681–690 of 839 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it’s either that or just use paper ballots, hand counted. When I learned that the US actually uses software in its elections, I was shocked. It’s unthinkable here in the UK.
They have paper trails for every vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not true. There were 60+ cases involved here across five (I think) state jurisdictions and federal courts, and variants of this evidence was submitted and ruled on in quite a few. It is also true that most of these were tossed for things like standing. But the idea that courts "refused to hear the evidence" is exactly the kind of fake news / Big Lie argumentation that spawned the cases to begin with. Court ca…
> It is also true that most of these were tossed for things like standing. In the ones I’ve read that were tossed for standing or laches, most of them (possibly all, I don’t remember a specific counterexample) were also tossed for failure to state a claim, because while the plaintiffs did usually recite the textbook elements of a cause of action, they either failed to allege specific factual claims that would establi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have read too many court documents over the last 10 years and I agree. Generally, you want to start out with your strongest statement. In this case, the strong argument is very easily legally defensible. It was very clear in context why Rudy was not pleading fraud because it wasn't the point he was making at that time. That's the strongest argument? So I wonder what exactly is the point of this lawsuit? I'm going t…
"Former election security chief for Trump knocks down Antrim County report" https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/... From the article: "The former acting director of the EAC’s Voting System Testing and Certification Program, Ryan Macias, said the report showed “a grave misunderstanding” of the voting system used in Antrim County as well as “a lack of knowledge of election technology and process…
- Former Trump official (irrelevant)
- Could not find anything in the article to support corruption. I agree with this, since charging corruption is very strong.
- 68% error rates are not really errors. OK
- Does not look like anyone actually went in there and set a zero. The specific picture is blacked out, so I cannot tell what was happening (I seem to remember an earlier version where it wasn't blacked out, but probably just human memory playing tricks.)
Fortunately for you (aha!) I actually was not looking at these things. What I found interesting were the following:
- Instances of verifiable high rates of adjudication not just here, but elsewhere. There is a clip of an official in some county where they said their adjudication rate was 60% which is excessive and means x% of votes were decided by people in a room somewhere.
- Deleted log files for 2020 but not 2016 (this was the big one for me, should be unacceptable.)
- Same ballots giving different results. Admittedly, this could be user error.
It's for this reason I wish the Supreme court had taken up the case.
https://www.cnet.com/news/lawmakers-turn-to-hackers-at-def-c... It’s possible. If you DDG “voting machines defcon“ you’ll get articles of various manufacturers who have had voting machines broken into by DEFCON attendees. You can buy old voting machines on eBay. There’s plenty of evidence out there that ethical hackers proved machines can be tampered with. If ethical hackers can prove it’s possible, is it possible th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Without the investigation, oversight or legislation... the skepticism is pointless. Which is the tell that Trump didn’t believe his own claims of vote fraud. Bear in mind he pulled exactly the same stunt in 2016 claiming massive vote fraud but when he won never mentioned it again until 2020. If he’d actually believed there was vote fraud or a chance of it, he would have done something about it. Investigations, hear…
Actually, there were claims made about massive voter fraud in the 2016 election: When Trump could not stomach the fact that he lost the popular vote, he claimed that more than 3 million ineligible voters had voted for Clinton and that he had in fact won the popular vote. There was even a voter-fraud commission set up to investigate the claims. They quietly disbanded.
A class case of "we refuse to look for evidence, therefore there is no evidence"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're referring to Hitchens's Razor, which I believe is a flawed mindset that's used selectively as it suits people. The situation here is that the proof is very well hidden, and therefore the situation has been rendered un-falsifiable. This is now essentially a Russell's Teapot[1] statement. I'd say when people start storming the US Capitol, it's time to stop ignoring the underlying issue. Why are you so afraid of…
This doesn't come down to Hitchen's razor, or any other etiquette of debate or rhetoric. It is simple innocence until proven guilty. Asserting fraud is making an accusation that crimes occurred, and the burden of proof is not on the accused. The idea that the proof is too well hidden is itself un-falsifiable, as any amount of effort to find proof, if it doesn't exist, can simply be dismissed as "well it's just too we…
If a third-world country controlled by rebels ran a "free and fair" election, where they "counted" the presidential ballots behind closed doors and eventually determined that the rebel dictator won the election....then by your logic, it would be absurd and unfair of the citizens to question those election results.
Also, here's some evidence you can look into that should have been enough to trigger more formal investigations: https://depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/antrim_michi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have read too many court documents over the last 10 years and I agree. Generally, you want to start out with your strongest statement. In this case, the strong argument is very easily legally defensible. It was very clear in context why Rudy was not pleading fraud because it wasn't the point he was making at that time. That's the strongest argument? So I wonder what exactly is the point of this lawsuit? I'm going t…
> When Rudy asks for discovery, it will either be provided or not. I suspect Dominion does not want to take it that far because any good lawyer can make a case for whatever they want given what discovery they get. Discovery is a two-way street, and if “any good lawyer can make a case for whatever they want” with it, that gives Rudy as much motive to avoid discovery as Dominion. In reality, facts matter, and even the…
Discovery on Rudy's side is likely to be boring or need a lot of generous reading to draw a conclusion of defamation.
Discovery on Dominion's side can get interesting. For example, can they prove that some part of the source code did indeed come from that Venezuelan company? If so, what does this mean? Can discovery prove connections between current or former officers and the Venezuelan company? What does that mean? How much of their claims do they need to prove to show that the statements have some basis in fact?
Turns out one of the heads of Dominion was affiliated with Antifa (whatever that means, I don't know.) Could they find that he accessed systems during the night of the election outside of his duties? I dunno.
I think it also turns out that a former Dominion officer went to work for Soros after the election. What does that mean? I dunno.
So I personally think there is a lot more interesting things to be found on the Dominion side.
If there was anything shady going on, they would have to be fucking morons to run it through the company. So chances are, they probably won't find anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious Question: Why is everyone assuming they're lying? And why doesn't anyone want to prove Biden won? From my perspective, the accusations he made were completely dodged by Dominion and by Democrats (since their guy was labeled the winner by the media). I'm not aware of any individual claim that was debunked via substantiating evidence. They refused to answer, refused to report it in the media, and ran full speed…
Burden of proof is on the accuser, and when the Trump side arrived in court over 60 times they didn’t bring any evidence . Occam’s razor says they don’t have any actual evidence, since if they did they would have brought it to court.
I get what the laws are and mostly why they are. I just think elections should be a system without question, regardless how ridiculous the claim is. It should be trivial to without question and verifiably prove them wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are kidding me, their defence in court is that they are bullshit artists, it’s just beyond parody. I’m starting to think we live in something far worse than idiocracy... Dominion at the very least should be demanding they remove the word “news” from all their branding if this is to fly.
Nope. It’s very clear to even people who like that shit that Tucker isn’t “the news”. It’s very clearly overblown rants about anything that went on recently. It’s clearly a talk show on a channel that has news during the day. Hannity is even more of a nutter bringing in panels to get peoples’ reactions to shit that went on. It’s the equivalent of /r/politics for boomers. A bunch of people getting riled up together ab…