election? If so, what types of fraud?

Given our discussion, here's where we are. Correct me if I'm overstating any of this.

1. Everyone here believes election fraud exists.

2. There are at least a few dozen ways an individual can commit fraud with physical ballots. Buying votes, voting multiple times, postmarking ballots improperly, pollsters completing ballots, throwing out ballots, improperly scanning ballots, failing to verify voter information, etc, etc, etc.

3. More election fraud exists than that which is prosecuted. DosXX speculates 100 times more fraud could exist than convictions, but not sure what that's based on.

4. We're not debating whether or not it exists. You believe the probability is low. I believe the probability isn't known, and could be low or high.

So why am I wasting my time here? I just like arguing on this forum. 😄 But seriously,  can we not also agree that election integrity is one of the fundamental bedrocks on which our Democracy is built? Call me idealistic, but I'd like 100% security. However, given that you will dismiss any allegation of fraud, you seem perfectly willing to accept an amount. More if suits your biases. Less if it does not. Remember 2016 when the Russians hacked our election? Do you remember what your feelings/beliefs were then?

EDIT: I skimmed through the Cyber Thread and you had some pretty interesting things to say regarding our adversaries accessing classified government systems, hacking, malmare, and the like. Fascinating stuff. I'm not smart on that subject, but it seems their level of sophistication and determination to cause harm in the cyber domain is pretty high. Given your expertise, how would you assess the vulnerability to attack of, say..... a single electronic voting machine in a high school cafeteria in downtown Philly?

Edited by torqued
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, torqued said:

DosXX speculates 100 times more fraud could exist than convictions, but not sure what that's based on.

To be clear I'd wager it's much less, those fraud numbers were an estimation of what the upper limit could be with the data we have. Worth noting those heritage cases are from throughout past few decades, not a single election year so I was generous in that assumption as well. I was steel manning the argument to show why it would not be anywhere near enough to change the outcome of election and justify a delay of certification. 

56 minutes ago, torqued said:

4. We're not debating whether or not it exists. You believe the probability is low. I believe the probability isn't known, and could be low or high.

Trying to get you to 5. The amount required for the Trump team to claim it was a landslide victory is eroding trust in the democratic process and the rhetoric is damaging. There is no evidence currently to justify a delay of certification, even if we agree to fully prosecute cases of fraud as they appear. If this was 2000 then that would be a different conversation to have.

45 minutes ago, torqued said:

Call me idealistic, but I'd like 100% security. However, given that you will dismiss any allegation of fraud, you seem perfectly willing to accept an amount.

Same logic as thinking we should ban assault rifles, or register guns, and continue to pass restrictive legislation until we get 100% gun safety. In the same way we run the risk of eroding 2nd amendment with some measures that could potentially prevent a shooting, we run the risk of eroding 24th amendment or disenfranchising voters with some of the measures that would get us closer to 100% security, and it will never happen in either case. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DosXX said:

To be clear I'd wager it's much less, those fraud numbers were an estimation of what the upper limit could be with the data we have. Worth noting those heritage cases are from throughout past few decades, not a single election year so I was generous in that assumption as well. I was steel manning the argument to show why it would not be anywhere near enough to change the outcome of election and justify a delay of certification.

Is the Heritage Foundation your sole source of data? The title of the page you're referencing is: A Sampling of Recent Election Fraud Cases from Across the United States. "Sampling" being an important word. Following the title, there's a large font header that reads, in part: "This database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list. It does not capture all cases and certainly does not capture reported instances or allegations of election fraud, some of which may be meritorious, that are not investigated or prosecuted. Because of vulnerabilities in the system, election fraud is relatively easy to commit and difficult to detect after-the-fact. Moreover, some public officials appear to be unconcerned with election fraud and fail to pursue cases that are reported to them."

It just doesn't seem to me you should be deriving any statistics, generous or not, from the numbers on that site. My intent was to demonstrate some of various types of fraud that can exist, and the types of evidence that fraud was committed. Before we make the giant leap into "there's not enough fraud to make a difference", shouldn't we establish all the different types of fraud we should be looking for? Bear in mind we haven't even begun talking about electronic data vulnerabilities and inconsistencies. Nor have we talked about problems that affect the results that aren't fraud, such has failure to adhere to security measures. We've only talked about ballots.

