Trump vs Biden 2020, Ultimate battle for the fate of our universe (pt 3)Read OP 01/11

randd1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

unsubstantiated allegations from a site that is known to peddle lies. yet somehow you think that is worthy of consideration.

The Trumpanzees have no interest in fact. Facts are the enemy. Utter devotion to the dear leader is all that matters. If bare-faced lies, mad conspiracy theories and wilful ignorance of even the most basic evidence means protecting the dear leader, then that's what's to be done.

It's just like the lads over Waco or Jonestown. Blind faith has an enormous power over weak and desperate people who find solace in the preachings. And Trumpism is cult, a modern political cult, and like a cult has a snake oil salesman as it's head that draws in these gullible people who will do anything for his grace.

Quin_Dub

stefanovich wrote: »

Look, just pointing our that there are allegations that the online voter registration in multiple states are insecure and ballots can be cancelled. Let's see what more legitimate sources have to say...

Here's the thing.

Absolutely no-one is claiming that Voter Fraud cannot ever happen.

Of course it can , that's obvious.

However , that's not the important question.

The question is "Can Voter fraud occur at a sufficiently high rate to influence an Election?"

And the absolutely resounding answer to that question is NO.

There is no evidence whatsoever of it being possible to influence an election via fraud, especially a large State-wide or National election.

The sheer volumes of fraudulent votes that would be required to influence the result make the likelihood of success infinitesimally small.

Could someone put on a fake moustache or whatever and fraudulently vote in person? - Quite Possibly
Could someone fake a signature on a mail-in ballot and fraudulently vote - Quite possibly

Could someone or some group carry out a combination of the above ten's of thousands of times or indeed hundreds of thousands of times across multiple states? - Almost certainly impossible.

It's not the act that's impossible , it's the SCALE required that's impossible.

stefanovich

Graham wrote: »

Most of what CNN publish is fact, all be it fact with a partisan bias.

The same can largely be said of Fox, fact with a partisan bias.

Read both and others then make your own mind up. In general, avoid the conspiracy theory sites unless you're actually looking for conspiracy theories.

Epoch Times is rated Mixed, CNN is rated Mixed, Fox is rated Mixed.

You think their ratings should be more granular?

stefanovich

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Here's the thing.

Absolutely no-one is claiming that Voter Fraud cannot ever happen.

Of course it can , that's obvious.

However , that's not the important question.

The question is "Can Voter fraud occur at a sufficiently high rate to influence an Election?"

And the absolutely resounding answer to that question is NO.

There is no evidence whatsoever of it being possible to influence an election via fraud, especially a large State-wide or National election.

The sheer volumes of fraudulent votes that would be required to influence the result make the likelihood of success infinitesimally small.

Could someone put on a fake moustache or whatever and fraudulently vote in person? - Quite Possibly
Could someone fake a signature on a mail-in ballot and fraudulently vote - Quite possibly

Could someone or some group carry out a combination of the above ten's of thousands of times or indeed hundreds of thousands of times across multiple states? - Almost certainly impossible.

It's not the act that's impossible , it's the SCALE required that's impossible.

The main worry is that existing ballots can be cancelled with just Name and DOB. Registration information can be updated with more info like SSN etc

There are dumps of voter data that was hacked recently.

Could someone write a simple script and mass cancel ballots?

Graham

stefanovich wrote: »

Epoch Times is rated Mixed, CNN is rated Mixed, Fox is rated Mixed.

You think their ratings should be more granular?

They are more granular but you actually have to read them:

Overall, we rate The Gateway Pundit Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracies and numerous instances of publishing false (fake) news.

Overall, we rate The Epoch Times borderline Questionable and Right Biased based on editorial positions that consistently favor the right. We also rate them factually Mixed due to the publication of pseudoscience and the promotion of pro-Trump propaganda and conspiracy theories as well as failed fact checks.

Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favors the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks

Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits, however, straight news reporting is generally reliable, therefore we rate them Mixed for factual reporting.

briany

randd1 wrote: »

It's just like the lads over Waco or Jonestown. Blind faith has an enormous power over weak and desperate people who find solace in the preachings. And Trumpism is cult, a modern political cult, and like a cult has a snake oil salesman that draws in these gullible people who will do anything for his grace.

It's pretty fascinating, really. What has Trump done or how have the cultural stars aligned that you have this level of fervour? Like, what has made the ground so fertile for this political cult to take shape? George W. Bush didn't have a cult around him. He may have had the 'If you don't like America then you can git out" type, but his base of support seems utterly reasonable compared to now.

To answer my own question, I think it comes down to the proliferation of social media and misinformation, the consequences of austerity which went unaddressed by mainstream politics, latent bigotry, and the ongoing online culture wars.

ohnonotgmail

Graham wrote: »

They are more granular but you actually have to read them:

that information was already presented to them. they dont care

Graham

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that information was already presented to them. they dont care

The flailing and failing attempts to present as fact a conspiracy theory from a known conspiracy theory website is entertaining though.

It's like a microcosm of the Trump campaign :pac:

stefanovich

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that information was already presented to them. they dont care

Thanks for bestowing the same level of respect on me that one would normally reserve for royalty. We are pleased.

Igotadose

8-10 wrote: »

Regardless of who's in charge, unemployment being low isn't great if you still have people needing to work 2 jobs to nearly reach the poverty line.

There's 40m Americans living in poverty. Minimum wage is needed for low unemployment to be a success.

Over 300000 Americans live on less than $2 a day. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/future-perfect/2019/6/5/18650492/2019-poverty-2-dollar-a-day-edin-shaefer-meyer

Graham

stefanovich wrote: »

Thanks for bestowing the same level of respect on me that one would normally reserve for royalty. We are pleased.

FYI, it's mostly used for gender neutrality these days.

ohnonotgmail

stefanovich wrote: »

Thanks for bestowing the same level of respect on me that one would normally reserve for royalty. We are pleased.

no respect intended.

stefanovich

Graham wrote: »

The flailing and failing attempts to present as fact a conspiracy theory from a known conspiracy theory website is entertaining though. :pac:

Being able to log in and view voter data with Name and DOB is not conspiracy theory.

https://archive.is/STP9a

km991148

stefanovich wrote: »

.

Could someone write a simple script and mass cancel ballots?

Again, yes it could happen. Realistically though it's not likely to go undetected on the scale required.

Quin_Dub

stefanovich wrote: »

The main worry is that existing ballots can be cancelled with just Name and DOB. Registration information can be updated with more info like SSN etc

There are dumps of voter data that was hacked recently.

Could someone write a simple script and mass cancel ballots?

No - Because as the article states , they only get cancelled if they are replaced with a new ballot with a signature etc.

The risk with this data is not Voter fraud , it's identity theft.

km991148 wrote: »

Again, yes it could happen. Realistically though it's not likely to go undetected on the scale required.

Exactly...

No way that thousands of ballots are cancelled online without replacement and no-one notices.

Like I said - It's not the act that's impossible , it's the scale required that's the impossible part.

km991148

A whole order of magnitude of people's votes don't get cast due to simple mistake and even that doesn't impact the result.

Anyone who stops for a minute and thinks about voter fraud and the impact on the result and then still thinks it's a possibility to change the result through mail in fraud would need to have a good look at their numeracy skills.

stefanovich

km991148 wrote: »

A whole order of magnitude of people's votes don't get cast due to simple mistake and even that doesn't impact the result.

Anyone who stops for a minute and thinks about voter fraud and the impact on the result and then still thinks it's a possibility to change the result through mail in fraud would need to have a good look at their numeracy skills.

Could they not work on a more secure system?

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Epoch Times is rated Mixed, CNN is rated Mixed, Fox is rated Mixed.

You think their ratings should be more granular?

Except you're actively ignoring their criticisms of them..

stefanovich wrote: »

Could they not work on a more secure system?

