The Next President is...

[pawnman]

21 minutes ago, torqued said:

Already been addressed.

Must have missed that particular TikTok video.

[gearhog]

8 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Must have missed that particular TikTok video.

Ooooo. Sick burn! LOL

[17D_guy]

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.

[Guardian]

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!!!

[Prozac]

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. 

[Guardian]

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

[Prozac]

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. 

[Prozac]

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. 

[pawnman]

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.

[gearhog]

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.

[DosXX]

4 hours 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.

No, I intentionally picked the reputable source that had the most cases (again to find an upper limit, Prozac already added other sources so I won't do the same). I even attributed them all to the current year. It's an empirical analysis for an empirical claim, you can always dismiss these types of claims as having insufficient data. It's a useful way of understanding the scale of fraud necessary to justify claims of a "landslide" victory. All of the research and proven cases paint a picture that the amount of fraud in 2020 is less than the cumulative number of fraud cases on Heritage. This is only true until it's not (like any other empirical claim), but always resorting to "is it a low probability or zero" is not a useful conversation to have. Either show evidence to the contrary or move on. A fuzzy picture of Bigfoot from '69 is "evidence" of Bigfoot, and there is a nonzero chance it exists, but there is insufficient evidence to take that claim seriously. I know, apples and oranges when one is a complex system underpinning American society; analogies are flawed, it's easier to show the logic of empirical claims from extreme examples.

4 hours 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.

That's actually a great extension to the analogy. Sheriff's absolutely have a responsibility to respond in every case possible (resource permitting), as should the courts in convicting fraudsters. Isolated instances in neighborhood parks do not justify impacting the legal right to own arms across the country; isolated instances of voter fraud in neighborhood polling stations do not justify impacting the legal right to vote across the country.

4 hours ago, torqued said:

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

What follows "5." in my post is the fifth point. Also just to clarify since you've neglected the second half of statements in the past, what I said was "There is no evidence currently to delay certification of results". I did not claim there is no evidence at all, I claimed there was no evidence currently existing that would justify delaying certification of results. All current evidence should be heard in court and prosecuted to the maximum extent. If you think you have an example of sufficient evidence then I'm all ears; the Trump base is definitely claiming there already exists enough evidence to claim definitively it was fraudulent in the hundreds of thousands.

I would add only one of those is happening depending on how you define it, there is no blind trust since our system of checks and balances through various institutions has been developed to protect election integrity, whereas claiming the whole thing is rigged is actually happening as we speak. But I'm glad at least we can agree it's a bad thing.

Edited November 22, 2020 by DosXX

[17D_guy]

1 hour ago, torqued said:

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:

Cool, brother. I think I got it.

Sim, Seadogs and some others have been posting them.  I think Guardian was, but his might have been more YT videos.

I'm not going to lay the bar for evidence, that's what we have courts for and I trust the system our Founders put in place.  If you have a chance to read the decision that came out of PA that I posted, it goes into detail about the tests that are used in these instances, remedy sought and allowed, and procedures.  To me, it really showed the shallowness of the actual claims, and the (struggling for words here) chaos of the Trump Campaign's legal process.

For the Russian "hacking" we won't know that until some historians look back and can get a feel for where we're at in 20/40/60 years.  I think it had a strong effect, I could be wrong.  I don't remember the details of what they released and if it impacted the FBI investigations.  There's a lot of stuff to read about information operations, and of course the Russians have been doing it for a LONG time, and are really good at it.
 

Quote

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.

.5 - I wouldn't quote me on twitter, I'm not expert - just got a little learning and experience.

1) Possible, depends on the model.  I imagine they have to have some kind of way to move data around, and it's easier to get thing certified that don't have wireless.  The ones in TX didn't appear to have a USB plug, it looked like a proprietary connector.  So YMMV.  If it is proprietary, there's a lot more work (read - $$) that goes into a physical hack.

2) I agree in premise, however this is going to be wrapped up in the legal agreements for the machines themselves.  It's why I didn't like voting in TX - no paper trail, it was all digital.  Which...no one seems to have a problem with Texas' voting right now 🤔.  For ballots, again that's something of a legal discussion.  Our mail in ballots had the signature on the envelope, which was cast aside when our ballot was counted.  I think this was the same in GA.  So...yea.

