US truckers, Texas and civil war

[Belk]

Here is what you said


I replied

'Ha. A claim! We can work with that. Now that you have the positive claim, prove it.'

I have nothing to prove, since I said a few times we don't know. You made a positive claim and were asked to support it. Guess I win.

You should pat yourself on the back and run along having won the interwebs.

 

[Larniavc]

Well, since one side is gone over to the dark side, and you insult the other side, and even their vehicles apparently, it has to do with your credibility as a character assassin.

Hold on. How you know which of the two fighting MAGA truck owners was of the dark side? It just looked like a bunch sun burnt white guys yelling and trying to kill each other.

Is that the civil war or not?

 

[truthpls]

You should pat yourself on the back and run along having won the interwebs.

Thanks. I prefer to try and be modest.

 

[truthpls]

Hold on. How you know which of the two fighting MAGA truck owners was of the dark side?

To explain it, then, the dark side is the democrats. No lights left on in the building. For the Republicans, it has also gone dark, and a lot of lights went out, but there are a few lights left on. So, when you point out 2 people who seems to be American patriot good ol boys that are anything but democrat, they would be both on the side that is not yet all dark. Get it? So, by you attempting to insult them, it shows you do not seem to like the side with a little light. So, as mentioned, that says a lot,

It just looked like a bunch sun burnt white guys yelling and trying to kill each other.

Is that the civil war or not?

I think that might be called Friday night.

 

[SimplyMe]

Oh! I see. My bad. This is the whole "You need to disprove my made up in my head scenario" game. Yeah no I don't need to disprove your wild imaginings. Go try to shift the burden of proof somewhere else.

The irony. You first. I'll hold my breath shall I?


I didn't allude to it. I directly stated I have relevant knowledge in this area.

Cool story bro. Let us know when you have anything besides your imagination.

I suspect we are dealing with Dunning-Kruger here. There appear to be two people here with relevant expertise trying to tell this person that what they are trying to claim just is not something that can happen in real world the way they imagine it. Yet, because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, they think we are the ones who don't know what we are talking about.

 

[Belk]

I suspect we are dealing with Dunning-Kruger here. There appear to be two people here with relevant expertise trying to tell this person that what they are trying to claim just is not something that can happen in real world the way they imagine it. Yet, because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, they think we are the ones who don't know what we are talking about.

Or they are just trying to get a reaction. In either case not a game I wish to participate in. It amazes me the utter bunk people believe is possible with technology. <Roll eyes>

 

[truthpls]

I suspect we are dealing with Dunning-Kruger here. There appear to be two people here with relevant expertise trying to tell this person that what they are trying to claim just is not something that can happen in real world the way they imagine it. Yet, because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, they think we are the ones who don't know what we are talking about.

You both couldn't be wrong. Wait, neither of you know. You offered generalizations about how in your understanding level, it was impossible for the (now proven easy to be hacked) machines to have been hacked. The issue is not whether machines can be hacked that was demonstrated. The question arose about a possible remote hack. I pointed out how that machines do have access to the net at times. So I asked if you can prove that is impossible. The claim is not mine. I asked for support of your claim. My claim as mentioned often was we don't know

 

[7thKeeper]

Do you have sources that watched for that? Any covert operation worth it's salt would not be discovered. It would not be possible to prove it never happened or did happen. You don't know.

If they are top notch and organized why would anyone 'spot' them? If for example they did something remotely what is to spot? And if, weeks before or whatever some tradesman or something was spotted, who would know what was really happening?

Remotely? Traces of access, unscheduled changes/alterations, logging of various kind. And the very real possibility that without physical access to something, they can't really do jack. You have this fantasy scenario in your head where all of this can be done 100% of the time like people were ghosts. And just saying they are "top notch" and handwave things away, while ignoring any capabilities from the opposing side to counter that is just bloody hilarious.

If the national election of the US was targeted, how would there NOT be a lot of people involved?

