the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[Dahobbs 17420]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

What are the legitimate questions that you reference? There is zero credible evidence that anything was wrong with them. Why don’t you first prove that there are legitimate concerns and then jump to calls for investigations.

That's not true. A lot of these machines do have vulnerabilities. These have been demonstrated, including at the well publicized defcon convention last year. But, a technical vulnerability isn't proof of actual manipulation or even suggestive of it. A vulnerability is just an issue that needs to be addressed to prevent potential manipulation. 

[Gatorubet 30064]

Surely since the overwhelming thought here is that Adam Schiffs’ “whistle blower” (allegedly heard some folks talking who had heard a phone call) was worthy of impeachment hearings and 3 year investigation but now consider hundreds of affiants who hide from no one, first hand witnesses to election fraud

Ttom starts by saying :

“Baseball is a game where you try to shoot the “puck” through the “Hoop” in an effort to score “runs”- unless you “go for too” to gain more pucks.

Now I want to talk about why I think the football refs were in a conspiracy across state lines, political parties and divergent and separate state election law - and in states controlled by the GOP. “

Point is, after the intro, nobody needs to read the lower part of the nutter drivel, the upper part having clued us in that this is a stupid person devoid of information processing, and someone who can’t figure things out other than to repeat the stupidest shit he hears from other simpletons and aggies.

[Yuk 1505]

Ttom, can you at least tell us when the tribunals are going to be televised?

[tx 3 putt 76158]

Just now, Yuk said:

Ttom, can you at least tell us when the tribunals are going to be televised?

OAN of course !!!!

Russia’s finest news source 

[elfenix 34167]

I'm a big proponent of the machines that print a paper ballot and hate the machines used in Harris County (trust the machine recorded your vote correctly).

We're getting new machines for the next election. Chris Hollins sent his recommendation in as one of his last official acts as County Clerk.

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/2020/11/12/386013/harris-county-prepares-to-pick-new-paper-based-voting-machines/

[Dahobbs 17420]

Just now, elfenix said:

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I would welcome more thorough and public evaluation of election machines in general. I'm a big proponent of the machines that print a paper ballot and hate the machines used in Harris County (trust the machine recorded your vote correctly). I also think that a receipt should be printed for the voter so that they can have proof of how their vote should have been recorded. The government shouldn't know how I voted (i.e., no connection in the system to voter and vote), but I should be able to track it back in the system to verify if I want. A simple paper receipt would accomplish that task. 

We're getting new machines for the next election. Chris Hollins sent his recommendation in as his last official act as County Clerk.

Chris is a badass and a good guy. 

[Cousin Strawberry 1261]

9 minutes ago, Yuk said:

100% Ttom is into QAnon and over the age of 60.

 

Dropping a bunch of incoherent posts in the middle of the night screams meth or terribly mentally ill.

[The University 851]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why?  Because there are legitimate questions as to the security of these machines.  Do I believe they were tampered with or hacked?  No.  But, it is at least theoretically possible and I would like to see some evidence that they were not.

with enough resources and motivation, any electronic device can be tampered. there are many safeguards to prevent and detect tampering, but history has shown that resources+motivation will find a way. iow, with a good amount certainty, these devices can be tampered. also, tampering/hacking doesn't solely rely upon technical pathways. the crumbs left behind when proving that tampering is possible versus proving that tampering occurred can be very different.

[Gatorubet 30064]

what resolution you ask?

whether to legalize marijuana.

The ruling has nothing to do with any aspect of the presidential election nor the machines in that specific race, and in fact specifically excludes that race.

Rudy is either too dumb, senile or disingenuous to not pick this up.

The sole purpose of the tweet is to enchubben the Ttoms of the world. Give them enough false, disingenuous and misleading shit to post on Youtube and they will eat it all up and back you to do evil unconstitutional shit.

When enough of them fall for the con, the patently unconstitutional shit they pull in future will be excused by the Ttoms as “both sides” stuff - “‘member when they stole yur freedoms!!!!? This is OUR turn to own the libs in payback”.

That, and to grift more money. Ttom should send them all his money. Plant a Trump Election Faith Seed.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

7 hours ago, TtomTerrific said:

And yes, Rudy Giuliani and Brett Kavanaugh, for all of the personal assassination you’ve attempted to throw their way, are much more successful barristers than you or anyone you’ve worked with.

