Protecting Second Life From Hate Groups Hiding & Organizing Here

[Luna Bliss]

21 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

OK I have another one needing fact checking.... 

if true it does raise questions:

 

https://t.co/GUQxYgAQ8Z

First, Google someone's name to see what their credentials are, then try to find out what others have said about them. Then find factcheck websites and see who runs them so you can determine if you trust their evaluation of someone with information.  So what do you think about what I found?

https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-entertainment/2016/04/05/dallas-inventor-of-infamous-cuecat-is-now-erm-a-full-blown-treasure-hunter/

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

35 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

OK I have another one needing fact checking and since you are adept at it, I thought maybe you could prove it is bogus too because if true it does raise questions:

 

 

The quick and easy answer to your question is that they did hand audits of the ballots in Georgia -- where the voting machines scan paper ballots -- and found no evidence of hacking, fraud, or discrepancy between the electronic count and the hand counts.

Also, this video does not indicate that fraud was perpetrated. All it says is that these machines were "hackable" by "white hat" hackers -- "white hat" meaning ethical hackers, whose function it is merely to locate security issues. That they can be hacked is not proof that it was done.

There is plenty of evidence that voting machines are not very secure -- which is precisely why many states, including Georgia, have moved to machines that work with paper ballots. But, again, Georgia's audits of the paper ballots revealed no fraud.

More generally, the problem with a "story" like this is the lack of information. Who is this guy? <redacted>(I think it's David Dill, but I'm not sure.)</redacted> When was this? Where was this? What is the context? The lack of that kind of information means that, even if it is valid and authentic, it's much harder to verify it -- I find the lack of full contextual information in any source that I use a "red flag" that it should be treated with some care and skepticism.

ETA: Luna, above, did a better job of this than I did. I just checked again -- this is definitely Pulitzer.

Which again underlines my point, above: the absence of full disclosure about who, what, when, where, and why not merely makes it more difficult to validate, but for that reason also should raise suspicions.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Arielle Popstar]

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

 So what do you think about what I found?

I think you found the wrong guy as he doesn't look like the Stanford IT Researcher in my video. Nice try though.

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, JanuarySwan said:

3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

In what ways did he side with the Democrats in the end?  I don't see him siding with either party really, as an autocratic coup attempt pretty much circumvents parties and simply uses one or the other to its advantage.

I agree about the evangelicals...very dangerous and a big force in the US...usually only seen via direct experience if you live in one of the many red states.

Expand  

The stimulus.  He agreed with Nancy and the Democrats in regards to the $2K stimulus that's why he wouldn't sign as Trump said $600 hundred dollars was too low.  So he would not sign.  However, there was a clause in that stimulus package that the amount could be raised to 2K once it went back to the Senate (especially Mitch McConnell - Republican) and the president had said he would sign it for 2K many times if Mitch would agree.  Trump even repeated (tweeted) Nancy's slogan of "go big" to the Republicans of the Senate in regards to the second stimulus.   And, the president directly tweeted he would approve the 2K, and this is where he had the Republicans between a rock and a hard place.  The Democrats agreed with 2K, Biden agreed with 2K, Trump agreed with 2K.  Mitch McConnell - Republican, nope - $600 hundred only.  

As far as evangelicals, there is a new bill which could change things for us to have a more secular government as well as to end the discrimination against whomever a religion chooses to discriminate against as it's hardly the first time in human history that the church has persecuted people - the bill is called "Do No Harm" I believe.   

Ahh I see what you're saying about how it seems Trump sided with Democrats via advocating giving out more funds ($2000) as Democrats typically want to give more $ to people vs Republicans who are much less willing to give money to those who need it.  I wondered about it, and figured he was trying to stick it to the sane Republicans who didn't worship him anymore and also tend to be concerned with budget matters. But who knows!

Didn't know about this proposed bill that will tamp down the 'religious freedom' freaks....looks great...as religious freedom should not supersede Civil Rights/discrimination issues:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1450

Edited January 14, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

10 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

 So what do you think about what I found?

I think you found the wrong guy as he doesn't look like the Stanford IT Researcher in my video. Nice try though.

