Jump to content

Trump supporters?


Recommended Posts

What???? It's going to the SCOTUS? I do not believe you. Soulpatch said it won't go to the SCOTUS so it must be fake news! ;-)

 

SCOTUS has original jurisdiction between states. Simply filing it doesnt mean there will be oral arguments. Even John Coryn said yesterday this is without merits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What does that have to do with your original statement? You have a logical fallacy because I am not blaming Trump for the lack of containment AND that I am opposed to a mask in public.

 

 

 

You're brainwashed.

 

You're correct, it doesn't have anything to do with my original statement. It was an observation on your response, not necessarily related to my previous post.

 

Additionally, I was not assuming that you are opposed to wearing a mask. I haven't the faintest idea of your thoughts on mask wearing.

 

One can reasonably surmise that, from your original post, wearing a mask could be beneficial to one's health and well being and that was my response.

 

In essence, it seems your assumption is that I assumed you were anti-mask, which is not the case.

 

If I'm reading this correctly, what you are saying is:

 

You are not blaming Trump for the lack of containment.

Therefore, I say you must be anti-mask. (not true)

Conclusion: I am brainwashed.

 

I think this might be the logical fallacy here.

 

Although, the other day I had my ears cleaned and flushed, so perhaps some of the fluid leaked through into my brain cavity and did wash my gray matter!

 

Cheers, mate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SCOTUS has original jurisdiction between states. Simply filing it doesnt mean there will be oral arguments. Even John Coryn said yesterday this is without merits.

 

If you're wondering what John Cornyn would know about the legal merits.... he was previously the Attorney General of Texas before going to the Senate, and in 2005, was apparently under consideration for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Texas files suit directly to SCOTUS last night challenging election laws/procedure in MI, Wi, GA, and PA. In nutshell the amended election laws are unconstitutional by both existing laws in the states and a federal/constitutional election laws under Article II. Who enacts laws? The judiciary? The executive? Or the legislature? Civics 101.

 

Don't even have to prove fraud if the election process was tainted as unconstitutional...

 

What did you learn?

Link to post
Share on other sites
#TRUTH

 

Can I get a witness?

 

These aren't evidentiary hearings. These are essentially petitions to go ahead into discovery and evidentiary proceedings within the judiciary. This is why the SCOTUS exists and I can see them wanting to explore further, especially in PA, AZ and GA. Not really sure about Nevada. :)

 

What???? It's going to the SCOTUS? I do not believe you. Soulpatch said it won't go to the SCOTUS so it must be fake news! ;-)

 

What did you learn? This is a good moment of reflection. I am not a good resource for legal procedures or extensive research. I knew what would happen based on some logic and history. However, it appears that TexasDomes and Soulpatch have been 100% accurate on everything that has gone down. So kudos to them. I have to say that souls extensive knowledge of computer systems and TDS knowledge of the legal system have been exquisite and the utmost importance to this discussion.

Edited by Jim2Dokes
Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is epic btw.... I’m curious if it will continue into the next administration. God knows if there was a Bush thread, it would’ve made it through 8 years of Obama since he blamed him at every turn, despite the fact he was the one crushing people with taxes and other burdens.

 

As far as Trump/Biden, this is how it’s going down. I haven’t had a lot of confidence in the cases for two reasons. One has always been standing...it’s very vague who has standing in an election. Second, the Supreme Court often defers to the states for state-specific issues. But, we know there’s fraud for multiple reasons - 1. Jill Stein exposied it i. 2016, 2. Trump’s witnesses are showing it, 3. Dems don’t challenge election fraud, 4. Dems don’t believe in voter IDs, 5. Dems love illegal immigration...put all the pieces together. We’re not retards... we know who’s cheating.

 

The future is this though... Biden owns the Presidency and the GOP will hold the Senate. In 2022, Republicans will take the House and increase the Senate. Biden will take the fall for the economy and saying all sorts of socialist bs...or kamala...same thing... Nobody likes the way Dems divide people based on superficial characteristics like skin color, the way they play victim, the no-fun police, illegal immigration, and the lack of security whether it be military or local cops...thats why dems sucked in their house elections this year. So, by the time 2024 rolls around, the GOP will take the house and senate with Dan Crenshaw and Nikki Haley in the white house. That simple...

