The Next President is...

[jazzdude]

Evil might be a poor word choice. Self interested probably describes it better. Society hasnt collapsed because cooperation is still a better security strategy than lone-wolfing it. However, the minute that cooperation begins to stretch a person's values outside their self interest they will cease to cooperate. It doesn't make the world horrible. Its just nature. And people will justify horrendous acts on a platform of moral virtue because they will try to uphold their own self interest. 

Realism...

And that's exactly why the American system works. Because if people are left to pursue their self-interests, their fundamentally good nature will be freed to impact those around them.

...vs Liberalism (not to be confused with US political definitions).

Are people (or countries) acting only in self interest, or altruistically? Are people inherently lazy and need external motivation to work, or are they inherently motivated to work?

All this gets even murkier considering different cultures and the values attached with those cultures, especially when a country internally is made up of several diverse cultures like ours.

[gearhog]

I was just listening to ARMY Col Phil Waldron (Ret) discussing election cybersecurity.

"Your vote is not as secure as your Venmo account." I wonder if he's lying.

 

[Pooter]

2 hours ago, torqued said:

I was just listening to ARMY Col Phil Waldron (Ret) discussing election cybersecurity.

"Your vote is not as secure as your Venmo account." I wonder if he's lying.

 

 So what exactly does this video prove?  Are we just throwing up spider charts of how servers work and saying because something is on the internet it could hypothetically be hacked...

The question isn't whether a system can be hacked. Of course it can. The question is WAS it hacked.  This has been the crux of the entire debate for weeks now: If you want to disenfranchise millions of voters you need to provide tangible evidence that large scale election interference/hacking/fraud actually occurred.

And I'm not sure where the evidence for that Venmo claim is.  Nowhere in that video did he discuss dominion or Venmo's actual security measures. Meanwhile you have Rudy in the background extrapolating ad infinitum the most bonkers conclusions possible. Because dominion is on the internet->Frankfurt->hackers are on the internet->the democrats changed votes->NAZIS!!

This is why you need to be careful about where you get your news.

[Smokin]

The real question is not if there was illegal voting and vote manipulation (I doubt if any sizable election has ever been 100% accurate and correct since the days of the Athenian democracy) but was on a scale that could have affected the outcome.  Since so many states were so close, it is a worthwhile discussion to have.  I voted for Trump and I am obviously not happy that he lost.  I have seen enough evidence to convince me that there was some voter fraud (see first comment and a Fox News article that listed multiple voters that were listed as having voted by name that died prior to 2018) , but so far no evidence that it was on the scale that some have accused.  As is normal in our republic, especially lately, it is necessary to tune out both extremes.  Was there a massive liberal corporate conspiracy to steal the election?  Probably not.  Was every single vote that was counted legal and legit?  Certainly not.  So the left should stop claiming that voters are being disenfranchised by the millions by looking into voter fraud.  Similarly, the right should stop claiming that millions of votes were changed by some computer program unless they have some real tangible evidence.

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

 So what exactly does this video prove?  Are we just throwing up spider charts of how servers work and saying because something is on the internet it could hypothetically be hacked...

The question isn't whether a system can be hacked. Of course it can. The question is WAS it hacked.  This has been the crux of the entire debate for weeks now: If you want to disenfranchise millions of voters you need to provide tangible evidence that large scale election interference/hacking/fraud actually occurred.

And I'm not sure where the evidence for that Venmo claim is.  Nowhere in that video did he discuss dominion or Venmo's actual security measures. Meanwhile you have Rudy in the background extrapolating ad infinitum the most bonkers conclusions possible. Because dominion is on the internet->Frankfurt->hackers are on the internet->the democrats changed votes->NAZIS!!

This is why you need to be careful about where you get your news.

