US truckers, Texas and civil war

[BPPLEE]

Pretty sure George Floyd wasn't at head of a violent mob attacking the House on Jan 6th. Why bring him up?

If the death penalty is appropriate for disorderly conduct and trespassing then I think public intoxication and counterfeiting should qualify as well

 

[7thKeeper]

You sure do support law enforcement.Did George Floyd get what he deserved too ?

See? Can't justify Babbitt's actions so gotta distract to something unrelated. I'll go look for the videos of Floyd being part of a mob trying to break through a door with government officials behind that door. Oh right, that didn't happen. Two wildly different situations. You got nothing.

Babbitt was part of a mob, breaking down a barricade set up to stop the mob from going after the people being moved behind it (iirc from a previous thread, Pelosi had been moved through that area some minutes before, but I could remember this wrong.), she was warned, a lot of people saw that the officers had their guns out, she decided to still attempt to break through and got what she deserved. Good riddance. No one else was stupid enough to try anything after that. This, was justified use of force.


Here's a link to the event itself from the thread about the lawsuit brought about the shooting of Babbitt btw for people to watch to see what happened.

 

[BPPLEE]

See? Can't justify Babbitt's actions so gotta distract to something unrelated. I'll go look for the videos of Floyd being part of a mob trying to break through a door with government officials behind that door. Oh right, that didn't happen. Two wildly different situations. You got nothing.

Babbitt was part of a mob, breaking down a barricade set up to stop the mob from going after the people being moved behind it (iirc from a previous thread, Pelosi had been moved through that area some minutes before, but I could remember this wrong.), she was warned, a lot of people saw that the officers had their guns out, she decided to still attempt to break through and got what she deserved. Good riddance. No one else was stupid enough to try anything after that. This, was justified use of force.


Here's a link to the event itself from the thread about the lawsuit brought about the shooting of Babbitt btw for people to watch to see what happened.

Here’s a recording of Byrd saying what you claim he didn’t say. Take notice @SimplyMe

Radio Transmissions by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd | The Epoch Times Audio Central

Among Byrd's radio calls from in and around the House chamber was the explosive—and false—claim that he was taking fire after shooting Ashli Babbitt at the entrance to the Speaker's Lobby.

epochjoe.podbean.com

 

[BPPLEE]

See? Can't justify Babbitt's actions so gotta distract to something unrelated. I'll go look for the videos of Floyd being part of a mob trying to break through a door with government officials behind that door. Oh right, that didn't happen. Two wildly different situations. You got nothing.

Babbitt was part of a mob, breaking down a barricade set up to stop the mob from going after the people being moved behind it (iirc from a previous thread, Pelosi had been moved through that area some minutes before, but I could remember this wrong.), she was warned, a lot of people saw that the officers had their guns out, she decided to still attempt to break through and got what she deserved. Good riddance. No one else was stupid enough to try anything after that. This, was justified use of force.


Here's a link to the event itself from the thread about the lawsuit brought about the shooting of Babbitt btw for people to watch to see what happened.

Why did those officers move out of the way? Why didn’t they draw their firearms? That video has been edited so that you don’t see the officers walking away.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why did those officers move out of the way?

They had backup coming within a minute from behind the rioters.

Why didn’t they draw their firearms?

Did they not train you about drawing your sidearm against persons within arm reach? (I suspect they did.)

That video has been edited so that you don’t see the officers walking away.

 

[truthpls]

I think its a necessary thing. Texas is being plundered and people are forced to leave their homes because Biden won't lift a finger to fix the border problem. He has done nothing all this time. Then he has the gull to blame Trump for all the problems Biden has caused. Now Biden wants to keep Texas from defending its borders. What else is left for Texas to do?

I have noticed the modus operandi of many politicians, even in other countries is to blame the previous leaders for all problems if possible. However since that is so unfitting in the case of the border issues in the US, all it seems to tell us is that their lies have reached a level that is totally disconnected from truth. As for Biden doing nothing, I can't agree. He (or his handlers) seem to actively make things worse on purpose for some reason. It is almost as if they are directed by enemies of Christians, heritage, and the nation. We can't see the dark hands pulling the strings, but we can see the actions of the puppet.

 

[BPPLEE]

They had backup coming within a minute from behind the rioters.

Did they not train you about drawing your sidearm against persons within arm reach? (I suspect they did.)

Having back up coming in less than a minute is a reason to not give up your position.
If this barrier was the point of no return as some have claimed those officers should have defended it. They didn’t draw their weapons or use deadly force because it was not justified.
And I posted audio of Byrd trying to cover up his mistake.

 

[truthpls]

When a post starts out by attempting to shift the burden of proof like this, my first thought is "why doesn't the post have enough evidence for what it is claiming?".