1 hour ago, DosXX said:

Trying to get you to 5. The amount required for the Trump team to claim it was a landslide victory is eroding trust in the democratic process and the rhetoric is damaging. There is no evidence currently to justify a delay of certification, even if we agree to fully prosecute cases of fraud as they appear. If this was 2000 then that would be a different conversation to have.

What would be 5? I would agree that blind implicit trust in election integrity is as damaging to our process as unsubstantiated allegations that the whole thing is rigged. Is that fair to say? You keep saying there is no evidence. Are you familiar with the legal definition and types of evidence? Before we get there, I just want to know we're on the same page when you say there is "no" evidence.

1 hour ago, DosXX said:

Same logic as thinking we should ban assault rifles, or register guns, and continue to pass restrictive legislation until we get 100% gun safety. In the same way we run the risk of eroding 2nd amendment with some measures that could potentially prevent a shooting, we run the risk of eroding 24th amendment or disenfranchising voters with some of the measures that would get us closer to 100% security, and it will never happen in either case.

Not a fair comparison. Apples and oranges, but I'll play. Say you report gunfire in your neighborhood park where your kids are playing, does your sheriff have a duty to investigate? He asks how many shots. You say 5. He says that's not enough to worry about.

Edited by torqued
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, torqued said:

Is the Heritage Foundation your sole source of data? The title of the page you're referencing is: A Sampling of Recent Election Fraud Cases from Across the United States. "Sampling" being an important word. Following the title, there's a large font header that reads, in part: "This database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list. It does not capture all cases and certainly does not capture reported instances or allegations of election fraud, some of which may be meritorious, that are not investigated or prosecuted. Because of vulnerabilities in the system, election fraud is relatively easy to commit and difficult to detect after-the-fact. Moreover, some public officials appear to be unconcerned with election fraud and fail to pursue cases that are reported to them."

It just doesn't seem to me you should be deriving any statistics, generous or not, from the numbers on that site. My intent was to demonstrate some of various types of fraud that can exist, and the types of evidence that fraud was committed. Before we make the giant leap into "there's not enough fraud to make a difference", shouldn't we establish all the different types of fraud we should be looking for? Bear in mind we haven't even begun talking about electronic data vulnerabilities and inconsistencies. Nor have we talked about problems that affect the results that aren't fraud, such has failure to adhere to security measures. We've only talked about ballots.

What would be 5? I would agree that blind implicit trust in election integrity is as damaging to our process as unsubstantiated allegations that the whole thing is rigged. Is that fair to say? You keep saying there is no evidence. Are you familiar with the legal definition and types of evidence? Before we get there, I just want to know we're on the same page when you say there is "no" evidence.

Not a fair comparison. Apples and oranges, but I'll play. Say you report gunfire in your neighborhood park where your kids are playing, does your sheriff have a duty to investigate? He asks how many shots. You say 5. He says that's not enough to worry about.

Depends where you live? South Chicago that sounds like just another Tuesday afternoon.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, torqued said:

To be fair, I said it was just a fun example. I didn't advocate for or question it's authenticity. I didn't prioritize it over any claim, evidence, or other assertion. It popped up on my Twitter feed, I knew it would be controversial, and I posted it. You made the giant leap in saying this is what Republicans are lining up behind. That seems a bit of a stretch. Then you proceed to say it's like arguing with anti-vaxxers and talk about your Mom's facebook feed or something. You lost me there.

What I did ask, was what is the probability there is anything to this. DosXX did a great job in substantiating his rebuttal. I certainly wasn't going to download the data. But he did, and he said in this case the probability was low, but not zero. I think he's right. Are you saying it's zero? Are you willing to acknowledge that fraud most likely occurred in this election? If so, what types of fraud?

Given our discussion, here's where we are. Correct me if I'm overstating any of this.

1. Everyone here believes election fraud exists.

2. There are at least a few dozen ways an individual can commit fraud with physical ballots. Buying votes, voting multiple times, postmarking ballots improperly, pollsters completing ballots, throwing out ballots, improperly scanning ballots, failing to verify voter information, etc, etc, etc.

3. More election fraud exists than that which is prosecuted. DosXX speculates 100 times more fraud could exist than convictions, but not sure what that's based on.