"We"? "We" aren't doing anything. This was an Arizona State Legislature Public Hearing, not a court of law, and not a news source. Not sure why I'd need to be careful watching it. All that it proves is that a former US ARMY Colonel and cybersecurity expert can reasonably demonstrate that the system is capable of being hacked. Apparently, you agree with him. But you're in a rush to sort through the evidence so you can dismiss it as false. If I were to argue in favor of an election hacking accusation, and I'm not, my opening remarks to the jury wouldn't be the tangible evidence. First, I'd need them to agree that the idea of an election being hacked is possible, then proceed to walk them down the path. You're already halfway there.

No one is going to blow their load in public hearing or in a state level court system fight. No state wants to be responsible for calling a contested election. The idea is to move these lawsuits through the appeals process and into the Federal Court system ASAP. We're not going to see anything of significance until then, where the real fight begins.

Today's PA General Assembly Resolution:

WHEREAS, The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has the duty to ensure that no citizen of this Commonwealth is disenfranchised, to insist that all elections are conducted according to the law, and to satisfy the general public that every legal vote is counted accurately; therefore be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives:

(1) Recognize allegations of substantial irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing and canvassing during the November 3, 2020,election.

(2) Disapprove of the infringement on the General Assembly's authority pursuant to the Constitution of the United States to regulate elections.

(3) Disapprove of and disagree with the Secretary of the Commonwealth's premature certification of the results of the November 3, 2020, election regarding presidential electors.

(4) Declare that the selection of presidential electors and other Statewide electoral contest results in this Commonwealth is in dispute.

https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20418113-diamond-language-hr1094

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by torqued

[Pooter]

@torqued

"we" know exactly what you're trying to do. We've been watching you embarrass yourself for weeks with comically flimsy election fraud claims. It's also why you posted verbiage from a Pennsylvania house resolution written by the fringe of their right wing, which was not passed, or even voted on.

"House Republican leaders, however, declined to grant extra time in order to consider the proposed resolution. The legislative session ended Monday, as scheduled."

 

[gearhog]

1 minute ago, Pooter said:

@torqued

"we" know exactly what you're trying to do. We've been watching you embarrass yourself for weeks with comically flimsy election fraud claims. It's also why you posted verbiage from a Pennsylvania house resolution written by the fringe of their right wing, which was not passed, or even voted on.

"House Republican leaders, however, declined to grant extra time in order to consider the proposed resolution. The legislative session ended Monday, as scheduled."

 

 Perhaps if you explicitly stated what it is you think I'm trying to do, we could clear up any misunderstandings. Also, could I ask you to quote my specific election fraud claims? It kinda seems like you're intentionally falsely attributing various election fraud claims to me.

Why is it you're calling these PA representatives the "fringe of their right wing." I'd be very surprised if you knew anything about their positions apart from this single resolution. Why is it that you think the resolution didn't get voted on? Was it because it was widely disagreeable? Or was it because:

“We are physically unable to consider any new legislation before the end of session. A simple resolution takes three legislative days for consideration and a concurrent resolution takes five legislative days to move through both chambers, which means we do not have the time needed to address any new resolutions in our current session,” which expires Monday as per the state constitution.

”It is obvious Pennsylvania’s election processes are in dire need of repair. Our work to ensure the chaos and confusion of the 2020 election are not repeated will continue in the next legislative session.”

 

[17D_guy]

35 minutes ago, torqued said:

“We are physically unable to consider any new legislation before the end of session. A simple resolution takes three legislative days for consideration and a concurrent resolution takes five legislative days to move through both chambers, which means we do not have the time needed to address any new resolutions in our current session,” which expires Monday as per the state constitution.

”It is obvious Pennsylvania’s election processes are in dire need of repair. Our work to ensure the chaos and confusion of the 2020 election are not repeated will continue in the next legislative session.”

 

Sounds like politics to me.  "Oh, if only we had more time!"  Like every single Trump lawsuit.

If only the legislature could have done that before the election since they already passed other laws on how their state was going to administrate the elections.  Convenient of them to do that after they lost. 