How is this an arguement against the fact that more people involved in a conspiracy/plot like this, the easier it is to detect?

Hacking a machine to make it biased in one direction would hardly a trivial impact. As for metadata or paper, any hacking would take that into account and deal with it one way or another. Claiming you know either way is fantasy.

Except how can it take that to account? The person voting would look at the printed paper ballot and see that their vote is incorrect and the whole thing starts to unravel from there. And you just say "they'd take care of it" with absolutely no idea how complex taking all variables into account it is.

This is literally a fantasy scenario, which sounds like it was made up by someone who thinks Mission: Impossible is a documentary series.

 

[SimplyMe]

You both couldn't be wrong. Wait, neither of you know. You offered generalizations about how in your understanding level, it was impossible for the (now proven easy to be hacked) machines to have been hacked. The issue is not whether machines can be hacked that was demonstrated. The question arose about a possible remote hack. I pointed out how that machines do have access to the net at times. So I asked if you can prove that is impossible. The claim is not mine. I asked for support of your claim. My claim as mentioned often was we don't know

This has been explained to you, a few times, including the fact you'd need to hack hundreds of machines to really be able to change results. Maybe an analogy -- if I had a reason to show the court how easy it is to "steal" gold out of Ft. Knox and the court meets inside Ft. Knox so I can prove it. Once court is in session, to do my "demonstration," I go over to a stack of gold bars and pick one up and put it in my pocket. TaDa --I've just "stolen" a bar of gold from Ft. Knox in much the way the person "hacked" the voting machine. Of course, if I had to actually steal a bar of gold I'd have to find a way into Ft. Knox, get past the various internal security measures, steal a bunch of bars of gold (one bar, like one machine, isn't going to be worth "stealing"), and then I have to get out and off the army base without anyone noticing I have a stack of gold bars, as well as ensure that none of the video on the base had any record of me ever being there.

It is not a perfect analogy but it does more or less point out why we keep saying that demonstration in court wasn't terribly convincing. Yes, it is easy to "steal" a gold bar when it is right there in front of you; much like if you have a machine with no physical security and no worry about the various internal security procedures (like the checksums). And then people have to do it to hundreds of machines, all of which without getting caught (like Trump's people were when they illegally accessed the machines), managing to take care of all the video and other security measures, etc.

Worse, something like 84% of the machines used in the US will create a paper ballot for voters -- a ballot they are told to check before taking it to a machine that scans it. So, chances are if you "hacked" the voting machines then people would notice -- particularly since the top line is the Presidential vote (the one you are claiming was hacked). There is little doubt that most people would notice if their Presidential choice had been changed by the machine -- creating an uproar. Then they put the paper ballot in a counting machine; of course, the issue if you "hack" the counting machine is that any hand recount will show the hack -- and the swing states mostly did a hand recount of the machine vote to ensure there were no issues with the count. Then you have the issue that a little less than 2/3rds (about 63%) of votes in the US are done by hand -- a paper ballot marked by the voter and hand counted.

I'm sorry, your belief in how it could have been hacked, and easily hacked, just makes no sense.

 

[truthpls]

Remotely? Traces of access, unscheduled changes/alterations, logging of various kind. And the very real possibility that without physical access to something, they can't really do jack.

Well, if that is true then we might look at how an operation might happen using physical access clandestinely. The problem is that machines can be connected to the net and are at times. What evidence do you have that it would be impossible to somehow get access by the internet or other communication over airwaves using operatives setting this up beforehand? It seems a simple issue to address. I haven't seen that yet here. Until we do I guess we can say we don't know.

You have this fantasy scenario in your head where all of this can be done 100% of the time like people were ghosts.

No. Not at all. If you are talking about intelligence operatives secretly accessing rooms, I am not sure that is impossible. Prove it.

And just saying they are "top notch" and handwave things away, while ignoring any capabilities from the opposing side to counter that is just bloody hilarious.

I asked for proof and welcome such 'capabilities' you are talking about. Speaking of hand waving, that is all you do unless and until you produce the goods.