4. We're not debating whether or not it exists. You believe the probability is low. I believe the probability isn't known, and could be low or high.

So why am I wasting my time here? I just like arguing on this forum. 😄 But seriously,  can we not also agree that election integrity is one of the fundamental bedrocks on which our Democracy is built? Call me idealistic, but I'd like 100% security. However, given that you will dismiss any allegation of fraud, you seem perfectly willing to accept an amount. More if suits your biases. Less if it does not. Remember 2016 when the Russians hacked our election? Do you remember what your feelings/beliefs were then?

EDIT: I skimmed through the Cyber Thread and you had some pretty interesting things to say regarding our adversaries accessing classified government systems, hacking, malmare, and the like. Fascinating stuff. I'm not smart on that subject, but it seems their level of sophistication and determination to cause harm in the cyber domain is pretty high. Given your expertise, how would you assess the vulnerability to attack of, say..... a single electronic voting machine in a high school cafeteria in downtown Philly?

You make a ton of assumptions.  The top line was not about you specifically, but about a few other people who put twitter and videos on here like it's the same as an article from the WSJ, or WaPo.  I posted a tool to help people figure out if they're following bots.  You posted it, assumed that all the reactions were negative digs at you...k.
 

Quote

I didn't advocate for or question it's authenticity.

Actually, you did with "Perhaps it's a hoax."

Quote

You made the giant leap in saying this is what Republicans are lining up behind. That seems a bit of a stretch.

Disagree, and it was a question not a statement.  There are a lot of my friends, and other people on this board, sharing this type of "information" about why the election was stolen en masse from Trump.  These same ideas are being floated by his legal counsel outside of a courtroom.  The President is lining up behind these outlandish theories.  It's not a stretch at all to wonder if this is really what the Republicans are going to line up behind.
 

Quote

You lost me there.

I compared two groups citing poor/no-research to draw outlandish and possibly damaging conclusions.

Quote

But seriously,  can we not also agree that election integrity is one of the fundamental bedrocks on which our Democracy is built?

Of course, and having a President call it into question, and asking legislatures to overturn the Peoples vote is more damaging than the minuscule amount of voter fraud than has been perpetrated.

Quote

Call me idealistic, but I'd like 100% security.

This is impossible with human beings, and it is not only idealistic but naive.  No system has 100% security that is worth using.

Quote

However, given that you will dismiss any allegation of fraud, you seem perfectly willing to accept an amount. More if suits your biases.

Oh, look another false assumption.  I've dismissed no allegations of fraud, where it is found it needs to be punished.  I've asked for evidence for the mountain of fraud the plaintiff's (and the President) is suggesting, and they've produced zero.  Flipping/fixing 100 votes where Biden is ahead by 40K is not indicative of massive fraud.  Flipping a swing state - not fraud.

Quote

Remember 2016 when the Russians hacked our election? Do you remember what your feelings/beliefs were then?

Yea, I do.  Like all things, the breadth of the word "hacked' is lost on some people as words evolve.  Hacked covers everything from rooting a box halfway around the world, to social engineering getting a large fry from the local Carl's Jr these days.  The definition changed from the 90's-00's.

They did "hack" our election in the sense they used the information they "hacked by technical means" from the DNC to "hack by influence ops" the election.   

Quote

Given your expertise, how would you assess the vulnerability to attack of, say..... a single electronic voting machine in a high school cafeteria in downtown Philly?

Depends on a lot of things.  I have no exp w/ Philly's voting setup.  I have a small amount of exp w/ TX's setup.  If they're similar then I think it's highly unlikely a foreign actor did anything to the voting machines themselves.  In Tx the devices were not networked together, or on the internet during voting.  I also don't think they're plugged into the WWW except for maybe updates, but a competent security person would not do that, and instead pull the updates to load off a gaped network.  So instead, you're talking about a voter walking in and plugging something in to modify the machine and vote totals...sure, could happen.  It would also be caught by the audits the election folks have when they start seeing issues with the voting as happened a couple times in the election.  We keep a human in the loop for important things: autonomous weapons, nuclear reactors, voting. 

Additionally, believe that Philly has paper records of the votes as well, so you'd just audit that.  Otherwise you're talking about a massive conspiracy across counties and states to modify the vote for only 1 candidate on the ticket.  Having taken quite a few statistics courses on my way to my illustrious masters degree - that's 9/11-Truther levels of whackadoodle.