3) I think you're conflating 2 things here - the conspiracy, the hacking systems.  You're going to need the conspiracy first.  That conspiracy is going to need to find a way to hack the machines, which might be the "same."  I put same in quotes, because even our "same" systems across the USAF aren't.  There's minor upgrades, hardware differences, software updates/patches.  This became a serious issues when the Spectre bug came to light.  I couldn't tell you if the machines in PA and GA are the same.  They could be the same model, but run different firmware, or have different processors...which would impact the ability to "hack" them.  I don't know if Dominion is simply a vote counting machine, of if people are voting on the machine and it's doing everything (like in TX - which didn't use dominion as I remember).  I don't know if I'm explaining this well, please let me know.

4) This is to be decided by the leaders of a government and if the juice is worth the squeeze.  I don't think any country (RU, CN, IR) would think that it was today.  That calculus could change.  Imagine the blow back when they would get caught, because they would with how close this is with the audits and recounts.  I'm not saying it's not worth it, but you've got to do the Intel gain/loss, weapon gain/loss...all of that.  I don't think it would be worth it.  Biden is historically harder on RU than he is on CN...so, I would surmise RU wouldn't want to mess with it.  Something to remember, every time you use a "cyber weapon" that iteration is gone. 

5) I agree on the first part, I think the second part is up for discussion based on the country in question.  Sounds like quibbling, but again, that's for our elected leaders to determine during their time in office.  Now, the question is...where is the red line.  Is it the voting machines only, the canvass boards computer systems, the voter rolls (which have been hacked, linked to RU), or is it all of it?  Our current gov't is "ok" with some of that being "hacked."

I'll add - I'm retired, I have a clearance but am not currently affiliated with USCYBERCOM or its activities.  Everything I post is open source and I try to provide reputable links for my claims/thoughts.

[Guardian]

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. 

I’m a troll for disagreeing with your analogy not making sense to the topic at hand? That’s funny Prozac. It’s your world moderator. I’m just trying to understand your points because the analogy didn’t make sense to me.

[17D_guy]

4 minutes ago, Guardian said:

I’m a troll for disagreeing with your analogy not making sense to the topic at hand? That’s funny Prozac. It’s your world moderator. I’m just trying to understand your points because the analogy didn’t make sense to me.

People think you're a troll, in this thread, because you get obtuse when it seems to suit you, and demand that others use extremely clear communication when you've not done so in the past. 

Your statement didn't say, "I  don't get your analogy, please explain."

You went straight to, "This has no application to the discussion at hand" when it did make sense as a comparison tool, which if I may remind you:

Analogy - a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect

[17D_guy]

25 minutes ago, torqued said:

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.

You do this while flying?

[Prozac]

Sigh....

The analogy was simply to make the point that we are not experts and that experts exists for a reason and that one of the hallmarks of society is that we can and should rely on each other’s expertise in various walks of life. 
 

Here is an article by Tom Nichols on the topic titled The Death of Expertise. He also wrote a book by the same title and many others have written about the same general idea lately. 
https://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

[gearhog]

Just now, 17D_guy said:

You do this while flying?

Only if she's hot.

[pawnman]

4 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Sigh....

The analogy was simply to make the point that we are not experts and that experts exists for a reason and that one of the hallmarks of society is that we can and should rely on each other’s expertise in various walks of life. 
 

Here is an article by Tom Nichols on the topic titled The Death of Expertise. He also wrote a book by the same title and many others have written about the same general idea lately. 
https://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

Yep.  This is also why the Covid-19 pandemic is as bad as it is...bunch of Karens Google something about the size of the virus and disregard what trained epidemiologists have to say about the efficacy of masks...for example.

[Guardian]

People think you're a troll, in this thread, because you get obtuse when it seems to suit you, and demand that others use extremely clear communication when you've not done so in the past. 

Your statement didn't say, "I  don't get your analogy, please explain."

