IMO, the Fix is in

[Garmel]

An election official's "word" doesn't doesn't mean he's the one that is correct. Besides, he's saying the machines are not connected to the net and I know that is hogwash. They can be. Besides, none of this changes the fact that these machines are easily hackable on or off the net.

 

[Seattle Husker]

An election official's "word" doesn't doesn't mean he's the one that is correct. Besides, he's saying the machines are not connected to the net and I know that is hogwash. Besides, none of this changes the fact that these machines are easily hackable on or off the net.

Here is the SOS responding to the claim of voting machines connected to the internet, specifically in Antrim County whose Elections Director is a Republican.

Michigan uses all paper ballots, which are counted by tabulator machines. Vote tallies are printed and the paper record of the tallies as well as the paper ballots are stored in secure locations after counting is finished. The machines are not connected to the internet until all counting is finished and copies of the tally have been printed. Then some jurisdictions may connect a machine to send UNOFFICIAL results to the county clerk, while a copy of the paper tally is also driven to the county clerk.

I'm calling out Antrim County specifically because they completed a hand recount that confirmed the certified tally with a marginal difference typical of hand recounts.

Previously Certified Results
Trump: 9,748
Biden: 5,960

Hand-Tallied Audit Results (preliminary)
Trump: 9,759
Biden: 5,959

 

[Garmel]

Here is the SOS responding to the claim of voting machines connected to the internet, specifically in Antrim County whose Elections Director is a Republican.



I'm calling out Antrim County specifically because they completed a hand recount that confirmed the certified tally with a marginal difference typical of hand recounts.

Previously Certified Results
Trump: 9,748
Biden: 5,960

Hand-Tallied Audit Results (preliminary)
Trump: 9,759
Biden: 5,959

Some are hooked up and some aren't. Allied Security never said that the Antrim machines were online there so she could be right.

However, they can be. Here's the guy you trust:

Senator Johnson: "...but those tabulators are connected on Election Day 'cause that's how they transmit the data to the counties and also into the official -- uhm

Krebs: "In some cases, yes, sir."

Like I said a couple of times already, that doesn't change the fact the machines are vulnerable.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Stat guys that support fraud and Dominion data switching and have written statemnts for Trumps' team:

1) Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia- Check out this guy. He's one of the most renowned cyber crime experts in America.

In an open letter to the NYT, 59 top experts disagreed with his analysis. And regardless of whether you trust your one guy or my 59 guys, it is noteworthy that your guy didn't even say that anything bad DID happen -- just that the system is vulnerable such that something bad COULD happen.

2) Dr Shiva Ayyaadurai- MIT Professor

This is guy who came up with the "swing-vote scatterplots" analysis I referred to in my post above. It has been rebutted over and over, but here is my favorite. I like how this video concludes by showing not only that the analysis is bad, but also WHY it is bad -- and it is something we all learned about in Algebra I (high school for some, middle school for others).

3) Philip Waldron (US Army-Retired) served over 30 years as a U.S. Military Intelligence Officer

You mean the guy who was introduced as a statistician at the unofficial PA hearing and had to correct the record by saying "I am not a statistician. I’m a combat officer and didn’t do well in math."? He's thrown out dozens of conspiracy theories about things that went wrong with the election. Each time he's been questioned in front of a panel (including that unofficial PA hearing, the official one in GA, and at least one or two others), he's been unable to offer even the most rudimentary details. Thus, there is nothing to rebut.

This was ruled due to no standing (which I understand) and nothing to do with stats.

Fair enough. But if they were concerned that there's been significant fraud, they've had multiple opportunities to intervene and have declined to do so each time. Doesn't that tell you anything? Do you really thing SCOTUS is looking at strong evidence of fraud and just shrugging?

 

[OUBubba]

Here is the SOS responding to the claim of voting machines connected to the internet, specifically in Antrim County whose Elections Director is a Republican.



I'm calling out Antrim County specifically because they completed a hand recount that confirmed the certified tally with a marginal difference typical of hand recounts.