Finally, cyber isn't something that states are going to just throw around.  Everyone gets caught at some point.  Some more or less than others.  Cyber costs a lot to develop, professionalize and use.  Burning it sucks, a lot.  You're not going to throw it after a single voting machine in Philly, you're going to target something better. 

It's easier to think of strategically as kinda nuclear weapons.  This is a imperfect analogy.  We've all got cyber (ex. in ours/adversary utility structure - like missiles in tubes), it's ready to go, but we're not doing a "massive attack" with them because that would be "crossing a red line" and threaten our own way of life (ex. destroying utility infrastructure.")  Nukes also had the stipulation if you attacked the detection/launch capabilities, it was considered an attack.  I'm not politician...but I'd consider the bedrock of the democratic experience, voting, to be a big red line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, torqued said:

Not a fair comparison. Apples and oranges, but I'll play. Say you report gunfire in your neighborhood park where your kids are playing, does your sheriff have a duty to investigate? He asks how many shots. You say 5. He says that's not enough to worry about.

How many "fraudulent votes" does it take to overturn the election in an area? 1? 2? 5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, torqued said:

Is the Heritage Foundation your sole source of data? The title of the page you're referencing is: A Sampling of Recent Election Fraud Cases from Across the United States. "Sampling" being an important word. Following the title, there's a large font header that reads, in part: "This database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list. It does not capture all cases and certainly does not capture reported instances or allegations of election fraud, some of which may be meritorious, that are not investigated or prosecuted. Because of vulnerabilities in the system, election fraud is relatively easy to commit and difficult to detect after-the-fact. Moreover, some public officials appear to be unconcerned with election fraud and fail to pursue cases that are reported to them."

It just doesn't seem to me you should be deriving any statistics, generous or not, from the numbers on that site. My intent was to demonstrate some of various types of fraud that can exist, and the types of evidence that fraud was committed. Before we make the giant leap into "there's not enough fraud to make a difference", shouldn't we establish all the different types of fraud we should be looking for? Bear in mind we haven't even begun talking about electronic data vulnerabilities and inconsistencies. Nor have we talked about problems that affect the results that aren't fraud, such has failure to adhere to security measures. We've only talked about ballots.

What would be 5? I would agree that blind implicit trust in election integrity is as damaging to our process as unsubstantiated allegations that the whole thing is rigged. Is that fair to say? You keep saying there is no evidence. Are you familiar with the legal definition and types of evidence? Before we get there, I just want to know we're on the same page when you say there is "no" evidence.

Not a fair comparison. Apples and oranges, but I'll play. Say you report gunfire in your neighborhood park where your kids are playing, does your sheriff have a duty to investigate? He asks how many shots. You say 5. He says that's not enough to worry about.

Torqued, it seems to me that you’d like to do all your own research on the subject. That’s fine, but realize that there are experts who have dedicated their entire careers to the subject. This research has been done and large scale voter fraud has been debunked. Here are a couple resources that might help you in your journey:

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Here is what Trump’s own CISA director had to say on the topic before he was fired:

https://www.cisa.gov/rumorcontrol

Here’s what factcheck.org has to say about various claims that have been made regarding the 2020 election:

https://www.factcheck.org/issue/voter-fraud/

And the commission that Trump himself put together after the 2016 election was unceremoniously disbanded after finding no evidence of widespread fraud:

https://www.propublica.org/article/kris-kobach-voter-fraud-kansas-trial
 

So you ask: What’s more dangerous? “Blind” faith in our election system or making dubious claims?

Well, public faith in our elections is integral to making the system work, and there are mountains of evidence that should give Americans that faith. The tack that the Trump administration is currently taking aims to undermine that faith without evidence and WILL make the United States weaker and less effective as a result. So the answer to your question is no contest. Those of us who have faith in this election are not “blind”. The claims the Trump administration is making are flat out false. That’s not my opinion, but the opinion of the courts. 
 