I searched his name...he's all spiffed up though in his podium talk...trying to appear professional apparently.....however I did a super rush job and could be wrong..

Edited January 14, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Scylla Rhiadra]

9 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I think you found the wrong guy as he doesn't look like the Stanford IT Researcher in my video. Nice try though.

A more recent pic of Luna's hacker, Pulitzer. With his arm around Giuliani, which should also raise an eyebrow or two.

https://gyazo.com/f1b601c848fa88759c5aeff02890e9ee

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, JanuarySwan said:

Interesting that even Biden said he would be "sending even better Angels" once he took office. 

I've always liked the idiom Biden used, meaning for me "we're not all bad, we have hope, and we can appeal to what's good about us and remain friends instead of enemies".  Biden said:

“I’ve long talked about the battle for the soul of America,” he said. “It’s time for our better angels to prevail.” 

First used (that I know of) by Lincoln:

Desperately wishing to avoid a civil war, Lincoln ended with this plea:

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.^[2]

Edited January 14, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Arielle Popstar]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

A more recent pic of Luna's hacker, Pulitzer. With his arm around Giuliani, which should also raise an eyebrow or two.

https://gyazo.com/f1b601c848fa88759c5aeff02890e9ee

Yes just came across that one too. Looks like Luna was right....darn that hurt

In any case it looks like he might have accomplished what he said he did which puts elements of doubt in the claims of the manufacturers. Doesn't mean that they were hacked during the election but bet it is being investigated nonetheless.

[Theresa Tennyson]

38 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

OK I have another one needing fact checking and since you are adept at it, I thought maybe you could prove it is bogus too because if true it does raise questions:

 

https://t.co/GUQxYgAQ8Z

If you listen to the video he's talking about "poll pads" - the electronic equivalent of the paper poll books the little old ladies look up voter registration in. They have nothing to do with counting votes.

Through all of his faffling and the aggressive editing he says nothing about accessing the actual voting terminals that the votes are cast and stored on. With voting machines you have to take out an actual data card from each machine to read. This explains the "scandal" of the Georgia counties that found uncounted ballots in the recount - someone forgot to pull the data cards from a couple of machines.

In other words, the headline was either written in ignorance or a bare-faced lie.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

If you listen to the video he's talking about "poll pads" - the electronic equivalent of the paper poll books the little old ladies look up voter registration in. They have nothing to do with counting votes.

Through all of his faffling and the aggressive editing he says nothing about accessing the actual voting terminals that the votes are cast and stored on. With voting machines you have to take out an actual data card from each machine to read. This explains the "scandal" of the Georgia counties that found uncounted ballots in the recount - someone forgot to pull the data cards from a couple of machines.

In other words, the headline was either written in ignorance or a bare-faced lie.

He mentions about being able to take out what I assume to be the database and then reupload it to the machine after modification. Two way communication. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

He mentions about being able to take out what I assume to be the database and then reupload it to the machine after modification. Two way communication. 

I could sneak into a voting precinct and make Cafe Bustelo in their coffeemaker - that doesn't mean it's a Cuban plot to modify votes.

BECAUSE THEY'RE COMPLETELY SEPARATE MACHINES.

[Arielle Popstar]

11 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

I could sneak into a voting precinct and make Cafe Bustelo in their coffeemaker - that doesn't mean it's a Cuban plot to modify votes.

BECAUSE THEY'RE COMPLETELY SEPARATE MACHINES.

So sounds like an electronic device that could theoretically create more registered voters who might be deceased and then send in a mail ballot for them?

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-pollbooks.aspx

https://whowhatwhy.org/2019/08/15/hackers-expose-vulnerabilities-in-popular-e-poll-books/

Edited January 14, 2021 by Arielle Popstar
added link

[Janet Voxel]

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

So sounds like an electronic device that could theoretically create more registered voters who might be deceased and then send in a mail ballot for them?

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-pollbooks.aspx

I think the issue here is the same as regards the fact that polling machines can be hacked. And, according to no less a source than the Washington Post, they can.

The point is -- where is the proof that this happened? A variety of investigations, by the media and government, have looked into allegations of dead people voting, etc., and found absolutely minimal evidence of this happening.