Previously Certified Results
Trump: 9,748
Biden: 5,960

Hand-Tallied Audit Results (preliminary)
Trump: 9,759
Biden: 5,959

OUch... that should leave a mark, at least on someone who had any scruples.

 

[OUBubba]

You mean the guy who was introduced as a statistician at the unofficial PA hearing and had to correct the record by saying "I am not a statistician. I’m a combat officer and didn’t do well in math."? He's thrown out dozens of conspiracy theories about things that went wrong with the election. Each time he's been questioned in front of a panel (including that unofficial PA hearing, the official one in GA, and at least one or two others), he's been unable to offer even the most rudimentary details. Thus, there is nothing to rebut.

Is this the one Sidney Powell referred to as "Spyder"?

 

[NJlonghorn]

Is this the one Sidney Powell referred to as "Spyder"?

I don't think Powell has identified Spyder publicly, but WaPo has reported that Spyder is an army vehicle mechanic. Thus, it doesn't seem to be the same guy.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Is this the one Sidney Powell referred to as "Spyder"?

No. Spyder was revealed in a filing snafu by Powell's team in which his name was in the header information of the document. I posted about him a few pages back. He was touted as a former Military Intelligence Analyst but the military had no record of him ever completing the course and the battalion he cited was a training battallion. That same guy had previously failed out of his Army medic MOS and after 10 years in was discharged because it was determined he was not promotable as a Vehicle Mechanic. He was formerly associated with Russell Ramsland's company and now bills himself as a Cybersecurity Expert. Unfortunately, he said the notoriety he's received will force him to close his consulting practice and move.

I feel for the guy but his political activism (he was Pete Session's expert in 2018 when he claimed he lost due to fraud) is simply coming home to roost. You better be on the up and up before you throw yourself into overturning an Presidential election.

 

[Garmel]

In an open letter to the NYT, 59 top experts disagreed with his analysis. And regardless of whether you trust your one guy or my 59 guys, it is noteworthy that your guy didn't even say that anything bad DID happen -- just that the system is vulnerable such that something bad COULD happen.



This is guy who came up with the "swing-vote scatterplots" analysis I referred to in my post above. It has been rebutted over and over, but here is my favorite. I like how this video concludes by showing not only that the analysis is bad, but also WHY it is bad -- and it is something we all learned about in Algebra I (high school for some, middle school for others).



You mean the guy who was introduced as a statistician at the unofficial PA hearing and had to correct the record by saying "I am not a statistician. I’m a combat officer and didn’t do well in math."? He's thrown out dozens of conspiracy theories about things that went wrong with the election. Each time he's been questioned in front of a panel (including that unofficial PA hearing, the official one in GA, and at least one or two others), he's been unable to offer even the most rudimentary details. Thus, there is nothing to rebut.



Fair enough. But if they were concerned that there's been significant fraud, they've had multiple opportunities to intervene and have declined to do so each time. Doesn't that tell you anything? Do you really thing SCOTUS is looking at strong evidence of fraud and just shrugging?

In an open letter to the NYT, 59 top experts disagreed with his analysis. And regardless of whether you trust your one guy or my 59 guys, it is noteworthy that your guy didn't even say that anything bad DID happen -- just that the system is vulnerable such that something bad COULD happen.



This is guy who came up with the "swing-vote scatterplots" analysis I referred to in my post above. It has been rebutted over and over, but here is my favorite. I like how this video concludes by showing not only that the analysis is bad, but also WHY it is bad -- and it is something we all learned about in Algebra I (high school for some, middle school for others).



You mean the guy who was introduced as a statistician at the unofficial PA hearing and had to correct the record by saying "I am not a statistician. I’m a combat officer and didn’t do well in math."? He's thrown out dozens of conspiracy theories about things that went wrong with the election. Each time he's been questioned in front of a panel (including that unofficial PA hearing, the official one in GA, and at least one or two others), he's been unable to offer even the most rudimentary details. Thus, there is nothing to rebut.



Fair enough. But if they were concerned that there's been significant fraud, they've had multiple opportunities to intervene and have declined to do so each time. Doesn't that tell you anything? Do you really thing SCOTUS is looking at strong evidence of fraud and just shrugging?

