3 ms·

> If someone seriously posts "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" I'm going to associate them with 9/11 truthers. If you ask for a video that supposedly reveals s

> If someone seriously posts "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" I'm going to associate them with 9/11 truthers. If you ask for a video that supposedly reveals something about 9/11, and someone posts a video that fulfills your request, you are not then entitled to consider the person who responded to you as "9/11 truther." That would be ridiculous. > You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building! What do you think it would look like for someone to violate the chain of custody of a thumb drive on camera? > Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high. None of those require or suggest the behavior seen in the video. > Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally. Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media. > Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it In fact its so easy that up until very recently lots of mainstream orgs (like the NYT!) were sounding the alarm. > but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it? Well first people said there was no evidence, now you're saying there must be more evidence or this doesn't count?

netsharc 6y ago
> None of those require or suggest the behavior seen in the video. What! And how can you say the behaviors in the video is inconclusive proof of voter fraud!?! Or at least suggest voter fraud?! Where's even the thumb drive? You've managed to see things from a few pixels and what commentators are saying what it is. What if I tell you, that's a bag of weed. Can you see a bag of weed? What, no? Can you see a thumbdrive? I can't! > Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media. So... this lady, who looks like her job is to sit there and count mail ballots, also has access to the voting machines (which is nowhere to be seen near her in the video), and is allowed to have custody of the results for who knows how long, while she does other work? These assumptions would mean such lax security, that then sure, rampant voter fraud is possible. Next you and the entire fraud-founding Internet commenters will want to see the security procedures of the whole voting operation and that are to your satisfaction. I don't have all the facts and can't deny that maybe they are that mind-numbingly lax (in which case, as a supporter of a US government based on sanity rather than nutjob conspiracy theories, I would be worried that rampant and easy voter fraud benefiting Republicans happened), but don't you think there would have been Republican party officials who have actually reviewed said procedures and who would've said "Hey, why are you letting random people have custody of the digital results?".
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > What! And how can you say the behaviors in the video is inconclusive proof of voter fraud!?! Or at least suggest voter fraud?! Yeah, when votes are stored on digital media, an apparent attempt to surreptitiously remove a thumb drive from a place where votes are counted suggests an attempt at compromising the election. > So... this lady, who looks like her job is to sit there and count mail ballots, also has access to the voting machines (which is nowhere to be seen near her in the video), and is allowed to have custody of the results for who knows how long, while she does other work? These assumptions would mean such lax security, that then sure, rampant voter fraud is possible. Those aren't really necessary assumptions but I'm glad you can see how its evident that its possible to have enough voter fraud to affect results. > Next you and the entire fraud-founding Internet commenters will want to see the security procedures of the whole voting operation and that are to your satisfaction. Yes that's what we want, any guesses on whether any of this will be better next time? > (in which case, as a supporter of a US government based on sanity rather than nutjob conspiracy theories, I would be worried that rampant and easy voter fraud benefiting Republicans happened) You should probably decouple your vote fraud concerns from your partisan concerns because comments like this suggest that vote fraud is worse when it benefits one party than the other and that's not the case. Vote fraud is bad because it violates the integrity of the election and because it threatens the legitimacy of the government. > but don't you think there would have been Republican party officials who have actually reviewed said procedures and who would've said "Hey, why are you letting random people have custody of the digital results?". The point of the sleight of hand is to remove the drive without the chain of custody documents reflecting that fact. A review of the procedure wouldn't show the conduct displayed in the video, that's the point.

netsharc 6y ago

> None of those require or suggest the behavior seen in the video. What! And how can you say the behaviors in the video is inconclusive proof of voter fraud!?! Or at least suggest voter fraud?! Where's even the thumb drive? You've managed to see things from a few pixels and what commentators are saying what it is. What if I tell you, that's a bag of weed. Can you see a bag of weed? What, no? Can you see a thumbdrive? I can't! > Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media. So... this lady, who looks like her job is to sit there and count mail ballots, also has access to the voting machines (which is nowhere to be seen near her in the video), and is allowed to have custody of the results for who knows how long, while she does other work? These assumptions would mean such lax security, that then sure, rampant voter fraud is possible. Next you and the entire fraud-founding Internet commenters will want to see the security procedures of the whole voting operation and that are to your satisfaction. I don't have all the facts and can't deny that maybe they are that mind-numbingly lax (in which case, as a supporter of a US government based on sanity rather than nutjob conspiracy theories, I would be worried that rampant and easy voter fraud benefiting Republicans happened), but don't you think there would have been Republican party officials who have actually reviewed said procedures and who would've said "Hey, why are you letting random people have custody of the digital results?".

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> What! And how can you say the behaviors in the video is inconclusive proof of voter fraud!?! Or at least suggest voter fraud?! Yeah, when votes are stored on digital media, an apparent attempt to surreptitiously remove a thumb drive from a place where votes are counted suggests an attempt at compromising the election. > So... this lady, who looks like her job is to sit there and count mail ballots, also has access to the voting machines (which is nowhere to be seen near her in the video), and is allowed to have custody of the results for who knows how long, while she does other work? These assumptions would mean such lax security, that then sure, rampant voter fraud is possible. Those aren't really necessary assumptions but I'm glad you can see how its evident that its possible to have enough voter fraud to affect results. > Next you and the entire fraud-founding Internet commenters will want to see the security procedures of the whole voting operation and that are to your satisfaction. Yes that's what we want, any guesses on whether any of this will be better next time? > (in which case, as a supporter of a US government based on sanity rather than nutjob conspiracy theories, I would be worried that rampant and easy voter fraud benefiting Republicans happened) You should probably decouple your vote fraud concerns from your partisan concerns because comments like this suggest that vote fraud is worse when it benefits one party than the other and that's not the case. Vote fraud is bad because it violates the integrity of the election and because it threatens the legitimacy of the government. > but don't you think there would have been Republican party officials who have actually reviewed said procedures and who would've said "Hey, why are you letting random people have custody of the digital results?". The point of the sleight of hand is to remove the drive without the chain of custody documents reflecting that fact. A review of the procedure wouldn't show the conduct displayed in the video, that's the point.