The Next President is...

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, DosXX said:

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

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

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

1 hour ago, DosXX said:

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

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

1 hour ago, DosXX said:

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

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

Edited November 22, 2020 by torqued

[dream big]

16 minutes ago, torqued said:

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

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

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

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

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

[17D_guy]

2 hours ago, torqued said:

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

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

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

1. Everyone here believes election fraud exists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

You lost me there.

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

[17D_guy]

45 minutes ago, torqued said:

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

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

[Prozac]

26 minutes ago, torqued said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.cisa.gov/rumorcontrol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gearhog]

35 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

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

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

38 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

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

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

40 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

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

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

48 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

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

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

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

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

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

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

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cool, brother. I think I got it.

 

 

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

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

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

But I have no idea.

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

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

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

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

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

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

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

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

https://www.cisa.gov/rumorcontrol

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

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

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

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

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

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gearhog]

10 minutes ago, pawnman said:

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

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

Already been addressed.

[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?