1) Maybe I'm missing something but i don't see where Navid was the subject of a debunking in that article. Maybe I missed it because I read it fast. I thought the 2.7 million figure Trump had was from some internet guy. I'd have to check to make sure.

2) "Matt Parker is a stand-up comedian, #1-best-selling maths author and person who makes videos for the internet. Originally a maths teacher from Australia, Matt now lives in the UK but travels more than he probably should." Part time stat gut who had a 1 big book but nothing else. Looking at his "football" complaint he sounds like a crank. Just because you and a few don't like Shiva's analysis doesn't make it fact. I believe in it.

3) You'll have to give me a link for that Waldron one. Sounds like MSM **** to me. Could also be self-deprecating humor.

4) If you think SCOTUS wants to touch this you're mistaken. The only way we could get them involved is if we got into the machines and had enough evidence to overturn the election. However, with what we see with Arizona the chance of that happening is slim and none.

This stuff you're giving me sounds a lot like the "50 former intel officers said that the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation. Case closed" Nothing here that you posted here changes my mind about the math guys on Trump's team although you did come up with a good analysis of Cicchetti's work and his probabilities are probably off to a certain extent.

 

[4th_floor]

I'll ask you to quit calling me out. I've had you blocked since the " I didn't say fraud" fiasco and I don't care about interacting with you. These statements don't show or prove anything except they don't want to be sued. Lin Wood wrote a nasty letter to Smartmatic. Does this prove anything? Smartmatic in my opinion doesn't have much to stand on. Fox News and Newsmax should have told them to take a hike. Smartmatic was there during the Venezuelan elections. We'll see how the court handles it.

Btw, here's Wood's letter:

I think you misunderstand an important part of the ignore feature.

 

[Garmel]

I think you misunderstand an important part of the ignore feature.

You're right.

 

[horninchicago]

I think you misunderstand an important part of the ignore feature.

You're right.

Occasionally, mistakenly, I hit the Show Ignored Content thing and regret it. I never reply to those dolts, though. Garmel, come on, man! Lol

 

[OUBubba]

Occasionally, mistakenly, I hit the Show Ignored Content thing and regret it. I never reply to those dolts, though. Garmel, come on, man! Lol

Preach! I’m like a church of Christ heaven attendee, only certain posters see me.

 

[iatrogenic]

In an open letter to the NYT, 59 top experts disagreed with his analysis. And regardless of whether you trust your one guy or my 59 guys, it is noteworthy that your guy didn't even say that anything bad DID happen -- just that the system is vulnerable such that something bad COULD happen.



This is guy who came up with the "swing-vote scatterplots" analysis I referred to in my post above. It has been rebutted over and over, but here is my favorite. I like how this video concludes by showing not only that the analysis is bad, but also WHY it is bad -- and it is something we all learned about in Algebra I (high school for some, middle school for others).



You mean the guy who was introduced as a statistician at the unofficial PA hearing and had to correct the record by saying "I am not a statistician. I’m a combat officer and didn’t do well in math."? He's thrown out dozens of conspiracy theories about things that went wrong with the election. Each time he's been questioned in front of a panel (including that unofficial PA hearing, the official one in GA, and at least one or two others), he's been unable to offer even the most rudimentary details. Thus, there is nothing to rebut.



Fair enough. But if they were concerned that there's been significant fraud, they've had multiple opportunities to intervene and have declined to do so each time. Doesn't that tell you anything? Do you really thing SCOTUS is looking at strong evidence of fraud and just shrugging?

In an open letter to the NYT, 59 top experts disagreed with his analysis. And regardless of whether you trust your one guy or my 59 guys, it is noteworthy that your guy didn't even say that anything bad DID happen -- just that the system is vulnerable such that something bad COULD happen.

That looks legit; a fish wrap that has not only repeatedly failed to report the truth, but also intentionally lies on behalf of Democrats

By the way, how do you find 59 of "the top computer scientists"? Is there a computer science Olympics? I do note that none of the Gold Medal winners denied that there was fraud, they just said Trump's evidence was lacking.

 

[Monahorns]

Top 59 Democratic donors who are computer scientists?