There is no burden of proof in this case. The claims were that the election could and should be trusted including the machines. That was wrong. As shown the machines are easily hacked. It is also clear that millions of people have been ushered into the country and can vote in so many states. That means the outcome hinges on their votes as well as the integrity of the machines. When no photo ID is needed it becomes a joke when people can vote. Did you think it was hard to print or forge a non photo ID? Then there are the states aplenty where NO ID is needed to vote!! Then there is the wonky hackable machines they lied about as being secure. Then there was the appearance of weirdness in the various unusual actions on voting night. Etc etc. So no one can prove it was either fraud ridden or fraud free. Well, since there are always some fraud I guess people could prove there was fraud to some extent! 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. So we cannot blame anyone for doubting the results. 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)

 

[BPPLEE]

There is no burden of proof in this case. The claims were that the election could and should be trusted including the machines. That was wrong. As shown the machines are easily hacked. It is also clear that millions of people have been ushered into the country and can vote in so many states. That means the outcome hinges on their votes as well as the integrity of the machines. When no photo ID is needed it becomes a joke when people can vote. Did you think it was hard to print or forge a non photo ID? Then there are the states aplenty where NO ID is needed to vote!! Then there is the wonky hackable machines they lied about as being secure. Then there was the appearance of weirdness in the various unusual actions on voting night. Etc etc. So no one can prove it was either fraud ridden or fraud free. Well, since there are always some fraud I guess people could prove there was fraud to some extent! 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. So we cannot blame anyone for doubting the results. 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)

The Russians stole the 2016 election but the 2020 election was the most secure in history.
Right

 

[Hans Blaster]

Having back up coming in less than a minute is a reason to not give up your position.

I can't say it wasn't a tactical error. I don't have information on all possible contingencies or their instantaneous thoughts.

If this barrier was the point of no return as some have claimed those officers should have defended it.

The barrier wasn't breached even with the withdrawals of the officers. (It took quite a beating and didn't open, but the glass was pounded out.) Perhaps they thought the doors would hold until backup arrived. (The doors did, the windows didn't.) By pulling out, they also gave cleaner lines of sight to the officers inside the Speaker's Lobby who did have appropriate space to draw their weapons.

They didn’t draw their weapons or use deadly force because it was not justified.

or they could feel the breath of their possible targets on their faces. Even if it was justified for the officers just outside the doors to draw and fire, it wouldn't have been a good idea.

And I posted audio of Byrd trying to cover up his mistake.

didn't see it.

 

[BPPLEE]

I can't say it wasn't a tactical error. I don't have information on all possible contingencies or their instantaneous thoughts.

The barrier wasn't breached even with the withdrawals of the officers. (It took quite a beating and didn't open, but the glass was pounded out.) Perhaps they thought the doors would hold until backup arrived. (The doors did, the windows didn't.) By pulling out, they also gave cleaner lines of sight to the officers inside the Speaker's Lobby who did have appropriate space to draw their weapons.

or they could feel the breath of their possible targets on their faces. Even if it was justified for the officers just outside the doors to draw and fire, it wouldn't have been a good idea.

didn't see it.

Radio Transmissions by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd | The Epoch Times Audio Central

Among Byrd's radio calls from in and around the House chamber was the explosive—and false—claim that he was taking fire after shooting Ashli Babbitt at the entrance to the Speaker's Lobby.

epochjoe.podbean.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

Radio Transmissions by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd | The Epoch Times Audio Central

Among Byrd's radio calls from in and around the House chamber was the explosive—and false—claim that he was taking fire after shooting Ashli Babbitt at the entrance to the Speaker's Lobby.

epochjoe.podbean.com

You're going to trust *anything* posted by that cult? I wouldn't. That poster specifically (epochjoe) posts lies and distortions about Jan 6th all over the net. Got a more reliable source?

 

[truthpls]

The Russians stole the 2016 election but the 2020 election was the most secure in history.
Right

Good point. Maybe it is time we all stop making the mistake of believing anything they say. By their fruits they are known.

 

[SimplyMe]

They could be connected to some frequency. And whatever was in the machines or not, do we know? Whatever was taken out from the machines later, do we know? Etc

So you are claiming that the machines have some type of two way radios installed? I'm sorry, your conspiracy theories just keep going deeper and don't even make sense.

Saying there was no crime when many suspicious things happened is not evidence.

Nor is saying "many suspicious things happened." By your logic, Trump is absolutely guilty of committing crime because so many suspicous things occurred. By your logic, it doesn't matter if they are "out to get him," it merely matters that so many suspicious things have been pointed out. You see your logical fallacy yet?

Calling for evidence of a sophisticated operation that is over is not a reasonable position.