Also, misleading of you to post it without the context of it not getting heard/passed.
 

Quote

a former US ARMY Colonel and cybersecurity expert

I googled this guy, but could find nothing supporting these claims.  Go with creds you have, otherwise I'm going to assume he's as credible a cybersecurity expert as Rudy.

Edited December 1, 2020 by 17D_guy

[GoodSplash9]

I’m honestly surprised at how many supposed critical thinkers and skeptics on here clearly haven’t put any real effort into seeing if there is any evidence of widespread fraud. If your using google, good luck finding anything besides the official mainstream narrative (recommend DuckDuckGo.com as an unbiased search engine).

I challenge anyone actually interested in data to do your own research on official absentee ballot numbers in Pennsylvania (hint...1.8 million mailed/1.4 million returned in the mail/2.4 million counted) or the four vote spikes that occurred after midnight (the largest was 330k+...97% for one candidate) with over 600k votes instantly showing up. The vote spikes are easy to find in graphs or live on any news station after midnight. 

[gearhog]

50 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Sounds like politics to me.  "Oh, if only we had more time!"  Like every single Trump lawsuit.

If only the legislature could have done that before the election since they already passed other laws on how their state was going to administrate the elections.  Convenient of them to do that after they lost. 

Also, misleading of you to post it without the context of it not getting heard/passed.
 

I googled this guy, but could find nothing supporting these claims.  Go with creds you have, otherwise I'm going to assume he's as credible a cybersecurity expert as Rudy.

Of course it's politics. To be fair, I don't think the PA legislature had any idea the election results would be this contentious. I had read the resolution earlier in the day just after it was submitted. The statement by the Speaker had not yet been published. I was not trying to be misleading.

As for Waldron, I also googled his name and this was in the first few results: "Giuliani’s first witness at the was officer retired U.S. Army Colonel Phil Waldron, a cybersecurity expert who spent half of his 30-year military career as a cavalry officer, conducting armed reconnaissance, and the last half of his career in information warfare."

But I gather your point: Being a military officer with experience in information warfare or cybersecurity does not necessarily make one an expert.

(see what I did there? I kid, I kid!)

[gearhog]

7 minutes ago, GoodSplash9 said:

I’m honestly surprised at how many supposed critical thinkers and skeptics on here clearly haven’t put any real effort into seeing if there is any evidence of widespread fraud. If your using google, good luck finding anything besides the official mainstream narrative (recommend DuckDuckGo.com as an unbiased search engine).

I challenge anyone actually interested in data to do your own research on official absentee ballot numbers in Pennsylvania (hint...1.8 million mailed/1.4 million returned in the mail/2.4 million counted) or the four vote spikes that occurred after midnight (the largest was 330k+...97% for one candidate) with over 600k votes instantly showing up. The vote spikes are easy to find in graphs or live on any news station after midnight. 

Exactly. If nothing else, it's a math problem. And the math doesn't add up. Perhaps there is an explanation that doesn't involve fraud. I have yet to hear it.

[Prozac]

41 minutes ago, GoodSplash9 said:

I’m honestly surprised at how many supposed critical thinkers and skeptics on here clearly haven’t put any real effort into seeing if there is any evidence of widespread fraud. If your using google, good luck finding anything besides the official mainstream narrative (recommend DuckDuckGo.com as an unbiased search engine).

I challenge anyone actually interested in data to do your own research on official absentee ballot numbers in Pennsylvania (hint...1.8 million mailed/1.4 million returned in the mail/2.4 million counted) or the four vote spikes that occurred after midnight (the largest was 330k+...97% for one candidate) with over 600k votes instantly showing up. The vote spikes are easy to find in graphs or live on any news station after midnight. 

Holy shit guys! He’s right. I watched cable news after midnight the other day and it blew my fucking mind!
 

