you are either being disingenuous or wildly uninformed.
Iit’s okay if you don’t like that one scientist. because there are dozens of other computer security experts who have come to the same conclusion, that since Trump’s lawyers admitted to hiring people to steal voting software used by 90% of voters in swing states, manual recounts should be implemented.
The Republicans have zero evidence of election interference.
democrats have straight up factual evidence of ballot, interference and electoral fraud.
do you know about how W won the 2004 election?
do you know about the fake elector scheme 4 years ago?
have you ever heard of gerrymandering?
voter poll purging?
Republican ballot interference has happened every election for decades, and it looks like it happened on a wider scale this time.
Do you have a better source than the state election results websites? If the premise of the whole argument was bullet votes, but the actually numbers are <2% instead of the claimed amount, what is the evidence?
Risk that something might have happened is a good enough reason for audits/recounts should be done in time to fix the election outcome, but they’re not evidence that such hacks were successfully used. They just provide a mechanism that makes it possible.
Iit’s okay if you don’t like that one scientist. because there are dozens of other computer security experts who have come to the same conclusion, that since Trump’s lawyers admitted to hiring people to steal voting software used by 90% of voters in swing states, manual recounts should be implemented.
Feel free to source it with concrete probable claims that have been verified by reputable sources.
I think manual counting should be the norm - all votes are counted manually in my country - but it’s unlikely that you will be able to get anyone to actually pull the trigger without concrete evidence of interference.
The Republicans have zero evidence of election interference.
Agreed.
democrats have straight up factual evidence of ballot, interference and electoral fraud.
Post it, then.
do you know about how W won the 2004 election?
I know how the 2000 election got stolen by Bush, but I’m not aware of the same thing happening in 2004. Feel free to fill in details.
do you know about the fake elector scheme 4 years ago?
Yes. It was never put into practice. Trump did try to institute a coup, but failed.
have you ever heard of gerrymandering?
Yes, this is a well-known example of legal election interference. Hand-counts won’t help in this case.
voter poll purging?
Same here
Republican ballot interference has happened every election for decades, and it looks like it happened on a wider scale this time.
Instances of legal election interference are not proof of illegal election interference occurring.
“Feel free to source it with concrete probable claims”
19 credible sources are available throughout the paper that you didn’t read and you are mosinformed about both the stolen voting machine data and the fake electors scheme.
if you don’t know any of this, you’re out of your depth here.
“concrete evidence of interference.”
Great, there is a mountain of concrete evidence of election and ballot interference over the past several years, up to today.
from 4 years ago, then 2 years ago, then during the 2024 election, and in between.
you’re not making any sense.
the open letter and even wikipedia directly provides the evidence you claim to be interested in.
“Yes. It was never put into practice. Trump did try to institute a coup, but failed.”
nope, you are entirely incorrect here as well.
The fake electors scheme was put into practice nationally. fake electors mailed out false ballots to NARA and Mike Pence in an effort to steal the election before the real ballots arrived in the mail.
The National Archives discovered that the ballots were false and negated them.
The fake electore scheme absolutely went into practice, people have admitted to participating in it, taken guilty plea deals and are still going through trials because of their participation in the fake electors scheme.
If you need more clarification, ask questions but for goodness’ sake, read something first so you have a baseline of knowledge before you talk about something.
you’re entirely misinformed with regard to recent election interference.
He got more votes than Kerry, winning the popular vote (unlike his first election)
this was because the Kerry campaign failed to meet the moment, running an “I could run this war better” pro-war campaign.
This isn’t (and has never been) a democracy because the power is not with the people, institutions like the supreme court, the electoral college, the Senate, and the allocation of representatives make sure of that.
I didn’t find any of the arguments compelling, I’m just not particularly enchanted by this electoral system because it’s a fig leaf for a bourgeois dictatorship, and has been for some time. Just because you vote doesn’t mean it’s a democracy.
My position is that the fix has been in for a lot longer, there’s been basically no US presidents that have actually represented the entire population, it’s always businesses and settlers first (hence all the wars)
as long as you’re choosing to be in that system, the will of the electorate should be exerted to its side host when choosing their president.
the alternative you are suggesting is that because there are outsized special interests influencing you a selection, people shouldn’t have any say.
which I cannot agree with.
it’s a popular, simple opinion, doesn’t require you to do anything but it certainly doesn’t change anything for the better or have any positive benefits.
nobody’s arguing that the fix you’re talking about isn’t in, those computer scientists and I agree that we should try to fix the fix.
the alternative you are suggesting is that because there are outsized special interests influencing you a selection, people shouldn’t have any say.