No, it isn't. The more "sophisticated" an operation, the more people who are involved, the more "steps" that need to be taken basically makes it impossible not to be caught.

What is known is that the guy with the bic pen basically possessed the machine and controlled it.

Not true. What he did was manage to change results in the machine. He did not "possess" the machine or control it, just changes some numbers.

Claiming that intelligence experts could not have done even better is also not a reasonable position. Only claiming you do not know is rational. With elections we should know.

Oh, so now it is "intelligence experts?" So tell me, what intelligence experts were around voting machines on or after Election Day, and why would Trump's Intelligence Agencies be running an operation to change election results. Why did no one notice, from the Republicans running intelligence agencies to Congressional oversight committees? Not to mention, with all the people that would have needed to be involved, why have none of them (particularly one asked to participate who disagreed) never come forward to blow the whistle on the operation?

Says you. You ascribe sinister motives. Are you a psychic or just like gossiping nonsense?

No, you are the one ascribing sinister motives. I'm the one providing evidence. It is weird you ask me if I'm psychic or like gossiping nonsense when you are the one talking about your beliefs, rumors of "suspicious things" you heard on the Internet (that have basically all be disproven) rather than anything evidence based.

Some people claim twitter censored them. Some claim they had to wear a mask that could not begin to stop viruses. Some claim that schools teach based on an agenda that is easily proven. Etc. If Trump was an enemy of powerful people it seems natural he would have and have had for a long time, deep resistance.

Yes, and Biden has no resistance at all, right? All Presidents get resistance from the opposition party, Trump is really no different in that regard.

That was a quick search. Here is another result

"

• Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
• Photo ID requested (non-strict): Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas.
• Non-photo ID required (strict): Arizona, North Dakota, and Wyoming.
• Non-photo ID requested (non-strict): Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington, Virginia, and West Virginia.
• No ID required to vote at ballot box: California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington, D.C." - wiki

Yes, and for those states which are "non-strict," what do they need to do if they don't have a photo ID? Is it a regular ballot or a conditional ballot, meaning that it only counts if they end up verifying the person is who they claim to be?

Also interesting how all the swing states require an ID.

Obviously with millions of illegals or fraudsters, the election could be heavily swayed.

We'll get back to this when you get to your example of how.

OK so they did not repent. Not world super surprising.

I would say the chances are greater than someone harvesting ballots from an old folks home. The chances are also greater it is a real person.

People can try, though in most states it is illegal and will be prosecuted. There is at least one case in Texas for it where the woman ended up pleading guilty to 26 counts of voter fraud. It isn't as easy to do, without getting caught, as you are trying to claim. And penalties are such -- 26 felonies -- that most sane people aren't willing to risk destroying their lives to try to change an election; particularly since 26 votes were not going to swing the election in any state.

Or people who say they are?

Or perhaps elections should make it impossible to cheat

Exactly how would you do that? Even with a all paper election, you'd have all sorts of claims of cheating -- to include things like people switching out the ballot boxes, fraudsters voting in place of someone, and I'm sure many things I (or anyone else) may not have thought of yet.

What are they watching? People sitting scanning mass ballots for signatures in seconds? Who watches in the long night when the place was closed?

None of the election centers were closed. The one in Fulton County Georgia is the one where they thought they would close but they never did, since they were told they couldn't. So it is the observers and the cameras and election workers that watch.

Easy. I am one of them! I watched and was shocked at the appearance of fraud and shadiness.

Oh, what "fraud and shadiness" did you personally see? I'm not talking about some video, typically heavily edited, but what did you personally see when it allegedly happened? And how do you know it was "fraud and shadiness" and not something like the workers in Georgia pulling ballots out from underneath tables that they had placed there mere minutes before, since they though they were going home (particularly since that was an earlier example you gave)?

And you don't have to trust me on that, you can trust Giuliani, who admitted to editing the video to support his claims of "fraud" that were completely untrue -- you can read the court filing where Giuliani signed his name to having done that. You can also find the full, uncut, video on line that shows the workers putting the boxes under the table just minutes before.

For who? Joe sixpacks?

If people tried and failed to hack all that shows is that they were not very good at it. Trump had enemies in the CIA and FBI etc. For that sort of professional, getting around a camera or unlocking doors, bypassing security etc is ho hum.

Again, no one notice that they were not at work those days and get suspicious? No one noticed them on cameras at the various election counting centers? No one noticed that they, who were not supposed to be near the machines (which were being specifically watched), got near the machines and did things they weren't supposed to? And, since dozens, if not hundreds, of these guys would need to be involved (and do it multiple times due to recounts), no co-worker ever noticed all these people being gone at the same times and no one that allegedly did it ever had a crisis of conscience and admitted to what they did? Conspiracies involving hundreds just do not work.