Thing is, nobody has established that the system is insecure... So far it's been conjecture via questionable sources that want to dispute the result cause they know it will go against them.

Quin_Dub

stefanovich wrote: »

Could they not work on a more secure system?

Again - It's the SCALE required that makes it virtually impossible to succeed

Could someone hack in and cancel thousands of votes? Perhaps.

Would anyone notice? - Almost certainly , hard to imagine a scenario that they wouldn't catch an action like that at the scale required to make a difference.

So , yes , they could do it , but they likelihood of them getting away with it is almost nil.

Graham

stefanovich wrote: »

Being able to log in and view voter data with Name and DOB is not conspiracy theory.

https://archive.is/STP9a

You're assuming that it's possible to alter voter details based on the conspiracy theory website and zero knowledge of the checks/balances that happen in the background.

You are doing a great job of proving my "microcosm of the Trump campaign" theory though.

If the democrats were stupid enough to give this type of nonsense the time of day, their campaign would soon be drowned out by this type of guff.

stefanovich

Graham wrote: »

You're assuming that it's possible to alter voter details based on the conspiracy theory website and zero knowledge of the checks/balances that happen in the background.

You are doing a great job of proving my "microcosm of the Trump campaign" theory though.

If the democrats were stupid enough to give this type of nonsense the time of day, their campaign would soon be drowned out by this type of guff.

IT projects and government contracts don't exactly have a good history. I think it perfectly plausible that this system is dog ****.

Graham

stefanovich wrote: »

IT projects and government contracts don't exactly have a good history. I think it perfectly plausible that this system is dog ****.

Would be more plausible with a credible source.

You should post about it again if you find one.

ohnonotgmail

stefanovich wrote: »

The main worry is that existing ballots can be cancelled with just Name and DOB. Registration information can be updated with more info like SSN etc

There are dumps of voter data that was hacked recently.

Could someone write a simple script and mass cancel ballots?

where are you seeing the piece in bold?

the website says

Please enter the following information to check or update your voter registration or track your ballot.

I dont see anything about cancelling ballots. did you just make that up?

eagle eye

Quin_Dub wrote:

Again - It's the SCALE required that makes it virtually impossible to succeed

Could someone hack in and cancel thousands of votes? Perhaps.

If it can happen it's a major concern.

Quin_Dub wrote:

Would anyone notice? - Almost certainly , hard to imagine a scenario that they wouldn't catch an action like that at the scale required to make a difference.

Whether they notice or not is only part of the issue.
If you can cancel votes on a large scale then all those votes have to be scrapped.

Quin_Dub wrote:

So , yes , they could do it , but they likelihood of them getting away with it is almost nil.

What does that mean to you? It's pretty hard to find out where somebody hiding behind multiple vpn's etc. Is based.
Can you repair after a hack is the big question. Can you restore the votes with 100% accuracy is key. If you can't then they all have to be cancelled.

I hope this is not true.

stefanovich

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

where are you seeing the piece in bold?

the website says

I dont see anything about cancelling ballots. did you just make that up?

Graham

Screenshot from 4chan?

stefanovich

Graham wrote: »

Screenshot from 4chan?

From one of the articles which was likely taken from 4chan. Hard to confirm this without being a registered voter or commiting a crime yourself.

hetuzozaho

stefanovich wrote: »

So you've moved website now to another state?

I'm not saying what you are saying is wrong, but a simple youtube video of a screen recording and I am onboard.

Why does it have to be so convoluted with these things. :pac:

Phoebas

Graham wrote: »

Screenshot from 4chan?

It appears to come from one source only - the Epoch Times (who have form for spreading Pro-Trump conspiracy theories). Hard to tell if they got it from 4Chan or the other way around.

Due diligence required here I think.

Tippex

Would the fact that the opening line of the article basically states that the source is 4Chan not be a red flag to most people?
I'm not saying it is not true but the fact that 4chan is the source would make me believe that it is not as likely to be true as something like techcrunch etc reporting it.