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is epic btw.... I’m curious if it will continue into the next administration. God knows if there was a Bush thread, it would’ve made it through 8 years of Obama since he blamed him at every turn, despite the fact he was the one crushing people with taxes and other burdens.

 

As far as Trump/Biden, this is how it’s going down. I haven’t had a lot of confidence in the cases for two reasons. One has always been standing...it’s very vague who has standing in an election. Second, the Supreme Court often defers to the states for state-specific issues. But, we know there’s fraud for multiple reasons - 1. Jill Stein exposied it i. 2016, 2. Trump’s witnesses are showing it, 3. Dems don’t challenge election fraud, 4. Dems don’t believe in voter IDs, 5. Dems love illegal immigration...put all the pieces together. We’re not retards... we know who’s cheating.

 

The future is this though... Biden owns the Presidency and the GOP will hold the Senate. In 2022, Republicans will take the House and increase the Senate. Biden will take the fall for the economy and saying all sorts of socialist bs...or kamala...same thing... Nobody likes the way Dems divide people based on superficial characteristics like skin color, the way they play victim, the no-fun police, illegal immigration, and the lack of security whether it be military or local cops...thats why dems sucked in their house elections this year. So, by the time 2024 rolls around, the GOP will take the house and senate with Dan Crenshaw and Nikki Haley in the white house. That simple...

 

Good luck, I see a “Biden Boom”, markets have already dictated that. You are right that GA will likely go right, although the crazy right Sidney Powell ect are not helping you. Biden will cut “some” student loans, push for a strong infrastructure package that Trump as well did but never followed through, and Biden will no doubt benefit from the surge of new employment from the COVID vaccines which right or not he will get credit for. You must read history, Hoover the devil, FDR the saint. Every history book, right or wrong, the left always lifts this country out of despair. Fact, and you simply can never disprove otherwise. Every republican president outside of Eisenhower in the last 100 years has caused a repression and or depression, you can’t disprove that, it’s fact.

 

Your party can’t do anything, they had power. They couldn’t come up with a healthcare bill that was better than Obamas. They are simply incompetent. You have a active, very active senator in Jim Jordan who witnessed people getting molested and never said anything, that’s your people. You have Romney, who you hate that is an actual decent republican. I would jump circles to have him as president versus Trump.

 

Bottom line, it’s clear we are both capitalist, I personally have made a lot of money under democrats and believe that that money flow under Trump was mostly due to Obama policies. As a manager I firmly believe what you leave behind is in place for a few years, you may not know this. Anyways, we probably agree on a lot, it’s just you are wrong historically. Democrats make us that moolah! Fact

 

You didn’t make tons of money under Obama? That’s your own fault for not investing heavily when he took office. Same story here. Sell everything, have fun! I’ll be heading to the bank! Buying big right now.

Edited by Jim2Dokes
Link to post
Share on other sites
Good luck, I see a “Biden Boom”, markets have already dictated that. You are right that GA will likely go right, although the crazy right Sidney Powell ect are not helping you. Biden will cut “some” student loans, push for a strong infrastructure package that Trump as well did but never followed through, and Biden will no doubt benefit from the surge of new employment from the COVID vaccines which right or not he will get credit for. You must read history, Hoover the devil, FDR the saint. Every history book, right or wrong, the left always lifts this country out of despair. Fact, and you simply can never disprove otherwise. Every republican president outside of Eisenhower in the last 100 years has caused a repression and or depression, you can’t disprove that, it’s fact.

 

You sound like Nancy Pelosi...wishful thinking. Good luck with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You sound like Nancy Pelosi...wishful thinking. Good luck with that.

 

Yep, sell everything now! I’m buying bigly! Just like I have done during every Democrat president reign. I make that money! It’s proven. You should read your history. I make money, money I got

 

giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952ad8573416bf18ec8f30b3d39c19a12e12ddf4631&rid=giphy.gif

 

You cry and complain about money, all you care about. It’s open season right now to get that money. It’s like a baby crying for a bottle that is in front of their face. Get it snowflake! Disney stock shot up 20 pts today, you didn’t see that coming I did. Up 70 at least some March. I saw it. Delta, cmon. Citi? Wha 39 was a bargain bam double boom. Chevron? Ha, easy money. Clearly, those are just a few I have been playing around with. But, sell go ahead.