#dontletTuckerCarlsongetwetaftermidnight

[Prozac]

48 minutes ago, GoodSplash9 said:

I’m honestly surprised at how many supposed critical thinkers and skeptics on here clearly haven’t put any real effort into seeing if there is any evidence of widespread fraud. If your using google, good luck finding anything besides the official mainstream narrative (recommend DuckDuckGo.com as an unbiased search engine).

I challenge anyone actually interested in data to do your own research on official absentee ballot numbers in Pennsylvania (hint...1.8 million mailed/1.4 million returned in the mail/2.4 million counted) or the four vote spikes that occurred after midnight (the largest was 330k+...97% for one candidate) with over 600k votes instantly showing up. The vote spikes are easy to find in graphs or live on any news station after midnight. 

Didn’t have to look very hard for answers:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/28/fact-check-pennsylvania-ballot-claim-mixes-primary-general-election-data/6450032002/

But keep up with the “critical thinking” man. 

[Pooter]

3 hours ago, torqued said:

 Perhaps if you explicitly stated what it is you think I'm trying to do, we could clear up any misunderstandings. Also, could I ask you to quote my specific election fraud claims? It kinda seems like you're intentionally falsely attributing various election fraud claims to me.

I'll tell you exactly what you're doing. You continuously and non-commitally allude to massive election fraud somewhere in the ether, and then when anyone challenges you on any detail you immediately retreat to "that's not what I was saying" semantic bs. 
 

Here's a crazy idea to try: make a concrete claim, and then support it with evidence. The trump legal team could probably use that advice too.

[Pooter]

2 hours ago, GoodSplash9 said:

I’m honestly surprised at how many supposed critical thinkers and skeptics on here clearly haven’t put any real effort into seeing if there is any evidence of widespread fraud. If your using google, good luck finding anything besides the official mainstream narrative (recommend DuckDuckGo.com as an unbiased search engine).

I challenge anyone actually interested in data to do your own research on official absentee ballot numbers in Pennsylvania (hint...1.8 million mailed/1.4 million returned in the mail/2.4 million counted) or the four vote spikes that occurred after midnight (the largest was 330k+...97% for one candidate) with over 600k votes instantly showing up. The vote spikes are easy to find in graphs or live on any news station after midnight. 

Riddle me this with your incredible critical thinking skills: if this nefarious fraud was so widespread, why does it seem to be perfectly constrained to the close margin states in which trump has a vote deficit?

Edited December 1, 2020 by Pooter

[DosXX]

3 hours ago, GoodSplash9 said:

I’m honestly surprised at how many supposed critical thinkers and skeptics on here clearly haven’t put any real effort into seeing if there is any evidence of widespread fraud. If your using google, good luck finding anything besides the official mainstream narrative (recommend DuckDuckGo.com as an unbiased search engine).

I challenge anyone actually interested in data to do your own research on official absentee ballot numbers in Pennsylvania (hint...1.8 million mailed/1.4 million returned in the mail/2.4 million counted) or the four vote spikes that occurred after midnight (the largest was 330k+...97% for one candidate) with over 600k votes instantly showing up. The vote spikes are easy to find in graphs or live on any news station after midnight. 

Read my earlier posts, I pulled the actual data to address some of the concerns that have been raised, and actually looked at the code they made for their analysis. Either tell me what you disagree with there or tell me what I missed and I will try to address it if possible. 

I hope you're just trolling, because if you were actually a critical thinker it would have taken you a few seconds to look outside of twitter/FB and go to the official source that shows the actual mail in ballots requested and returned were 3 & 2.6 million... The 1.8/1.4 million numbers you posted were from the primary election (check source below), which you then compared to 2.4 million totals for the general election...

I saw this on Twitter so I'm assuming you just copied it from there and are now accusing us of not "doing your own research" and "thinking critically" when you failed to do so yourself in the most basic way.

It is laughable to suggest somehow thousands of people would overlook such a basic number if they were actually trying to commit fraud.