 

[AC]

Situation Update, Dec. 23rd - Trump chooses DECLASS option; readies epic doc dump
Check this out from yesterday.

 

[Mr. Deez]

New York Post says to give it up and stop risking the Senate. Link.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I don't know why I'm still wasting my time with this, but I'll take one last crack.

1) Maybe I'm missing something but i don't see where Navid was the subject of a debunking in that article. Maybe I missed it because I read it fast. I thought the 2.7 million figure Trump had was from some internet guy. I'd have to check to make sure.

It is true that the NYT article does not mention Navid Keshavarz-Nia by name. However, it does make oblique references along the lines of “some people are saying” and then rebut the points Keshavarz-Nia was making. If that’s not good enough for you, how about this, which is an explicit rebuttal by one of the sources that Keshavarz-Nia himself cited.

2) "Matt Parker is a stand-up comedian, #1-best-selling maths author and person who makes videos for the internet. Originally a maths teacher from Australia, Matt now lives in the UK but travels more than he probably should." Part time stat gut who had a 1 big book but nothing else. Looking at his "football" complaint he sounds like a crank. Just because you and a few don't like Shiva's analysis doesn't make it fact. I believe in it.

The flaws in Dr. Ayyaadurai's analysis can be easily understood by anyone who has mastered Algebra I. I like Matt Parker’s video because I find it funny, but it also makes the point very well.

If you insist on getting 8th-grade math explained by better-qualified folk, try this or this or this. There are dozens more rebuttals out there. The common thread is that Dr. Ayyaadurai has identified a mathematical phenomenon that is easily understood and innocently explained. There is no "gotcha".

And as another, independently valid rebuttal, Dr. Ayyaadurai married Fran Drescher. Case closed.

3) You'll have to give me a link for that Waldron one. Sounds like MSM **** to me. Could also be self-deprecating humor.

I’ve spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out what credentials Waldron has. The only thing his proponents says about him is that he is a “cyber-security expert”. I found this LinkedIn profile, but I’m not sure it is him. If it is, it does nothing to prove his expertise, other than the fact that 5 of his connections endorse his skills in “National Security”. I have seen nothing to suggest that he has any level of knowledge in statistics, much less expertise.

Regardless, his claims are based on facts that have been proven false. For example, his wide-ranging complaints about the Michigan election have been debunked by both the left-leaning Detroit Free Press and the right-leaning Detroit News.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

New York Post says to give it up and stop risking the Senate.

Mr. Deez, I think I have to agree with the Post. The election is over, the electoral ballots have been cast, and joe Biden won. It will be made official on 6 January.
Meanwhile, there are two critical runoff races for Senate seats in Georgia. The GOP must win at least one race - and both would be better. If the Dems wind up controlling the White House, the House, and the Senate, there will be no way to apply the brakes to the leftist agenda. A Republican Senate can apply those brakes and slow the leftist agenda.

 

[Garmel]

I don't know why I'm still wasting my time with this, but I'll take one last crack.



It is true that the NYT article does not mention Navid Keshavarz-Nia by name. However, it does make oblique references along the lines of “some people are saying” and then rebut the points Keshavarz-Nia was making. If that’s not good enough for you, how about this, which is an explicit rebuttal by one of the sources that Keshavarz-Nia himself cited.



The flaws in Dr. Ayyaadurai's analysis can be easily understood by anyone who has mastered Algebra I. I like Matt Parker’s video because I find it funny, but it also makes the point very well.

If you insist on getting 8th-grade math explained by better-qualified folk, try this or this or this. There are dozens more rebuttals out there. The common thread is that Dr. Ayyaadurai has identified a mathematical phenomenon that is easily understood and innocently explained. There is no "gotcha".

And as another, independently valid rebuttal, Dr. Ayyaadurai married Fran Drescher. Case closed.



I’ve spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out what credentials Waldron has. The only thing his proponents says about him is that he is a “cyber-security expert”. I found this LinkedIn profile, but I’m not sure it is him. If it is, it does nothing to prove his expertise, other than the fact that 5 of his connections endorse his skills in “National Security”. I have seen nothing to suggest that he has any level of knowledge in statistics, much less expertise.