Hair dye and the whole nine.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

21 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

What are the legitimate questions that you reference? There is zero credible evidence that anything was wrong with them. Why don’t you first prove that there are legitimate concerns and then jump to calls for investigations.

Well, I reviewed the Texas SOS site where Dominion machines were evaluated.  https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/laws/certinfobyvendor.shtml

Now, granted, it is Texas, so there could be stupidity and shenanigans at every level, but the evaluation materials denying certification seemed legit.  Notably, a couple of the key objections related to relatively prosaic, non-electronic things like how the ballot collection boxes were secured and paper jams.

But it also noted, IIRC, that some of the machines had unsecured ethernet ports.  And the software downloaded computer vision drivers (by Canon) from Canon's site instead of a secured server where the drivers had been scanned, for example.

A number of hacker types have noted potential insecurities long before Trump started screaming.

It is an issue.

And, as noted, it's a computer.  It can probably be hacked.

I think this kind of thing would be a good idea whether there was some shitass screaming fraud or not.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I would welcome more thorough and public evaluation of election machines in general. I'm a big proponent of the machines that print a paper ballot and hate the machines used in Harris County (trust the machine recorded your vote correctly). I also think that a receipt should be printed for the voter so that they can have proof of how their vote should have been recorded. The government shouldn't know how I voted (i.e., no connection in the system to voter and vote), but I should be able to track it back in the system to verify if I want. A simple paper receipt would accomplish that task. 

I hear you but your suggested improvements could also be hacked. I also am afraid that walking out with proof of voting choices could lead to violence or ballot purchasing.

Personally I trust that when I select a candidate in Harris county and that vote is counted for them. I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.  I’ve heard very rare cases that people claim they check one candidate but it counts for another. Those claims either haven’t been verified or proven to be anything other than a isolated glitch. I’m a very skeptical person by nature but we can’t just say something is fraudulent because it could potentially be hacked.

unfortunately there is not a perfect option when there is a general distrust of computers. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I hear you but your suggested improvements could also be hacked. I also am afraid that walking out with proof of voting choices could lead to violence or ballot purchasing.

Personally I trust that when I select a candidate in Harris county and that vote is counted for them. I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.  I’ve heard very rare cases that people claim they check one candidate but it counts for another. Those claims either haven’t been verified or proven to be anything other than a isolated glitch. I’m a very skeptical person by nature but we can’t just say something is fraudulent because it could potentially be hacked.

unfortunately there is not a perfect option when there is a general distrust of computers. 

Which is exactly why I think they should be audited on a regular basis by disinterested professionals.  Seems like after a national general election is a pretty prime time to do so.

I'm not espousing some conspiracy theory or saying there was fraud.

[TXSG8R 3355]

25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

All that said, I would support some sort of "forensic audit" of voting machines in the contested states.  Of a voluntary nature, by an uninterested third party with NDAs or other appropriate measures to guard the IP of the machine vendors.

Why?  Because there are legitimate questions as to the security of these machines.  Do I believe they were tampered with or hacked?  No.  But, it is at least theoretically possible and I would like to see some evidence that they were not.

I’m having a hard time believing that voting machines don’t already undergo this to some degree. They fall under the state, which has cyber security requirements and are all running some form of risk management framework. They should be hardened according to an approved configuration script. They should be undergoing regular scans for vulnerabilities that would expose any configuration errors.  They should be used on state networks undergoing the same hardening and scans. There’s should be audit logs that show access, modifications, and usage, and that data should be backed up regularly and securely. There should be independent groups responsible for tasks with different levels of access so the configuration guy can’t edit logs or manipulate the scans, and the log guy can’t edit configurations or manipulate the scans. This is CyberSec 101, which is another layer of security to go along with al the election security. That’s why the head of CISA was able to express confidently that the election was largely secure. 

There’s nothing wrong with auditing the machines, but without all the other stuff like verifiable audit trails, logs, etc, it doesn’t really prove the machines were secure during the election. 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

12 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Against my better judgement I signed up for my local (deep red) NextDoor group and eventually found the politics section.  After surviving 7+ years on the surl and its previous incarnations this is like shooting fish in a barrel.  Good god, there's some dumb sumbitches out there.  Our resident trolls are fucking Einstein-Kasparovs compared to those idiots.

One of your neighbors: Has "Stop Hate" and "In this house, we believe that Black Lives Matter, etc" signs in the yard.

Same neighbor on NextDoor:  "OMG THERE'S A YOUNG BLACK PERSON GOING DOOR-TO-DOOR IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD!"