 

I learned the hard way son, went bankrupt under the Bush years. I learned when republicans are in power you hold and or just wait to that collapse and you buy like crazy!

 

Nancy Pelosi is hella rich btw. Maybe she knows idk

 

Back it up, sell it all now and show your alliance to your people. Prove you are not just a **** talker! Sell all now! Your 401k ect. Do it! You say that Biden will crumble it, sell it or are you a snowflake?

Edited by Jim2Dokes
My
Link to post
Share on other sites
hmmm.......

 

If you’re curious about why the Solicitor General of Texas didn’t join in, it’s because that’s a subdivision of the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, and it wouldn’t make sense for some independent joinder by an employee.

 

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/divisions/office-solicitor-general

 

You got the lack of standing right. Personally I thought SCOTUS might have waited until Monday after the Electoral College vote and then dismissed for mootness if they didn’t want to call out the current lack of standing.

 

For anyone who’s interested (and there may not be any) standing generally deals with who is able to bring a lawsuit because of an existing controversy between that person/entity and the defendant. If at any time the controversy ceases to exist (like if the Electoral College votes, while the requested relief was preventing that vote) the issue would be mooted, and the plaintiff would lose standing, resulting in dismissal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you’re curious about why the Solicitor General of Texas didn’t join in, it’s because that’s a subdivision of the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, and it wouldn’t make sense for some independent joinder by an employee.

 

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/divisions/office-solicitor-general

 

You got the lack of standing right. Personally I thought SCOTUS might have waited until Monday after the Electoral College vote and then dismissed for mootness if they didn’t want to call out the current lack of standing.

 

For anyone who’s interested (and there may not be any) standing generally deals with who is able to bring a lawsuit because of an existing controversy between that person/entity and the defendant. If at any time the controversy ceases to exist (like if the Electoral College votes, while the requested relief was preventing that vote) the issue would be mooted, and the plaintiff would lose standing, resulting in dismissal.

 

I read a good article on National Review. lhttps://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/time-to-step-back-from-the-brink/

 

It’s hilarious to me that these “red” states would go after these other states voting practices. I like that the article points out that California could go after Missouri for their practices for example. That the republicans set a precedent for a national voting system and eliminating state rights. What is also hilarious is that the current voting laws in Wisconsin, a state these clowns sued were setup by Scott Walker and the gop state legislature. They have everything they ever wanted in Wi, gerrymandered to hell, voter Id, limited polling stations, everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All this concerted effort by Trump et al to change the results of this election, and it has been a pretty widespread and determined effort.

 

Imagine, if you will, if they would have put this same concerted effort into developing and enforcing an effective program against Covid from day one.

 

How many lives would have been saved?

 

A virus with a 40% asymptomatic infection rate? Contain that? It's not ebola or herpes we're trying to contain..

 

You're making a pretty good argument for everyone to wear a mask.

 

What does that have to do with your original statement? You have a logical fallacy because I am not blaming Trump for the lack of containment AND that I am opposed to a mask in public.

 

 

 

You're brainwashed.

 

You're correct, it doesn't have anything to do with my original statement. It was an observation on your response, not necessarily related to my previous post.

 

Additionally, I was not assuming that you are opposed to wearing a mask. I haven't the faintest idea of your thoughts on mask wearing.

 

One can reasonably surmise that, from your original post, wearing a mask could be beneficial to one's health and well being and that was my response.

 

In essence, it seems your assumption is that I assumed you were anti-mask, which is not the case.

 

If I'm reading this correctly, what you are saying is:

 

You are not blaming Trump for the lack of containment.

Therefore, I say you must be anti-mask. (not true)

Conclusion: I am brainwashed.

 

I think this might be the logical fallacy here.

 

Although, the other day I had my ears cleaned and flushed, so perhaps some of the fluid leaked through into my brain cavity and did wash my gray matter!

 

Cheers, mate.

 

No it's not cheers mate. I made you look stupid by pointing out how ridiculous your opinion is, so you brought up another point to save your liberal face.

 

I became an antagonist so you thought you could take a shot at me in regards to mask wearing and now you want to convolute your stupidity further by babbling about brain matter and then telling me that you understand I'm not an anti-masker.

 

That's clearly where you were trying to go.

