william.scherk

Rigging the 2016 Presidential Election

Recommended Posts

GOP Presidential Candidate Donald Trump raises the spectre of a stolen election, a rigged electoral system, a plot or plots to deny him (and the GOP) a rightful victory.  This is not the first time Mr Trump has raised the spectre. 

Here is the typology as outlined at Wikipedia. I am going to do some digging, to find the most recent and the most serious instances of electoral/voter fraud in the USA. 

I think that raising the spectre is politically-wise.  It can serve to deepen a sense of malaise and distrust in institutions-- which should redound to Mr Trump.

Here are a few indications that we will see the issue raised again over the next 97 days.. Maybe there will be some detail from the campaign that helps 'election auditors' zero in on the likeliest fraudulent mechanisms, at the particular weak areas. An effective warning can help prevent fraud and chicanery. 

In 2012, Donald Trump suggested that the result was rigged. He warned of the same thing this week.
 

Quote

 

By Philip Bump August 2 at 6:00 AM

The night Mitt Romney lost, Donald Trump tweeted.

About 20 minutes after polls closed on the West Coast, television networks called the election for President Obama. Like Karl Rove, who'd just been told that Fox News had called Ohio against the Republican, Trump was incredulous. "He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election," he tweeted. "We should have a revolution in this country!"

Over the next half hour, he continued.

The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one! We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us. More votes equals a loss ... revolution! This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy! Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble ... like never before. The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

The tweets about "revolution" were deleted that night. Most of the others, including the one about how "we can't let this happen," remain.

Trump's assertion that Obama had "lost the popular vote by a lot" was incorrect, though by 11 p.m., the votes had not all been counted yet. In the end, Obama won by about 5 million votes.

[...]

Stone encouraged Trump to start priming the pump on the issue.

"I think we have widespread voter fraud, but the first thing that Trump needs to do is begin talking about it constantly," Stone said. "He needs to say for example, today would be a perfect example: 'I am leading in Florida. The polls all show it. If I lose Florida, we will know that there’s voter fraud. If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government.'"

"If you can’t have an honest election," Stone said, according to Breitbart, "nothing else counts. I think he’s gotta put them on notice that their inauguration will be a rhetorical, and when I mean civil disobedience, not violence, but it will be a bloodbath."

Three days later, Trump mentioned his concerns about the general election process being rigged to an audience in Columbus, Ohio.

The problem with election-rigging accusations is that they're usually offered independent of evidence. 

[...]

 

 

-- another view --

Quote

 

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump suggested Monday that he fears the general election "is going to be rigged" — an unprecedented assertion by a modern presidential candidate.

Trump's extraordinary claim — one he did not back up with any immediate evidence — would, if it became more than just an offhand comment, seem to threaten the tradition of peacefully contested elections and challenge the very essence of a fair democratic process.

"I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest," the Republican nominee told a town hall crowd in Columbus, Ohio. He added that he has been hearing "more and more" that the election may not be contested fairly, though he did not elaborate further

 

The mainstream spin?

Edited by william.scherk
Added video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

I mentioned elsewhere that Trump was not just going to raise "the spectre of a stolen election," he was going to pound on it for a long time.

Alex Jones put this out a few days ago--it's all about Clinton possibly stealing the election:

 

Since then, Alex has said he is going to devote a lot of resources toward documenting and exposing cases of election fraud all over the USA. Roger Stone said he is going to help.

You will see a lot of trickle up news (going up to the mainstream) about this issue over the next few months, but if you want to catch the topics early, Alex Jones and Robert Stone--and people who feed things to them--are where exposure of most of the cases will probably start.

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is a very good place to put this article from Brian Barrett at Wired magazine. I will read the article later tonight, but in technical matters (and marketing, for that matter), I tend to like Wired's stuff and have for years.

America’s Electronic Voting Machines Are Scarily Easy Targets

Comments coming later.

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only sure fire way of a hack free election is reversion to paper ballot.  Once the ballots are cast and collected, the containers or monitored by persons from the various parties  and neutral observers.  The boxes are kept under constant joint watch.  Then the counting is witnessed by the several parties and all must concur in the count and total.  It is clumsy,  retro, old-fashioned, slow   and  hack-free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is not proof of anything, but I find the lady's story plausible. She said she witnessed people buying the names and addresses of minors, including a baby, so they could use them to vote for Obama in 2008. The kids were buying milkshakes with the money and she worked at the place serving them.

She sounded pissed that nobody she contacted would do anything back then, the cops, the GOP, nobody. She still sounded pissed. Look how she said goodbye after it became clear David Knight would not do much (seeing how he can't).

The reason this is important is that, I believe, there are a lot of similar stories out there. I also believe these anecdotal witnesses are really pissed just from a fairness lens.