Me: "Yes, he and a bunch of other people, mostly UT students, are block-walking for Beto/etc. - they were asking for volunteers a few days ago to walk this very neighborhood, and now they are doing it.   They had Beto gear on, and if you talk to them for just 30 seconds, you'd find that out."

Neighbor: "Well, they could have also been casing houses to see who lives there and if there's anything valuable there."

[Dahobbs 17420]

4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I hear you but your suggested improvements could also be hacked. I also am afraid that walking out with proof of voting choices could lead to violence or ballot purchasing.

Personally I trust that when I select a candidate in Harris county and that vote is counted for them. I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.  I’ve heard very rare cases that people claim they check one candidate but it counts for another. Those claims either haven’t been verified or proven to be anything other than a isolated glitch. I’m a very skeptical person by nature but we can’t just say something is fraudulent because it could potentially be hacked.

unfortunately there is not a perfect option when there is a general distrust of computers. 

I'm not sure I understand the vote purchasing comment. The paper receipt would track with a ballot ID. That's it. If you're worried about violence, shred it or throw it away (or just don't print one maybe). I still think it should be available to a voters. A one way check that can used to verify a vote was recorded correctly. 

[Tom 2959]

38 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

 

 

 

I found it odd that the tweet conveniently leaves off the source.  I googled it and Zachary Stieber and this article are from the Epoch Times, a far-right fringe media network that apparently spreads QAnon theories and was the second largest funder of pro-Trump Facebook advertising.

This must be very serious and we should all be very afraid if the Epoch Times is reporting it.  

 

.....wait, no, we shouldn't.

Edited December 6, 2020 by Tom

[TwiceHorn 31184]

1 minute ago, TXSG8R said:

I’m having a hard time believing that voting machines don’t already undergo this to some degree. They fall under the state, which has cyber security requirements and are all running some form of risk management framework. They should be hardened according to an approved configuration script. They should be undergoing regular scans for vulnerabilities that would expose any configuration errors.  They should be used on state networks undergoing the same hardening and scans. There’s should be audit logs that show access, modifications, and usage, and that data should be backed up regularly and securely. There should be independent groups responsible for tasks with different levels of access so the configuration guy can’t edit logs or manipulate the scans, and the log guy can’t edit configurations or manipulate the scans. This is CyberSec 101, which is another layer of security to go along with al the election security. That’s why the head of CISA was able to express confidently that the election was largely secure. 

There’s nothing wrong with auditing the machines, but without all the other stuff like verifiable audit trails, logs, etc, it doesn’t really prove the machines were secure during the election. 

I think that's probably correct as far as states doing some of it.

But I also think state officials can be biased, not in a partisan political fashion but because they have to defend their decision to spend a shitload of money on someone's voting machines.  And, I'm not entirely sure the states have the technical competence.

Similarly, I wouldn't trust Dominion's word entirely either. Not because they want to throw an election for Hugo Chavez' ghost, but because they have machines to sell.

[Brisketexan 104462]

The trumpists arguments all boil down to three things: 1) vote fraud/hacking/cheating is technically possible, 2) therefore it happened, and 3) in massive numbers that flipped the election.

Know what’s cool about that thinking? It would be just as applicable to an all-paper, anonymous ballot election in 1972. Or any other election. There is no magical, fraud-proof method of elections. If someone on the inside aims to cheat (and all the allegations book down to that - insiders tossing ballots, or double counting ballots, all that shit), then you can cheat. Magically conjure up another box of paper ballots in 1972, or 78, or whenever.

They believe it must be true, so it IS true. Belief IS the evidence. All the “affidavits?” From what I have seen, they all go to either point 1 above (cheating is possible), or “I saw something shifty - a guy was wearing a really bulky coat, he must have been up to no good, that sort of shit.

The things they are saying happened are things that COULD be proven with some pretty direct evidence (if they happened). The fact that they haven’t introduced such evidence tells us a whole lot.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Which is exactly why I think they should be audited on a regular basis by disinterested professionals.  Seems like after a national general election is a pretty prime time to do so.

I'm not espousing some conspiracy theory or saying there was fraud.

I didn’t say that security shouldn’t be audited but you’re starting from a perspective that there is a security breach with your legitimate questions comment.

when you state something is legitimate, you are espousing a theory that something occurred. Stop back tracking.  I agree there are questions but I haven’t seen any questions from a legitimate source. They’re all from illegitimate sources. 