Again, proving that something can be done doesn't constitute evidence of fraud. And the audits and investigations conducted by these states, some of which are Republican controlled (e.g., Georgia) have disproved that anything like this was happening. It's not merely that there is no evidence -- it's that the existing evidence suggests the opposite.

[Theresa Tennyson]

14 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

So sounds like an electronic device that could theoretically create more registered voters who might be deceased and then send in a mail ballot for them?

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-pollbooks.aspx

You mean like the "dead voters" that Tucker Carlson exposed on his show that turned out to be alive?

I have a few mental tests that I apply to conspiracy theories. You're walking right into what I call the "crowded knoll" problem. If every JFK assassination plot theory was true there would have been so many assassins in town that they'd probably have ended up accidentally shooting each other and Kennedy would have rolled through scot-free.

If there was a fix in, tell us what was actually done, where, and how. Hispanic children filling out 750,000 ballots in Texas? Admirably specific, but that one didn't pan out the way the private eye thought, did it?

Edited January 14, 2021 by Theresa Tennyson

[Rowan Amore]

I did actually hear that they found that some dead people voted.  Thing is, they voted for Trump.  Saying that any hacking was done only on one side?  Trump supporters had just as much access to polling locations.  All these conspiracy theories assume the only people doing anything wrong are the democrats.  if it was or could be done, damn straight both sides were gonna do it.  A bit naive to think it would be just one-sided.

And as far as the Trump team not conspiring in the last election?  He was never found innocent.  If you read the transcripts it says there is evidence just not enough to justify a removal from office.  Just because no charges were filed, doesn't make him/them innocent.

[foneco Zuzu]

1 hour ago, RowanMinx said:

There are lots of reliable news outlets to use if you want them. Here are just a few.

The Real News Network (TRNN)

Associated Press News

Reuters

The BBC

Wall Street Journal

org

NPR

Snopes

The New York Times

AllSides

I would add the Guardian

[Janet Voxel]

13 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think the issue here is the same as regards the fact that polling machines can be hacked. And, according to no less a source than the Washington Post, they can.

The point is -- where is the proof that this happened? A variety of investigations, by the media and government, have looked into allegations of dead people voting, etc., and found absolutely minimal evidence of this happening.

Again, proving that something can be done doesn't constitute evidence of fraud. And the audits and investigations conducted by these states, some of which are Republican controlled (e.g., Georgia) have disproved that anything like this was happening. It's not merely that there is no evidence -- it's that the existing evidence suggests the opposite.

No, no! you don't understand! So if the rolls can be hacked, that means they hacked them and then voted by mail which means voting by mail is rigged which means they didn't investigate voting by mail which means

[Theresa Tennyson]

7 minutes ago, RowanMinx said:

I did actually hear that they found that some dead people voted.  Thing is, they voted for Trump.  Saying that any hacking was done only on one side?  Trump supporters had just as much access to polling locations.  All these conspiracy theories assume the only people doing anything wrong are the democrats.  if it was or could be done, damn straight both sides were gonna do it.  A bit naive to think it would be just one-sided.

For some reason Arielle never answered my question about whether a candidate doing better on Dominion machines was proof of cheating. The reason I asked that particular question is one day I sat down and did some math comparing Michigan counties that used Dominion, Hart and ES&S machines.

It turns out that Donald Trump lost almost a percentage point in the balance between Democratic and Republican votes from 2016 to 2020 in the counties using Dominion machines.

He lost over 2 percent in the counties that used Hart or ES&S machines.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Theresa Tennyson

[Vivienne Schell]

34 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

So sounds like an electronic device that could theoretically create more registered voters who might be deceased and then send in a mail ballot for them?