There’s a good chance you and others will look at the sources I cited above and question their motives. You might look at the data and say it’s skewed to support a certain narrative. Some might believe that it’s all part of a larger conspiracy where “so called experts” have an agenda that Trump is standing in the way of and the “MSM” actively enables. I’m not necessarily talking to you specifically torqued and apologize if I’m unfairly lumping you into this group, but if this is your viewpoint, I’ve got nothing for you. There’s a fine line between healthy skepticism and outright conspiracy theory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

You make a ton of assumptions.  The top line was not about you specifically, but about a few other people who put twitter and videos on here like it's the same as an article from the WSJ, or WaPo.  I posted a tool to help people figure out if they're following bots.  You posted it, assumed that all the reactions were negative digs at you...k.

Sorry, what other educated person(s) here posted a TikTok video? I didn't consider you might be referencing them instead.

38 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Actually, you did with "Perhaps it's a hoax."

Great point. I suppose I actually was the first person here to express skepticism.

40 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Of course, and having a President call it into question, and asking legislatures to overturn the Peoples vote is more damaging than the minuscule amount of voter fraud than has been perpetrated.

I hate to nitpick, but is there a number that you have in mind when you say the word "miniscule"? I believe some of the others said their number was "low". I don't know if the number is large or small. It could quite possibly be either, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was less than 5.5% and I'm going to describe that number as "small to very small". That's not based on anything substantive, that's just an arbitrary number I assigned to my gut feeling. What's yours?

48 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Disagree, and it was a question not a statement.  There are a lot of my friends, and other people on this board, sharing this type of "information" about why the election was stolen en masse from Trump.  These same ideas are being floated by his legal counsel outside of a courtroom.  The President is lining up behind these outlandish theories.  It's not a stretch at all to wonder if this is really what the Republicans are going to line up behind.

Again, this lends itself to my question about what is the evidence you're looking for? Is it a "I'll know it when I see it" type of thing or do you require things like eyewitness testimony? or signed affidavits? I don't know. Kind of hard to provide you with what you need if you won't specify what it is.

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

Yea, I do.  Like all things, the breadth of the word "hacked' is lost on some people as words evolve.  Hacked covers everything from rooting a box halfway around the world, to social engineering getting a large fry from the local Carl's Jr these days.  The definition changed from the 90's-00's.


They did "hack" our election in the sense they used the information they "hacked by technical means" from the DNC to "hack by influence ops" the election.  

But it wasn't enough to change the results of the election, right? It was just a "little bit" of hacking, correct? Certainly nothing we should be concerned with.

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

Depends on a lot of things.  I have no exp w/ Philly's voting setup.  I have a small amount of exp w/ TX's setup.  If they're similar then I think it's highly unlikely a foreign actor did anything to the voting machines themselves.  In Tx the devices were not networked together, or on the internet during voting.  I also don't think they're plugged into the WWW except for maybe updates, but a competent security person would not do that, and instead pull the updates to load off a gaped network.  So instead, you're talking about a voter walking in and plugging something in to modify the machine and vote totals...sure, could happen.  It would also be caught by the audits the election folks have when they start seeing issues with the voting as happened a couple times in the election.  We keep a human in the loop for important things: autonomous weapons, nuclear reactors, voting. 

Additionally, believe that Philly has paper records of the votes as well, so you'd just audit that.  Otherwise you're talking about a massive conspiracy across counties and states to modify the vote for only 1 candidate on the ticket.  Having taken quite a few statistics courses on my way to my illustrious masters degree - that's 9/11-Truther levels of whackadoodle.

Finally, cyber isn't something that states are going to just throw around.  Everyone gets caught at some point.  Some more or less than others.  Cyber costs a lot to develop, professionalize and use.  Burning it sucks, a lot.  You're not going to throw it after a single voting machine in Philly, you're going to target something better. 

It's easier to think of strategically as kinda nuclear weapons.  This is a imperfect analogy.  We've all got cyber (ex. in ours/adversary utility structure - like missiles in tubes), it's ready to go, but we're not doing a "massive attack" with them because that would be "crossing a red line" and threaten our own way of life (ex. destroying utility infrastructure.")  Nukes also had the stipulation if you attacked the detection/launch capabilities, it was considered an attack.  I'm not politician...but I'd consider the bedrock of the democratic experience, voting, to be a big red line.

Great stuff. Thanks for the insight. Not my wheelhouse. I want to clarify a couple things before I quote a USAF Cyber Officer on Twitter:

1. It's possible someone could plug something into the machine and modify vote totals.

2. Audits of the machine and ballots are the correct way to ensure the counts are correct.

3. A conspiracy across counties and states is statistically impossible because a hack would require multiple locations to also operate the same systems and equipment.