[TXSG8R 3355]

29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That's not true. A lot of these machines do have vulnerabilities. These have been demonstrated, including at the well publicized defcon convention last year. But, a technical vulnerability isn't proof of actual manipulation or even suggestive of it. A vulnerability is just an issue that needs to be addressed to prevent potential manipulation. 

Correct, all machines and networks have vulnerabilities. That’s what RMF is used for. Identifying vulnerabilities, assessing their risk levels, and applying all controls and mitigations possible to lower that risk.
 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I didn't check the link.  That is the infamous Spyder affidavit.  It is complete dogshit speculation.  Perfect for Q types.

Perfect to fundraise off of Q types.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm not sure I understand the vote purchasing comment. The paper receipt would track with a ballot ID. That's it. If you're worried about violence, shred it or throw it away (or just don't print one maybe). I still think it should be available to a voters. A one way check that can used to verify a vote was recorded correctly. 

I was referencing your suggestion that a voter can track their vote is correctly counted towards their candidate of choice after they leave the voting center. If that can occur, you’ve broken the confidentiality of the voting booth.  That can lead to people being forced or coerced to proving their vote choices to others for a variety of reasons. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

10 minutes ago, Tom said:

 

 

The tweet conveniently leaves off the source.  Zachary Stieber and this article are from the Epoch Times, a far-right fringe media network that apparently spreads QAnon theories and was the second largest funder of pro-Trump Facebook advertising.

This must be very serious and we should all be very afraid if the Epoch Times is reporting it.  

 

.....wait, no, we shouldn't.

Well, despite the source, the information is largely accurate.  The trial judge ordered that the voting machines be temporarily sequestered, reluctantly, apparently.

The state and county defendants did move the court to release the voting equipment as it was urgently needed to prepare it for the January runoffs.  

Not a super-great look for the conspiracy minded, but a completely legitimate request for relief.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

18 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I didn’t say that security shouldn’t be audited but you’re starting from a perspective that there is a security breach with your legitimate questions comment.

when you state something is legitimate, you are espousing a theory that something occurred. Stop back tracking.  I agree there are questions but I haven’t seen any questions from a legitimate source. They’re all from illegitimate sources. 

Actually, no, I wasn't.  I said right there in the original post on the topic that I didn't think they were hacked.

And I specifically cited the Texas SOS as a source of information on why Dominion Systems may be insecure.  Maybe not the ultimate credible source, but not "illegitimate" either.

We have pretty good evidence that various foreign state actors, namely Russia, as well as the private criminal sector, are actively seeking to influence our elections via hacking.  Granted, not super technical hacking of super-secure systems, but nonetheless.

And there is at least some evidence that many of these systems are needlessly vulnerable.

Who pissed in your wheaties this morning.

Edited December 6, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TXSG8R 3355]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think that's probably correct as far as states doing some of it.

But I also think state officials can be biased, not in a partisan political fashion but because they have to defend their decision to spend a shitload of money on someone's voting machines.  And, I'm not entirely sure the states have the technical competence.

Similarly, I wouldn't trust Dominion's word entirely either. Not because they want to throw an election for Hugo Chavez' ghost, but because they have machines to sell.

The guys that buy the machines (should) have little input on the security side of things. If Dominion comes in and says “your IT group can’t apply any changes to our machines, can’t scan them for vulnerabilities, can’t capture any data for record keeping, and can’t capture and analyze network traffic to/from our machines” and they still bought it, that’s a different story. You don’t need access to their IP code to create a vulnerability report. You don’t need it to capture external actors causing problems either. 
 

RMF is painful to get implement and get rolling. It’s thorough when applied properly and is hard to work around without a concerted effort by a lot of people. It’s also a living process that changes in response to new vulnerabilities and system/network updates. 

[RDCanecutter 26239]

I don't know why y'all are still arguing with the Stop-the-Steal crowd. They're onto us, we got caught, now we might as well enjoy spending our Soros money because there aren't enough jails to hold us all.

On another note, I just got through pre-voting four times for Warnock and Ossoff over there in Georgia. Was willing to vote 5 or 6 times, but they wanted to be stingy and just pay me for 4. Alright dudes, here's your 4.

[RDCanecutter 26239]

56 minutes ago, Yuk said:

100% Ttom is into QAnon and over the age of 60.

 

Hey now. I'm over 60, and my oncologist says I am healthy as can be.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The trumpists arguments all boil down to three things: 1) vote fraud/hacking/cheating is technically possible, 2) therefore it happened, and 3) in massive numbers that flipped the election.