You went straight to, "This has no application to the discussion at hand" when it did make sense as a comparison tool, which if I may remind you:

Analogy - a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect

You’re right. I could have asked a question instead of trying to make a point to what I understood his analogy meant. I will strive to do that next time. Sorry Prozac.

I get obtuse for very specific reasons to show the lack of credibility on the other side of the isle. And I’m very specific with the things I say which then get taken out of context or in a way not stated. Which I’m sure we are all guilty of. I know I am. And I know I feel that way about you and SLACK, homestar, and Prozac at times. So I know what you mean.

This wasn’t a case of obtuse just a challenge of the analogy not making sense.

[gearhog]

2 hours ago, DosXX said:

No, I intentionally picked the reputable source that had the most cases (again to find an upper limit, Prozac already added other sources so I won't do the same). I even attributed them all to the current year. It's an empirical analysis for an empirical claim, you can always dismiss these types of claims as having insufficient data. It's a useful way of understanding the scale of fraud necessary to justify claims of a "landslide" victory. All of the research and proven cases paint a picture that the amount of fraud in 2020 is less than the cumulative number of fraud cases on Heritage. This is only true until it's not (like any other empirical claim), but always resorting to "is it a low probability or zero" is not a useful conversation to have. Either show evidence to the contrary or move on. A fuzzy picture of Bigfoot from '69 is "evidence" of Bigfoot, and there is a nonzero chance it exists, but there is insufficient evidence to take that claim seriously. I know, apples and oranges when one is a complex system underpinning American society; analogies are flawed, it's easier to show the logic of empirical claims from extreme examples.

As I said earlier, you were the only one of five to at least acknowledge specific types of fraud. That was half my question. The other half was about evidence.

Please humor me and CRTL-F this page for the word "evidence". Care to count how many times you've used it on this page alone? How many times have I asked what types of evidence you would find acceptable and how many times have you specified what constitutes "evidence"? Empirically speaking, the answer is "lots" and "zero".

2 hours ago, DosXX said:

That's actually a great extension to the analogy. Sheriff's absolutely have a responsibility to respond in every case possible (resource permitting), as should the courts in convicting fraudsters. Isolated instances in neighborhood parks do not justify impacting the legal right to own arms across the country; isolated instances of voter fraud in neighborhood polling stations do not justify impacting the legal right to vote across the country.

Are we disagreeing? Likewise, poll watchers and law enforcement have a responsibility to respond to every reported case of fraud. If someone breaks the law and fires a weapon in the park, we don't advocate that everyone's right to own a firearm be violated. As such, if someone commits fraud, we don't disenfranchise the right to vote of others. Investigation of the allegation and prosecution of the offense of either serves as a deterrent and reduces the probability of it happening again. If we decide to do neither because it won't make a substantial difference, are we not inviting it to happen even moreso?

2 hours ago, DosXX said:

What follows "5." in my post is the fifth point. Also just to clarify since you've neglected the second half of statements in the past, what I said was "There is no evidence currently to delay certification of results". I did not claim there is no evidence at all, I claimed there was no evidence currently existing that would justify delaying certification of results. All current evidence should be heard in court and prosecuted to the maximum extent. If you think you have an example of sufficient evidence then I'm all ears; the Trump base is definitely claiming there already exists enough evidence to claim definitively it was fraudulent in the hundreds of thousands.

I would add only one of those is happening depending on how you define it, there is no blind trust since our system of checks and balances through various institutions has been developed to protect election integrity, whereas claiming the whole thing is rigged is actually happening as we speak. But I'm glad at least we can agree it's a bad thing.

I don't know if I can provide the evidence, but I'd like to try. What would you consider as acceptable forms of evidence?

[DosXX]

1 hour ago, torqued said:

Please humor me and CRTL-F this page for the word "evidence". Care to count how many times you've used it on this page alone? How many times have I asked what types of evidence you would find acceptable and how many times have you specified what constitutes "evidence"? Empirically speaking, the answer is "lots" and "zero".