4. Cyber shouldn't be wasted on machines used for voting.

5. Voting is the bedrock of the democratic experience, and a big red line.

Cool, brother. I think I got it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

How many "fraudulent votes" does it take to overturn the election in an area? 1? 2? 5?

I always thought the answer was 42, but I've also wondered if it depends on the total number of votes cast, and the close the race is...

But I have no idea.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

How many "fraudulent votes" does it take to overturn the election in an area? 1? 2? 5?

So if you were engaging in this kind of fraud on behalf of the Democratic party...why wouldn't you tip a few house and senate seats in your favor as well?

Seems to me that is the single biggest argument against voter fraud...if they had the ability to influence elections on this scale, why would they not take a filibuster-proof majority in the house and take control of the senate while they are at it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Torqued, it seems to me that you’d like to do all your own research on the subject. That’s fine, but realize that there are experts who have dedicated their entire careers to the subject. This research has been done and large scale voter fraud has been debunked. Here are a couple resources that might help you in your journey:

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Here is what Trump’s own CISA director had to say on the topic before he was fired:

https://www.cisa.gov/rumorcontrol

Here’s what factcheck.org has to say about various claims that have been made regarding the 2020 election:

https://www.factcheck.org/issue/voter-fraud/

And the commission that Trump himself put together after the 2016 election was unceremoniously disbanded after finding no evidence of widespread fraud:

https://www.propublica.org/article/kris-kobach-voter-fraud-kansas-trial

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

So you ask: What’s more dangerous? “Blind” faith in our election system or making dubious claims?

Well, public faith in our elections is integral to making the system work, and there are mountains of evidence that should give Americans that faith. The tack that the Trump administration is currently taking aims to undermine that faith without evidence and WILL make the United States weaker and less effective as a result. So the answer to your question is no contest. Those of us who have faith in this election are not “blind”. The claims the Trump administration is making are flat out false. That’s not my opinion, but the opinion of the courts. 
 

There’s a good chance you and others will look at the sources I cited above and question their motives. You might look at the data and say it’s skewed to support a certain narrative. Some might believe that it’s all part of a larger conspiracy where “so called experts” have an agenda that Trump is standing in the way of and the “MSM” actively enables. I’m not necessarily talking to you specifically torqued and apologize if I’m unfairly lumping you into this group, but if this is your viewpoint, I’ve got nothing for you. There’s a fine line between healthy skepticism and outright conspiracy theory. 

Actually, I did not ask that. But I gather your point.

Honest question: Do you believe Trump is trying to undermine the process knowing full well that he didn't legitimately cross the threshold needed to win, or do you think he truly believes he did win the states he needed, and that the process was undermined by someone else against him?

I understand what you're saying. To you, it seems like I'm mad Trump lost and I'm trying to take advantage of the fog to construct a narrative that the forces of evil conspired against him. In reality, I'm saying the fog shouldn't exist. The entire process should have been completely transparent. Why are we not allowed to see how the sausage is made? One example: there are a lot of questions about Dominion, Scytle, Smartmatic, etc. I don't think either one of us knows how their part of the process works. Maybe 17D_guy does. I may be wrong, but I think you'd probably accept at face value that these companies are on the up and up. I also believe it's possible that they have the best interests of our democracy at heart, but I also believe it's possible that they do not, and are corruptible. But because I make a suggestion that it's possible, I'm a conspiracy theorist.

Calling someone a conspiracy theorist because they say a possibility exists is sorta kinda like calling someone a racist in that it is used to stifle debate and attempts to de legitimize anything they have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, pawnman said:

So if you were engaging in this kind of fraud on behalf of the Democratic party...why wouldn't you tip a few house and senate seats in your favor as well?

Seems to me that is the single biggest argument against voter fraud...if they had the ability to influence elections on this scale, why would they not take a filibuster-proof majority in the house and take control of the senate while they are at it?

Already been addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, pawnman said:

So if you were engaging in this kind of fraud on behalf of the Democratic party...why wouldn't you tip a few house and senate seats in your favor as well?