Know what’s cool about that thinking? It would be just as applicable to an all-paper, anonymous ballot election in 1972. Or any other election. There is no magical, fraud-proof method of elections. If someone on the inside aims to cheat (and all the allegations book down to that - insiders tossing ballots, or double counting ballots, all that shit), then you can cheat. Magically conjure up another box of paper ballots in 1972, or 78, or whenever.

They believe it must be true, so it IS true. Belief IS the evidence. All the “affidavits?” From what I have seen, they all go to either point 1 above (cheating is possible), or “I saw something shifty - a guy was wearing a really bulky coat, he must have been up to no good, that sort of shit.

The things they are saying happened are things that COULD be proven with some pretty direct evidence (if they happened). The fact that they haven’t introduced such evidence tells us a whole lot.

It's possible to rob a bank, therefore Tom robbed a bank. At very least we need to follow up dozens of court losses designed to show Tom robbed a bank, with more court filings, investigations, hearings, and legislative action to remedy this bank robbing by Tom.

[Foosters 17691]

55 minutes ago, Yuk said:

Ttom, can you at least tell us when the tribunals are going to be televised?

Stupid beta. They've already happened. Everyone you're seeing now are just body doubles to keep the general public complacent until the storm descends. 

 

[TtomTerrific 200]

The trumpists arguments all boil down to three things: 1) vote fraud/hacking/cheating is technically possible, 2) therefore it happened, and 3) in massive numbers that flipped the election.

Know what’s cool about that thinking? It would be just as applicable to an all-paper, anonymous ballot election in 1972. Or any other election. There is no magical, fraud-proof method of elections. If someone on the inside aims to cheat (and all the allegations book down to that - insiders tossing ballots, or double counting ballots, all that shit), then you can cheat. Magically conjure up another box of paper ballots in 1972, or 78, or whenever.

They believe it must be true, so it IS true. Belief IS the evidence. All the “affidavits?” From what I have seen, they all go to either point 1 above (cheating is possible), or “I saw something shifty - a guy was wearing a really bulky coat, he must have been up to no good, that sort of shit.

The things they are saying happened are things that COULD be proven with some pretty direct evidence (if they happened). The fact that they haven’t introduced such evidence tells us a whole lot.

You know what happened at the exact same moment on the clock that the Ruby Trunks of ballots were dumped into the scanners were counted, after the voting had simultaneously stopped?




During that magical hour when 6 swing-states simultaneously died without cause STOPPED counting votes. And poll watchers were sent home (some of them anyway, some of them came back and the vote counting continued with only one of the political parties having poll watchers present. Some GOP poll watchers got hip to the scheme, came back, were locked out, went and got a court order to regain access, STILL were locked out while windows were blocked so that this election steal could not be watched from bystanders who were locked out- none of this is “debunked”. None of this “flatly untrue”. All of this widely recorded and broadcast. Hell, even ABC had to admit as such.


Any. To your question about this being only shown to be possible and there for happened. You know what else happened dying this EXACT moment in time?

You guessed it











Live Ted Lange posting of the Georgia of State’s platform for covering up his taking 10.7 billion dollar bribes as some sort of “that settles the matter” juxtaposed against the next next poster questioning the Epoch Times simply reporting a public record that every news network won’t. No opinion, no editorial input, just who did what when and where and it’s some “Q” bullshit while Stephopolous and the first guy going to jail are ingested here without comment.



PST. Ted and “Q” guy. ABC had Trump polling down 17% and you gladly ate up EVERY drop of that bullshit

I have no idea who The Epoch times is, but they are already 2000% more credible than ABC news.

[Dahobbs 17420]

28 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I was referencing your suggestion that a voter can track their vote is correctly counted towards their candidate of choice after they leave the voting center. If that can occur, you’ve broken the confidentiality of the voting booth.  That can lead to people being forced or coerced to proving their vote choices to others for a variety of reasons. 

Read what I'm saying. It is a one way breach. The voter can track where is vote goes, but the government can't track the voter. I absolutely believe voting anonymity is important. The voter could simply not ask for receipt of they don't want one. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Read what I'm saying. It is a one way breach. The voter can track where is vote goes, but the government can't track the voter. I absolutely believe voting anonymity is important. The voter could simply not ask for receipt of they don't want one. 