Beyond that, are you claiming that Trump did not have access to these highly skilled types of professionals? Odd that his people got caught trying to mess with the machines after the election was over, if it is allegedly so easy for these highly skilled people to do.

The issue with a machine favoring one side over the other is not just how many ballots we end up with.

The guy in front of the judge just proved that.

No, it really isn't.

Ballots are filled out before they get there, no? It is known in previous elections that some dead people voted, and etc. With a system where almost no id is really needed, and there is no way to really know who voted, why would ballots need to be altered? If the big test is seeing if signatures seem to be the same, well, sorry, I am not buying that bridge.

Odd, then, in the decades where no id was required in almost every state, fraud was rare. Your issue you miss is that this type of "fraud" would depend on the real person not actually voting. So how do these "fraudsters" have the names of hundreds of registered voters that are not going to vote? How do they insure that real person doesn't vote (since who votes and attempts to vote more than once is tracked), since that would possibly unravel their entire operation?

What was impossible is people pretending nothing could have went on that dark night as well as before and after.

What is crazy is continuing to talk about a "dark night." And I've already explained that before doesn't help, as the votes before the election entered into counting machines would be noticed -- it is specifically something checked in front of observers. And after doesn't matter, either, as once the count is completed it is certified, so changing the machines after won't change the vote -- in fact, no one would likely ever look at the count after.

That depends. I am sure a way can be found to control them, perhaps by adding a little component or whatever. Was each machine inspected inside that night? How about later as well? Planes can be flown remotely. Yet normally of course they are not and require a pilot.

Yes, a plane can be flown remotely if it has the communications equipment to allow it to be done. Election machines intentionally aren't built with any of that type of equipment built in. And adding it is not nearly as simply as you think, as it requires software to be added and it is something that would be noticed. These machines are built with specific check sums and other "protections" that get checked before the election, to ensure the machine's software has not been hacked -- any change in the software would change the check sum.

Checked for what and by who? Would they even know what they were looking for?

Yes. People don't have to know computers to check a check sum and the other protections. Instead, they have a number from the manufacturer that shows what the check sum should be if the software has not been hacked or otherwise changed. If the number does not match they know there is an issue -- they don't care how it was changed, merely that it was, and that machine is invalidated and investigated by professionals, who would know what to look for. It would also become news, with the video recordings of the room scrutinized, the access logs checked, etc -- not to mention the normal checks like DNA sweeps, fingerprints, etc of the machine and the room.

So if I stuck a few tiny circuits behind a circuit panel the day before or whenever, that would allow the machine to be affected remotely that would be seen? Then after the election if I had them removed, you would know? Let's face it, they can be hacked probably in a few ways. The issue is whether intelligence level operatives were involved in the scheme or not, basically. We don't know.

As I explain above, yes, it would be seen. It doesn't matter if "intelligence level operatives" were involved.

So? Any intelligence operation from probably many countries allowed access at some point could hack it and change results.

Why would "intelligence operations" from any place, including the US, be allowed access?

Not higher level ones. The usual internet is not the only game in town. Even if it was, intelligence experts could mask what they were doing with codes and etc. You seem to think that if there was fraud going on it had to be with Mary who works in the election office, or Joe who delivers the mail etc.

And your conspiracy theory continues to get more elaborate. Additionally, it is nearly impossible for them to do it without the government's support -- which also makes it highly likely you'd have multiple whistleblowers talking about it.

Not that the poor busy folks would be able to see or recognize. It is safe to say the machine could have been hacked one way or another. Your best bet is to admit you don't know.

No, my best bet is to admit that it is a conspiracy theory. You have no clue how US elections are administered, much less the security and work that goes into protecting the machines and insuring they are secure and accurate. You are just throwing stuff against the wall, not realizing that this has already been thought of and protected against.

There are also a plethora of states that require almost no id or none at all. Anyone handing out phony non picture ID to armies of illegals, for example, could have armies of votes.

And this is maybe the most laughable. So, again, how do they know that person isn't going to vote? You don't think that election officials would get suspicious when a Hispanic man, one that doesn't speak English, has ID that claims he is Helmut Schmidt? What happens when one of the people whose ID they gave out actually did vote that morning, so when the illegal comes to vote they start trying to determine why this person is trying to vote a second time? You don't think that illegal immigrant wouldn't tell everything he knows and blow the entire operation, just to keep from being deported and put on a list that he is never allowed back? And how do they know that one of these illegals isn't a Trump supporter and will go and tell authorities about the plot? This conspiracy theory would be basically impossible to pull off. Not to mention the number of people that would need to be involved from determining who they can be sure won't vote, those that print IDs such that they will fool election workers, the number of people that would be needed to secretly round up illegal immigrants (without anyone else noticing) and handing out the IDs. Again, large conspiracies, where dozens are involved, just do not work; someone always says something, even just in passing, to the wrong person at the wrong time.