I think we're talking past each other. But I will try to be more clear. Affidavits are evidence. Convicted cases are evidence. Like I said in my post, I am not denying evidence exists, I am rejecting the validity of evidence of systematic fraud and what that means for the election. You ignored the part again where I said evidence does exist (in isolated cases) but it is insufficient to make claims about a systemic rigging or about the outcome of the election. Evidence of bigfoot also exists. Doesn't mean the evidence is not baseless or has much more obvious explanations. I listed what I believe to be acceptable forms of evidence of systematic fraud down below. 

1 hour ago, torqued said:

Are we disagreeing? Likewise, poll watchers and law enforcement have a responsibility to respond to every reported case of fraud. If someone breaks the law and fires a weapon in the park, we don't advocate that everyone's right to own a firearm be violated. As such, if someone commits fraud, we don't disenfranchise the right to vote of others. Investigation of the allegation and prosecution of the offense of either serves as a deterrent and reduces the probability of it happening again. If we decide to do neither because it won't make a substantial difference, are we not inviting it to happen even moreso?

We agree on the resolution regarding isolated instances, we are disagreeing on the "100% integrity" and what we should do to meet that end. I do not believe we should, by whatever means possible, obtain 100% election integrity. I would not be in favor of requiring a passport, social security card, drivers license, and signed witness form in order to vote, because that would do more damage disenfranchising voters than the benefit it would provide in the few isolated cases of fraud it might prevent. Likewise, I do not think the government should mandate annual psychological evaluations, a national gun registry, and monitor our text messages, because that would do more damage to our freedoms than the benefit of the lives saved from preventing shootings. Investigations of fraud or gun crimes should be done to the maximum extent possible to deter and prevent/fix crimes, but we should not attempt to reach idealistic goals that in the end would do much more harm than good. Everyone here has said all individual cases should be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. CTRL-F that and you'll see it said time and time again. What we disagree about on this forum are the justification of tactics being employed by those in power with baseless accusations of systematic fraud, and whether that should justify delaying certification of the results. IF there was proof that fraud was committed in the hundreds of thousands as has been implied, then I would be in favor of measures such as requiring multiple forms of ID. IF the election was decided by only a few hundred votes and not tens of thousands, then I would be in favor of delaying certification until investigations conclude.

1 hour ago, torqued said:

I don't know if I can provide the evidence, but I'd like to try. What would you consider as acceptable forms of evidence?

Some examples, but feel free to post anything and I will tell you if I consider it acceptable in terms of systematic fraud or potentially change election outcome:

- DHS cybersecurity agency (or any other similar institution) providing a statement that there were significant discrepancies detected in this election that merit further investigation

- A credible leak to the press and/or WikiLeaks of communication between powerful figures in politics describing how they will rig the election

- A single court case successfully prosecuting fraud at a clandestine systematic level

- Any election security expert detailing how one of their machines was hacked this election with potentially thousands of votes compromised

- A peer reviewed research paper describing voting anomalies at a large scale in any recent American election 

- A reputable source describing the rates of detection for election fraud to the level appropriate to change the outcome of any state based on data we have.

Some examples of unacceptable evidence that I have debunked on here:

- Dr Shiva's video on election anomalies in 2020

- Blurry tik tok video of random excel sheet with no access to data

- NYT Edison Data web scrape analysis from this site that gained a lot of traction: https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8O2wesk/happening-calling-every-pede-to-/

 

Famous Cristopher Hitchens quote to close it off: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" 

Edited November 23, 2020 by DosXX

[gearhog]

4 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

 

1) Possible, depends on the model.  I imagine they have to have some kind of way to move data around, and it's easier to get thing certified that don't have wireless.  The ones in TX didn't appear to have a USB plug, it looked like a proprietary connector.  So YMMV.  If it is proprietary, there's a lot more work (read - $$) that goes into a physical hack.

 

2) I agree in premise, however this is going to be wrapped up in the legal agreements for the machines themselves.  It's why I didn't like voting in TX - no paper trail, it was all digital.  Which...no one seems to have a problem with Texas' voting right now 🤔.  For ballots, again that's something of a legal discussion.  Our mail in ballots had the signature on the envelope, which was cast aside when our ballot was counted.  I think this was the same in GA.  So...yea.