I understand exactly what you wrote. It’s a bad idea to allow people to prove to others who they voted for. I see zero upside and only problems.

besides If you approach the system that hacks are changing the votes, your proposal is invalid. 

[TtomTerrific 200]

Dropping a bunch of incoherent posts in the middle of the night screams meth or terribly mentally ill.

Maybe it’s only the middle of the night now

[AnTiM 1656]

"I have no idea who The Epoch times is, but they are already 2000% more credible than ABC news."

 

And I have no idea who you are, but I would bet that ABC news is 2000% more credible than you are.

[Dahobbs 17420]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I understand exactly what you wrote. It’s a bad idea to allow people to prove to others who they voted for. I see zero upside and only problems.

besides If you approach the system that hacks are changing the votes, your proposal is invalid. 

You vote and get a paper receipt that tracks with a ballot number. If the vote in the system doesn't match the paper receipt, then you know the vote was changed. The receipt will not have a name on it. It will literally just have the ballot ID and the votes. I agree that this partial breach of anonymity can present problems. But I think on balance it would improve voter confidence in the system and be worth it.

[pyrohornIII 4801]

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The trumpists arguments all boil down to three things: 1) vote fraud/hacking/cheating is technically possible, 2) therefore it happened, and 3) in massive numbers that flipped the election.

Know what’s cool about that thinking? It would be just as applicable to an all-paper, anonymous ballot election in 1972. Or any other election. There is no magical, fraud-proof method of elections. If someone on the inside aims to cheat (and all the allegations book down to that - insiders tossing ballots, or double counting ballots, all that shit), then you can cheat. Magically conjure up another box of paper ballots in 1972, or 78, or whenever.

They believe it must be true, so it IS true. Belief IS the evidence. All the “affidavits?” From what I have seen, they all go to either point 1 above (cheating is possible), or “I saw something shifty - a guy was wearing a really bulky coat, he must have been up to no good, that sort of shit.

The things they are saying happened are things that COULD be proven with some pretty direct evidence (if they happened). The fact that they haven’t introduced such evidence tells us a whole lot.

Yes, and the basis of all these lawsuits is not to find actual fraud, but to show just how much and how far widespread.  It's simply tell a lie often enough it becomes truth.   Trump's prime method of operating from day one.   

The argument falls apart though when they don't look for fraud in any states Trump won, like Texas.    I would like the TDP to be putting a report together that points out all the voting irregularities that went on against blue votes.    Not that it would help immediately.  Publishing that info right now would just add to Trump's chaos plan.    But later, like next summer.  There's plenty to report.   Not saying outright fraud, but a lot of sketchy stuff went on, specifically with absentee ballots and voter intimidation.

12 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I was referencing your suggestion that a voter can track their vote is correctly counted towards their candidate of choice after they leave the voting center. If that can occur, you’ve broken the confidentiality of the voting booth.  That can lead to people being forced or coerced to proving their vote choices to others for a variety of reasons. 

Here's what I would like to see:

Voter comes to vote.

Clears the check in and they are given the go ahead to a voting machine.   The poll book registers them as having voted, but not for who.

At the machine they vote electronically.  After they verify their choices and vote, the machine prints out two receipts with the chosen candidates per race and a unique code.  The code is alphanumeric, so the voter can easily tell that both receipts match.   Code only references what date the vote was cast, polling place and which machine was used.   

One receipt is returned to a poll worker and the other is for the voter to take home.    

There is nothing to tie the receipt to any voter.  It only verifies a ballot was cast for these candidates on a certain date in a certain location.  

Spot audits can be made, or an entire day's votes, or the entire election's votes.     The number of voters allowed to vote on that day, say 20,143 has to match the number of receipts gathered, and has to match the electronic votes cast across all the machines.   That shows every voter who was allowed to vote that day cast a ballot.   

The receipt they have in hand can at any time in the future be used to access the database and make sure the votes cast and entered into the state database for that receipt match the actual votes.   If not, there's a problem and the receipt is proof of that.

They could use something similar for absentee ballots.  

 

Thing is, the Texas legislature, who would fund and demand such a system of accountability would actually have to be interested in fair elections.   Maybe all this crap Trump is pushing will force them into a position to fix the broken parts of our Texas voting system.  

[Underdog 28437]

8 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

Maybe it’s only the middle of the night now

Pretty sure it's dark wherever you are. 

[totallynotabuttpirate 5341]

9 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

Maybe it’s only the middle of the night now

Yea, Tom, I think I'm just going to go ahead and put you out of your misery. 

