Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

Most high profile US citizen in the INGO politics thread?

that's fair

 

[oze]

“Give us Barabbas !!” Seems I read that story before. Some guy that was a loser, got indicted, people believed all the lies….

This would be extremely offensive, if it wasn't so over the top ridiculous.

 

[DragonGunner]

Next Monday at 11 am in New Jersey Trump is to release info on GA election corruption. Also seen where GA prosecutor leaked grand jury info on the voting 2 hours before it was released, prosecutor had no comment. They are doing to Trump what they want to do to all of us that aren’t democrats.

 

[DragonGunner]

This would be extremely offensive, if it wasn't so over the top ridiculous.

Would give us Biden, be of help to you then. Just read that instead. But some people just look to be offended by something.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Whoa, boy... that Social tweet had me going... towards the end I worried it was going to be a South Park WoF redux!

That Governor won where Trump and Herschel lost.

 

[jamil]

And evidence of that would be like trying to sort out a crime scene involving BLM in a building they burned to the ground after looting everything.

It's practically impossible after this long and all the meddling. The only thing you can do is look at what they stood to gain, what they knew, and how they acted about it and make a non-legal judgement.

There’s a window of opportunity to prove it, sure. But you still have to prove it. Or move on and learn the lessons it taught you. Some of you guys were sure the election would be overturned. You thought Trump would be reinstated. How? By what mechanism?

 

[Ingomike]

There’s a window of opportunity to prove it, sure. But you still have to prove it. Or move on and learn the lessons it taught you. Some of you guys were sure the election would be overturned. You thought Trump would be reinstated. How? By what mechanism?

When they wipe the voting systems clean in defiance of laws what penalty should there be?

 

[Tombs]

The anomalies should have been investigated.

This is where I get annoyed with the topic, because you're talking about something that's legitimately impossible.

If we're to accept the premise, then no amount of investigation is going to be fruitful because the people investigating are partial to protecting the system. If we don't accept the premise, then there's no reason to investigate.

The sheer volume of ways it would be possible are innumerable, and many are merely skirting what some would consider cheating.

At the end of the day the total votes were implausible, and enough weird things happened to warrant people questioning the legitimacy of our voting system as a whole. (Both sides had considered our voting system illegitimate at this point) An honest resolution to the problem, or rather a gesture of good will in acknowledging the concerns, would be to move away from a digital system and back to paper ballots, and counting via paper ballots. Furthermore, eliminating mail in voting in all capacities that don't involve extreme hardship.

To me that's the only real demonstration of concern and addressing the citizen's concerns. You can't "fix" something like this retroactively, you can only make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

[BugI02]

That's not the same thing. If you say Trump's loss is evidence that the votes were altered, that's circular reasoning. If my accounts are emptied, and I did not empty them, I know someone or something else did. I don't yet know who or how without investigation. That's not circular reasoning.

You see the results of the election and you believe it had to be hacked. GWP posts a story about wireless networks having access to voting machines, and without further inquiry, you believed it. That article did not show you the receipts. Maybe there is a secret network. Maybe the bad people have access to all the voting machines. Maybe they alter elections. Or maybe GWP is lying to you because they know they don't have to show any receipts because they know you won't ask for them.

It isn't just your favorite red herring GWP. Article dates to Jan 2020

Experts find more than 30 U.S. voting systems connected to internet

A team of election security experts used a “Google for servers” to challenge claims that voting machines do not connect to the internet and found some did.

www.nbcnews.com

The three largest voting manufacturing companies — Election Systems &Software, Dominion Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic — have acknowledged they all put modems in some of their tabulators and scanners. The reason? So that unofficial election results can more quickly be relayed to the public. Those modems connect to cell phone networks, which, in turn, are connected to the internet.

The largest manufacturer of voting machines, ES&S, told NBC News their systems are protected by firewalls and are not on the “public internet.” [] But both Skoglund and Andrew Appel, a Princeton computer science professor and expert on elections, said such firewalls can and have been breached.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which provides cybersecurity frameworks for state and local governments and other organizations, recommends that voting systems should not have wireless network connections.