And--this is the important part--I know for a fact there are a lot more video cameras than there were in previous elections and most of these people have one in their smart phones. People like this lady are going to be filming up a storm.

With Alex Jones on this voter fraud crusade, they will have a high-audience venue to post them.

So, like I said, her story is not proof of anything. But it is an indication that there are people--common everyday people--who are willing to report what they see. And now they have the means to do it in a way nobody can ignore or dismiss on technicalities.

The thing is, I believe many people in the Clinton machine are stupid and arrogant enough to try obvious stuff anyway.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from a right-wing perspective, so the evidence of voter fraud is all against the Democrats. 

This video, in itself, is not important, but it is an indication of the barrage of stuff that is coming. I hope to see lefties showing right-wing people doing voter fraud, too. I'm all for exposing it all.

Obama's comment about not knowing what rigging the election means actually is laughable, him being from Chicago and all...

Dayaamm!

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch for some dim wit suggesting that if anything Republicans need to be watched.Trumps invitation to the Russians to interfere with election results, that the DNC and campaign hq are facts attesting to Russias intent to do the same and worse and Trumps NATO stance and "alliance" with Putin is proof. That if anything is rigged it is for the election of Trump.

People really need to pay attention to intent of mass movements in populations foreign to the US inherent in immigration policy and amnesty for citizen status that will essentially allow aliens in the country to vote in US elections.

Im sure of one thing. Trump at 71, when elected, better have the amazing energy that he claims. He seems to be wanting to take on the world when it is doubtful notwithstanding what he says that he can accomplish anything concrete. (pun on wall) Does he mean what he says and can he do what he means are the only metrics on which I will judge him after his political life gets started. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2016 at 3:40 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

The only sure fire way of a hack free election is reversion to paper ballot.  Once the ballots are cast and collected, the containers or monitored by persons from the various parties  and neutral observers.  The boxes are kept under constant joint watch.  Then the counting is witnessed by the several parties and all must concur in the count and total.  It is clumsy,  retro, old-fashioned, slow   and  hack-free.

I did some digging and sifting of the issues noted in the excerpt from Wikipedia below.  Refer to this list when reading the stories I introduce at the bottom.  In sum, the near-10k jurisdictions that  are responsible for elections are at the end of a process of using only electronic machines to enter and tabulate votes. In general, with many individual exceptions, the voter will fill out a bubble ballot which will be 'read' by an optical scanner. There is thus a hard ballot able to be examined in recounts (by hand). 

There certainly was a time when the machines were hinky and the companies that sold the machines were hinkier still -- in that they were not transparent, in that they resisted all the obvious hackery their machines were vulnerable to.  Remember what the word Diebold signified?

station-polling-ballot-washingtondc.si.j

On 8/2/2016 at 10:41 AM, william.scherk said:

See the 2006 documentary Hacking Democracy. See also the comprehensive article at Politico, which appeared yesterday:  How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes (sub: With Russia already meddling in 2016, a ragtag group of obsessive tech experts is warning that stealing the ultimate prize—victory on Nov. 8—would be child’s play.).

Quote

Maybe there will be some detail from the campaign that helps 'election auditors' zero in on the likeliest fraudulent mechanisms, at the particular weak areas. An effective warning can help prevent fraud and chicanery. 

This detail is not likely to come from the campaigns, at least that is what I think after researching the issues more carefully. Those who have investigated the (electronic voting machine) vulnerabilities are generally hacktivists and obsessed nerds, not political operatives.  They  do their work independently of any partisan bent.

So, I expect the GOP will utter dark warnings about voter fraud and electoral fraud, but will not get into the nitty gritty.  The wisdom of dark warnings is self-evident, I think. 

On 8/4/2016 at 8:17 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The following is not proof of anything, but I find the lady's story plausible. She said she witnessed people buying the names and addresses of minors, including a baby, so they could use them to vote for Obama in 2008.

The story has no answers, only questions.   The lady had no chance to question the actors handing out money.  And it is unclear how any fiddly consequent actions could be assessed:  in other words, what voter fraud is likely to have been initiated? We were told that the kids answered her "where did you get the money?" and two of them told her that it was in exchange for their names and addresses. In her words, "(they said) and they signed you up to vote for Obama."  And 'they' signed up a fourteen year-old and her baby for ten bucks.

At the time, the lady did not get good advice on who to contact or complain at. She should better have phoned her  county elections officials to warn them or alert them to something 'not right.'  Something not quite right does not equal 'voter fraud.'  You don't get on voter's lists without fulfilling the basics: one of which is to be of age.  How do teenagers in Jersey City get on the voter's roll, the county/state maintained lists of registered voters?  How does someone "Vote for you"?

I tried to figure out how selling an address and name combo would be useful to someone attempting voting fraud. Unless the Jersey system was wracked with loopholes, slop, incompetence and no filters, fourteen year-olds are not going to be registered.