 

[BPPLEE]

BREAKING: Ashli Babbitt Shooting Documents UNCOVERED - Judicial Watch

BREAKING: New Questions about U.S. Capitol Police Shooting of Unarmed Ashli Babbitt DHS Ends Worksite Enforcement to Protect ‘Noncitizen Victims’ from Deportation Targeting Trump: Durham Uncovers New Clinton, FBI Connections in Russia Probe BREAKING: New Questions about U.S. Capitol Police...

www.judicialwatch.org

Judicial Watch Files $30 Million Wrongful Death Lawsuit against U.S. Government on behalf of Ashli Babbitt’s Husband and Estate - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. Government on behalf of the family of Ashli Babbitt, the U.S. Air Force veteran who was shot and killed inside the U.S. Capitol by then-Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6, 2021...

www.judicialwatch.org

 

[BPPLEE]

You're going to trust *anything* posted by that cult? I wouldn't. That poster specifically (epochjoe) posts lies and distortions about Jan 6th all over the net. Got a more reliable source?

It’s documented in the lawsuit

After Shooting Ashli Babbitt, Capitol Police Lt. Made False Radio Report: Lawsuit | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Stephen Spillane​

January 8, 2024 at 18:52
Report


According to the lawsuit, approximately one minute AFTER he shot Babbitt he made the following radio call:
“405B. We got shots fired in the lobby. We got shots shots fired in the lobby of the House chamber. Shots are being fired at us and we’re sh, uhh, prepared to fire back at them. We have guns drawn. Please don’t leave that end. Don’t leave that end.”.
30 seconds later, Lt. Byrd made another radio call, stating,:
“405B. We got an injured person. I believe that person was shot.”
Lt Byrd was not being truthful, the only gunshot that day was the one he fired.

Lt. Byrd’s police powers had been revoked on more than one occasion prior to January 6, 2021, for failing to meet or complete semiannual firearms qualification requirements. In fact, Lt. Byrd had a reputation among peers for not being a good shot. Under USCP’s range management system, an officer who fails to meet firearm qualification requirements is given one week of remedial training. If the officer still fails to qualify after remedial training, police powers are then revoked until the officer qualifies.

Lt. Byrd’s police powers also were revoked for a prior off-duty shooting into a stolen, moving vehicle in which the occupants were teenagers or juveniles. The stolen vehicle was Lt. Byrd’s car. Lt. Byrd fired multiple shots at the fleeing vehicle in a suburban area. Stray bullets from Lt. Byrd’s firearm struck the sides of homes nearby. An official investigation found that Lt. Byrd’s use of force was not justified.

 

[truthpls]

PART 2

BREAKING: Ashli Babbitt Shooting Documents UNCOVERED - Judicial Watch

BREAKING: New Questions about U.S. Capitol Police Shooting of Unarmed Ashli Babbitt DHS Ends Worksite Enforcement to Protect ‘Noncitizen Victims’ from Deportation Targeting Trump: Durham Uncovers New Clinton, FBI Connections in Russia Probe BREAKING: New Questions about U.S. Capitol Police...

www.judicialwatch.org

Judicial Watch Files $30 Million Wrongful Death Lawsuit against U.S. Government on behalf of Ashli Babbitt’s Husband and Estate - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. Government on behalf of the family of Ashli Babbitt, the U.S. Air Force veteran who was shot and killed inside the U.S. Capitol by then-Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6, 2021...

www.judicialwatch.org

of post

So how do these "fraudsters" have the names of hundreds of registered voters that are not going to vote?

How do illegal ID makes have names of dead people so they can make IDs? If say, for example a hospice for the dying that had 500 people in it and ballots were provided for the home, who watches the patients fill it out? Who can check a year later when maybe 85% of them are dead? etc etc

How do they insure that real person doesn't vote (since who votes and attempts to vote more than once is tracked), since that would possibly unravel their entire operation?

Who knows? Maybe use people that are not voting, or incapacitated, or bought off ..etc

What is crazy is continuing to talk about a "dark night." And I've already explained that before doesn't help, as the votes before the election entered into counting machines would be noticed -- it is specifically something checked in front of observers.

Are we sure that if 1000 votes were counted, that they were counted for the right candidate? Just checking your claims here.

And after doesn't matter, either, as once the count is completed it is certified, so changing the machines after won't change the vote -- in fact, no one would likely ever look at the count after.

After might matter if whatever tinkering with the innards of the machine left some trace that had to be removed or etc

Yes, a plane can be flown remotely if it has the communications equipment to allow it to be done. Election machines intentionally aren't built with any of that type of equipment built in. And adding it is not nearly as simply as you think, as it requires software to be added and it is something that would be noticed. These machines are built with specific check sums and other "protections" that get checked before the election, to ensure the machine's software has not been hacked -- any change in the software would change the check sum.

This link may be a bit old, but it is an example of some things involved in the past.
"Every system designed to provide security features needs to be evaluated within a threat model. As such, our work does not address all of the security problems in electronic voting. Rather, we are concerned with the issue of determining whether the software running on a voting machine on election day is the same software that was produced by the manufacturer. In our design, we make several assumptions about the capabilities of the adversary and point out that in the real world, an adversary is likely to be more powerful.

We assume that an adversary will not replace any of the hardware components in the voting system or their firmware. We limit attacks to modifications in the software. Such modifications could occur, for example, if an insider at the manufacturer changes the code after the hash values are computed and before the system is released. The software is also vulnerable to changes when the machines are in storage. It is common practice prior to elections to store voting machines overnight in the churches, synagogues and schools where the election will take place. In many instances, there are multiple people with physical access to the machines, and it is our experience (based on working at the polls) that the tamper seals on these machines are not very effective against a determined and resourceful adversary.

We assume that an adversary may be able to modify and control all of the DRE software, including the BIOS, bootloader, operating system, and voting application. In our specific implementation, we also assume that an attacker does not modify the BIOS. But, this assumption is based on our specific implementation and is not a design constraint."

On the Difficulty of Validating Voting Machine Software with Software

There seems to be a long line of things that need to be secured and looked at. I think it is safe to say that computer warfare level experts could hack the machines and cover it up. We do not know.

Yes. People don't have to know computers to check a check sum and the other protections.

Explain what a check sum entails exactly?

Instead, they have a number from the manufacturer that shows what the check sum should be if the software has not been hacked or otherwise changed. If the number does not match they know there is an issue

So if I were in an operation that hacked machines I would also probably be able to hack the manufacturer's premises etc. Is that a problem?

-- they don't care how it was changed, merely that it was, and that machine is invalidated and investigated by professionals, who would know what to look for.

Would they though? Firstly your scenario is that the manufacturer's info would not jive with the machine that day. Any operation worth it's salt would have that base covered.

It would also become news, with the video recordings of the room scrutinized, the access logs checked, etc -- not to mention the normal checks like DNA sweeps, fingerprints, etc of the machine and the room.

What would you look for in a video? How long is the video? Does it last weeks? Who says anyone would have to enter such rooms on election day in person?? If they did, then who says professionals could not do so clandestinely and avoid the silly camera or whatever? We don't know.

As I explain above, yes, it would be seen. It doesn't matter if "intelligence level operatives" were involved.

Oh I can't agree with that little gem

Why would "intelligence operations" from any place, including the US, be allowed access?

Why would you think such operations would need to be 'allowed'? In that case you would have the government directly involved and I doubt that happened.

And your conspiracy theory continues to get more elaborate.

Flattery will get you nowhere

Additionally, it is nearly impossible for them to do it without the government's support -- which also makes it highly likely you'd have multiple whistleblowers talking about it.

Ah, it is one thing to give such an operation a wink and a nod, but another to openly conduct such an operation. We don't know. Any official open operation would likely be found out eventually I would guess.

No, my best bet is to admit that it is a conspiracy theory.

No less or more than it is one to deny it may have happened.

You have no clue how US elections are administered, much less the security and work that goes into protecting the machines and insuring they are secure and accurate. You are just throwing stuff against the wall, not realizing that this has already been thought of and protected against.

They say, make it idiot proof, and they will build a better idiot. It is not what we do not know that is the concern but also what we do know. We know the machines are easily hackable for example. We know millions could have voted that are not citizens. Etc

And this is maybe the most laughable. So, again, how do they know that person isn't going to vote?

Already covered earlier in the post

You don't think that election officials would get suspicious when a Hispanic man, one that doesn't speak English, has ID that claims he is Helmut Schmidt?

If I were sending thousands of people to vote with false IDs I would likely think of race etc.

What happens when one of the people whose ID they gave out actually did vote that morning, so when the illegal comes to vote they start trying to determine why this person is trying to vote a second time?

What happens if a list is circulated of people that never vote and are too sick or old or dead etc etc?

You don't think that illegal immigrant wouldn't tell everything he knows and blow the entire operation, just to keep from being deported and put on a list that he is never allowed back?

No. Not if they didn't know too much!

And how do they know that one of these illegals isn't a Trump supporter and will go and tell authorities about the plot?