How is this an arguement against the fact that more people involved in a conspiracy/plot like this, the easier it is to detect?

If they are lines around the block in plain clothes you might have a point. Now if several clandestine operatives disguised as something else were used over a period of months or weeks leading up to the election, well I am not sure how you expect to spot them? Explain? Cameras in the night in a locked dark room? Ha. If so, they can probably use a key to get in and bypass cameras etc etc. You need to be specific.

Except how can it take that to account? The person voting would look at the printed paper ballot and see that their vote is incorrect and the whole thing starts to unravel from there.

That brings to mind a question. If the person is there and has a paper ballot ans is looking at it, who needs the machine?

And you just say "they'd take care of it" with absolutely no idea how complex taking all variables into account it is.

It does seem complex. But then again, so does nuclear satellites in space and computer systems that run power grids and most everything else. However there are teams in most countries who specialize in computer warfare are there not? To them it may not be quite as complicated or impossible as we see things to be as ordinary people.

This is literally a fantasy scenario, which sounds like it was made up by someone who thinks Mission: Impossible is a documentary series.

Ha. The same might be true in reverse. Making up a scenario where machines could not be hacked is fantasyland. But the thread is about the open borders. I don't think we need to waste time on how machines could have been hacked or not. Or how millions of people who entered the nation can vote with little difficulty if helped a bit. (and in many states where no ID is needed, I guess they need no help)

 

[truthpls]

This has been explained to you, a few times, including the fact you'd need to hack hundreds of machines to really be able to change results.

Let's look at that point then. If I could somehow rig one machine to skew results, how would it be difficult to do the same to hundreds? Or are you suggesting that they have to be hacked only on election night itself? If I were a laptop repairman and had a hundred machines to fix, maybe I could do it in two weeks. If there were say, 300 machines in several cities, and I sent a team of say, 22 operatives over a few weeks, how would it be an issue? You need to be clear. Is there any fix that could be applied to a machine that would not be detected by people examining them? You have not explained your position clearly. Something like, 'It would be impossible to hack machines because it would have to be done only on election day (reasons) and it would have to be in person only because no fix could exist that allows remote access to machines- (reasons). And no circuits or chips or tinkering beforehand would be possible because (reasons) etc

Maybe an analogy -- if I had a reason to show the court how easy it is to "steal" gold out of Ft. Knox and the court meets inside Ft. Knox so I can prove it. Once court is in session, to do my "demonstration," I go over to a stack of gold bars and pick one up and put it in my pocket. TaDa --I've just "stolen" a bar of gold from Ft. Knox in much the way the person "hacked" the voting machine. Of course, if I had to actually steal a bar of gold I'd have to find a way into Ft. Knox, get past the various internal security measures, steal a bunch of bars of gold (one bar, like one machine, isn't going to be worth "stealing"), and then I have to get out and off the army base without anyone noticing I have a stack of gold bars, as well as ensure that none of the video on the base had any record of me ever being there.

In that analogy it assumes there is actually gold in fort Knox. But hacking is not like bank robbery. It is sneaky. Unseen. Someone goes to use their computer like normal, but it goes bananas and erases the hard drive etc etc. No need to get by home security and cameras and guards you may have. Your comparison doesn't work.

It is not a perfect analogy but it does more or less point out why we keep saying that demonstration in court wasn't terribly convincing. Yes, it is easy to "steal" a gold bar when it is right there in front of you; much like if you have a machine with no physical security and no worry about the various internal security procedures (like the checksums).

Well if that hacker that ruined the laptop in the example I gave showed up at your door with a screwdriver and pushed his way in to your laptop, you might have a point.

And then people have to do it to hundreds of machines, all of which without getting caught (like Trump's people were when they illegally accessed the machines), managing to take care of all the video and other security measures, etc.

Over what span of time? The machines were not rolled off the factory on election night. And if you say there would be traces we could find now if they were hacked, again the election was years ago. There was a lot of 'before' and 'after' there.