It could be that the payers were paying for the information as part of a voter-registration drive, meaning they were supposed to generate lists of addresses/names for their employers.  Without any more detail, the trail is cold on this case.

On 8/4/2016 at 8:17 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

She sounded pissed that nobody she contacted would do anything back then, the cops, the GOP, nobody. She still sounded pissed. Look how she said goodbye after it became clear David Knight would not do much (seeing how he can't).

Lady said "I was a witness to voter fraud."  I think she was mistaken.  She was witness to something she didn't understand.  She was able to explain what she witnessed, but when contacting the local GOP about it, she got no action (at least as far as she could see).

Michael, if it were you handing out the milkshakes to some mysteriously flush teens, what questions would you want answered, and who would you ask?

On 8/4/2016 at 8:17 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The reason this is important is that, I believe, there are a lot of similar stories out there.

Maybe.  But if they are as murky and unsatisfying as this story, they tell us not much about the worries Americans should have about the integrity of their elections systems.  They sometimes may include folks thinking they saw something hinky, and then extrapolating to criminal activity.  

On 8/4/2016 at 8:17 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So, like I said, her story is not proof of anything.

Yah. Too murky, too old, unexaminable.

On 8/4/2016 at 8:17 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But it is an indication that there are people--common everyday people--who are willing to report what they see. And now they have the means to do it in a way nobody can ignore or dismiss on technicalities.

Well, what can a person do besides call up Infowars?  Like, you at the milkshake machine. Who do you call?  

Fraudbustahs!

-- in an earlier show (on July 30) Alex Jones underlined three areas of concern ... Black-box voting, Election Fraud, and 'illegals' voting.  He also promised weekly updates on this issue.  I will supplement his ongoing interest with attention to the lady (Bev Harris) who featured in the 2006 HBO documentary. She runs a watchdog outfit called Black Box Voting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Well, what can a person do besides call up Infowars?  Like, you at the milkshake machine. Who do you call?  

Fraudbustahs!

William,

You can mock, but I don't expect to see much mocking after the documentation starts rolling in from "citizen warriors" all over the country and heads start rolling for real because some of that will be irrefutable.

This is a thing that is going to happen. It really is. People are fired up and constantly goaded to action right now.

I'm just giving the beginning to have it on record. But think about this. When Trump brought the national spotlight on vigilance against voter fraud, that shook President Obama so much, he commented about it--denied even knowing what that means--rather than dismissed it outright. I can show you the video if you like, but it's already part of the video in my last post.

Obama tried to make his comment look like a dismissal, but his effort fell into the realm of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." In addition to a weird rationale (implying that voter fraud could not happen because voter rules are local, not federal), he did a lot of hemming and hawing, looking off in the distance, giving a nervous laugh, etc.

Real shit is out there and wait until some it hits the fan. Then I will join you in your merriment about the yahoos. 

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did the name Diebold suggest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Well, what can a person do besides call up Infowars?  Like, you at the milkshake machine. Who do you call?  

Fraudbustahs!

William,

You can mock, but I don't expect to see much mocking after the documentation starts rolling in from "citizen warriors" all over the country and heads start rolling for real because some of that will be irrefutable.

Documentation  is completely lacking in the Case of the Milkshake Lady in New Jersey. 

Quote

This is a thing that is going to happen. It really is.

Okay. I hope so.  I am a fan of irrefutable documentation, just like you. I am not satisfied by vague charges, just like you.  I want to know where the real vulnerabilities are in the various levels of the election machinery.  And so do you.   I stand with you in the sense of being vigilant, critical, and reliant upon evidence.

Quote

People are fired up and constantly goaded to action right now.

Well, the People here should be armed with good sense. I disagree with those who might think that electoral/voter fraud should be reported in a phone call to Infowars. Infowars is in any case, an unreliable source of information in my eyes.  

Quote

But think about this. When Trump brought the national spotlight on vigilance against voter fraud, that shook President Obama so much, he commented about it--denied even knowing what that means--rather than dismissed it outright.

Well, this seems a misreading to me,  Stump-Spin, not inquiry.  The President was asked to comment on a "rigged election."  In an impressionist manner of re-telling, Obama was 'shook,' maybe even bothered and bewildered.  Maybe. I mean, that is one possible impression taken, but not necessarily the whole story or the only salent 'take-away' ... for everyone else.

Here is the thing for me:  the election machinery has many, many parts.   To say that it is 'fixed' is just blown air.   Elections can be 'fixed' in a variety of ways, as the Wikipedia article shows in great detail.  And so it is the details that are important.  To simply blow air that the whole danged thing is 'rigged' against Mr Trump does no work to demonstrate real and present dangers -- the particular areas that are weakly defended and open to abuse.  I thought Obama was mocking the murky warnings.  Certainly he resisted the idea that there was a national effort (led by Them) to fix the election against Mr Trump. So he blew some air back down the ducts.  