Here are the table summaries for the actual data from 2020 general election, not the primary.

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/PA.html

Another table summary showing total mail in votes (2.6 million NOT 1.4 million) from official PA gov website:

https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

Riddle me this with your incredible critical thinking skills: if this nefarious fraud was so widespread, why does it seem to be perfectly constrained to the close margin states in which trump has a vote deficit?

Ok to be fair, this is sort of a dumb question. If you were going to invest in fraud as a democrat, why would you waste you money on California or New York? You are obviously going to target swing states. 

Furthermore, if you were going to investigate fraud as a Republican, why would you do it in Ohio? A state you won. 

 

[17D_guy]

4 hours ago, torqued said:

But I gather your point: Being a military officer with experience in information warfare or cybersecurity does not necessarily make one an expert.

(see what I did there? I kid, I kid!)

No, that wasn't my point.  I've got my quals/creds in my resume, online in various job search engines, in LinkedIn exactly where I worked and what positions.  I've been featured in a magazine for an award or 2, and even a couple of newspapers (gasp...I'm old!).  I was known by my community (as fledgling as it was), and could be found in various groups that you can google (or my preferred - duckduckgo).

This dude isn't active anymore, and is working for a political campaign, so we can probably assume that he's not still a spook.  But nothing of his cred is online, not a PME paper, not a twitter handle, not a FB, not a LinkedIn, not previous work, not where he currently works that would employ him as a cybersecurity expert...and want to highlight that.  He apparently doesn't have his own company he's pushing either.  He's cited as a cybersecurity expert, but he's not in any of the circles I can turn to in order to evaluate (not prove) expert.

I can't even find out when this dude retired, which would inform me if he was slinging bytes or simply signing paperwork approving the next "digital weapon buy" for random-three-letter-agency.  His career-progression makes sense, as there's a lot of Army O's the crossed -- my exp has been mostly Artillery O's.  But did he cross as a O5?  He legit could have crossed as a O6.  Would he be smart on cybersec, for sure.  Would he be an expert...no.  But, I don't know because we're unable to validate anything about him.

Look, this is exactly the same as you zipper-suited Sun-Gods bitching about rando general having 69hrs of flight time in a platform and not being qualified to speak on X in platform (Phoenix Program comes to mind).  

Like everything else about the Trump campaign - lies, disinformation and utter failure at their mission.

//BREAK BREAK//

I actually just watched the video of the entire testimony from PA, and looked at spiderfoot.  Here's a link to spiderfoot overview...it does not appear to do what he claims it does.  That's as nicely as I can put it.  Yes, their main webpage was connected to the internet on voting day, same as it is now.

I will also give him the benefit of the doubt that he's speaking, unsworn, to legislatures...but he called his people, for his unnamed company "white hat hackers."  dude is sus.

Found his whole testimony here, he claims to have done the following in the last 1/2 of his career:
"info warfare as - psychological operations officer, information operations officer, doing computer network operations, electronic warfare and special electronic warfare, deception, counter-deception, OPSEC, and a couple other specialties." Simply...bullshit.

"One of our white hat hackers (sus) previously discovered malware that's present on 'the servers.'" - This is a crime.  As an "expert" he should know you can't do that in our country without prior approval.  Did they have approved access to get on those systems and evaluate them to discover that malware?  Which servers, the webservers, the voting servers, development servers, update servers, etc?

"No audit trail."  Except those paper ballots they hand over, and can you know...audit with.

Here's a guy on twitter breaking down the AZ testimony as the utter bullshit it is as well.  You can check his quals in his twitter bio, like a real world expert.

EDIT - Found out he retired in 2017 as a Col.  Assume 3 years for in rank retirement he pinned on in 2014.  Looking at some dates, Cyber Mission Force achieved IOC in Oct 2016, and FOC (right before I was there) in 2018.  USCC elevated in 2018.  I'd put good money on this dude commanding a battalion/brigade that supplied operators that actually did everything he claimed to do to USCC/3LA and being a staffer that pushed to get the CMF stood up.  That's it after listening to his testimony in PA.