Skoglund said that they identified only one company among the systems they detected on line, ES&S. ES&S confirmed they had sold scanners with wireless modems to at least 11 states. Skoglund says those include the battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida.

While the company’s website states that “zero” of its voting tabulators are connected to the internet, ES&S told NBC News 14,000 of their DS200 tabulators with online modems are currently in use around the country.

'It wasn't enough to change the outcome of the election' in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

 

[Tombs]

There’s a window of opportunity to prove it, sure. But you still have to prove it. Or move on and learn the lessons it taught you. Some of you guys were sure the election would be overturned. You thought Trump would be reinstated. How? By what mechanism?

If we were to entertain a wildly impossible situation that would have been fair to the people, it would have been re-doing the election on paper ballots with no electronic devices involved in the chain.

Reason for doing it would be simple, ensuring the credibility and legitimacy of our system. It was already the second strike for large swaths of the population to believe our voting machines had been compromised.

As for just reinstating Trump, I don't recall ever thinking that was possible outside of some kind of protest with the electors or Pence.

 

[jamil]

If we were to entertain a wildly impossible situation that would have been fair to the people, it would have been re-doing the election on paper ballots with no electronic devices involved in the chain.

Reason for doing it would be simple, ensuring the credibility and legitimacy of our system.

As for just reinstating Trump, I don't recall ever thinking that was possible outside of some kind of protest with the electors or Pence.

There were a few here.

 

[jamil]

It isn't just your favorite red herring GWP. Article dates to Jan 2020

Experts find more than 30 U.S. voting systems connected to internet

A team of election security experts used a “Google for servers” to challenge claims that voting machines do not connect to the internet and found some did.

www.nbcnews.com

'It wasn't enough to change the outcome of the election' in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

The part about GWP was in reference to the article about skynet, or whatever the **** that was. GWP is notorious for making incredible claims without bringing the receipts.

And saying that some machines were connected to the internet does not prove Trump was cheated out of the election. You still have to prove that. You don't just get it for free. And to know that it was or wasn't enough to change the outcome of the election, you'd need to quantify that. Knock yourself out. I'll wait.

 

[BugI02]

The part about GWP was in reference to the article about skynet, or whatever the **** that was. GWP is notorious for making incredible claims without bringing the receipts.

And saying that some machines were connected to the internet does not prove Trump was cheated out of the election. You still have to prove that. You don't just get it for free. And to know that it was or wasn't enough to change the outcome of the election, you'd need to quantify that. Knock yourself out. I'll wait.

No I don't. I was just mocking the most probable next dodge you would pivot to - and look there, I was right

You and I both know that preponderance of evidence is the best we will get, which is of course why you will demand absolute proof of anything that might benefit Trump and accept much less stringent standards in order to conclude things detrimental to him

 

[jamil]

This is where I get annoyed with the topic, because you're talking about something that's legitimately impossible.

If we're to accept the premise, then no amount of investigation is going to be fruitful because the people investigating are partial to protecting the system. If we don't accept the premise, then there's no reason to investigate.

You can't just claim the election was stolen based on the fact that your guy lost. Trump losing the election is not evidence that the election was stolen. You have to prove it in court to have any chance of anything sticking. And yeah, the deck is stacked against that happening.

The sheer volume of ways it would be possible are innumerable, and many are merely skirting what some would consider cheating.

At the end of the day the total votes were implausible, and enough weird things happened to warrant people questioning the legitimacy of our voting system as a whole. (Both sides had considered our voting system illegitimate at this point) An honest resolution to the problem, or rather a gesture of good will in acknowledging the concerns, would be to move away from a digital system and back to paper ballots, and counting via paper ballots. Furthermore, eliminating mail in voting in all capacities that don't involve extreme hardship.

To me that's the only real demonstration of concern and addressing the citizen's concerns. You can't "fix" something like this retroactively, you can only make sure it doesn't happen again.

Unfortunately I don't think Democrats are interested in good will when it comes to securing elections.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

You can't just claim the election was stolen based on the fact that your guy lost. Trump losing the election is not evidence that the election was stolen. You have to prove it in court to have any chance of anything sticking. And yeah, the deck is stacked against that happening.



