gearhog
-
Posts
1,471 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
42
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by gearhog
-
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.
-
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.
-
Sorry, what other educated person(s) here posted a TikTok video? I didn't consider you might be referencing them instead. Great point. I suppose I actually was the first person here to express skepticism. 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? 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. 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. 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Here's a fun one. Nothing is mentioned about party affiliation, Trump, or Biden. Perhaps it's a hoax. What is the probability there be shenanigans? Is it low, or is it zero? https://twitter.com/i/status/1329720449127780354
-
That's entirely possible. Honest question: When can the state of Nevada start and stop tabulating votes? I don't know.
-
Nice work! I googled "examples of election fraud" two days ago and that was the website I was using when I asked my question. You're the first of five people to actually look it up. And yes, it does answer my question. I didn't count, but there are at least a dozen different ways fraud can be committed by an individual. Bear with me: Would you say that, generally speaking, crimes do not occur outside of those that are convicted?
-
Nevada Secretary of State homepage says the Cumulative Election Turnout was 1,327,394 ballots. https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=9054 Nevada Secretary of State also says 1,406,006 ballots were cast for President. https://silverstateelection.nv.gov/USPresidential/#race1 Biden leads by 33,000 votes. Is Trump raising doubts about the electoral process, or is Nevada?
-
Bye, I guess.
-
Next... If I'm not being genuine or honest, then I am being disingenuous and dishonest. You're making a claim. According to you, the burden of proof lies with the claimant, yet you haven't quoted any text where I have been disingenuous or dishonest. Maybe I have, I don't know. It certainly wasn't my intent. But if you provide the evidence, I'd very much like to apologize for it, and make corrections. I'm glad you also agree that fraud exists. But you still haven't answered the question as to what that fraud is and what the evidence would be. Curiously, the article you linked to isn't an example of "fraud." It's an example of an honest man who unintentionally had his vote recorded twice. Please understand, I'm left to assume you either don't know the definition of the word "fraud" or are disingenuously or dishonestly making the claim this man intentionally committed a fraudulent act. Which is it? Forget it, let's let that one go. Do you have any real examples? Where have I indicated that I'm upset that no one is listening? Again, another specious claim. I don't have circumstantial evidence, I don't have any lawsuits. Why are you using the terms "you" and "your"? If I were mad and childish, wouldn't I be using profane insults, refusing to engage, and quitting the conversation when it became apparent I was losing? Although you failed, you tried to answer my question so I'd be happy to address yours. How did they keep the Senate? You'll probably want to look at an election map while reading this. Here: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=senate+races+2020. Use the buttons at the top to switch between Presidential and Senate races. Can you see the states that had senate races? Can you see the states that did not have senate races? The states where voting irregularities were alleged to have occurred did not have Senate races. Does that blow your mind or what?
-
Bye, I guess.
-
Slow down, brother. We'll get there, I promise. I believe you, Pooter, Prozac, and slackline are smart dudes. I'm not going to be able jedi-mindtrick any of you, so I can't quite understand the reluctance to answer if we are all genuinely interested in having an intellectually honest exchange. Maybe I put a little snark in my earlier posts, and I shouldn't have, because I really want to figure out what, if anything, is happening to our democratic process without pissing everyone off. I'm not willing to take it at face value that "Everything is Fine." because I like my way of life and my country, and I don't want it fucked up because I was complacent and implicitly trusted the system when I shouldn't have. However, if the path of logic dictates that everything is fine, Great! The old quote comes to mind: "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so." So what if I dispensed with my assumptions and preconceived notions about the reliability of our process, tried to make an accurate assessment of the risks, and then attempted to determine if the proper mitigations were in place? Is that wrong? A bad idea? I think it's reasonable to begin with asking the simple question: Does election fraud exist and what would the evidence be?
-
Right. It shouldn't be complicated. I believe you're saying evidence of fraud is... a court case that alleges fraud. Okay... Okay. I'm willing to hear you out on that one, but let's back up. Once more: What is an example of fraud that you believe exists?
-
LOL. My game? I'm asking a basic straightforward question that requires a simple answer. Relax. I'm not trying to trick you. We both agree there is election fraud. What is an example of the fraud you're referring to and what would be evidence of it?
-
I'll try another way: What is a specific example of the fraud you acknowledge exists and what would you say evidence of that fraud would look like?