Worse, something like 84% of the machines used in the US will create a paper ballot for voters -- a ballot they are told to check before taking it to a machine that scans it.

That leaves 16% that don't. Now if millions of people vote that do not need ID how do we know they checked their ballot? If millions vote that do not need proper ID (photo ID) as well, then how would we know they all checked their ballot? If twenty thousand people were illegals with fake non photo ID for example, who will ever be able to check?

So, chances are if you "hacked" the voting machines then people would notice -- particularly since the top line is the Presidential vote (the one you are claiming was hacked).

False I never claimed they were hacked! Not once. I said, once again, we don't know. But how would I notice if my computer was hacked exactly? Would it look different? Not turn on? Be clear. What would you notice exactly by looking at a machine that night?

There is little doubt that most people would notice if their Presidential choice had been changed by the machine -- creating an uproar.

With ten million entering the country in the Biden years for example, and millions before that how can we expect them to have the ballots checked to be in an 'uproar'?

Then they put the paper ballot in a counting machine; of course, the issue if you "hack" the counting machine is that any hand recount will show the hack -

Good point.

- and the swing states mostly did a hand recount of the machine vote to ensure there were no issues with the count. Then you have the issue that a little less than 2/3rds (about 63%) of votes in the US are done by hand -- a paper ballot marked by the voter and hand counted.

I'm sorry, your belief in how it could have been hacked, and easily hacked, just makes no sense.

I said machines probably could be hacked. Not that I have a belief they were. If what you say is true though, it takes away the motive for hacking a machine, whether or not it possibly could be done. That does leave millions of illegal voters though that make the process somewhat of a farce.
So, thanks for explaining why whether machines were hacked or not doesn't matter. Unless someone offers reasons we haven't covered yet as to why it would actually matter, we can drop the machine discussion.

 

[KCfromNC]

The end result is the same

Then one wonders about the rhetorical choice to falsely claim one thing happened instead of what actually did.

 

[KCfromNC]

It seems to me that the guy hacking the machine in front of a judge in minutes proved it was vulnerable to say the least.

Speaking of things presented in front of a judge, how did all of the GOP claims of massive election fraud go when presented in front of a judge. I mean, assuming things successfully presented in that sort of a venue is agreed on as a way to judge the truth of various claims.

 

[KCfromNC]

On the issue of mail in ballots that was not a major focus of the thread or OP. Asking a poster who was talking about how secure it was for a little info was not a crime. Neither was it something that affects the general topic here at all. Pretending it was shows you are skating on thin ice.

Skating on thin ice by pointing out that maybe one should learn about a subject before commenting on it? I mean, I guess that would disqualify one from being a GOP true believer but that's not really a risk for me, so I'm not sure what ice you think I'm skating on at this point.

Catchy sounding post but ultimately empty rhetoric when subjected to the least bit of thought. I'm starting to see a pattern here.

 

[BPPLEE]

Then one wonders about the rhetorical choice to falsely claim one thing happened instead of what actually did.

Yeah, I don’t know why you make such a claim.

 

[BCP1928]

Skating on thin ice by pointing out that maybe one should learn about a subject before commenting on it? I mean, I guess that would disqualify one from being a GOP true believer but that's not really a risk for me, so I'm not sure what ice you think I'm skating on at this point.

Catchy sounding post but ultimately empty rhetoric when subjected to the least bit of thought. I'm starting to see a pattern here.

It's hard for Trump supporters to face the fact that they are not a majority of the electorate. It's easier to take refuge in conspiracy theories.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I said machines probably could be hacked. Not that I have a belief they were. If what you say is true though, it takes away the motive for hacking a machine, whether or not it possibly could be done. That does leave millions of illegal voters though that make the process somewhat of a farce.
So, thanks for explaining why whether machines were hacked or not doesn't matter. Unless someone offers reasons we haven't covered yet as to why it would actually matter, we can drop the machine discussion.