Seems to me that is the single biggest argument against voter fraud...if they had the ability to influence elections on this scale, why would they not take a filibuster-proof majority in the house and take control of the senate while they are at it?

Exactly. Doubly so since, historically, the party in the White House loses seats in the mid-terms.  But nope, it's big brain chess to not make sure that doesn't happen so it seems "legit" and not ensure their leftist policies can get through.  Ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love how you guys are completely ignoring not only his addressing of your questions with fact based points but when he says that he’s already addressed it you ignore it again, so doubly ignored. And there was even a website link!

And you do that instead of asking him, well I’m sorry I can’t seem to find your point could you repost? Or something like that. Nope. You just carry on and continue like no facts were ever presented. Way to go!!!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, torqued said:

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

Actually, I did not ask that. But I gather your point.

Honest question: Do you believe Trump is trying to undermine the process knowing full well that he didn't legitimately cross the threshold needed to win, or do you think he truly believes he did win the states he needed, and that the process was undermined by someone else against him?

I understand what you're saying. To you, it seems like I'm mad Trump lost and I'm trying to take advantage of the fog to construct a narrative that the forces of evil conspired against him. In reality, I'm saying the fog shouldn't exist. The entire process should have been completely transparent. Why are we not allowed to see how the sausage is made? One example: there are a lot of questions about Dominion, Scytle, Smartmatic, etc. I don't think either one of us knows how their part of the process works. Maybe 17D_guy does. I may be wrong, but I think you'd probably accept at face value that these companies are on the up and up. I also believe it's possible that they have the best interests of our democracy at heart, but I also believe it's possible that they do not, and are corruptible. But because I make a suggestion that it's possible, I'm a conspiracy theorist.

Calling someone a conspiracy theorist because they say a possibility exists is sorta kinda like calling someone a racist in that it is used to stifle debate and attempts to de legitimize anything they have to say.

For the record, I’m not calling you a conspiracy theorist. There seems to be a lot of that going around though, and some of your arguments appear to be similar to ones the tin foil hat crowd leans on to support their reasoning. As I said in my last post, I apologize if I lumped you in unfairly. 
 

As far as seeing how the sausage is made, I prefer to defer to the experts. Why? It’s not because I’m not curious or lack healthy skepticism. It’s because this is a complex subject that I’m not an expert in. I’m sure you can appreciate the idea that a commercial 777 flight wouldn’t go very well if the non-pilot passengers in the back were constantly googling the CFRs and demanding the crew provide justification for every small action they make. The safety of that flight depends on the professionalism of a crew that has dedicated their lives to the profession and at some point, the passengers will have to sit down, buckle in, and have a little faith in the fact that there is an exceedingly high probability that the crew will get them to their destination safely. 
 

We can sit here and try and peel back the election security onion ourselves. I’m in layover hotel quarantine right now so I’ve got plenty of time. But frankly, I’m not interested in doing that. Yes, I’ve got google & Facebook & Wikipedia at my fingertips, but those things do not negate the fact that I am not an expert in this field, nor am I a statistician that knows how to parse and collate the reams of information that are available. You seem to want to take on that role here in this forum which is the reason I disengaged with you earlier. We all believe we’re smart people, but if there’s one thing I’ve learned in this career it’s that pilots, while they will proudly proclaim otherwise, are shitty investors, relationship advisors, medical prognosticators, and lawyers. In fact, most of us really aren’t that good at things outside our respective fields of expertise. 
 

So, when the experts, authorities, and the (gasp) mainstream media report that there wasn’t widespread fraud and the President’s court challenges uniformly go nowhere and the President’s last investigation into widespread fraud came up with nothing and every recent investigation into widespread fraud has come to the same conclusion, well, that’s good enough for me. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, torqued said:

 

Honest question: Do you believe Trump is trying to undermine the process knowing full well that he didn't legitimately cross the threshold needed to win, or do you think he truly believes he did win the states he needed, and that the process was undermined by someone else against him?

 

I absolutely believe it’s the former. Look at the current challenge in Michigan. They want to wait to certify Wayne County pending an audit. Wayne County is heavily Democratic and it would be very hard to believe Trump ever had a chance there. The tactic is obviously to slow down the process and delay certification. Same in Georgia where they will do a second recount. The chances of a third count of the votes in Georgia tipping it to Trump are extremely low and the campaign knows it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Guardian said:

As citizens we are afforded just that right to an open election. No such accommodation is given to passengers on an airline flight.