Some people may be good at knowing who can be bribed or used with no or little danger of saying anything?

This conspiracy theory would be basically impossible to pull off.

What conspiracy? There are several weak spots in the system. What would be hard to pull off is NOT having any of them exploited!

Not to mention the number of people that would need to be involved from determining who they can be sure won't vote,

If there is a list where is the problem?

those that print IDs such that they will fool election workers,

Say what? Non photo IDs are supposed to be foolproof? If an election counter spends mere seconds 'verifying' signatures, how much time do they spend 'verifying' non photo IDs?? I might be surprised if they do more than glace in the direction of the voter without even actually really reading the ID

the number of people that would be needed to secretly round up illegal immigrants (without anyone else noticing) and handing out the IDs.

Say what? If they can vote and are encouraged to vote because they are expected to vote for the right party, how is that hard? Hand out a few freebies or dollars or give them a ride and ...whatever. Now, in some cases, if many of those or other folks also are provided with IDs how is that any great expense or problem?

 

[truthpls]

Part 1 of post

So you are claiming that the machines have some type of two way radios installed? I'm sorry, your conspiracy theories just keep going deeper and don't even make sense.

No I said we don't know. There are intelligence experts that could do that sort of thing as easy as morning coffee. Even the professor easily did it in person with a pen very quickly

Nor is saying "many suspicious things happened." By your logic, Trump is absolutely guilty of committing crime because so many suspicous things occurred. By your logic, it doesn't matter if they are "out to get him," it merely matters that so many suspicious things have been pointed out. You see your logical fallacy yet?

No. The voting was topped for the night I found that suspicious. There were all sorts of stories going around. The no ID was completely foolish. Many people agree. For such a sudden shift in some cases of results by ballots coming in that were one sided, yes it was suspicious. In many ways. People still pretending the machines are reliable I also find suspicious.

No, it isn't. The more "sophisticated" an operation, the more people who are involved, the more "steps" that need to be taken basically makes it impossible not to be caught.

How would you know? If an operation was conducted you would not see it.

Not true. What he did was manage to change results in the machine. He did not "possess" the machine or control it, just changes some numbers.

That is what was meant. He took over. Hacked. Let's not quibble over terms.

Oh, so now it is "intelligence experts?"

Well, anyone who would have hacked the machines would probably not be plumbers. Again you do not know.

So tell me, what intelligence experts were around voting machines on or after Election Day,

If I saw them how good would they have been?

and why would Trump's Intelligence Agencies be running an operation to change election results.

He had none. Apparently they worked against him if you recall. But it could have been a branch that is not official, or another country, etc. We don't know.

Why did no one notice, from the Republicans running intelligence agencies to Congressional oversight committees?

Ha. The head of the CIA? The FBI? The NSA? Who said it had to be US intelligence or a whole three letter outfit rather than operatives? We don't know.

Not to mention, with all the people that would have needed to be involved, why have none of them (particularly one asked to participate who disagreed) never come forward to blow the whistle on the operation?

If there were an operation, who says it need involve many hundreds of people directly? Who says they were even from the US? We don't know.

No, you are the one ascribing sinister motives

Fraud in an election would be the sinister motive. Claiming a candidate was deceiving people in thinking he had probably won by the looks of things and by past experiences is where the ascribing sinister motives comes in.

. I'm the one providing evidence.

No. You mention superficial and vague things mostly.

It is weird you ask me if I'm psychic or like gossiping nonsense when you are the one talking about your beliefs, rumors of "suspicious things" you heard on the Internet (that have basically all be disproven) rather than anything evidence based.

You just accused Trump here of falsely pretending to have expected to win and be almost ready to deliver the victory speech, no? Nothing is dis proven at all. You can no more prove there was no fraud then others could prove there was.

Yes, and Biden has no resistance at all, right? All Presidents get resistance from the opposition party, Trump is really no different in that regard.

If he did, would he recognize it?

Yes, and for those states which are "non-strict," what do they need to do if they don't have a photo ID?

Stay home? Let people vote who are known citizens? Who cares? Just do not drive a car without a license and get on a plane, or vote without ID.

Is it a regular ballot or a conditional ballot, meaning that it only counts if they end up verifying the person is who they claim to be?

You tell us?

Also interesting how all the swing states require an ID.

Photo ID? Or dirty library card printed out yesterday?

People can try, though in most states it is illegal and will be prosecuted. There is at least one case in Texas for it where the woman ended up pleading guilty to 26 counts of voter fraud. It isn't as easy to do, without getting caught, as you are trying to claim. And penalties are such -- 26 felonies -- that most sane people aren't willing to risk destroying their lives to try to change an election; particularly since 26 votes were not going to swing the election in any state.