Regardless, his claims are based on facts that have been proven false. For example, his wide-ranging complaints about the Michigan election have been debunked by both the left-leaning Detroit Free Press and the right-leaning Detroit News.

You fall into the same fallacy that Husker does. Just because a left leaning individual/organization on the net says they've debunked a better qualified expert doesn't mean it's been debunked. Oset Institute? Trust the Vote? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! I'm sure some facts he put out could be wrong. These analyses are rarely ever 100% accurate. If he used these two clowns as sources he shouldn't have done that. Some of the stuff they used to debunk him I know for a fact are wrong and they are playing games of semantics in other areas. For example, they said he " demonstrates a lack of understanding of cybersecurity, cryptography, and election administration processes" One of the top cybersecurity experts in America doesn't understand cybersecurity. LOL! One of the authors of this rebuttal (Perez) said that Dominion doesn't have any defects that would allow votes to be altered. I can find oodles of evidence against this.

Also, cut the condescending attitude with the algebra class or "I know I'm wasting my time" crap. You're nothing more than another slightly more informed Husker at best. I've taken calculus and advanced stats and I joined the navy in '88 to become a nuclear engineer so I'm sure my math skills are at least as good as yours. Shiva's math is fine.

As I told Husker, Wayne County's voting rolls are corrupt. They themselves admit that it's not right. Like that one republican woman said it's pretty much a joke nowhere close to reality. She, as a black woman, said they won't looked into the roles because people will shout racism. When two stat guys are saying that there is serious overvoting in those precincts I do believe it. Maybe a figure or two could be wrong because there are a lot of 'educated guesses" but I'd bet it's essentially correct.

Like i said what you're doing is similar to the "50 former intel officers say that Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation" or Trump is colluding with the Russians . I looked bad arguing with those supporting this nonsense at first because the MSM can put out more disinformation to use against me than I can counter with. However I ended up being right on these issues and I will end up being right here because my sources are better than the crap you look at, just not as plentiful. Btw, It wouldn't surprise me if you bought into both of these stories.

When you see Maricopa county fighting in court to stop their Dominion machines from being looked at, it tells you all you need to know. You're wrong, NJ and this crap you're spouting will bite you in the ***.

 

[Garmel]

One more thing to add, NJ. Many European nations tried using mass mail- in ballots like we did in this election but they stopped. Do you know why? Fraud. If something is easy to do it will be done. It's inevitable.

 

[mchammer]

 

[Monahorns]

Dr. Shiva's video basically says that he may have found evidence that votes were shifted. His basis for saying this is he took the straight ticket voting record and compared it to people who voted individually for all offices.

The Mick West video really doesn't address Shiva's issue at all. He makes a model that shows you get a down sloping line when the X=% straight ticket R vs y= % straight ticket - % individual vote, for R/Trump. But that doesn't address the foundation of the problem Shiva is stating.

What Shiva is saying is that % R straight and % R individual President votes should be similar, or at least that is a base assumption. So Shiva's graph shows that there is a significant difference between the 2 groups voting for R/Trump. The question is, is that reasonable to assume? I think it is reasonable to assume the 2 %s should be similar but not equal. Also, as the difference in the 2 groups increases (more and more negative slope) there is a greater chance something non-natural is going on (i.e. vote manipulation).

The fact that you can model it, means you can calculate exactly how many overall votes you will generate for the opposite candidate if you shift a percentage of % individual office voters. That means a manipulator can plug in a % shift with the knowledge of how many would be needed to change the outcome.

Mick West actually provides evidence that this vote shifting scheme is "simple" and calculable. A person could run different scenarios and know exactly what to do once the % straight ticket R voter was known or even estimated from previous elections. Sorry debunk failed.

 

[Horn6721]

Did the DMC ever explain why 5 swing states stopped counting in the middle of the night?

 

[Garmel]

New York Post says to give it up and stop risking the Senate. Link.