As I suggested to readers earlier -- to be vigilant, you need to be vigilant against particular efforts to disrupt accurate vote-counting, or specific weaknesses that can be exploited in tabulation. It pays to be familiar with eg, local election regimes -- at your own level is the place to do your part (as Mr Gingrich suggested). The party can hire the lawyers, the campaigns can put paid and volunteer staff at each level as scrutineers. Here it pays to scope out the field for obvious weak spots and infirmities. Part of the preparation for this will be in absorbing the lessons of such as the HBO docco and other more recent non-partisan investigations and reports on the last Presidentials (in terms of chicanery and illegal actions).

I won't wave my hand at offside 'evidence'  to come ... that is outside the bounds of rational inquiry.

If I spend time working out my own view of vulnerabilities, if I analyze the various dangers and rank them or order them in a coherent matrix of real-world Must-Watch-Fors, this would be much more valuable than me pointing into the Darkness.  

I will try to bring Beef!

 

Quote

Real shit is out there and wait until some it hits the fan.

This is a beginning.  Yes, let us see you fork up the Real Shit and let us examine it.

_______________________

One of the funny/sad/peculiar outgrowths of Dark Muttering is the propensity to do no homework. For example, Infowars and other fifth-rate wingnut sites continue to bring Unbelievable Precinct Totals forward from 2012.  This is as we have heard, 59 precincts voted 100% for Obama in Philadelphia, and some (figures differ according to wingnut) 100 precincts in Cleveland showed similar All Votes Are Mine totals. Evidence!  Proof! Beef!  We are doomed.

What kind of homework have the slophounds done on this issue? How did they correct  errors, or at the very least refer to 'other interpretations'? What expertise did they seek to help interpret the damning information?  As far as I can tell, the chap doing the Rigged Show going forward might as well be Milkshake In New Jersey.  His videos are just not satisfying as a product of reasonable inquiry.

 I will leave that hanging.  I declare my interest that America have clean elections on November 8. I expect Mr Trump and others who charge 'Riggy' Business to investigate deeply, to spell out the actual bad behaviour -- and if the Trump campaign/RNC/GOP actually serious and fear an invisible thumb on the scales in November, then it is incumbent upon them to make a case to the public, in detail.  The Milkshake Ladies need to know what to watch for, what questions to ask of whom -- and most importantly, Who To Call.

Michael, mockery our light-hearted banter aside, my message is pretty simple. To protect the integrity of the vote needs work, not slogans or muttering. If the Trump campaign does nothing to actually combat or monitor the stress points and black-boxes, and/or if the GOP does not challenge hinkiness along the way through official poll observers ...  then we need not take seriously the Muttering to come after a loss.

There is nothing to fear but fear of loss itself.

_____________________

Added, from a long New Yorker article (2012), essential reading for investigators of the 2016 scope for chicanery:

Lorraine Minnite, a public-policy professor at Rutgers, collated decades of electoral data for her 2010 book, “The Myth of Voter Fraud,” and came up with some striking statistics. In 2005, for example, the federal government charged many more Americans with violating migratory-bird statutes than with perpetrating election fraud, which has long been a felony. She told me, “It makes no sense for individual voters to impersonate someone. It’s like committing a felony at the police station, with virtually no chance of affecting the election outcome.” A report by the Times in 2007 also found election fraud to be rare. During the Bush Administration, the Justice Department initiated a five-year crackdown on voter fraud, but only eighty-six people were convicted of any kind of election crime.

Hasen, who calls von Spakovsky a leading member of “the Fraudulent Fraud Squad,” told me that he respects many other conservative advocates in his area of expertise, but dismisses scholars who allege widespread voter-impersonation fraud. “I see them as foot soldiers in the Republican army,” he says. “It’s just a way to excite the base. They are hucksters. They’re providing fake scholarly support. They’re not playing fairly with the facts. And I think they know it.”

And added for Bob ...

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

There certainly was a time when the machines were hinky and the companies that sold the machines were hinkier still -- in that they were not transparent, in that they resisted all the obvious hackery their machines were vulnerable to.  Remember what the word Diebold signified?

What did the name Diebold suggest?

Voting machines. Hinky, Hackable. Companies that sold them.  Search terms.  Fingers.

Edited by william.scherk
Punctuation. Fear of Loss. Link to Misinfoblower vid. Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Documentation  is completely lacking in the Case of the Milkshake Lady in New Jersey. 

William,

I'm sorry. I thought I said, this doesn't prove anything. Instead it was an indication of how people are hankering to report what they see...

Jeez, what did I write that did not convey that message since I said it like this?