[Gatorubet 30064]

Hey now. I'm over 60, and my oncologist says I am healthy as can be.

Me too. Light spots on PET scan don’t mean shit. I bet Dominion makes ‘em.

[Dahobbs 17420]

5 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

Yes, and the basis of all these lawsuits is not to find actual fraud, but to show just how much and how far widespread.  It's simply tell a lie often enough it becomes truth.   Trump's prime method of operating from day one.   

The argument falls apart though when they don't look for fraud in any states Trump won, like Texas.    I would like the TDP to be putting a report together that points out all the voting irregularities that went on against blue votes.    Not that it would help immediately.  Publishing that info right now would just add to Trump's chaos plan.    But later, like next summer.  There's plenty to report.   Not saying outright fraud, but a lot of sketchy stuff went on, specifically with absentee ballots and voter intimidation.

Here's what I would like to see:

Voter comes to vote.

Clears the check in and they are given the go ahead to a voting machine.   The poll book registers them as having voted, but not for who.

At the machine they vote electronically.  After they verify their choices and vote, the machine prints out two receipts with the chosen candidates per race and a unique code.  The code is alphanumeric, so the voter can easily tell that both receipts match.   Code only references what date the vote was cast, polling place and which machine was used.   

One receipt is returned to a poll worker and the other is for the voter to take home.    

There is nothing to tie the receipt to any voter.  It only verifies a ballot was cast for these candidates on a certain date in a certain location.  

Spot audits can be made, or an entire day's votes, or the entire election's votes.     The number of voters allowed to vote on that day, say 20,143 has to match the number of receipts gathered, and has to match the electronic votes cast across all the machines.   That shows every voter who was allowed to vote that day cast a ballot.   

The receipt they have in hand can at any time in the future be used to access the database and make sure the votes cast and entered into the state database for that receipt match the actual votes.   If not, there's a problem and the receipt is proof of that.

They could use something similar for absentee ballots.  

 

Thing is, the Texas legislature, who would fund and demand such a system of accountability would actually have to be interested in fair elections.   Maybe all this crap Trump is pushing will force them into a position to fix the broken parts of our Texas voting system.  

Yup, I like this system. Only clarification I would make is not having the receipts be identical. The code should be identical, but one form for the ballot box and one form for the voter to keep (or discard if they choose). You don't want a situation where multiple ballots could exist. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

Some of you want to over complicate the voting process. There is zero proof that the current process has a technical failure.  Zero. The only known and provable problems are with preventing people from voting.  But I’ll let y’all continue without any more replies.

[Eskimohorn 5610]

The Trump post-election strategy is very much like cheaters in golf scrambles who putz around getting drunk, then are the last team to turn in their scorecard, shooting a 53 on a windy day, 1 shot lower than the team that finished early.

Oh, we lost 7 states, let’s manufacture outrageous fraud claims after the fact in those 7 states that we lost? Yeah, those are the ones we where there was fraud.

[Gatorubet 30064]

You know what happened at the exact same moment on the clock that the Ruby Trunks of ballots were dumped into the scanners were counted, after the voting had simultaneously stopped?




During that magical hour when 6 swing-states simultaneously died without cause STOPPED counting votes. And poll watchers were sent home (some of them anyway, some of them came back and the vote counting continued with only one of the political parties having poll watchers present. Some GOP poll watchers got hip to the scheme, came back, were locked out, went and got a court order to regain access, STILL were locked out while windows were blocked so that this election steal could not be watched from bystanders who were locked out- none of this is “debunked”. None of this “flatly untrue”. All of this widely recorded and broadcast. Hell, even ABC had to admit as such.


Any. To your question about this being only shown to be possible and there for happened. You know what else happened dying this EXACT moment in time?

You guessed it











Live Ted Lange posting of the Georgia of State’s platform for covering up his taking 10.7 billion dollar bribes as some sort of “that settles the matter” juxtaposed against the next next poster questioning the Epoch Times simply reporting a public record that every news network won’t. No opinion, no editorial input, just who did what when and where and it’s some “Q” bullshit while Stephopolous and the first guy going to jail are ingested here without comment.



PST. Ted and “Q” guy. ABC had Trump polling down 17% and you gladly ate up EVERY drop of that bullshit

I have no idea who The Epoch times is, but they are already 2000% more credible than ABC news.

There is blek wimmin near the machines. So fraud. She is also sneakily owning USB stick while blekking. When you want to hide stuff you let yourself be filmed in the open.....to throw us off!