I'm curious to how Trump quitting the election will ensure victory when quitting may have the opposite effect and alienate the base even worse. The NYP doesn't have a clue what is the right direction to go. I admit I don't either. All I know is we do need to find a way to get these two weak candidates over the finish line. If we lose this I know you'll blame Trump but the problem is with Kemp. He let Georgia break its own election laws by allowing this mass mail-in-balloting which increases the dem vote count and invites fraud. History backs this up.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm curious to how Trump quitting the election will ensure victory when quitting may have the opposite effect and alienate the base even worse. The NYP doesn't have a clue what is the right direction to go. I admit I don't either. All I know is we do need to find a way to get these two weak candidates over the finish line. If we lose this I know you'll blame Trump but the problem is with Kemp. He let Georgia break its own election laws by allowing this mass mail-in-balloting which increases the dem vote count and invites fraud. History backs this up.

Nothing guarantees anything. However, if wanting to keep a wife-beating Jeremiah Wright and Beto O'Rourke, Jr. out of the Senate isn't enough to motivate the base, then we don't have much of a base. I think the base will show up. However, right now we've got our people advocating setting aside a presidential election. It's very easy for Warnock and Ossof to change the subject from their leftism when we're doing that. We can't make it that easy for them.

If we lose, I'll blame many. I agree that mail-in balloting is generally crap, even though I vote absentee. Nobody will ever convince me that it's as secure as in-person voting for the same reason nobody could convince me that leaving my car parked with the door unlocked with the keys in it is as secure as locking it. It defies all common sense. I also agree that any state official who authorized mail-in voting without legislative approval is a lawless tyrant.

However, the time to fight over voting procedure is before the election and before ballots are being cast. Let's suppose Georgia officials are totally breaking the law with the mail-in ballots. I don't know that they are, but let's just assume it. If the suit is being brought now, what the hell is the judge supposed to do? Thousands of ballots have already been cast by citizens voting in good faith under the system presented to them. It hardly seems just to summarily disenfranchise them without a showing of fraud or bad faith by them. A judge who's put in that position is going to avoid something like that at all costs.

If you lose on setting the procedure, then you adjust to it the best you can.

 

[OUBubba]

Nothing guarantees anything. However, if wanting to keep a wife-beating Jeremiah Wright and Beto O'Rourke, Jr. out of the Senate isn't enough to motivate the base, then we don't have much of a base. I think the base will show up. However, right now we've got our people advocating setting aside a presidential election. It's very easy for Warnock and Ossof to change the subject from their leftism when we're doing that. We can't make it that easy for them.

If we lose, I'll blame many. I agree that mail-in balloting is generally crap, even though I vote absentee. Nobody will ever convince me that it's as secure as in-person voting for the same reason nobody could convince me that leaving my car parked with the door unlocked with the keys in it is as secure as locking it. It defies all common sense. I also agree that any state official who authorized mail-in voting without legislative approval is a lawless tyrant.

However, the time to fight over voting procedure is before the election and before ballots are being cast. Let's suppose Georgia officials are totally breaking the law with the mail-in ballots. I don't know that they are, but let's just assume it. If the suit is being brought now, what the hell is the judge supposed to do? Thousands of ballots have already been cast by citizens voting in good faith under the system presented to them. It hardly seems just to summarily disenfranchise them without a showing of fraud or bad faith by them. A judge who's put in that position is going to avoid something like that at all costs.

If you lose on setting the procedure, then you adjust to it the best you can.

If they lose Georgia it will be because of Trump. He has done nothing but hurt their chances since the election.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If they lose Georgia it will be because of Trump. He has done nothing but hurt their chances since the election.

He has hurt their chances a lot, but if the law isn't being followed, I will also blame lawbreakers.

 

[theiioftx]

I offended a couple of family members over the holidays. I don’t bring up politics, but they are worried GA will flip the senate. I offended them by saying, “well you voted for Biden and Harris, so why are you worried? You’ll be getting the policies you supported in the general election.”

 

[Run Pincher]

He has hurt their chances a lot, but if the law isn't being followed, I will also blame lawbreakers.

The problem is for the left there is no remorse and for the honest there is no (little) recourse. nearly every damn judge now is liberal until you get to the supreme court.