 

Cheers, hah. Whatever. You did a half *** job back tracking, and switching gears to get out of this without admitting your opinion is terribly biased and rooted in utter disdain for Trump and nothing else.

Edited by JTennant
Link to post
Share on other sites

You lost me at "believe that that money flow under Trump was mostly due to Obama policies." But you do you big money. lol

 

 

Good luck, I see a “Biden Boom”, markets have already dictated that. You are right that GA will likely go right, although the crazy right Sidney Powell ect are not helping you. Biden will cut “some” student loans, push for a strong infrastructure package that Trump as well did but never followed through, and Biden will no doubt benefit from the surge of new employment from the COVID vaccines which right or not he will get credit for. You must read history, Hoover the devil, FDR the saint. Every history book, right or wrong, the left always lifts this country out of despair. Fact, and you simply can never disprove otherwise. Every republican president outside of Eisenhower in the last 100 years has caused a repression and or depression, you can’t disprove that, it’s fact.

 

Your party can’t do anything, they had power. They couldn’t come up with a healthcare bill that was better than Obamas. They are simply incompetent. You have a active, very active senator in Jim Jordan who witnessed people getting molested and never said anything, that’s your people. You have Romney, who you hate that is an actual decent republican. I would jump circles to have him as president versus Trump.

 

Bottom line, it’s clear we are both capitalist, I personally have made a lot of money under democrats and believe that that money flow under Trump was mostly due to Obama policies. As a manager I firmly believe what you leave behind is in place for a few years, you may not know this. Anyways, we probably agree on a lot, it’s just you are wrong historically. Democrats make us that moolah! Fact

 

You didn’t make tons of money under Obama? That’s your own fault for not investing heavily when he took office. Same story here. Sell everything, have fun! I’ll be heading to the bank! Buying big right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No it's not cheers mate. I made you look stupid by pointing out how ridiculous your opinion is, so you brought up another point to save your liberal face.

 

I became an antagonist so you thought you could take a shot at me in regards to mask wearing and now you want to convolute your stupidity further by babbling about brain matter and then telling me that you understand I'm not an anti-masker.

 

That's clearly where you were trying to go.

 

Cheers, hah. Whatever. You did a half *** job back tracking, and switching gears to get out of this without admitting your opinion is terribly biased and rooted in utter disdain for Trump and nothing else.

 

Dude, it clearly appears as though you have a reading comprehension problem. Or perhaps, it just all that anger welling up inside you clouding your thought processes. Or maybe a combination of the two.

 

Insults and name calling are not the hallmarks of an intelligent conversation, although I have to admit, I did get a chuckle out of 'liberal face'. I'm finished wasting any more of my time with your useless blather, so respond if you must but I won't be reading it.

 

And by the way, 'Cheers Mate' is a common complimentary closing or valediction, similar to regards or sincerely at the close of a letter. If you want to read some snark into that, it's certainly your prerogative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This analysis was brought to you by the “forensic specialist” that presented conclusions based on his analysis of counties that were actually in another state. I’ve not done any homework on this released information, but he doesn’t start out with the best reputation for accuracy in data or conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This analysis was brought to you by the “forensic specialist” that presented conclusions based on his analysis of counties that were actually in another state. I’ve not done any homework on this released information, but he doesn’t start out with the best reputation for accuracy in data or conclusions.

 

Okay. Let us know what you think after reading through all of the evidence and receipts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What passage(s) of the audit do you feel like are most damning and irrefutable from a cybersecurity perspective? My bias is towards those elements that will spell out in functional detail how the features in the system are architected, so that I can have a clear daisy-chain of "using these capabilities in this manner allow the outputs to be corrupted in a way that these current protections do not guard against" as opposed to "10,000 instances of fraudulent results" with no explanation of how they were determined to be fraudulent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What passage(s) of the audit do you feel like are most damning and irrefutable from a cybersecurity perspective? My bias is towards those elements that will spell out in functional detail how the features in the system are architected, so that I can have a clear daisy-chain of "using these capabilities in this manner allow the outputs to be corrupted in a way that these current protections do not guard against" as opposed to "10,000 instances of fraudulent results" with no explanation of how they were determined to be fraudulent.