On 8/4/2016 at 10:17 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The following is not proof of anything...

And this--in the same post you are doing a gotcha on:

On 8/4/2016 at 10:17 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So, like I said, her story is not proof of anything. But it is an indication that there are people--common everyday people--who are willing to report what they see.

I also mentioned they were pissed, but I don't feel like defending lack of statistics on how many are pissed and to what degree.

:) 

Is your thirst for gotcha so great you have to do a fake gotcha? A gotcha where there is no gotcha is to be found? It's coming across like a kneejerk reaction to a person thumping your knee in the right place and watching you kick even though no soccer ball is in sight.

Maybe your overkill is due to the fact that you sense the persuasion power behind a gazillion women like that coming forward, like they will shortly do? Each one with a vote and each listener of them with a vote, too?

:) 

I can't explain it otherwise since you are not prone to misunderstanding something so elementary.

At any rate, gotch is not even a knife in that gunfight. It's an ornate letter opener.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2016 at 11:44 AM, william.scherk said:

One of the funny/sad/peculiar outgrowths of Dark Muttering is the propensity to do no homework. For example, Infowars and other fifth-rate wingnut sites continue to bring Unbelievable Precinct Totals forward from 2012.  This is as we have heard, 59 precincts voted 100% for Obama in Philadelphia, and some (figures differ according to wingnut) 100 precincts in Cleveland showed similar All Votes Are Mine totals. Evidence!  Proof! Beef!  We are doomed.

Like a powerful fMRI, Politico samples my thoughts ...

Quote

Hannity responds to Stelter criticism on Twitter

By Rebecca Morin

?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F

Several hours after CNN's Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter on Sunday released a video essay critiquing journalists who are "handing Trump the mic," Sean Hannity and Donald Trump's campaign fired back.

Stelter critiqued Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly for not challenging the GOP nominee's claim that this election is rigged. Showing segments of Hannity's show, Stelter criticized Hannity for being "conspiratorial" about voter fraud in 2012 and how Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote from 59 precincts in Philadelphia.

"Hey Brian check Philly enquirer after 2012. How many districts not a single Romney vote. Check Cleveland. Do u prep?" Hannity tweeted, referring to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The CNN host said Hannity was being irresponsible.

"Hannity should have asked more questions. Interviewers, even the ones that support the person they're interviewing, have an obligation to probe further and push back when a candidate says something dangerous," Stelter said in his segment. "And this is dangerous. Suggesting an election is going to be stolen, this is Third World dictatorship stuff."

Trump's campaign responded on Twitter to a claim Stelter tweeted about Trump being "the first presidential nominee in modern times to come out and tell voters that the election might be stolen."

 

The campaign also linked to legislation that was cosponsored by then-presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden that called on manual audits of election results, improved transparency and independence of testing laboratories, and established a set of security standards for voting machines.


"Calling us unpatriotic? 59 districts not one Romney vote. So you are voting for the liar HRC. Did DNC hurt Bernie?" Hannity tweeted to Stelter.[...]

The 2012 report by the Philadelphia Inquirer indicated that in 59 of the 1,687 voting divisions in Philadelphia, Romney did not draw a single vote. Those 59 districts were located in neighborhoods of West Philadelphia and North Philadelphia that were almost exclusively African American. Overall, President Barack Obama drew 85 percent of the vote in the city.


Hannity's feud with Stelter followed his battle last week with Bret Stephens, a conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal who has been fiercely anti-Trump. Stephens called Hannity the "dumbest anchor" on Fox News; Hannity called Stephens a "dumbass."

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:
On 8/6/2016 at 1:44 PM, william.scherk said:

One of the funny/sad/peculiar outgrowths of Dark Muttering is the propensity to do no homework. For example, Infowars and other fifth-rate wingnut sites continue to bring Unbelievable Precinct Totals forward from 2012.

William,

I have no problem with calling out people on facts when they merit this, but the syllogism underlying the observation above of yours contains a logical fallacy and that is the primary problem that gets to me, especially when the merriment using commoners as the butt starts.

Here is the fallacious syllogism (and it can be morphed into similar variants):

Given: Some people show sloppy reasoning on Infowars.
Given: Infowars discusses their opinions in a serious tone.
Therefore: Everything discussed on Infowars shows sloppy reasoning.

A typical elitist variation goes like this:

Given: Some commoners show low information when they address current affairs.
Given: Current affairs are often complicated and require study to understand correctly.
Therefore: Everything commoners say about current affairs displays low information.

This is just not true.

Besides, any brief skim of the list of interviewees on Infowars shows a ton of individuals in high places who are definitely not low information, nor are they conspiracy theorists. Take a look sometime. Seriously. Then scratch your head wondering what they are doing on a "fifth-rate wingnut site."