To be clear, he claimed to do all the following jobs the last 1/2 (15 yrs) of his career - 29A MOS, 35G MOS, 30A MOS, 37A MOS, plus whatever job deception/counter-deception are rolled into.  Overall, AF Intel manages their officer (and some enlisted) career paths extremely carefully to build expertise within certain areas, build credibility and ensure people have accesses throughout.  We hated it as cyber guys for 2 reasons - fucked us for opportunities, fucked us for employing their people the way we wanted.  They were especially stringent at O4 and up.  My (limited) experience was the same for the Army (outside GO ranks...because they'll put a Infantry officer anywhere they fucking want in command).  So...simply, no.

TL;DR - This dude was minimum exaggerating his experience, and not credible about what he was briefing.

Edited December 1, 2020 by 17D_guy
retirement add. TL;DR add.

[17D_guy]

33 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Ok to be fair, this is sort of a dumb question. If you were going to invest in fraud as a democrat, why would you waste you money on California or New York? You are obviously going to target swing states. 

Furthermore, if you were going to investigate fraud as a Republican, why would you do it in Ohio? A state you won.

As a D, why would you lose seats in the house, and not guarantee at least 50 in the senate?

Are they in Ohio?  I didn't see any lawsuits there after checking a few "legacy media" sites (and wiki).

[FLEA]

27 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

As a D, why would you lose seats in the house, and not guarantee at least 50 in the senate?

Are they in Ohio?  I didn't see any lawsuits there after checking a few "legacy media" sites (and wiki).

Ohio is a swing state but the Rs won it this year. First time in 50 years a President won an election without winning Ohio. Republicans not challenging it doesn't mean fraud didn't happen there. It just means it wasn't enough to overturn the election. 

The house, senate and presidential races are all seperate races. If you're going to commit fraud your aims would be 1.) To ensure the votes look legitimate and 2.) Give as little appearance for organization of fraud as possible. 

The way I would go about it, if. I were doing it, is I would study the election system for a particular state, find the vulnerabilities, then instruct others on those vulnerabilities and ask them to do the same. Pick the races that are important to your goals. Randomize the ballot on the rest to cover tracks. You want lots of people committing small amounts of fraud. Not one person committing huge amounts. This way if the fraud is discovered it likely only amounts to a few discounted votes. Both sides participate to a limited extent but you don't know as to how much. Does it happen? Sure. But nobody knows how much. Enough to swing an election? I don't know. But I'm nearly certain it happens a lot more than people expect. Especially now because there are large margins on the ideaological extremes who believe they are faced with ideaological survival right now. 

[gearhog]

 

4 hours ago, Pooter said:

I'll tell you exactly what you're doing. You continuously and non-commitally allude to massive election fraud somewhere in the ether, and then when anyone challenges you on any detail you immediately retreat to "that's not what I was saying" semantic bs. 
 

Here's a crazy idea to try: make a concrete claim, and then support it with evidence. The trump legal team could probably use that advice too.

False.

First, everyone here believes election fraud exists. Is that fair to say? If everyone believes election fraud exists, why does it seem to be such an emotional shock to you and others when people demonstrate the specific individual ways in which it is possible for it to be committed?

Bear in mind there have been countless news reports, investigations, and demonstrations in the past 15-20 years regarding vulnerabilities of electronic voting systems. I've already posted a few and can give you several more straight away where people smarter than either of us prove, on camera, that voting machines can be easily manipulated to achieve a desired outcome.

I've said repeatedly, I too believe voter fraud exists, but I simply do not know the probability of it existing to an extent to change the election. I do believe that it is possible, you believe that it's not. I don't think you're being reasonable if you swat down every example while effectively shouting "IMPOSSIBLE!". I'm not trying to make a legal ruling here. I'm not a judge. None of us are, for that matter.

