The Next President is...

[DosXX]

3 hours ago, GoodSplash9 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

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

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

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

 

[17D_guy]

4 hours ago, torqued said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

//BREAK BREAK//

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[17D_guy]

33 minutes ago, FLEA said:

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

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

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

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

[FLEA]

27 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

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

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

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

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

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

[gearhog]

 

4 hours ago, Pooter said:

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

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

False.

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

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

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

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

 

3 hours ago, Pooter said:

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

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

 

2 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

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

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

[dream big]

7 hours ago, torqued said:

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

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

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, FLEA said:

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

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

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

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

[gearhog]

59 minutes ago, pawnman said:

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

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

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

 

 

Georgia?

Edited December 1, 2020 by torqued

[pawnman]

49 minutes ago, torqued said:

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

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

 

 

Georgia?

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

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

[17D_guy]

4 hours ago, torqued said:

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

I love it. You're "just asking questions" with some video of a cybersecurity expert for the disaster that is campaign trump, and I try to figure out if he's actually one because his claims are amazing.

I watch the video and tell you it's bullshit, and what he's briefing doesn't make sense.  Also, he's presented zero actual proof for what he claims. There's no information online about his expertise, and his background, as he presented it, sounds mad fishy.

Spent a hour trying to find information on him, and listening to the video.  But I'm just diminishing someone's career.  Well played, troll.  We're done.

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

We're done.

Ok. See ya.

[Seadogs]

Still replying to these jokers? I bet they aren't even pilots. Probably Gender Studies graduates. 

[Prozac]

43 minutes ago, Seadogs said:

Probably Gender Studies graduates. 

Is that where you get to find out where the G spot is?

[gearhog]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

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

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

Did you happen to look up the results for the states you listed?

It seems like you're suggesting 10% is a "tight" race.

[DosXX]

1 hour ago, torqued said:

Did you happen to look up the results for the states you listed?

It seems like you're suggesting 10% is a "tight" race.

Did you happen to look up the numbers for Pennsylvania mail in votes?

It seems like you didn't because you replied by saying it's a "math problem" with no explanation.

[gearhog]

7 minutes ago, DosXX said:

Did you happen to look up the numbers for Pennsylvania mail in votes?

It seems like you didn't because you replied by saying it's a "math problem" with no explanation.

You want a math problem? 😆

What is 300,000 COVID deaths minus 200,000 COVID deaths? Think you can wrap your head around that one, Capt Calculator?

[Sua Sponte]

Dang

https://apnews.com/article/b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d

[DosXX]

31 minutes ago, torqued said:

You want a math problem? 😆

What is 300,000 COVID deaths minus 200,000 COVID deaths? Think you can wrap your head around that one, Capt Calculator?

You get the award for most cringe deflection 

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Dang

https://apnews.com/article/b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d

I wonder how many people in Trump's circle have to say it before Trump supporters believe it.

[gearhog]

46 minutes ago, DosXX said:

You get the award for most cringe deflection 

Not only do you create fake statistics, you create fake awards too!

Well done. Way to be consistent!

[DosXX]

2 hours ago, torqued said:

Not only do you create fake statistics, you create fake awards too!

Well done. Way to be consistent!

Uh oh the F bombs are coming. Sorry for the trigger

[17D_guy]

Write up by the guy who wrote the spiderfoot tool that was so widely hailed as "proof" from the failed Trump Campaign.  Guess if he agrees more with COL Cybersecurity Expert, or your lowely, local cyber guy.

https://medium.com/@micallst/misusing-osint-to-claim-election-fraud-cfb89c858c3a

Relevant quote -
 

Quote

"Assuming the author of the affidavit was not intentionally misleading, the affidavit demonstrates a number of knowledge gaps that manifest in the other pitfalls laid out below. Had this fundamental knowledge been present in the author of the affidavit, I doubt it would have ever been written."

 

[Pooter]

16 hours ago, FLEA said:

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

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

 

You're right I probably wouldn't invest in fraud in New York and Cali.. but I certainly would in Texas and Florida. Both of which trump won narrowly, and since he won, their vote counts were of course super duper perfect and secure. 
 

It sounds stupid because it is stupid. This is my whole point. If you, a sitting president with any integrity whatsoever, were concerned about widespread fraud and our overall election tampering, you would be investigating it everywhere.
 

Crying fraud only in the states where you narrowly lost looks an awful lot like slinging poop and hoping some of it sticks.  And maybe it looks like that because that's exactly what it is. 

[bfargin]

13 minutes ago, Pooter said:

You're right I probably wouldn't invest in fraud in New York and Cali.. but I certainly would in Texas and Florida. Both of which trump won narrowly, and since he won, their vote counts were of course super duper perfect and secure. 
 

It sounds stupid because it is stupid. This is my whole point. If you, a sitting president with any integrity whatsoever, were concerned about widespread fraud and our overall election tampering, you would be investigating it everywhere.
 

Crying fraud only in the states where you narrowly lost looks an awful lot like slinging poop and hoping some of it sticks.  And maybe it looks like that because that's exactly what it is. 

Would you say POTUS was behaving more like this hippo or this gorilla? 

https://tenor.com/view/hippopotamus-hippo-poop-rapid-pooping-gif-16021276

https://tenor.com/view/angry-poop-monkey-throw-mad-gif-17790027

Edited December 2, 2020 by bfargin