For Those Who Still Insist That There Was Election Fraud
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
Why have democrat elections officials refused to allow investigators to examine the voting machines and the ballot-counting processes in their precincts if they really do want to perform their duty to voters and prove that everything was done legally, honestly, accurately, and above-board?
Democrats know the weaknesses voting machines have, proving they lie when they refuse to allow the machines to be examined, claiming there is no evidence of failure or error.
Here's how hackers might mess with electronic voting on Election Day
Here's what to watch for on Election Day in case hackers decide to sway the vote.
www.pbs.org
Science Nov 8, 2016 8:13 AM EDT
Huge. Deplorable. Hombre. When America looks back on the long journey to Election Day 2016, a number of words will come to mind. But one may ultimately rise above the rest: hacking.
Hackers set the tone for the final 100 days of the election, starting with the pilfered emails of the Democratic National Committee that were released by Wikileaks in late July. Aside from spurring the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the eve of the convention, the leak established a precedent for reporting on stolen digital information in the election, as U.S. officials fingered Russia as the likely backer behind the hacks.
Cybersecurity analysts say this tenor, combined with vulnerabilities in electronic ballots, make hacking a major possibility on Election Day. So if election hacking does happen, here’s what it may look like.
Digital doubt
Up to 20 percent of Americans will cast votes on digital systems without a paper trail during this election, according to analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice. This minority within the electorate, plus the fact that digital voting is managed on a state-by-state basis, means a nationwide takedown of Election Day is unlikely.
“America doesn’t have one monolithic national voting system the way there is in other countries,” Pamela Smith, president of Verified Voting, wrote in a recent op-ed for The Hill. “We have thousands of them, operating under state and local supervision.”
But there are enough weak spots peppered around the country to distill doubt if multiple incidents occur, said James Scott, senior fellow at the Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology.
Five states — New Jersey, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina — will cast votes on digital systems without leaving a paper trail.
Five states — New Jersey, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina — will cast votes on digital systems without leaving a paper trail. The same applies to several jurisdictions in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Cyber vulnerabilities exist in all of these locations. Most revolve around the age of the machines and their software. The Brennan Center report estimated 43 states will use voting machines in 2016 that are more than 10 years old. Many of these devices contain outdated software — think Microsoft Windows XP or older — without security updates. Meanwhile, the mainframes of other machines are guarded by easy-to-pick padlocks or by no barrier at all.
“With the kind of stealth and sophistication that’s already out there, why wouldn’t a nation-state, cyber-criminal gang or activist group go into election systems that are completely vulnerable?” Scott said. He offered the example of the energetic bear hack, wherein attackers deposited malware on websites intended for software updates for energy companies. The perpetrators infiltrated energy grids and petroleum pipeline operators across U.S. and Europe and went unnoticed for three years.
Given many states and counties use electronic ballot systems provided by a small number of vendors, a similar ploy used on voter machine manufacturers could manipulate several polls at once. Plus, much of this voting technology is proprietary, so forensic auditors couldn’t independently scrub for and detect malicious software, especially given such code might delete itself after Election Day, Scott said.
Yellow buttons and bad math
Election hacking raises visions of a hooded figure on a laptop remotely tapping into a voter machine to artificially boost tallies. But in truth, most remote attacks on individual machines are tricky because many devices aren’t directly linked to an internet connection.
However, in-person manipulation is possible. Some machines are vulnerable, due to accessible ports where a hacker could plug a laptop or smartphone to add fake votes. The Sequoia AVC Edge machines feature a yellow “Activate” button on the back that can allow user to enter multiple ballots at a time. Nevada has employed these systems statewide, while Louisiana did the same with early voting without backup paper records.
Sequoia electronic voting machine. Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesSequoia electronic voting machine. Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images
“It’s the technical equivalent to stuffing a voter box,” Scott said. “You can tap that as many times, for as many votes as you want to give the person.”
To exploit the tactics, a perpetrator would need access to a voter machine for an extended period of time, which is possible given background checks for election officials and poll workers aren’t a national requirement.
Another target is the facility or database where votes are counted. “You have to look at attacks at the intermediate stages, where there are computers tabulating results from around a state or a county,” Max Kilger, a social scientist and cybercriminal profiler at the University of Texas at San Antonio, told the PBS NewsHour.
Some counties use devices that collect and calculate results at once, such as the AccuVote TS and TSX voting machines. But the software for these popular machines lack basic cybersecurity, like encryption or strong passwords.