Unfortunately I don't think Democrats are interested in good will when it comes to securing elections.

The Governor of Georgia even acknowledged today that Trump is spreading lies. The call with Pence saying, "You're too honest," is revealing as well. I suppose we're supposed to believe that Kemp is either a Dem, a Rino, or a CIA and that he participated in rigging the election as he did with Stacey Abrams???

 

[jamil]

If we were to entertain a wildly impossible situation that would have been fair to the people, it would have been re-doing the election on paper ballots with no electronic devices involved in the chain.

Reason for doing it would be simple, ensuring the credibility and legitimacy of our system. It was already the second strike for large swaths of the population to believe our voting machines had been compromised.

As for just reinstating Trump, I don't recall ever thinking that was possible outside of some kind of protest with the electors or Pence.

Most people did not think Democrats stole the election from Trump. After 2020 election, I recall talking to my boss at the time (a progressive, but usually fairly reasonable). He was going on about "crazy Trump voters" thinking the election was stolen. I told him that a poll at the time said 40% of Americans did not trust the result of the election. Doesn't matter why they think it. They think it. When 2/5ths of the population don't trust elections, there's a big problem that needs solved. He agreed.

But, what evidence should be required to trigger a do-over? How many people need to distrust it? Okay, and if the do-over results in Trump winning, and now there's 40% of the public on the other side distrust that election. We're in a wildly divided time. No one's gonna be happy. But, I agree that elections need to be unplugged from the internet.

 

[jamil]

No I don't. I was just mocking the most probable next dodge you would pivot to - and look there, I was right

Are you smoking crack? I dealt with your BS directly. I said that machines connected to the internet is not evidence that Trump was cheated out of the election. You got a lot more to prove than just a connection. You have to prove that votes were actually altered. I'd accept preponderance of evidence as the standard. The part about quantifying it because I knew you'd appreciate the reference.

You and I both know that preponderance of evidence is the best we will get, which is of course why you will demand absolute proof of anything that might benefit Trump and accept much less stringent standards in order to conclude things detrimental to him

I'm not sure that we'll even get preponderance of evidence. GWP et al doesn't even get us that much. They just print a claim with little to no evidence. It's not just GWP that does it. Every partisan news outlet does it for clicks and views. They're feeding what their readers want. They don't want facts. They want to be fed a story they want to believe in.

But anyway, I've never asked for absolute proof. That's just what you like to say to avoid the facts. Like you posting that article about voting machines connected to the internet. That's compelling evidence that a few dozen machines were connected to the internet. That's not going to get the election overturned for you. That doesn't prove that Trump was cheated. You were told he was cheated, and then you believed it. And that's all that it took.

I can be convinced with compelling evidence. It may be that compelling evidence is impossible to find. So then you have a choice. You can choose to believe the thing you want without it. Or you can choose to suspend belief until you have it. I am open to believing that votes were altered. I've been waiting almost 4 years for that compelling evidence. My belief is still suspended.

 

[jamil]

The Governor of Georgia even acknowledged today that Trump is spreading lies. The call with Pence saying, "You're too honest," is revealing as well. I suppose we're supposed to believe that Kemp is either a Dem, a Rino, or a CIA and that he participated in rigging the election as he did with Stacey Abrams???

Well the governor of Georgia sucks little wienies. I don't trust that guy any farther than I could throw him. I don't think the GA thing is going to go far unless they have the real goods on him. We'll see. But I'm not taking the chamber-o-commerce neocon governor's word for it. Let's see the evidence presented in the trial, and the defense.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Well the governor of Georgia sucks little wienies. I don't trust that guy any farther than I could throw him. I don't think the GA thing is going to go far unless they have the real goods on him. We'll see. But I'm not taking the chamber-o-commerce neocon governor's word for it. Let's see the evidence presented in the trial, and the defense.

Yeah, winning sucks. It's much better to dive on a Lake or Mastriano and watch Dems take power.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, winning sucks. It's much better to dive on a Lake or Mastriano and watch Dems take power.

What? Can you explain that leap of logic? How did we get from "I don't think Kemp is an honest Governor" to "you want to lose!"

C'mon man. Splain to me how you get there.