No, I’m saying that they never had a say, and you’re imagining popular power that never existed. For most of the US existence only white men could vote for one, the franchise was eventually extended but any influence voting has always been overdetermined by the existence of the electoral college.
The fixating on a few times the election didn’t go your way just looks like nursing bruised egos instead of focusing on productive work and developing a better understanding of our politics.
Regardless of the outsized influence special interests have, Americans have had and still have a say in who they elect.
you are fixating on how difficult change is instead of understanding that things perpetually change and it’s the fight to change systems that changes systems.
you’re fighting for futility, I’m advocating realistic change.
you might be bummed out because of the election results, but that’s no reason to stop making things better.
you’re still here and so is everybody else, and in the Cassandric words of steve Harwell,
you’re fighting for futility, I’m advocating realistic change
I’m saying the thing you’re fixated on is the futile thing, it assumes that this is a democracy (it isn’t) and that it’s “just special interests” (it’s the capitalist class writ large, they just bicker over who gets the reins)
I don’t think a qanon style campaign to stop the steal is realistic, but if you want to dress up like a fallout character and storm the capital in January more power to you.
The only way you can think civil rights are futile is if you have already given up.
If that’s the case, then take yourself out of the equation and stop talking about issues you don’t care about.
If you haven’t given up, explain how making sure people have civil rights is futile.
“it assumes…”
no, it doesn’t. you’re making assumptions, don’t do that.
“special interests” (it’s the capitalist class…"
Yes, those are special interests.
“I don’t think a qanon style campaign to stop the steal is realistic”
this is literally what I’m telling you. step away from qanon, Focus on real evidence and making changes that benefit people.
you’re fixated on the futility of everything, but you are incorrectly assuming that nothing can be changed because you are not willing to fight for that change.
that is simply incorrect.
people thought Trump was going to have his second term 4 years ago, and then he was voted out.
change happens all the time, you’re complaining that it can, despite overwhelming constant evidence that things are always changing.
you are either being disingenuous or wildly uninformed.
Iit’s okay if you don’t like that one scientist. because there are dozens of other computer security experts who have come to the same conclusion, that since Trump’s lawyers admitted to hiring people to steal voting software used by 90% of voters in swing states, manual recounts should be implemented.
The Republicans have zero evidence of election interference.
democrats have straight up factual evidence of ballot, interference and electoral fraud.
do you know about how W won the 2004 election?
do you know about the fake elector scheme 4 years ago?
have you ever heard of gerrymandering?
voter poll purging?
Republican ballot interference has happened every election for decades, and it looks like it happened on a wider scale this time.
Do you have a better source than the state election results websites? If the premise of the whole argument was bullet votes, but the actually numbers are <2% instead of the claimed amount, what is the evidence?
that is not “the premise of the whole argument”
read the meticulously sourced open letter based court verified testimony and documents.
pdf:
https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/letter-to-vp-harris-111324.pdf
Risk that something might have happened is a good enough reason for audits/recounts should be done in time to fix the election outcome, but they’re not evidence that such hacks were successfully used. They just provide a mechanism that makes it possible.
“provide a mechanism that makes it possible.”
yup.
“a good enough reason for audits/recounts should be done in time to fix the election outcome”
yup.
Feel free to source it with concrete probable claims that have been verified by reputable sources.
I think manual counting should be the norm - all votes are counted manually in my country - but it’s unlikely that you will be able to get anyone to actually pull the trigger without concrete evidence of interference.
Agreed.
Post it, then.
I know how the 2000 election got stolen by Bush, but I’m not aware of the same thing happening in 2004. Feel free to fill in details.
Yes. It was never put into practice. Trump did try to institute a coup, but failed.
Yes, this is a well-known example of legal election interference. Hand-counts won’t help in this case.
Same here
Instances of legal election interference are not proof of illegal election interference occurring.
“Feel free to source it with concrete probable claims”
19 credible sources are available throughout the paper that you didn’t read and you are mosinformed about both the stolen voting machine data and the fake electors scheme.
if you don’t know any of this, you’re out of your depth here.
“concrete evidence of interference.”