An electronic scanning machine is used for counting the votes during the New Hampshire primary election at a high school in Nashua, New Hampshire. Photo by Ramin Talaie/Corbis via Getty ImagesAn AccuVote electronic scanning machine used for counting the votes during the New Hampshire primary election at a high school in Nashua, New Hampshire in 2008. Photo by Ramin Talaie/Corbis via Getty Images
Harri Hursti, a Finnish computer programmer, famously exposed this vulnerability among voting machines in Leon County, Florida, as part of a series of studies on digital election infrastructure. He showed the “Hursti Hack” — tampering with the machine’s memory cards in person or over a remote internet connection — could add or subtract hundreds of votes for a candidate. Some experts believe this tactic may have been partially responsible for the voting irregularities witnessed in Florida during the 2000 election.
Democrats know the machines are vulnerable and they used those vulnerabilities to steal the 2020 election by fraud. That is why they must not allow tech experts to examine their machines before those machines have been wiped clean of evidence of fraud.
Last edited:
way 2 go
Well-known member
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh, captain GIF's back with some inadvertent hilarity. Well done!
Right Divider
Body part
Which is why I don't vote for either of them.
You cannot determine the worth of any evidence you reject without consideration, because of some arbitrary standard set by some men.
Meaning that the only way to know if a piece of evidence is substantive is to make careful inquiry into it.
Hence:
“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing,then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days.And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother,then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you.And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you.Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. - Deuteronomy 19:15-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:15-21&version=NKJV
Crimes should be investigated, but you will never find out all the guilty parties if you ignore some evidence because of personal bias towards an arbitrary standard of evidence.
Why do you have to use so many words?
Usually when people are lying, or being dishonest, they use more words to cover up the fact that they're lying. All you had to say was, "I don't reject God's word." Instead, you had to tie me into it somehow, in a very awkward way, I might add.
The fact of the matter is that you reject "thou shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, covet" and the punishments for those, and you excuse yourself because you think that because God pardoned someone who had committed one of those crimes, therefore the law against such was done away with.
The fact of the matter is that you reject this as well: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. - Romans 13:1-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans13:1-7&version=NKJV
The fact of the matter is that you reject the foundation of it all, that God created in six days the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them.
That's called rejecting God's word, and you are guilty of it.
The fact of the matter is that you reject God's standards, which is "by the testimony of two or three witnesses," and prefer your own standard.
Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you. - Deuteronomy 17:6-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:6-7&version=NKJV
Who else? The judge presiding over the case.
Go read the Deuteronomy 19 passage I quoted above, again, if you have to.
Chronological snobbery - Wikipedia
Careful inquiry is better than no inquiry.
And that's where the "two or three witnesses" comes in.
Some cases may not need three witnesses, and only two are necessary, because it's that clear-cut of a case.
Other cases may end up with one really strong piece of evidence, and a couple of really weak pieces of evidence, or even three weak evidences, but still, a conviction could be made.
The "careful inquiry" is to weed out the cases where there is only one witness, or someone who is bearing false witness.
THAT is God's standard.
Again:
Chronological snobbery - Wikipedia
And you cannot have a standard that is higher than God's standard. Yet another instance of you rejecting God's word.
It's the one you prefer over God's laws for societies.
Which are inherently unjust (which makes them no laws at all).
Of course they do.
God's standard is "two or three witnesses" and "careful inquiry."
Can't get better than that.
Indeed it is.
See Deuteronomy 19.
Except it wasn't.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Okay, I'm just going to break this down into a few paragraphs as response so if there's anything missing then you ask me to address them.You cannot determine the worth of any evidence you reject without consideration, because of some arbitrary standard set by some men.
Meaning that the only way to know if a piece of evidence is substantive is to make careful inquiry into it.
Hence:
“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing,then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days.And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother,then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you.And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you.Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. - Deuteronomy 19:15-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:15-21&version=NKJV
Crimes should be investigated, but you will never find out all the guilty parties if you ignore some evidence because of personal bias towards an arbitrary standard of evidence.
Why do you have to use so many words?
Usually when people are lying, or being dishonest, they use more words to cover up the fact that they're lying. All you had to say was, "I don't reject God's word." Instead, you had to tie me into it somehow, in a very awkward way, I might add.
The fact of the matter is that you reject "thou shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, covet" and the punishments for those, and you excuse yourself because you think that because God pardoned someone who had committed one of those crimes, therefore the law against such was done away with.
The fact of the matter is that you reject this as well: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. - Romans 13:1-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans13:1-7&version=NKJV
The fact of the matter is that you reject the foundation of it all, that God created in six days the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them.
That's called rejecting God's word, and you are guilty of it.
The fact of the matter is that you reject God's standards, which is "by the testimony of two or three witnesses," and prefer your own standard.
Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you. - Deuteronomy 17:6-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:6-7&version=NKJV
Who else? The judge presiding over the case.
Go read the Deuteronomy 19 passage I quoted above, again, if you have to.
