3 ms·

>> these machines have been shown to be massively flawed That statement goes against everything I've read about voting in the U.S.A. However, I don't think I h

>> these machines have been shown to be massively flawed That statement goes against everything I've read about voting in the U.S.A. However, I don't think I have actually read everything. What did you read? Is there a link that I can follow?

david927 6y ago
Here's a John Oliver episode from a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svEuG_ekNT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svEuG_ekNT0
- kreeben 6y ago
  That clip does not show massive failure. Does it show failure? Yes. Is it massive? No. Did the US court system show massive fraud? No. Did they show fraud that wasn't massive but could still have changed the outcome of the election? No. Were you cheated out of winning the election? A thousand times no.
  - david927 6y ago
    > Did the US court system show massive fraud? It was never heard in court. I think that's what people are upset about. If they felt it had its day in court, they would feel differently. Instead, they have the media patting their heads explaining that "it's all fine." Fraud didn't have to be proven; it simply had to be shown to have been possible. The question is whether protections were breached that keep fraud from not being possible. Listen, I'm a "Bernie Sanders" Progressive. I didn't vote because both candidates were too conservative for me. I don't really have a horse in this race. That said, this clip shows that the US didn't take its electoral systems seriously. Georgia hasn't applied a security patch since 2012? Really? And you and the entire media are telling me that it wasn't possible when this clip is pretty clear that it wasn't just possible but fairly easy. It reminds me of when a blockbuster film comes out and it's a stinker, but a lot of money was dropped on it. So there's an effort to make up the opening weekend by having the media sing its praises. "'Cats' is an amazing film!" But it doesn't work. Your strategy isn't working and won't work. The only way forward is to let it have its day in court.
    - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
      The courts were never given anything to hear. They can’t just go to trial on hearsay, innuendo, or wild speculation. You have evidence or you don’t, this isn’t like a court room drama where they decide to go to trial first and see the evidence later.
      - david927 6y ago
        Oh, hey Sean! I'd rather talk to you about future of programming than this junk, but OK. You're right, that's what the courts are saying. I don't think most people are buying that, though. There's too much video evidence and testimony to dismiss every motion. Georgia, for example, is a mess. To say that it's fine is taking the result you want and working backwards. (Again, I'm a Bernie Sanders guy. I don't like either of them! :-) It's like a clean room. You can't have video of people walking in with their outside clothes, without going through the processes and then say, "You have to prove that it contaminated the room." You don't; it's enough to show the process was tainted. There's enough evidence to show that with the existing video and hundreds of witnesses. The clip I linked to shows that our electoral systems are a train wreck in many states, especially when compared to other countries. (Go watch it.) Now we're screwed. Tens of millions of Americans feel (pretty validly) cheated out of their vote and it has created a no-win situation. I hate this topic. What are you working on? Any new insights? :-)
        seanmcdirmid 6y ago
        > Georgia, for example, is a mess. States and election officials of states run elections. They are given a lot of latitude in how they run elections, limited by state law and state constitution edits that are also controlled by state legislatures. State courts can only evaluate wrong doing based on those rules, laws, and such, if they are messed up, the courts can't fix them unilaterally. > You can't have video of people walking in with their outside clothes, without going through the processes and then say, "You have to prove that it contaminated the room." You don't; it's enough to show the process was tainted. That is not how law works in the USA or any country that I'm aware of. You have to prove that wrong doing occurred, not prove that wrong doing did not occur. The burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the defendant. Science works the same way (something is a theory if it can't be disproven, not if it can be proven that it can't be disproven).

david927 6y ago

Here's a John Oliver episode from a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svEuG_ekNT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svEuG_ekNT0

kreeben 6y ago
That clip does not show massive failure. Does it show failure? Yes. Is it massive? No. Did the US court system show massive fraud? No. Did they show fraud that wasn't massive but could still have changed the outcome of the election? No. Were you cheated out of winning the election? A thousand times no.
- david927 6y ago
  > Did the US court system show massive fraud? It was never heard in court. I think that's what people are upset about. If they felt it had its day in court, they would feel differently. Instead, they have the media patting their heads explaining that "it's all fine." Fraud didn't have to be proven; it simply had to be shown to have been possible. The question is whether protections were breached that keep fraud from not being possible. Listen, I'm a "Bernie Sanders" Progressive. I didn't vote because both candidates were too conservative for me. I don't really have a horse in this race. That said, this clip shows that the US didn't take its electoral systems seriously. Georgia hasn't applied a security patch since 2012? Really? And you and the entire media are telling me that it wasn't possible when this clip is pretty clear that it wasn't just possible but fairly easy. It reminds me of when a blockbuster film comes out and it's a stinker, but a lot of money was dropped on it. So there's an effort to make up the opening weekend by having the media sing its praises. "'Cats' is an amazing film!" But it doesn't work. Your strategy isn't working and won't work. The only way forward is to let it have its day in court.
  - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
    The courts were never given anything to hear. They can’t just go to trial on hearsay, innuendo, or wild speculation. You have evidence or you don’t, this isn’t like a court room drama where they decide to go to trial first and see the evidence later.
    - david927 6y ago
      Oh, hey Sean! I'd rather talk to you about future of programming than this junk, but OK. You're right, that's what the courts are saying. I don't think most people are buying that, though. There's too much video evidence and testimony to dismiss every motion. Georgia, for example, is a mess. To say that it's fine is taking the result you want and working backwards. (Again, I'm a Bernie Sanders guy. I don't like either of them! :-) It's like a clean room. You can't have video of people walking in with their outside clothes, without going through the processes and then say, "You have to prove that it contaminated the room." You don't; it's enough to show the process was tainted. There's enough evidence to show that with the existing video and hundreds of witnesses. The clip I linked to shows that our electoral systems are a train wreck in many states, especially when compared to other countries. (Go watch it.) Now we're screwed. Tens of millions of Americans feel (pretty validly) cheated out of their vote and it has created a no-win situation. I hate this topic. What are you working on? Any new insights? :-)
      - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
        > Georgia, for example, is a mess. States and election officials of states run elections. They are given a lot of latitude in how they run elections, limited by state law and state constitution edits that are also controlled by state legislatures. State courts can only evaluate wrong doing based on those rules, laws, and such, if they are messed up, the courts can't fix them unilaterally. > You can't have video of people walking in with their outside clothes, without going through the processes and then say, "You have to prove that it contaminated the room." You don't; it's enough to show the process was tainted. That is not how law works in the USA or any country that I'm aware of. You have to prove that wrong doing occurred, not prove that wrong doing did not occur. The burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the defendant. Science works the same way (something is a theory if it can't be disproven, not if it can be proven that it can't be disproven).