@gjohnsit @gjohnsit

Let us hope that Sneera's position in the OMB is a silent one. I can't stand to read anything she says,, but listening to her is much worse.

Jimmy has been having fun exposing Sneera. Hillary is running a lot of this crap behind the scenes. As is Obomber.

From this morning.

...proper credit.."

@gjohnsit

missed this. Go figure.

...proper credit.."

@fire with fire @fire with fire
Many decades ago when I ran with some shady people a burglar told me "Any lock can be defeated." For instance later in life my neighbor was burglarized even though he had three of the most advanced locks. They sawed out the middle of the door. Someone else showed me on some houses you could pull off some siding and punch through the walls. If you think it through it's obvious that any barrier at all has its domain, or range of being, and you just have to know how to work outside that range. Any lock can be defeated, even if it's coding.

But it does not follow that the election was conducted honestly.

Trump and his various staff aides have said silly shit from hell since before taking office and there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of what they assert. I think it more likely that they are dumping bogus arguments on the media as part of the ongoing fraud of American politics as demonstrated by Russiagate.

Saying that Trump's claims are just as bogus as Russiagate does not really say anything good -- just that both parties are led by lying sacks of shit. But I already knew that.

I have seen the distinction made between the general election and the primary before. On that occasion some earnest message board character pointed out that the Dem cheating took place in States with Dem Secretaries of State. Busy fellows those State Election Czars. It also reminds of the guy on this board who posts tons of arguments proving that Trump's arguments are bogus. He even offered 250 bucks to anybody who could prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that this election was fixed.

I'm looking for someone to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the elections of 2000, 2004 and 2016 were fair and honest contests with no cheating of any kind. It would be a great relief to see that proof.

Trillions with a T dollars turn on who runs the Federal Government. In my job, I am required to watch Cyber Security Videos -- 47 of them so far. The one common thread through all of those lessons was that YOU CANNOT PREVENT HACKING. All you can do is make it more difficult. I laughed my ass off upon reading that old canard from Debunkers Unlimited -- it would take too many people to make such a big plot work.

This is the digital age and the money at stake is for all practical purposes infinite. So the budget for stealing a Presidential election is also infinite.

My own paranoia is that Trump is doing his job as assigned to the bitter end. He pisses off "liberals" and thereby disarms them politically. The Dems spent all four years fucking with his personality, and they are still fucking with his personality as he continues doing what he has done his whole public life -- being the biggest jerk in the history of the world. Not the most evil -- not by a long shot. Just the biggest jerk ever.

And as a jerk, he is going into exile carrying the blame for everything wrong in the world. Getting your panties into a bunch, yet again, over the wild shit he says is what he wants you to do.

From Russiagate to this very day, even on this very board, there are lots of voices who want to tell other "progressives" about how bad Trump is. Still. Go figure. With this exit strategy he discredits all skepticism of vote counting. Just as he discredits all skepticism of the Covid Narrative. Meticulously proving that "we" should not "buy into" the current story coming from Trump is very easy to do -- but that does not make it worth one's time to do so.
.

.

TDS Syllogism

Election voting is insecure
.
Insecure voting led to getting rid of Trump
.
.

Ergo: Complaining about insecure voting is pro-Trump

@wouldsman just to add to my guess that any cheating likely benefitted Trump and Dems,
there was a great reply yesterday to a thread here that showed that exit polling seems to consistently show that the more conservative candidates almost always outperform exit polls.
Considering that most establishment Dems are working hard to push the D party further and further to the right it is not hard to believe that the D's are happy to be handicapped by 5-10% in any given race.
If HRC was cheated in 2016 why would she even care? The country would be run by a personal friend who have fairly similar positions and interests.