Chronological snobbery - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Careful inquiry is better than no inquiry.
And that's where the "two or three witnesses" comes in.
Some cases may not need three witnesses, and only two are necessary, because it's that clear-cut of a case.
Other cases may end up with one really strong piece of evidence, and a couple of really weak pieces of evidence, or even three weak evidences, but still, a conviction could be made.
The "careful inquiry" is to weed out the cases where there is only one witness, or someone who is bearing false witness.
THAT is God's standard.
Again:
Chronological snobbery - Wikipedia
And you cannot have a standard that is higher than God's standard. Yet another instance of you rejecting God's word.
It's the one you prefer over God's laws for societies.
Which are inherently unjust (which makes them no laws at all).
Of course they do.
God's standard is "two or three witnesses" and "careful inquiry."
Can't get better than that.
Indeed it is.
See Deuteronomy 19.
Except it wasn't.
Of course evidence should be given careful consideration, even what on the face of it might seem flimsy in itself. The way to ascertain its veracity is through that very approach, be it through witness testimony, dna, forensic, the works. Back in OT times, there wasn't really anything other than such as outlined in the passage, eyewitness testimony was pretty much all they would have had. Do you suppose God would have had a problem with societies utilising more effective methods of determining guilt (and innocence) now we have them at our disposal? If so, why and how do you determine that?
You're kidding with the next bit right? You ask me why 'I use so many words' and then go into how many of your own? If there's anything awkward then you should read your own bit back and see who it applies to in relation. I use a single sentence and 'tied you in' with it because it's the sort of thing you have routinely thrown about at me. Continue to do so as you may it won't make it any the more fact.
I don't 'reject' any of those commandments, or if I do then we're all guilty on the score. Ever coveted, stolen, bore false witness at some stage in your life? I reject fundamentalists ideas of what the punishments should be for all manner of things of which I've outlined a myriad times through the years.
I'm presuming your next bit is in regards to evolution, in which case it's again, simply rejecting a rigid, literal reading of Genesis. If that's such an important facet of your own belief, then fair enough, up to you. It doesn't apply to anyone else however.
Your next verse isn't Biblical support for executing children as young as five at all. They're kids, not some 'evil to be put away'. Try again.
In regards to 'Chronological snobbery' then you're missing the point. Denying the technological and scientific advances made from say, a hundred years ago would be pointless. Does that equate to people of the time having lesser intelligence or that science of the time was without worth? Of course not. I refer you the question I asked you in the opening paragraph in context of that.
There is no irrefutable scientific proof that evolution is a fact. That is why it remains and always will remain at best a scientific theory.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage oftheory.[6][note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[6] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.
So, it's not absolute fact in itself no but about as near as it gets. In any event, this isn't a creationist/evolutionist thread regardless.
False.
Again, as background: "Witness" doesn't necessarily mean "eyewitness."
It means evidence or eyewitness.
For example:
Let's say a woman was raped while she was away from the town getting water from a well, but she managed to rip off a piece of the man's cloak or clothing during the struggle, and he didn't realize it. She goes to the authorities, and tells them that she was raped out by the well, and shows them the piece of cloth she got. They take the cloth, and head out to inspect the area she described. They find signs of a struggle, and coupled with the piece of cloth, she now has three witnesses, herself, the cloth, and the area she was raped. During the investigation, they also find droplets of blood on the ground, and she tells them that she managed to scratch his face fairly deeply, and is even able to give them a rough description. So they begin looking for the man, and within a short period of inquiry, they have a suspect, and soon find him, put him on trial, and upon convicting him, they execute him based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Scratch on face, piece of clothing, signs of a struggle at the location, and her accusation.
Those are all witnesses.
"Two or three witnesses" is the standard. There's no need to change it, since in a society that has a good criminal justice system, despite crimes becoming more and more complex, the standard can remain the same, and still apply equally.
I figured you might bring that up. The difference is that I was explaining reality, while you were denying something.
Do not murder -> You support in some way abortion
Do not commit adultery -> You support in some way homosexuality, and adultery
Do not steal -> You support in some way the redistribution of wealth
Do not bear false witness -> Can't say you support this one, so good for you. Or at least, I can't think of anything you've said that would fall under this category off the top of my head.
Rejecting a law and breaking it are two very different things.
In other words, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Fundamentalists didn't come up with the ideas presented in the Bible.
God did.
God tells us, plainly, clearly, and indisputably, what the punishments should be for certain crimes.
I don't support a "rigid, literal reading of Genesis."
So maybe this qualifies as "bearing false witness"?
It does apply, because Genesis 1, when read as-is, is reality.
You missed it, or perhaps ignored it, two things:
Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you. - Deuteronomy 17:6-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:6-7&version=NKJV
"Whoever is deserving of death"
"The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death"
No one is denying the technological and scientific advances that have been made.