-
Here we go yet once again. Over and over again. Forum Debate 101: When you can't argue against a point, mischaracterize the point, and argue against that instead. Did I ever say the entire system is compromised? I don't think you know the definition of semantics. Semantics would be arguing, for example, the differences between a mischaracterization, a falsehood, and a lie. You want concrete evidence? I bet I can get you to also "lose interest" before we get there. Here's how: I'll ask you to establish what "concrete evidence" is. Give me an example that you wouldn't outright dismiss.
-
Wait a sec... you were all to eager to engage the past few pages. What's changed? If you believe I cannot budge from my position, that's false. I can and I'd like to. It's just my position hasn't been sufficiently challenged. I'm open minded to reason and logic. However, if you believe you, yourself, cannot be budged from your position, that says to me that you'll stand by it no matter what. That's closed minded. Listen, I asked a few easy to answer questions. If you're a smart person, and I'll give you credit and say that you likely are, you see that my line of questioning will yield answers that will follow a path of logic that's detrimental to your position. That's why you're not going to answer them. Bye, I guess.
-
I think this is fantastic progress. Not only do you agree with both myself and slackline that fraud exists, but you go one step further in specifying that it is committed by Democrats. How is this fraud perpetrated? Give one example, please. Just one. Maybe two if you can think of two.
-
I see we've stopped accusing anyone of making claims, and are now saying she "seems to be insinuating...." Backpedal much? Still, no one ever claimed Chavez himself interfered in this election. Words matter. If there were evidence that communist money paid for Smartmatic voting software produced in Venezuela at the direction of Chavez, what evidence would you find acceptable? Can you think of any government agencies that might provide an official report to that effect that you would find credible? Could you list just a few off the top of your head? Do you think that such a report exists? Would you deny it if were presented to you?
-
Stop trying to act like anyone here ever did? Once again, from the single link you've provided to support your argument: "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised." But you're saying that fraud does, in fact, exist. Great. Now that we've made progress agreeing that it does, all that is left is determining to what extent. What constitutes "small"? 1%? We're no longer disagreeing that there is fraud in the election. Can you provide evidence as to the amount of fraud you're claiming? It cannot be "no fraud" because that doesn't support your argument. What were the childish insults I've used? I didn't call anyone a shit throwing orangutan, so I'm not sure to what you're referring.
-
Again, does election fraud exist in any form? It's a yes or no. I'm not asking you how much, only if it does. I posted links to the the New York Times from 2019. You seem to be saying the age of an article is a discredit in itself. It's not. Updated controverting information is. You have none. Believe me, I fully understand why you have a problem with precise language. If you believed precision was important, you wouldn't have much to say.
-
Prozac, are you no longer beating your wife? Invalid question. Why would I frame a question like that unless I was trying to be deceptive? You're asking which article supports the narrative that Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election. No one said Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election. I know it's easier to attack your own mischaracterization of what was said than attacking what was actually said. But it's also obvious, and dishonest. However, I'm not sure if you're intentionally creating a false statement that a narrative exists in which people believe Hugo Chavez interfered in the election, or if you're lazily summarizing what you think was said. I've provided links to mainstream media sources in 2019 that said electronic voting fraud is possible and probable. If you ignored them earlier, would it change anything if I posted the same ones again, or more of them? What were my claims? I have claimed that fraud exists. I've made no indication as to the extent, because I simply do not know. However, I believe it entirely possible, even probable that it could exist in ways that could have changed some of the results. You seem to be saying election fraud simply does not exist. Am I misunderstanding? As for the about "70%" of Republicans rooting for the "shit throwing orangutan", your derangement is showing. How is it you expect a civil conversation with regard to election security when you can so easily devolve into profane insults and emotional hysterics? Again, invalid question. You don't expect a civil conversation.
-
Let me make it easy for you. Each and every claim in that article is numbered. Each numbered paragraph has a link to the source of the information, many of them being from .gov websites, CNN, The Guardian, etc. If I were to ask you to find a single false truth in the article, the probability that you'd switch the subject, "butwhatabout...", or stick to the "Nuh-Uh!" tactic is extremely high. Here's how I know that you, also, are not interested in finding the truth: You don't have any disputes about the contents of the article, which is merely a compilation of other sources you'd otherwise call solid.
-
"We asked the companies if there were any incriminating relationships and they said 'No'." LOL.