3) I think you're conflating 2 things here - the conspiracy, the hacking systems.  You're going to need the conspiracy first.  That conspiracy is going to need to find a way to hack the machines, which might be the "same."  I put same in quotes, because even our "same" systems across the USAF aren't.  There's minor upgrades, hardware differences, software updates/patches.  This became a serious issues when the Spectre bug came to light.  I couldn't tell you if the machines in PA and GA are the same.  They could be the same model, but run different firmware, or have different processors...which would impact the ability to "hack" them.  I don't know if Dominion is simply a vote counting machine, of if people are voting on the machine and it's doing everything (like in TX - which didn't use dominion as I remember).  I don't know if I'm explaining this well, please let me know.

 

Quite well. Great explanation. Any idea what kinds of machines these are or if they're the hackable type?

Interesting video. NBC, so you know it's legit.

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by torqued

[gearhog]

4 minutes ago, DosXX said:

I think we're talking past each other. But I will try to be more clear. Affidavits are evidence. Convicted cases are evidence. Like I said in my post, I am not denying evidence exists, I am rejecting the validity of evidence of systematic fraud and what that means for the election. You ignored the part again where I said evidence does exist (in isolated cases) but it is insufficient to make claims about a systemic rigging. Evidence of bigfoot also exists. Doesn't mean the evidence is not baseless or has much more obvious explanations. I listed what I believe to be acceptable forms of evidence down below.

We agree on the resolution regarding isolated instances, we are disagreeing on the "100% integrity" and what we should do to meet that end. I do not believe we should, by whatever means possible, obtain 100% election integrity. I would not be in favor of requiring a passport, social security card, drivers license, and signed witness form in order to vote, because that would do more damage disenfranchising voters than the benefit it would provide in the few isolated cases of fraud it might prevent. Likewise, I do not think the government should mandate annual psychological evaluations, a national gun registry, and monitor our text messages, because that would do more damage to our freedoms than the benefit of the lives saved from preventing shootings. Investigations of fraud or gun crimes should be done to the maximum extent possible to deter and prevent/fix crimes, but we should not attempt to reach idealistic goals that in the end would do much more harm than good. Everyone here has said all individual cases should be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. CTRL-F that and you'll see it said time and time again. What we disagree about on this forum are the justification of tactics being employed by those in power with baseless accusations of systematic fraud, and whether that should justify delaying certification of the results. IF there was proof that fraud was committed in the hundreds of thousands as has been implied, then I would be in favor of measures such as requiring multiple forms of ID. IF the election was decided by only a few hundred votes and not tens of thousands, then I would be in favor of delaying certification until investigations conclude.

Some examples, but feel free to post anything and I will tell you if I consider it acceptable in terms of systematic fraud:

- DHS cybersecurity agency (or any other similar institution) providing a statement that there were significant discrepancies detected in this election that merit further investigation

- A credible leak to the press and/or WikiLeaks of communication between powerful figures in politics describing how they will rig the election

- A single court case successfully prosecuting fraud at a clandestine systematic level

- Any election security expert detailing how one of their machines was hacked this election with potentially thousands of votes compromised

- A peer reviewed research paper describing voting anomalies at a large scale in any recent American election 

Some examples of unacceptable evidence that I have debunked on here:

- Dr Shiva's video on election anomalies in 2020

- Blurry tik tok video of random excel sheet with no access to data

- NYT Edison Data web scrape analysis from this site that gained a lot of traction: https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8O2wesk/happening-calling-every-pede-to-/

 

Famous Cristopher Hitchens quote to close it off: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" 

Awesome! I don't have any currently, but now I know what to look for. Maybe something will turn up tomorrow. I'll keep you updated.

[Sua Sponte]

Looks like Trump’s legal team is doing well.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/22/trump-campaign-sidney-powell-legal-439357

[waveshaper]

58 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Looks like Trump’s legal team is doing well.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/22/trump-campaign-sidney-powell-legal-439357

Dang - she only lasted ‘About Half A Scaramucci’: