The Next President is...

[Prozac]

Sigh....

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

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

[gearhog]

Just now, 17D_guy said:

You do this while flying?

Only if she's hot.

[pawnman]

4 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Sigh....

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

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

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

[Guardian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gearhog]

2 hours ago, DosXX said:

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

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

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

2 hours ago, DosXX said:

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

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

2 hours ago, DosXX said:

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

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

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

[DosXX]

1 hour ago, torqued said:

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

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

1 hour ago, torqued said:

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

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

1 hour ago, torqued said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Dr Shiva's video on election anomalies in 2020

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

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

 

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

Edited November 23, 2020 by DosXX

[gearhog]

4 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by torqued

[gearhog]

4 minutes ago, DosXX said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Dr Shiva's video on election anomalies in 2020

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

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

 

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

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

[Sua Sponte]

Looks like Trump’s legal team is doing well.

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

[waveshaper]

58 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Looks like Trump’s legal team is doing well.

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

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

[17D_guy]

2 hours ago, torqued said:

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

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

 

Before I got out we were all hands on deck for protecting this election in case DHS called for federal help.  We did some prelim research into the voting system and figured out it was a fools errand, because each state does it their own way, and we literally couldn't prepare for 50 eventualities with our resources.  We could focus on the top 3 producers of voting machines, but they, like state gov'ts, do not want any "help" as is evidenced in the video.  So, I don't really have any idea about what types of machines they had in particular. But again we get back to the breadth of the term hackable - everything is.  There is a port somewhere on those machines, even if it's just the power cable, the CPU fans, the hard drives spinning up.  Ben Gurion University in Israel has been doing amazing research on it.

The question is: is this hacking plausible knowing that cyber is a finite resource that can cost a lot of treasure to be done at a professional level?  Here is a report from a hacker group attacking a professional malware development company that goes through a lot of what is required.  It's getting older now, but a good read.  Note, it reads like 1 person did this, but it was probably at least 3, maybe more.

I've seen the NBC video before.  The work they do at DEFCON its great, it's why we send folks there on the regular.  I think at the last one they did some of our satellites and found some of the exact same problems.

But this just dropped a few hours ago about hacking the Dominion machines, Steel is the PR dude:

"Well, it's physically impossible," Steel said of vote switching. "Look, when a voter votes on a Dominion machine, they fill out a ballot on a touch screen. They are given a printed copy which they then give to a local election official for safekeeping. If any electronic interference had taken place, the tally reported electronically would not match the printed ballots. and in every case where we've looked at -- in Georgia, all across the country -- the printed ballot, the gold standard in election security, has matched the electronic tally."

EDIT - Actually, you need to read the article, I think it address all the lies "soon to come evidence" that is being thrown around.  But I could be wrong, I'll wait for the evidence that's "Going to explode Georgia."

So there is a physical audit for at least the Dominion machines.  I'm 99.99999% positive there were also instructions for voters to check their paper ballot to make sure it actually reflected what they wanted.  Sidney Powell's claims are just...absurd.

Quote

"We have evidence now of information from the systems going to three or four different foreign countries during the time of the election, those countries themselves could have watched the live votes come in and changed at the numbers," said Powell. "There’s significant evidence of foreign interference from the worst communist countries on the Earth with our election."

I give it a 0% chance that "communist countries" got together to share in the spoils of a hack on the voting infrastructure of the US.  Who... Cuba, Venezuela and China?  Did I miss anyone?  Oh wait, NK - technically communist.  I guess Vietnam as well.  These renowned "cyber powerhouses" that are so secret and quiet we'd never catch them until after the election was over?  I phrased it that way because China is very loud on the wire traditionally. 

These countries have not been after these types of systems in the past.  You can check online for what APT's come out of these countries and see what they target, but TL;DR - Banks, economic espionage, casinos, etc.  CN tries to steal for their economic benefit to industry (J-20 anyone) and everyone else is trying to make Bitcoin through various frauds/cryptolockers.  Could they have shifted their TTP's to target something else...I mean, technically anything is possible.  But I'd think it very, very unlikely.  Tooling up for these things takes awhile.  Also, they're not culturally aligned for it.  It has been amazing to see just how much the culture of each one of these nations (and our own) impact the way we all operate in cyberspace.  I don't know if that's reflected in how they fly either.  Is it?

For the rest of the twitter thread, they disabled the computer and there was security guards doing the rounds.  Looks like the report slipped in when they walked away.  Humans doing human things.

Edited November 23, 2020 by 17D_guy
Emphasis required.

[Pooter]

14 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Looks like Trump’s legal team is doing well.