Dude, this is why people think you’re a troll. An analogy is just that, an ANALOGY. No analogy will be perfect but you choose to nitpick banal facts rather than see the overarching intent of the comparison. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Love how you guys are completely ignoring not only his addressing of your questions with fact based points but when he says that he’s already addressed it you ignore it again, so doubly ignored. And there was even a website link!

And you do that instead of asking him, well I’m sorry I can’t seem to find your point could you repost? Or something like that. Nope. You just carry on and continue like no facts were ever presented. Way to go!!!

Because the shit's embarrassing, dog.  There's no evidence for fraud on the scale that you and the other Trump supporters are calling for.  Were there one-off cases?  Probably.  And they should be prosecuted.  But there's absolutely zero evidence for some kind of massive, country-wide or even state-wide conspiracy against the most divisive president since Abraham Lincoln.

If this were a conspiracy, then the DNC really failed at it...they wouldn't have left it close enough for there to be a question.  And they would have used their access to voting systems in the legislature, not just the presidency.  

Please, show me actual evidence, not a Trump lawyer waving around a piece of paper that says "someone told someone they saw something", not an Alex Jones video, not someone in a MAGA hat claiming they saw a Joe Biden bus outside of a polling station.

This is fucking embarrassing.  This is not the kind of behavior that someone who swore to support and defend the constitution should be excited about.  This is tinfoil hat nonsense and only serves to erode the last pieces of faith Americans have in their institutions.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prozac said:

For the record, I’m not calling you a conspiracy theorist. There seems to be a lot of that going around though, and some of your arguments appear to be similar to ones the tin foil hat crowd leans on to support their reasoning. As I said in my last post, I apologize if I lumped you in unfairly.

Really? Which ones? Who, specifically, do you mean when you say "the tin foil hat crowd"? I haven't said anything here I hadn't already verified on Infowars.com.

5 minutes ago, Prozac said:

s far as seeing how the sausage is made, I prefer to defer to the experts. Why? It’s not because I’m not curious or lack healthy skepticism. It’s because this is a complex subject that I’m not an expert in. I’m sure you can appreciate the idea that a commercial 777 flight wouldn’t go very well if the non-pilot passengers in the back were constantly googling the CFRs and demanding the crew provide justification for every small action they make. The safety of that flight depends on the professionalism of a crew that has dedicated their lives to the profession and at some point, the passengers will have to sit down, buckle in, and have a little faith in the fact that there is an exceedingly high probability that the crew will get them to their destination safely.

I'm not sure if you're an airline pilot. I am, and as far as I know, passengers can google CFRs. I constantly get questions about how the aircraft works, is the weather going to be safe, can they see inside the cockpit, what's that button do? Not once have I, or witnessed anyone other pilot, told a passenger to fuck off and trust the system. I've gone so far as to show systems diagrams on my EFB to anyone who wanted to see.

10 minutes ago, Prozac said:

We can sit here and try and peel back the election security onion ourselves. I’m in layover hotel quarantine right now so I’ve got plenty of time. But frankly, I’m not interested in doing that. Yes, I’ve got google & Facebook & Wikipedia at my fingertips, but those things do not negate the fact that I am not an expert in this field, nor am I a statistician that knows how to parse and collate the reams of information that are available. You seem to want to take on that role here in this forum which is the reason I disengaged with you earlier. We all believe we’re smart people, but if there’s one thing I’ve learned in this career it’s that pilots, while they will proudly proclaim otherwise, are shitty investors, relationship advisors, medical prognosticators, and lawyers. In fact, most of us really aren’t that good at things outside our respective fields of expertise.

Ok, I guess you are an airline pilot. Agree on all points.

12 minutes ago, Prozac said:

So, when the experts, authorities, and the (gasp) mainstream media report that there wasn’t widespread fraud and the President’s court challenges uniformly go nowhere and the President’s last investigation into widespread fraud came up with nothing and every recent investigation into widespread fraud has come to the same conclusion, well, that’s good enough for me. 

....sooo if your sources and your standards for reliable information are good enough for you, they're good enough for everyone else. If you're not asking questions as a self-proclaimed non-expert and non-authority, no one else should, either. Ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...