Great, there is a mountain of concrete evidence of election and ballot interference over the past several years, up to today.
from 4 years ago, then 2 years ago, then during the 2024 election, and in between.
you’re not making any sense.
the open letter and even wikipedia directly provides the evidence you claim to be interested in.
“Yes. It was never put into practice. Trump did try to institute a coup, but failed.”
nope, you are entirely incorrect here as well.
The fake electors scheme was put into practice nationally. fake electors mailed out false ballots to NARA and Mike Pence in an effort to steal the election before the real ballots arrived in the mail.
The National Archives discovered that the ballots were false and negated them.
The fake electore scheme absolutely went into practice, people have admitted to participating in it, taken guilty plea deals and are still going through trials because of their participation in the fake electors scheme.
If you need more clarification, ask questions but for goodness’ sake, read something first so you have a baseline of knowledge before you talk about something.
you’re entirely misinformed with regard to recent election interference.
He got more votes than Kerry, winning the popular vote (unlike his first election)
this was because the Kerry campaign failed to meet the moment, running an “I could run this war better” pro-war campaign.
This isn’t (and has never been) a democracy because the power is not with the people, institutions like the supreme court, the electoral college, the Senate, and the allocation of representatives make sure of that.
sure, kind of.
that all obligly agrees with what I’ve been saying.
you finally read some of those sources?
I’m very pro better late than never, good on you.
in the future, I’d appreciate it if you read things you comment on first before making claims based on assumptions.
have a good one
I didn’t find any of the arguments compelling, I’m just not particularly enchanted by this electoral system because it’s a fig leaf for a bourgeois dictatorship, and has been for some time. Just because you vote doesn’t mean it’s a democracy.
My position is that the fix has been in for a lot longer, there’s been basically no US presidents that have actually represented the entire population, it’s always businesses and settlers first (hence all the wars)
as long as you’re choosing to be in that system, the will of the electorate should be exerted to its side host when choosing their president.
the alternative you are suggesting is that because there are outsized special interests influencing you a selection, people shouldn’t have any say.
which I cannot agree with.
it’s a popular, simple opinion, doesn’t require you to do anything but it certainly doesn’t change anything for the better or have any positive benefits.
nobody’s arguing that the fix you’re talking about isn’t in, those computer scientists and I agree that we should try to fix the fix.
No, I’m saying that they never had a say, and you’re imagining popular power that never existed. For most of the US existence only white men could vote for one, the franchise was eventually extended but any influence voting has always been overdetermined by the existence of the electoral college.
The fixating on a few times the election didn’t go your way just looks like nursing bruised egos instead of focusing on productive work and developing a better understanding of our politics.
Regardless of the outsized influence special interests have, Americans have had and still have a say in who they elect.
you are fixating on how difficult change is instead of understanding that things perpetually change and it’s the fight to change systems that changes systems.
you’re fighting for futility, I’m advocating realistic change.
you might be bummed out because of the election results, but that’s no reason to stop making things better.
you’re still here and so is everybody else, and in the Cassandric words of steve Harwell,
“We could all use a little chaaaAAAnge”.
I’m saying the thing you’re fixated on is the futile thing, it assumes that this is a democracy (it isn’t) and that it’s “just special interests” (it’s the capitalist class writ large, they just bicker over who gets the reins)
I don’t think a qanon style campaign to stop the steal is realistic, but if you want to dress up like a fallout character and storm the capital in January more power to you.
“the thing you’re fixated on is the futile thing”
The only way you can think civil rights are futile is if you have already given up.
If that’s the case, then take yourself out of the equation and stop talking about issues you don’t care about.
If you haven’t given up, explain how making sure people have civil rights is futile.
“it assumes…”
no, it doesn’t. you’re making assumptions, don’t do that.
“special interests” (it’s the capitalist class…"
Yes, those are special interests.
“I don’t think a qanon style campaign to stop the steal is realistic”
this is literally what I’m telling you. step away from qanon, Focus on real evidence and making changes that benefit people.
you’re fixated on the futility of everything, but you are incorrectly assuming that nothing can be changed because you are not willing to fight for that change.
that is simply incorrect.
people thought Trump was going to have his second term 4 years ago, and then he was voted out.
change happens all the time, you’re complaining that it can, despite overwhelming constant evidence that things are always changing.
I am gonna go ahead and just ignore the .ml on this one. Likely just another CCP goon.
for sure. I have the time though, so I don’t mind putting up facts each time they spout off.
Fair enough.