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

Oh no! But what about the kraken of voter fraud evidence she was going to release?! I was reliably informed that it was going to be biblical...

And in literally the least shocking turn of events of all time, it turned out to be a bunch of hot air. Now that the grandiose communist conspiracy angle is dead, its gonna be fun to watch our little parade of baseops trumpers revise their public mental gymnastics to contrive new scenarios where trump is somehow still in this.

In the end, I think this situation is the best we could have hoped for. Trump was never going to concede so the only question was whether he'd mount a competent legal case, or a clown show.

 
If his team actually had their legal and public messaging act together it would be far more dangerous, because they might succeed in undermining confidence in our elections.  Luckily, we got the clown show and it's such a severe one it's actually turning off fence sitters and most of the moderate right.  
 

Prediction time: before the end of this train wreck, I predict trump fires Rudy too. But don't worry guys, it's just normal administration turnover. 

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

If his team actually had their legal and public messaging act together it would be far more dangerous, because they might succeed in undermining confidence in our elections.  Luckily, we got the clown show and it's such a severe one it's actually turning off fence sitters and most of the moderate right.  

Unfortunately, through his incompetence he’s showing the next would-be strongman how to mount an effective coup. And newsflash conservative friends, that strongman could come from either party. 

Edited November 23, 2020 by Prozac
Spellin’

[Guardian]

That needs to be more inclusive....strong person....

[LimaLowdown]

'Member when there was a 3-4 year campaign against Trump because he supposedly was working with Russians to win the election? This is like the same thing, except its the other side. Just let people complain and be skeptical

Enjoy your layover in Motel 6 with the FA 🙂

[arg]

‘If Voting Made a Difference, They Wouldn’t Let Us Do It’

I thought this quote was from Will Rogers but I searched it and it came up Mark Twain. Shows how long ago people didn't trust the voting process in the USofA.

 

[Sim]

Interesting to say the least. Also Rudy isn't wiping his own boogers while profusely sweating. 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Sim

[Tank]

Let the pardons begin!
 

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/11/25/trump-pardons-former-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn/

[17D_guy]

2 hours ago, Sim said:

Interesting to say the least. Also Rudy isn't wiping his own boogers while profusely sweating. 

Man, if they could only have presented competent cases in court where evidence is actually required.

[Sua Sponte]

48 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Man, if they could only have presented competent cases in court where evidence is actually required.

Yeah, what a bummer that real “evidence” is required and not just hearsay.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Sua Sponte

[Grabby]

3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Yeah, what a bummer that real “evidence” is required and not just hearsay.

Exactly!  It's been several weeks now and this is getting ridiculous.

Could you imagine if a large percentage of the news pushed by media outlets was based on election hearsay rather than hard evidence for, say, the next 3 years?  

 

Edited November 26, 2020 by Grabby

[drewpey]

2 hours ago, Grabby said:

Exactly!  It's been several weeks now and this is getting ridiculous.

Could you imagine if a large percentage of the news pushed by media outlets was based on election hearsay rather than hard evidence for, say, the next 3 years?  

 

Maybe the senate will investigate and publish a 966 page report detailing the significant, coordinated and widespread connections Trump's team democrats had with Russians election fraud.  Or maybe not.

Anywho...'tis the season for pardons...where my "law and order" peeps at?

What are your thoughts on the president's pardon power and should it be limited?  Should he be able to pardon those who may testify against him?  Should he be able to pardon himself?  Do you think this was the intent the founding fathers had in mind when they were writing the constitution?

[arg]

I wonder if any of these cases will make it to the highest court in the land.

[Sim]

Quote

Plaintiffs seek an emergency order prohibiting Defendants from including in any certified results from the General Election the tabulation of absentee and mailing ballots which do not comply with the Election Code, including, without limitation, the tabulation of absentee and mail-in ballots Trump Campaign’s watchers were prevented from observing or based on the tabulation of invalidly cast absentee and mail-in ballots which (i) lack a secrecy envelope, or contain on that envelope any text, mark, or symbol which reveals the elector’s identity, political affiliation, or candidate preference, (ii) do not include on the outside envelope a completed declaration that is dated and signed by the elector, or (iii) are delivered inperson by third parties for non-disabled voters.

https://defendingtherepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/COMPLAINT-CJ-PEARSON-V.-KEMP-11.25.2020.pdf

Sidney Powell's GA lawsuit. 

 

[Sua Sponte]

8 hours ago, arg said:

I wonder if any of these cases will make it to the highest court in the land.

With a dismissal from a lower courts, and not a subsequent opinion from ruling on the case, most likely not.