back when Kennedy (young Bobby?) and maybe Papantonio and a whole group of others were working on figuring out what happened in Ohio in 2004. They made a few interesting observations:
1- if you are going to try rig an election, you don't do ONE thing in ONE place. You do lots and lots of little things in different ways in different places. They may or may not be closely coordinated. Election officials in different places may autonomously engage in different forms of cheating knowing that it is an incredibly close election and that they are in a swing state.
2- often the cheating takes place where you are already winning. It is easier to take a precinct or county that you are going to win 70-30 and make it 85-15 then it is to go somewhere you are losing 15-85 and cheat your way to 70-30. The places you are already winning tend to be run by officials who would turn a blind eye to anything suspicious and the local media wouldn't bother to poke into details.
3- it might take months and even years of careful analysis to figure out how and where the cheating happened, and it might never be totally provable.
My recollection of Ohio 2004 was that they were able to look at certain elements of the vote and compare them to the Presidential election. That year there was a ballot referendum on gay marriage and there was a very conservative judge in a statewide race (IIRC). What they were able to show was that in most precincts those votes would either match or mirror the presidential race almost to the number. So in 70% of precincts a vote yes on gay marriage meant a vote against Bush. So you could see these patterns- 70-30 on gay marriage, 30-70 on Bush. But then there would be these outliers where it would be 30-70 on gay marriage which would tell you that Bush should have gotten 70% of the vote there. But in fact he would have gotten 85%.
This is just all from memory. I read up on the subject several years after the election and I think many people believed that not only did Kerry win Ohio but he likely won a couple of other states too.
I don't doubt that this election had all sorts of cheating going on. I highly doubt that much of it harmed Trumps cause. I would guess most of it benefitted Trump. Including the part of the Dems doing whatever it is that they did to defeat Bernie in the primary, giving Trump a much easier path to reelection.
Considering that several issues that had 70% support (govt run healthcare, pot legalization, 15$ min wage)were on the table, had Trump chosen to pick up one of those issues he would have breezed to victory.
I think Caitlin J is correct that elections aren't a competition to see who can do a better job serving us, but rather a choreographed event where the two parties work together to get us to accept worse and worse conditions.

@wouldsman
You can also hide election fraud in places where you lose - ie. no one would look if Trump lost Detroit 70-30 rather than 75-25. You just have to be further up the line. But FL 2000 was even easier - Kathleen Harris simply chose numbers that sounded reasonable and declared Bush the winner. No one but wacky Rudy and the Log Lady got coverage when they questioned this election, so some people could say anything they wanted. (this does not say they did. The huge vote total - Biden's total, 10 million more votes than Obama 2008, the previous record, was much more likely caused by the virus allowing much more mail in ballots)
BTW Biden got 13% more votes than Obama 2008, but Trump got 14% more than he did in 2016. Trump wasn't cheated, he lost because it was so easy to vote this time even people who would normally not bother voted, and broke 2-1 for Biden.

back when Kennedy (young Bobby?) and maybe Papantonio and a whole group of others were working on figuring out what happened in Ohio in 2004. They made a few interesting observations:
1- if you are going to try rig an election, you don't do ONE thing in ONE place. You do lots and lots of little things in different ways in different places. They may or may not be closely coordinated. Election officials in different places may autonomously engage in different forms of cheating knowing that it is an incredibly close election and that they are in a swing state.
2- often the cheating takes place where you are already winning. It is easier to take a precinct or county that you are going to win 70-30 and make it 85-15 then it is to go somewhere you are losing 15-85 and cheat your way to 70-30. The places you are already winning tend to be run by officials who would turn a blind eye to anything suspicious and the local media wouldn't bother to poke into details.
3- it might take months and even years of careful analysis to figure out how and where the cheating happened, and it might never be totally provable.
My recollection of Ohio 2004 was that they were able to look at certain elements of the vote and compare them to the Presidential election. That year there was a ballot referendum on gay marriage and there was a very conservative judge in a statewide race (IIRC). What they were able to show was that in most precincts those votes would either match or mirror the presidential race almost to the number. So in 70% of precincts a vote yes on gay marriage meant a vote against Bush. So you could see these patterns- 70-30 on gay marriage, 30-70 on Bush. But then there would be these outliers where it would be 30-70 on gay marriage which would tell you that Bush should have gotten 70% of the vote there. But in fact he would have gotten 85%.
This is just all from memory. I read up on the subject several years after the election and I think many people believed that not only did Kerry win Ohio but he likely won a couple of other states too.
I don't doubt that this election had all sorts of cheating going on. I highly doubt that much of it harmed Trumps cause. I would guess most of it benefitted Trump. Including the part of the Dems doing whatever it is that they did to defeat Bernie in the primary, giving Trump a much easier path to reelection.
Considering that several issues that had 70% support (govt run healthcare, pot legalization, 15$ min wage)were on the table, had Trump chosen to pick up one of those issues he would have breezed to victory.
I think Caitlin J is correct that elections aren't a competition to see who can do a better job serving us, but rather a choreographed event where the two parties work together to get us to accept worse and worse conditions.