Nevertheless you just admitted there was fraud.

Exactly how would you do that? Even with a all paper election, you'd have all sorts of claims of cheating -- to include things like people switching out the ballot boxes, fraudsters voting in place of someone, and I'm sure many things I (or anyone else) may not have thought of yet.

Those things are a lot easier to monitor and probably could not result in the sort of massive fraud needed to overturn an election completely and suddenly.

None of the election centers were closed. The one in Fulton County Georgia is the one where they thought they would close but they never did, since they were told they couldn't. So it is the observers and the cameras and election workers that watch.

Ha. What are they looking for, ghosts in machines? They sure weren't looking for IDs!

Oh, what "fraud and shadiness" did you personally see? I'm not talking about some video, typically heavily edited, but what did you personally see when it allegedly happened? And how do you know it was "fraud and shadiness" and not something like the workers in Georgia pulling ballots out from underneath tables that they had placed there mere minutes before, since they though they were going home (particularly since that was an earlier example you gave)?

The coverage that night and news sources were abuzz with strangeness.

And you don't have to trust me on that, you can trust Giuliani, who admitted to editing the video to support his claims of "fraud" that were completely untrue -- you can read the court filing where Giuliani signed his name to having done that. You can also find the full, uncut, video on line that shows the workers putting the boxes under the table just minutes before.

Source? (not that I trust or care much what the former mayor does)

Again, no one notice that they were not at work those days and get suspicious? No one noticed them on cameras at the various election counting centers?

You seem to suggest that men or women had to walk into the machine room that day in order for any hack to have happened?

Beyond that, are you claiming that Trump did not have access to these highly skilled types of professionals?

No. I am saying we don't know. I also would not hold up the one who lost as the chief suspect for the fraud if there was one.

Odd that his people got caught trying to mess with the machines after the election was over, if it is allegedly so easy for these highly skilled people to do.

Messing? Or trying to have them checked out?

Odd, then, in the decades where no id was required in almost every state, fraud was rare.

Odd that they say ten million and more came in the country since Biden started. I also doubt that wherever no ID is needed there was no fraud whether they got caught or not! If anyone can vote from any country with no ID, heck why not take ballots from Beijing and Moscow also?

Your issue you miss is that this type of "fraud" would depend on the real person not actually voting.

And..?

 

[Ragdoll]

I have noticed the modus operandi of many politicians, even in other countries is to blame the previous leaders for all problems if possible. However since that is so unfitting in the case of the border issues in the US, all it seems to tell us is that their lies have reached a level that is totally disconnected from truth. As for Biden doing nothing, I can't agree. He (or his handlers) seem to actively make things worse on purpose for some reason. It is almost as if they are directed by enemies of Christians, heritage, and the nation. We can't see the dark hands pulling the strings, but we can see the actions of the puppet.

True. I can agree with that. It sure does appear to look like Biden is trying to cause border chaos on purpose. It does not appear at all to look like he wants to do something to fix the border chaos. I believe Biden is still Obama's Puppet. Its Obama third term.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It’s documented in the lawsuit

After Shooting Ashli Babbitt, Capitol Police Lt. Made False Radio Report: Lawsuit | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Stephen Spillane​

January 8, 2024 at 18:52
Report


According to the lawsuit, approximately one minute AFTER he shot Babbitt he made the following radio call:
“405B. We got shots fired in the lobby. We got shots shots fired in the lobby of the House chamber. Shots are being fired at us and we’re sh, uhh, prepared to fire back at them. We have guns drawn. Please don’t leave that end. Don’t leave that end.”.
30 seconds later, Lt. Byrd made another radio call, stating,:
“405B. We got an injured person. I believe that person was shot.”
Lt Byrd was not being truthful, the only gunshot that day was the one he fired.

Lt. Byrd’s police powers had been revoked on more than one occasion prior to January 6, 2021, for failing to meet or complete semiannual firearms qualification requirements. In fact, Lt. Byrd had a reputation among peers for not being a good shot. Under USCP’s range management system, an officer who fails to meet firearm qualification requirements is given one week of remedial training. If the officer still fails to qualify after remedial training, police powers are then revoked until the officer qualifies.

Lt. Byrd’s police powers also were revoked for a prior off-duty shooting into a stolen, moving vehicle in which the occupants were teenagers or juveniles. The stolen vehicle was Lt. Byrd’s car. Lt. Byrd fired multiple shots at the fleeing vehicle in a suburban area. Stray bullets from Lt. Byrd’s firearm struck the sides of homes nearby. An official investigation found that Lt. Byrd’s use of force was not justified.

I'm sorry, but how does this affect anything about the tactical decisions or the justification in this case?