But this syllogism is constantly used as a subtext to dismiss something correct spoken by people or organizations that fall into a class--a collective class--the dismissers do not approve of.

It's a variant of the guilt by association fallacy.

It goes something like this: We don't have to take XXX seriously because YYY was over there and YYY is obviously wrong because of... yada yada yada (with lots of effort spent criticizing YYY). In other words, try to discredit YYY so one does not have to worry about XXX, especially when it looks like XXX might be correct.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could have been more pointed in my twitting of Hannity. As I explained my impressions, "one of the funny/sad/peculiar outgrowths of Dark Muttering is the propensity to do no homework."   The key phrase here is Do (No) Homework. 

What homework, what mental work am I talking about? At issue is fact/oid 'evidence' -- in particular in my comments on OMG Unbelievable 2012 Precinct Totals, OMG2012Philly  being re-upped as if it plainly indicated electoral fraud.

The homework, the basic work here is to critically examine claims and arguments made about the particular issue. It was obvious that Hannity brought up Unbelievable Totals in the exchange with CNN dude to support  Dark Mutterings of his favoured candidate.  CNN dude had chastised Hannity for not doing basic work -- in the context of journalistic responsibility. H  didn't push. He didn't challenge. He didn't check. He didn't dig. He didn't do a good job in an interview with the candidate on the topic of Riggy Bidness.

Hannity's response was classic: "Hey Brian check Philly enquirer after 2012. How many districts not a single Romney vote. Check Cleveland. Do u prep?"

In other words, using stale stupid weak 'evidence' to counter cogent criticism of his lap-dancing interview with Big Daddy.

 

Beside that is Michael's embodied point, which seems like a caution against arriving at poorly-warranted or otherwise faulty generalizations. 

Michael's sharpest point is well-received at The Lake:  call people out on facts when they merit calling out.

I think Hannity (in the guise of a professional journalist) merits this calling-out by Brian Stelter. On this Michael and I can presumably disagree or agree in degree. I insist that we share similar cognitive goals, even if we don't share political devotion.  We can come to a conclusion about the scale or dimension of Riggy danger raised by Trump/Hannity/Infowars without compromising any political commitment. 

And then, and then. 

We can then maybe open another thread to share opinion on whether Infowars is a reliable source of information (or of nutriceuticals).

-- Michael, I view Infowars as a suspect source of information, sloppy at best, often compounding misinformation with bizarre or even paranoid interpretation. I  never take anything propagated by or from that rootstock unexamined.  (and yes, there are other rootstocks that I approach skeptically across the spectrum, but it this case, the only evidence brought forward has been the video above.)

On the issue of voter fraud/electoral fraud, there is no beef yet, at least not as delivered so far by the names I have noted. My programme of interest and what I am informing myself on are in my earlier comments.  It is a big complicated machinery you folks are saddled with. Way too complicated and fractionated (in my opinion as a Canadian with an independent national elections body that stands apart from federal politics, one single authority). But that fractionated contested sprawl of machinery is what you get.

As the gazillions of hinky reports begin to come in from Milkshake Ladies, we can begin to assess the greater danger to a clean Trump victory, in that machine.

I start with this kind of interim finding: the estimable effect of 'fraud' in 2012 was minute at best.  The least efficient fraudulent endeavor is voter-impersonation or 'double-voting.'  The most effective means would be corrupting a paper-trail-less machinery set-up in its innards, where audits cannot easily find the corruption. This would likely only be local and also manpower-heavy, so would need the silent collusion of a large number of people, and the evasion of procedures to check just such a corruption at each step of hierarchy of reporting. In the aftermath of a stinky vote, there are still tools to detect skews and irregularities statistically, to isolate for investigation 'cases' of possible criminal tinkering and tampering.

 

Let's say it all hangs in Florida (Ohio, Pennsylvania), and it is tight.  Do we now know where the weaknesses will be?  Are we assured now that only fraud could result in a close Clinton victory in Florida, and thus an electoral college majority?

 

My basic orientation going forward is that a crushing victory is possible by either candidate, by the usual means.  Such will probably curb the wilder cries of Fraud in the aftermath. 

My homework today?  Put in another long and sweaty shift at the mine of information https://www.verifiedvoting.org. If I only had a tweet to say why this is a good site, I would say, "Every fucking county in the USA and their total voting machinery, in fucking incredible detail."

Do visit, voters, to become familiar with what awful (or less awful) or substandard (or ancient) or updated system is in  precincts where you live -- complete with lists of reference works, to scholarship on election scandals and issues of interest in 2016.  It has videos featuring the machine you will be using, plus links off to information on that machine, its rough security rating, its part in a larger system.  I put here just a couple of random screenshots from my last shift in the mine.