@wouldsman

2- often the cheating takes place where you are already winning. It is easier to take a precinct or county that you are going to win 70-30 and make it 85-15 then it is to go somewhere you are losing 15-85 and cheat your way to 70-30. The places you are already winning tend to be run by officials who would turn a blind eye to anything suspicious and the local media wouldn't bother to poke into details.

We were in one of the most Republican counties in FL, where nobody had run for local office as a Democrat for ten years.

back when Kennedy (young Bobby?) and maybe Papantonio and a whole group of others were working on figuring out what happened in Ohio in 2004. They made a few interesting observations:
1- if you are going to try rig an election, you don't do ONE thing in ONE place. You do lots and lots of little things in different ways in different places. They may or may not be closely coordinated. Election officials in different places may autonomously engage in different forms of cheating knowing that it is an incredibly close election and that they are in a swing state.
2- often the cheating takes place where you are already winning. It is easier to take a precinct or county that you are going to win 70-30 and make it 85-15 then it is to go somewhere you are losing 15-85 and cheat your way to 70-30. The places you are already winning tend to be run by officials who would turn a blind eye to anything suspicious and the local media wouldn't bother to poke into details.
3- it might take months and even years of careful analysis to figure out how and where the cheating happened, and it might never be totally provable.
My recollection of Ohio 2004 was that they were able to look at certain elements of the vote and compare them to the Presidential election. That year there was a ballot referendum on gay marriage and there was a very conservative judge in a statewide race (IIRC). What they were able to show was that in most precincts those votes would either match or mirror the presidential race almost to the number. So in 70% of precincts a vote yes on gay marriage meant a vote against Bush. So you could see these patterns- 70-30 on gay marriage, 30-70 on Bush. But then there would be these outliers where it would be 30-70 on gay marriage which would tell you that Bush should have gotten 70% of the vote there. But in fact he would have gotten 85%.
This is just all from memory. I read up on the subject several years after the election and I think many people believed that not only did Kerry win Ohio but he likely won a couple of other states too.
I don't doubt that this election had all sorts of cheating going on. I highly doubt that much of it harmed Trumps cause. I would guess most of it benefitted Trump. Including the part of the Dems doing whatever it is that they did to defeat Bernie in the primary, giving Trump a much easier path to reelection.
Considering that several issues that had 70% support (govt run healthcare, pot legalization, 15$ min wage)were on the table, had Trump chosen to pick up one of those issues he would have breezed to victory.
I think Caitlin J is correct that elections aren't a competition to see who can do a better job serving us, but rather a choreographed event where the two parties work together to get us to accept worse and worse conditions.

@wetterau  
That’s pretty much what I think too.

Hi, I've enjoyed your comments for a long time. Thank you.
I disagree about "no evidence." Have you read the Powell filings and the attachments? I find them convincing, a preponderance of evidence, as they say. I'm from New York, and I have no use for Trump or his policies. It is easy to dismiss everything he says or is connected with. Too easy. The democrats take no responsibility for the conditions which led to his presidency. They are not figures of rectitude.
It is ironic and unfortunate (IMO) that, in this issue (the election), Trump (IMO) is right. I don't think an impartial judge could conclude from the evidence that the election wasn't stolen. This is a real problem, because a large portion of the public agrees that it was. If the evidence is ignored and half the public concludes that voting is meaningless, who knows what will happen? Probably not a good future for American democracy.
Hopefully there will be an open and extensive airing of the evidence. Hopefully the massive collusion of the main stream media will soften and allow differing points of view. It isn't likely, but one can hope.
Thanks again for your hard work. Respectfully, etc.