.....and suitcases.

[Gil Bang 25865]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is where you start to see a wide gulf between inexperienced, possibly slapdick lawyers and big firm lawyers.

Expert witnesses on pretty esoteric subjects are common as goose shit in big time litigation.  Handling experts not only requires experience in handling them and preparing their reports, but also acquisition of your own "expertise" in the subject matter of the expert's testimony.

Most big firms are going to have a lawyer or two with some expertise in experts and at least in the vicinity of their subject matter, like an undergraduate degree in a related field.

An expert witness, unlike a non-expert, is permitted to give opinion testimony to a jury or to the judge.  But qualifying them and preparing a report of their testimony (basically an affidavit) is fraught with difficulties and pitfalls, both legal and technical (meaning how you present the technical subject matter in a way that is unassailable other than by simple disagreement as to the opinion given).

Even if Sidney Powell and her associates weren't deranged and apparently generally incompetent, it wouldn't surprise me at all that a firm like Perkins Coie's lawyers absolutely pants her on expert witnesses.  Marc Elias apparently is an elections guru and thus has acquired knowledge over the years of statistical voting analysis.  I imagine Perkins Coie, his firm, has a lawyer or two with backgrounds in statistics or a related field like data analysis or informatics.  And, they probably have a "stable" of reliable expert witnesses on these subjects standing by to destroy amateur hackjobs like Powell's witnesses.

I suspect the judge in that case is going to put her experts on a rocket and fire it into the sun.  Should be fun.

Back in my "expert witness" days ( I did construction defect), I was continually amazed at the level in which the lawyers operated.  I commented to my fellow consultants more than once, that the lawyers we dealt with had more construction expertise than any of us "experts". 

[henrygandorf 29174]

11 hours ago, TtomTerrific said:

Surely since the overwhelming thought here is that Adam Schiffs’ “whistle blower” (allegedly heard some folks talking who had heard a phone call) was worthy of impeachment hearings and 3 year investigation

1. the mueller report on russian interference and the impeachment proceedings about withholding congressionally approved aid to ukraine in exchange for the announcement of an investigation into biden/bursima are two separate things.

2. the withholding of aid happened.  he got caught doing it.  he got impeached for it.  he didn't get removed for it because republicans, many of whom admitted he did it, said it didn't rise to the level of removal from office.

comparing things that actually happened to things that fox news won't even cover anymore seems like a dangerous place to start your argument.

[Dahobbs 17420]

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Some of you want to over complicate the voting process. There is zero proof that the current process has a technical failure.  Zero. The only known and provable problems are with preventing people from voting.  But I’ll let y’all continue without any more replies.

There are proven technical failures. There are not proven instances of large scale manipulation. There is a difference. I don't know why you'd be insistent on not addressing potential vulnerabilities. That's fucking weird. 

[Js1 85056]

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Some of you want to over complicate the voting process. There is zero proof that the current process has a technical failure.  Zero. The only known and provable problems are with preventing people from voting.  But I’ll let y’all continue without any more replies.

The GOP plan is working. Q-tards spout unfounded nonsense that the system has no integrity. Regular people suddenly start to discuss auditing the systems with no basis because “who knows, we just want to be safe” and “can we really trust elected officials and Dominion,” etc? 

Next thing you know, the GOP makes voting itself harder and more complicated, creating more lines, more questions, more waits. Trust in the process continues to weaken  

Hook, line and sinker 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

1. the mueller report on russian interference and the impeachment proceedings about withholding congressionally approved aid to ukraine in exchange for the announcement of an investigation into biden/bursima are two separate things.

2. the withholding of aid happened.  he got caught doing it.  he got impeached for it.  he didn't get removed for it because republicans, many of whom admitted he did it, said it didn't rise to the level of removal from office.

comparing things that actually happened to things that fox news won't even cover anymore seems like a dangerous place to start your argument.

Also, given all of the death and harm threats that Republican election officials are receiving in Georgia and elsewhere, maybe ol Shifty Schiff was right in protecting the whistleblower's identity, which the law does anyway.

[RDCanecutter 26239]

4 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Back in my "expert witness" days ( I did construction defect), I was continually amazed at the level in which the lawyers operated.  I commented to my fellow consultants more than once, that the lawyers we dealt with had more construction expertise than any of us "experts". 

But do you really want those guys putting on a new roof, what with their tight little ties and long-winded one-upsmanship?