 

The thousands of deleted adjudicated ballots, for one. Weird that these ballots were only deleted from this current election and not prior ones. Why would that be? And why would somebody [unsuccessfully] try to delete the current voter roll? Or, the online access to these machines to make updates. That is against national election protocol. But to answer your question, I think the 68% error rate is very alarming and is probably the most damning part of this forensic audit--and can be easily replicated.

 

Not sure you'll get the specific architectural outline you want as a lot of that was redacted for copyright/trademarked purposes laid out in Dominion's contract.

 

Arizona has just subpoenaed for a full audit of Dominion machines based off Antrim's findings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The thousands of deleted adjudicated ballots, for one.

Are you able to link to the passage where the mechanics of this are broken down or why this is a problem?

 

And why would somebody [unsuccessfully] try to delete the current voter roll?

 

Bring more context and I can offer an opinion relevant to this situation but my reaction to "why would some unsuccessfully try to destroy (not delete, which is typically a much different thing) critical data in the commission of a crime" in general is that they wouldn't. Anybody with a base-level of proficiency in software would successfully destroy something as problematic and easily manageable as data proving their crimes.

 

Or, the online access to these machines to make updates. That is against national election protocol.

 

Can you link to this protocol? And, I'm sure you can see this coming, can you refer me to the passage(s) that detail the process of identifying that the online access existed and why it was problematic?

 

But to answer your question, I think the 68% error rate is very alarming and is probably the most damning part of this forensic audit--and can be easily replicated.

 

Can you provide more context on why this is alarming? I can understand why a generic figure like "68% error rate" would be interpreted as alarming by the layperson but have worked enough with software to understand context is key. Specifically, the nature of the error (e.g., successfully recording a vote vs. recording a custom variable that is used for tracking transaction speed in order to inform future performance improvements) will tell us if it's something that could have thrown the election or merely the sort of "Undocumented Feature" (aka, bug) found in every software application.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure you'll get the specific architectural outline you want as a lot of that was redacted for copyright/trademarked purposes laid out in Dominion's contract.

 

Sorry, wasn't clear. I wasn't asking for systems architecture (which would be the IP that would be redacted) but the 'play by play' explaining how procedurally the interaction with the user and subsequent processing of inputs/data played out and why this proves the system produced invalid/fraudulent results that skewed the election.

This won't be protected/redacted and is standard to any regulatory/forensic audits of software applications/platforms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, wasn't clear. I wasn't asking for systems architecture (which would be the IP that would be redacted) but the 'play by play' explaining how procedurally the interaction with the user and subsequent processing of inputs/data played out and why this proves the system produced invalid/fraudulent results that skewed the election.

This won't be protected/redacted and is standard to any regulatory/forensic audits of software applications/platforms.

 

It's all in the above attached document. I'm not the subject of debate, nor is my opinion on trial. Look at the evidence and debate that.

 

68% error rate is alarming because it kicks those "errored" ballots into a category in which a outside user can adjudicate intent. Well, lets go look at all of those adjudicated ballots then. Guess, what? They've all been deleted. Why would that be? I have no logical answer as to why that would be other than for nefarious reasons.

 

Go after the evidence and read the actual audit. I'm interested in seeing your 'non anecdotal' response to actual hard data obtained by this forensic audit. But you have to actually read it first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, the possibility of a 68 percent error rate is alarming.

 

It is. If you don't think that error rate is high, you're not actually considering things outside of your silo.

 

That said, the question is how did that rate get calculated, and is it scientifically accurate.

 

If this was information that the court considered unreliable because the "expert" did not meet the legal (Daubert) standard for an admissable expert report, that's all I need to hear.

 

The Y2K bug was alarming too. And yet the computers of the world didn't crash. The Mayan apocalypse in 2012 was alarming. But we're still here (more or less).

 

But if you can't have faith in the dozens and dozens of judges from both parties who dismissed these lawsuits, then there's nothing that anyone can say to you. You're committed to the cause of denial.

 

Remember, the efforts to establish impropriety in court, even using this information as "evidence" has only a 1.6666 percent success rate.

 

The cases saying this is NONSENSE and wholly without basis in legitimate, credible evidence evidence are 98.3333 percent of the cases.

 

That tells me that the dump of information was, with a 98.3333 percent certainty, presented in a way that was not accepted by the academic or scientific community, and the conclusions drawn from that evidence were not based on a methodology that would be useful, rather than misleading and at best confusing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...