Interim notes on swingers and could-flippers: Florida has mixed paper ballot and DREs without VVPAT!

verifyNational.png

 

verifyOhio.png

verifyDETAIL.png

Edited by william.scherk
Lap-dancing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I start with this kind of interim finding: the estimable effect of 'fraud' in 2012 was minute at best.

William,

I have a few restrictions, but if the same standard of legitimacy is given to Bush's election over Gore in 2000, it's a pretty good starting point. I don't think it's going to be relevant to the outcome for the big picture, though. 

Here is where a lot of the people who are going to be busy busy busy will start--and it ain't there.

During the primaries, the Democratic Party said over and over and over that it was absolutely neutral re Hillary and Bernie. Pundits and Dem insiders galore made fun of those who kept hollering the process was being manipulated in the favor of Clinton. "Where is your proof?" they would always ask. And they could get quite obnoxious about it.

Then Wikileaks happened.

Oops...

(You kinda want to say "duh" about the proof demand. I mean, people who do wrong things try not to be caught. Duh... :) )

Heads have rolled and heads are still rolling. However, Clinton immediatley hired Debbie Wasserman Schultz to help on her campaign. Guess what that did to the people who were already pissed?

Now, let's turn to the general election. Trump used a megaphone to bring up the problem. The same pundits are now saying, "Voter fraud? Really? Conspiracy theory!" They make fun of those who ring the warning bell. Once again, they can get quite obnoxious about it.

I mean, Hillary Clinton's folks would never engage in voter fraud, would they? Oh nooooooooo... Not those good folks...

:) 

The fact that they did engage in fraud (or call it what you want, but it's still fraud) for the primaries gets lost on those demanding proof. But, to complete the thought of where the "citizen warriors" start, the DNC Hillary Clinton fraud is practically all they see right now. And, as I said, these commoners will be busy busy busy from here to the election. Almost all of them are armed with video cameras. They are learning how to use them correctly, too.

I am curious to see what they come up with. Going by the indications I have seen so far, it promises to be a lot. Something tells me it won't be just stories about kids buying milkshakes.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2016 at 11:44 AM, william.scherk said:

"This is a thing that is going to happen. It really is."

More from Alex Jones:

Quote

We spoke to a source who works at Nate Silver’s political advocacy group fivethirtyeight.com.

RealTrueNews: “Is it fair to say that Silver is worried?”

 538 Source: “In a panic. Our business model is predicated on making liberals feel better about the election. Right now? It’s a disaster.”

 RTN: “So what are you doing?”

 538: “Well, we’re changing the model for starters. There were a few hours when the server was showing the real projections and while traffic was pretty high, let me tell you, it was a melt-down politically.”

 RTN: “What do you mean?”

538: “Well, Nate’s a liberal. No secret there. When he saw what was happening he flipped out. Had us look for bugs–something gone wrong–looking at the feeds. Of course nothing was wrong. Nothing had changed. Then he got on the phone with his people embedded with Q-Pac and Survey Monkey and PPP and all those guys–“

 RTN: “Wait–embedded?”

 538: “Huh? Oh, yeah–it’s a big social club. The pollsters all work together. We have a Slack-room that’s sharing all kinds of results and skews and all that. That’s how we keep it all orderly.”

 RTN: “Orderly?”

 538: “Sure–what? You think it’s . . . random? Come on. Who do you think pays for the polls? People who want results. You’re buying media. It’s like ads or . . . I don’t know. Like newspaper stories? You pay 30k for a poll of Florida, it says what you want.”

 RTN: “But what about on election day?”

 538: “Oh–we drive it. You set the expectations ahead of time. It’s called pre-loading. You’d be surprised how we can fine-tune things. Mass belief is powerful. The problem here is (a) not everyone plays nice. Fox is rogue. Rasumssen was . . . bad. They were doing real polling. Also, there’s like a game of chicken. At the start of the cycle we do real polling so that everyone knows how they better buy in. This time . . . Trump just caught us by surprise. The impact was so big–it came on so fast–Hillary just collapsed.”

 RTN: “What–what happens next?”

 538: “I don’t know, man. There are a bunch of smaller groups out there doing real polls. I don’t know if anyone can keep this under wraps. They had to talk Silver off the edge of the building yesterday. It was bad.”

 RTN: “He was literally going to throw himself out a window?”

 538: “Yeah–he was–well, but we’re on the second floor. He was just really pissed. I mean, he got a call from the White House telling him to fix it and shit.”

 RTN: “Wow.”

 538: “Wow is right.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Havin' fun with voter fraud.

James O'Keefe was authorized to vote under Eminem's name, Marshall Bruce Mathers III, without an ID. He said he didn't have his wallet on him. I think this was in Michigan. 

MI #8: James O’Keefe Obtains Eminem’s Ballot

I tried to embed the video, but it doesn't show up. So you have to go to the link. It's pretty funny.