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-pollbooks.aspx

https://whowhatwhy.org/2019/08/15/hackers-expose-vulnerabilities-in-popular-e-poll-books/

Whowhatwhy is run by a Guy named Russ Baker. This person claims that there are "connections between President George H.W. Bush and individuals involved with the Watergate scandal and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

Family of Secrets contends that the first President Bush became an intelligence agent in his teenage years and was later at the center of a plot to assassinate Kennedy that included his father, Prescott Bush, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, CIA Director Allen Dulles, Cuban and Russian exiles and emigrants, and various Texas oilmen.^[24] It asserts that Bob Woodward of The Washington Post was an intelligence agent who conspired with John Dean to remove President Richard Nixon from office for opposing the oil depletion allowance.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, media critic Tim Rutten called the book a "dispiriting tome" that was an example of "paranoid literature." He said that Baker "recklessly impugns, in the most disgusting possible way, the reputations not simply of men and women now dead, but of the living," Rutten said that though George H.W. Bush was not likely to sue for libel, using a "tissue of innuendo, illogical inference, circumstance and guilt by tenuous association -- as Baker does in this book -- to indict rhetorically anyone, let alone a former chief executive, of an infamous murder is a reprehensible calumny."

n a January 2015 profile, Boston magazine said that over the past decade, "Baker has abandoned the mainstream media and become a key player on the fringe, walking that murky line between conventional investigative journalist and wild-eyed conspiracy theorist." Baker has raised questions about the Boston Marathon bombings, and "is not willing to rule out the possibility that the bombings were a false-flag operation conducted or permitted by elements of the American government in order to justify the Homeland Security complex.” He argues that FBI recruited the Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev as an agent or informant, which is the FBI has categorically denied.^[5][25]

Boston said "it would be a lot easier to dismiss Baker as a nut and move on if it weren’t for his three decades of award-winning investigative-reporting experience.

Full text here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Baker

 

[Vivienne Schell]

38 minutes ago, RowanMinx said:

I did actually hear that they found that some dead people voted.  Thing is, they voted for Trump.

No, they didn´t.

😃

[Vivienne Schell]

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

OK I have another one needing fact checking and since you are adept at it, I thought maybe you could prove it is bogus too because if true it does raise questions:

Yeah,, right. I wonder what the courts will decide. Careful, Arielle. They also might come after you.

Dominion Voting sues Trump lawyer Powell for defamation, seeking $1.3 billion in damages

[Arielle Popstar]

46 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think the issue here is the same as regards the fact that polling machines can be hacked. And, according to no less a source than the Washington Post, they can.

The point is -- where is the proof that this happened? A variety of investigations, by the media and government, have looked into allegations of dead people voting, etc., and found absolutely minimal evidence of this happening.

Again, proving that something can be done doesn't constitute evidence of fraud. And the audits and investigations conducted by these states, some of which are Republican controlled (e.g., Georgia) have disproved that anything like this was happening. It's not merely that there is no evidence -- it's that the existing evidence suggests the opposite.

It sounds good but the reality I see after reading the following page points out that the newer machines are vulnerable to hacking that will leave no trace of any evidence. Some of these states even knew these machines were bad and purchased them anyway. Small wonder Trump kept going on about it being rigged.

https://whowhatwhy.org/2019/03/19/permission-to-cheat-audits-cant-detect-fake-votes-on-new-hybrid-voting-machines/

[Vivienne Schell]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It sounds good but the reality I see after reading the following page points out that the newer machines are vulnerable to hacking that will leave no trace of any evidence. Some of these states even knew these machines were bad and purchased them anyway. Small wonder Trump kept going on about it being rigged.

https://whowhatwhy.org/2019/03/19/permission-to-cheat-audits-cant-detect-fake-votes-on-new-hybrid-voting-machines/

And again .. oh my.

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

9 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It sounds good but the reality I see after reading the following page points out that the newer machines are vulnerable to hacking that will leave no trace of any evidence. Some of these states even knew these machines were bad and purchased them anyway. Small wonder Trump kept going on about it being rigged.

https://whowhatwhy.org/2019/03/19/permission-to-cheat-audits-cant-detect-fake-votes-on-new-hybrid-voting-machines/

Arielle, there is evidence, at least in the case of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, that fraud was not committed, because all of those states use paper ballots, and their audits of the votes after election day constituted checking the numbers recorded by the software against a hand-count of the hard copies of the ballots.

So, unless the machines are literally destroying paper ballots, they have clearly not been hacked.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/14/fact-check-dominion-voting-machines-create-ballots-only-audits-tests/3973030001/

Edited January 14, 2021 by Scylla Rhiadra