Speaking of voting machines...

Someone *did* try to physically "hack" voting machines in Colorado to "prove" they were corrupted. Her trial was to begin today, but has been delayed for representation issues.

Trial for former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters delayed – again – just days before it was supposed to start

 

[DaisyDay]

3There is no burden of proof in this case.

Of course there is.

The claims were that the election could and should be trusted including the machines.

Every indication has proven this to be true.

That was wrong.

No, this is an "alternate fact."

As shown the machines are easily hacked.

"The" machines. More than one type and brand of machine were used in the election. Not a single one was shown to have been hacked. This was extensively reviewed post-election.

It is also clear that millions of people have been ushered into the country and can vote in so many states.

This is clearly disinformation. No one was proven to have been "ushered into the country" and only registered citizens can vote in federal elections.

That means the outcome hinges on their votes as well as the integrity of the machines.

Clearly false that noncitizens voted in the 2020 presidential election and the integrity of the machines has withstood scrutiny, for years now.

When no photo ID is needed it becomes a joke when people can vote.

Baloney, there are other forms of verification.

Did you think it was hard to print or forge a non photo ID?

Do you think it is hard to get a forged photo ID? Ask your local seventeen year-old.

Then there are the states aplenty where NO ID is needed to vote!!

Yes, my state is one such. We still needed to prove residence and citizenship to register, but the signature is good enough to vote.

Then there is the wonky hackable machines they lied about as being secure.

You keep making this claim without any evidence and against actual evidence.

Then there was the appearance of weirdness in the various unusual actions on voting night. Etc etc.

Well, weirdness! Each claim of "weirdness" was investigated and found to have a normal explanation, but you nevertheless keep posting the same accusations over and over.

So no one can prove it was either fraud ridden or fraud free.

It was proven to be NOT fraud-ridden and none of the fraud found would have been anywhere close to affecting the outcome. Which you know.

Well, since there are always some fraud I guess people could prove there was fraud to some extent!

Interestingly enough, much of the disclosed fraud was by GOP folk.

But you don't get to claim that the whole process was pure and true and trusted without proof any more than people with common sense who are highly suspicious get to prove there was fraud.

No one has claimed the whole process was pure and true and trusted, so cute but flimsy straw man. People with common sense understand that unless fraud can be shown after exhaustive investigation, then the process must be trusted or there is no point to having a process. If all it takes to throw out a highly scrutinized result is "eh, I dunno, seems suss" then why bother.

So we cannot blame anyone for doubting the results.

Non sequitur. If someone has no realistic basis for doubt then they most definitely can be blamed for clinging to said doubt past the point of reason.

I think we can blame people for not doubting them, since there were issues where absolute fraud was very possible. (mystery non identified voters/ballots and hacked machines etc)

That mystery, nonidentified voters (who?) and hacked machines have not been demonstrated to actually exist despite scrutiny by highly motivated people and identified voters and unhacked machines have been demonstrated shows you are mistaken under charitable assumptions.

What would make fraud "absolute"?[/QUOTE]

 

[truthpls]

Speaking of things presented in front of a judge, how did all of the GOP claims of massive election fraud go when presented in front of a judge. I mean, assuming things successfully presented in that sort of a venue is agreed on as a way to judge the truth of various claims.

Maybe they could not prove what they think they knew happened?

 

[truthpls]

Speaking of voting machines...

Someone *did* try to physically "hack" voting machines in Colorado to "prove" they were corrupted. Her trial was to begin today, but has been delayed for representation issues.

Trial for former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters delayed – again – just days before it was supposed to start

Another poster pointed out that all machines do basically is count votes already submitted. So, unless someone has reason to think that this actually is seldom checked, or can't be if needed, I see no use talking about machines. You see if the issue becomes not whether they theoretically could be hacked, but whether hacking them would even make any difference, why discuss them? In the case you mention, I assume whoever tried to manipulate a machine after an election was primarily trying to get to the truth, no?