They even asked O'Keefe if he was related to the rapper as they authorized him.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This fraudster tried to steal my vote! (Sort of)
 Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press Columnist 5:04 p.m. EDT August 3, 2016


James O’Keefe is a professional liar.

He just isn’t very good at it.

For the last four years, O’Keefe has been on a crusade to convince Americans that voter fraud poses a mortal threat to their democracy.

This week, the 32-year old conservative activist brought his social media circus to Southeast Michigan, where, in a whirlwind day of political theater, he and a female associate attempted to obtain primary ballots while posing consecutively as Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, Wayne State University Law School Dean Jocelyn Benson, and three members of the Free Press editorial board, including yours truly.

I wish I could muster some righteous indignation over this outrage. But the thing is, O'Keefe didn't get very far.

And as it turns out, he never does.

Still, in a YouTube posting a few hours later, the millennial reprobate boasted that he had come this close to passing himself off as a newspaper columnist who is 1) old enough to be his father and 2) a helluva a lot better looking (or, at the very least, somewhat better-groomed.)

O’Keefe also claimed that a video in which he surreptitiously documented his ruse demonstrated the need for stricter voter identification laws.

Except that he didn’t, and it doesn’t.

[...]

O’Keefe asks for and obtains a blank affidavit. But he declines to sign it. Which is smart, because by this time Rose has called the Birmingham city clerk’s office, where another acquaintance of mine, Deputy Clerk Cheryl Arft, informs her that she accepted an absentee ballot from the real Brian Dickerson a day earlier.

In the video, Rose chooses not to share this intelligence with the intrepid impostor, curious to see how far he will press his scheme.

A fraud aborted

But instead of forging the affidavit  — a felony punishable by imprisonment — O’Keefe aborts and heads to Birmingham City Hall, where he confronts City Clerk Laura Pierce (on camera, of course) with the somewhat exaggerated claim that one of her volunteer poll workers has just offered him my ballot in return for a forged signature.

Contact Brian Dickerson: bdickerson@freepress.com.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

LOL...

To do the work O'Keefe does, there will be duds.

But nailing an example of voter fraud using Eminem and getting it all on video is still nailing an example of voter fraud using Eminem and getting it all on video.

Your man has an opinion and, like assholes, we all have one.

O'Keefe has video and, unlike assholes, we all don't have one.

:evil: 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump’s poll numbers are so bad his supporters are making up new ones

Quote

This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. Back in 2012, when the poll averages showed President Barack Obama ahead of Republican candidate Mitt Romney, conservative activist Dean Chambers started the now-defunct UnskewedPolls.com to "unskew" polls in Romney’s direction. But it turned out that the polling averages were right, and Obama won the election. (Chambers later said he was only wrong because he didn’t account for voter fraud — even though voter fraud is vanishingly rare.)

Maybe this is just a part of modern elections now. As more and more polling averages pop up and accurately predict elections, people on the losing side are going to look for some measure of hope that their candidate can really will win. So they’ll "unskew" or "unbias" the real polls, no matter how ridiculous it may seem.
 

If you are of the OMG It's Rigged party, or leaning that way, here is the site that might plausibly reassure you that Trump is winning  ...

http://longroom.com/polls/

unbias.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it matters who wins, Hillary or Trump. If Hillary wins, it's game over for U.S. democracy. If Trump wins, it's game over for U.S. democracy. Neither one of them is a traditional candidate, zero commitment to law or political tradition. Hillary and Bill are easily the most corrupt, dangerous insiders in our nation's history. Donald Trump has zero political debts and nothing will stop him from acting like a wheeler dealer who likes hyperbolic jokes. We've had stupid presidents like George W and mindless playboys like Obama, but they were normal compared to Hillary and Trump, Looter vs Real Estate Tycoon, two sides of the same coin.

donald-hillary-800.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

I don't think it matters who wins, Hillary or Trump. If Hillary wins, it's game over for U.S. democracy. If Trump wins, it's game over for U.S. democracy. Neither one of them is a traditional candidate, zero commitment to law or political tradition. Hillary and Bill are easily the most corrupt, dangerous insiders in our nation's history. Donald Trump has zero political debts and nothing will stop him from acting like a wheeler dealer who likes hyperbolic jokes. We've had stupid presidents like George W and mindless playboys like Obama, but they were normal compared to Hillary and Trump, Looter vs Real Estate Tycoon, two sides of the same coin.

donald-hillary-800.jpg

Think of this as a Darwinian challenge to the survival of our political system.   There have been several.  The election of 1800.  The Civil War.  Somehow we have survived those with our Constitution more or less intact.   2017 is going to be a very, very -interesting- year.   As the Chinese were wont to say,  may you live in interesting times..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now