The problem is that you're saying that because of those advances, the standard for justice should be changed.
The standard is based on the nature of God. Trying to change it dishonors God, and if changed, becomes inherently not just, because He is.
There is only one standard for justice.
This thread is not about evolution and the whole idea of evolution is a lie.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, from your own verse:
“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing,then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days."
Now, I'm happy enough to go with that as comprising metaphor if you are so let's run with your analogy. Now on the face of it there's certainly sufficient evidence to warrant a thorough investigation. There's certainly circumstantial evidence aided by the victim's testimony. So sure, you have four pieces of evidence to consider:
The woman's accusation and description.
The scratch on the face.
Signs of a struggle at the scene.
The bit of cloth she ripped off.
Now that's four pieces of evidence so in those times that's pretty much all they would have to go unless there where were other witnesses to the event who could corroborate what happened but as you consider only two to three witnesses to be sufficient then what there is is more than enough, correct?
Now, apply this same analogy to the present age and the amount of other techniques we have at our disposal to ascertain the veracity of the accusation.
Does the DNA under the woman's fingernails match the suspect's?
Do the blood types match?
Is there DNA evidence present at the scene?
Does the semen match the suspect's blood type?
Is the cloth fragment the same as the cloak worn by the suspect?
Now that's just a few examples of the much more effective methods we have now to establish guilt/innocence than just word of mouth or circumstantial evidence. Now that's all people would have had in those times but that's no excuse for society being okay with returning to such methods when we can quite clearly establish events with much more stringency and precision in the present.
I'll address the rest in a separate post otherwise it'll be too bulky.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
As to your next:
Well of course I was going to bring it up. You responded to a single sentence of mine with a whole paragraph of your own so therein lies the irony considering the content.
I don't "support" abortion. I don't agree with the laws as they stand although I'm not as hardline as some.
Homosexuality isn't mentioned in the 10 commandments and it's not a case of supporting it regardless. Homosexuality exists, fact.
In what "some way" do I support committing adultery?
I support a welfare system that makes provision for all. Not interested in your twisting that into meaning a support of theft. You've had that hashed out by many people on here multiple times on the score and I'm not interested in beating that dead horse some more.
Fundamentalists often point to the OT as a standard that applies to the present. I don't, nor am I obliged to. I agree with the Christians that don't, simple as.
Well, if you don't have a problem with it being read metaphorically or evolution then why did you allude to the six days of creation? What was your point?
I didn't "miss" anything at all.
I'm waiting for you to provide a verse that supports the notion that children as young as five are deserving of death, not repeating the same one and highlighting parts of it as if that's answer in itself. It isn't. Do you understand why we don't hold toddlers and infants to the same standards of crime/evil as adults? Serious question JR. Are you aware of the lack of mental cognitive development and capacity at such an age? Why we have laws that take the obvious into account? Why do you suppose we have age of consent laws? Ones that protect children? Why we don't allow them to drink alcohol at such an age, smoke, drive cars and all manner of else?
Now, have you got an actual verse that specifically makes mention of infants being regarded as evil in certain situations and how they should be executed? Otherwise you'd be better off learning from Jefferson on the score where mention of unruly children was referring to adults, not five year old's.
How is God being 'dishonoured' by having more effective methods of gathering and ascertaining evidence in regards to establishing guilt/innocence than what was available thousands of years ago? You think God would sooner have innocent people being convicted because the law considered two or three pieces was enough when more was available?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I'm well aware of what this thread is about, just as I'm aware of the tangents it's gone on. Evolution isn't a lie, it's a scientific theory, the definition of which was pointed out before.
Morons keep defending the stupidity of evolution, likely because morons typically ignore the science that refutes evolution's stupid precepts.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Nothing stupid about it. If the evidence didn't support evolution it wouldn't be a scientific theory. That you think it's moronic is entirely irrelevant.
Piltdown clowns think scientific error is proven scientific fact.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No scientist thinks scientific error is proven scientific fact, or sane people in general. Believe as you will as regards evolution and you've got a whole sub forum on this board to talk about it.
That is what all the Piltdown clowns think. Evolution was invented by men of corrupt minds seeking to destroy the Christian's faith in the Bible, and deluded students of those corrupt men have ever since been duped into interpreting scientific data through the shaded lenses of evolutionist delusion.
The earth is not billions of years old. Dinosaurs did not die en masse 65 million years ago. The Grand Canyon was not formed by Colorado River erosion over millions of years. Lake Suitgetsu varves were not formed over thousands of years by slow sedimentation. Monkey or their tree-climbing relatives did not evolve into humans, and thousands of other scientific speculations are totally false.