I'm not trying to troll you here. I'm not trying to upset you. But your emotionally charged responses are something you should account for, because it appears to cloud your reason. You seem to believe you're a smart guy and can think for yourself. I'd say you probably are. If you don't want to believe any of these people's claims, I'm fine with that. Move along. Perhaps you're worried that these things may influence someone that isn't as smart as you. I don't know what to tell ya. It seems to me your political biases are preventing you from making objective conclusions about a more important issue. That issue being one of the most important aspects of our democratic process, election, has vulnerabilities.

 

3 hours ago, Pooter said:

Riddle me this with your incredible critical thinking skills: if this nefarious fraud was so widespread, why does it seem to be perfectly constrained to the close margin states in which trump has a vote deficit?

I don't think I can answer this without insulting you. I don't want to do that, so I'm just going to leave it alone and give you that point.

 

2 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

TL;DR - This dude was minimum exaggerating his experience, and not credible about what he was briefing.
 

It seems to me you spent an inordinate amount of time diminishing his career instead of addressing his specific allegations.

[dream big]

7 hours ago, torqued said:

Exactly. If nothing else, it's a math problem. And the math doesn't add up. Perhaps there is an explanation that doesn't involve fraud. I have yet to hear it.

Democrats don’t like math, most of their voting base is not proficient past 3rd grade math.  Look at how AOC still sticks around.  Biden’s voting base won’t care about the math either.  Orange man bad, socialism good! 

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, FLEA said:

Ohio is a swing state but the Rs won it this year. First time in 50 years a President won an election without winning Ohio. Republicans not challenging it doesn't mean fraud didn't happen there. It just means it wasn't enough to overturn the election. 

The house, senate and presidential races are all seperate races. If you're going to commit fraud your aims would be 1.) To ensure the votes look legitimate and 2.) Give as little appearance for organization of fraud as possible. 

The way I would go about it, if. I were doing it, is I would study the election system for a particular state, find the vulnerabilities, then instruct others on those vulnerabilities and ask them to do the same. Pick the races that are important to your goals. Randomize the ballot on the rest to cover tracks. You want lots of people committing small amounts of fraud. Not one person committing huge amounts. This way if the fraud is discovered it likely only amounts to a few discounted votes. Both sides participate to a limited extent but you don't know as to how much. Does it happen? Sure. But nobody knows how much. Enough to swing an election? I don't know. But I'm nearly certain it happens a lot more than people expect. Especially now because there are large margins on the ideaological extremes who believe they are faced with ideaological survival right now. 

Following your advice, I would have spent more time targeting close senate races than the presidential election.  The dems could have gotten more traction controlling both houses of congress, even if Trump were still president, than they will with the GOP controlling the senate and Biden in the oval office.

[gearhog]

59 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Following your advice, I would have spent more time targeting close senate races than the presidential election.  The dems could have gotten more traction controlling both houses of congress, even if Trump were still president, than they will with the GOP controlling the senate and Biden in the oval office.

Perfectly reasonable thing to say. I, too, would have targeted close Senate races. These close races typically occur in swing states.

So, if we were to attempt to manipulate a close senate race in a swing state, which of the below Senate races would you have targeted?

 

 

Georgia?

Edited December 1, 2020 by torqued

[pawnman]

49 minutes ago, torqued said:

Perfectly reasonable thing to say. I, too, would have targeted close Senate races. These close races typically occur in swing states.

So, if we were to attempt to manipulate a close senate race in a swing state, which of the below Senate races would you have targeted?

 

 

Georgia?

At least Georgia.  But hell, if the dems have the resources to manipulate votes in ONLY tight races...why not Iowa, Maine, Montana, and South Carolina?

They only had to take one additional seat to take control of the Senate.  And yet somehow, with all the "widespread" fraud for president...they weren't able to flip one seat?