Brazil

[flockofseagulls104]

Please pay attention to this.

Brazil, actually one judge, has decided to ban X, Twitter, from the whole country.

What are the implications of this?

Just look at what's happened this week here in the US as one example. If we didn't have twitter, the views of the Gold Star Families, who invited trump to the memorial service for their fallen soldiers, would NOT have been heard. All we would have heard is the administration's self-serving propaganda. That is now the situation in Brazil unless the people rise up and take their country back. That is what it has come down to.

No response as of yet from the biden-harris regime to what Brazil has done.

Brazil is the rehearsal for what is being planned for the US this fall. PLEASE wake up.

[flockofseagulls104]

Can't happen here?

It already is.

[flockofseagulls104]

The people will fight back.

What side are you on? Not in Brazil, necessarily, but here, if we allow it to happen?

[Weyoun]

There’s no reason to think that anything that happens in Brazil what happened here. Has anything like that been the case before? I didn’t think so.

And there’s no reason to think that Zuckerberg getting pressured during an incredibly imported public health crisis has anything to do with the end of free speech in the United States.

These scenarios seem to be clearly differentiated. Perhaps you should ask Spock about GRANULARITY.

[jarnon]

There’s no reason to think that anything that happens in Brazil what happened here. Has anything like that been the case before? I didn’t think so.

Ar you being sarcastic Weyoun?

[flockofseagulls104]

There’s no reason to think that anything that happens in Brazil what happened here. Has anything like that been the case before? I didn’t think so.

Ar you being sarcastic Weyoun?

Only totalitarianism strives to silence opposing views. That is happening right here, right now. Ask Peter Navarro. Ask Steve Bannon. Ask Mike Flynn. Ask Rudy Guiliani. Ask Tina Peters. Ask Donald Trump. And if we elect the swamp-sponsored candidates in November, nothing will stop them from doing it completely. Like they are doing in Venezuela. Like they are doing in Brazil.

Please wake up.

[flockofseagulls104]

This is what happens when the government takes control. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[SportsFan68]

There’s no reason to think that anything that happens in Brazil what happened here. Has anything like that been the case before? I didn’t think so.

Ar you being sarcastic Weyoun?

Only totalitarianism strives to silence opposing views. That is happening right here, right now. Ask Peter Navarro. Ask Steve Bannon. Ask Mike Flynn. Ask Rudy Guiliani. Ask Tina Peters. Ask Donald Trump. And if we elect the swamp-sponsored candidates in November, nothing will stop them from doing it completely. Like they are doing in Venezuela. Like they are doing in Brazil.

Please wake up.

Emphasis added.

Exhorting me to ask Tina Peters about anything cracked me up. She has been roundly censured throughout Colorado for illegal actions in her attempt to undermine the validity of Colorado's election system. She provided illegal access to systems, was charged with four felonies as a result, and was found guilty.

Since we're talking about Colorado. I'll send a big Thank You to Wayne W. Williams for an elections system which has been extolled as the gold standard for elections from New York to California. Mr. Williams, with the help of Colorado County Clerks, set it up, and we enjoy it to this day. And when Tina Peters tries to trash our election systems, who you gonna call to repair the damage? Wayne Williams!

Thanks, Wayne.

[flockofseagulls104]

Exhorting me to ask Tina Peters about anything cracked me up. She has been roundly censured throughout Colorado for illegal actions in her attempt to undermine the validity of Colorado's election system. She provided illegal access to systems, was charged with four felonies as a result, and was found guilty.

Since we're talking about Colorado. I'll send a big Thank You to Wayne W. Williams for an elections system which has been extolled as the gold standard for elections from New York to California. Mr. Williams, with the help of Colorado County Clerks, set it up, and we enjoy it to this day. And when Tina Peters tries to trash our election systems, who you gonna call to repair the damage? Wayne Williams!

Thanks, Wayne.

I admit I am not as up on the Tina Peters case as you. We have our own shit going on in Georgia. But I've seen what shows up on google when you search. Full of 'election denier' headlines. Nothing about her side of the story.
I do know what's happening in my state. And the lawfare in our state trying to avoid the truth from coming out is amazing. The lengths that TPTB are going to in order to sweep things under the rug are ridiculously obvious. I would venture that it is overwhelming in a state like Colorado. I suspect you have only one side of the story.

[SportsFan68]

Exhorting me to ask Tina Peters about anything cracked me up. She has been roundly censured throughout Colorado for illegal actions in her attempt to undermine the validity of Colorado's election system. She provided illegal access to systems, was charged with four felonies as a result, and was found guilty.

Since we're talking about Colorado. I'll send a big Thank You to Wayne W. Williams for an elections system which has been extolled as the gold standard for elections from New York to California. Mr. Williams, with the help of Colorado County Clerks, set it up, and we enjoy it to this day. And when Tina Peters tries to trash our election systems, who you gonna call to repair the damage? Wayne Williams!

Thanks, Wayne.

I admit I am not as up on the Tina Peters case as you. We have our own shit going on in Georgia. But I've seen what shows up on google when you search. Full of 'election denier' headlines. Nothing about her side of the story.
I do know what's happening in my state. And the lawfare in our state trying to avoid the truth from coming out is amazing. The lengths that TPTB are going to in order to sweep things under the rug are ridiculously obvious. I would venture that it is overwhelming in a state like Colorado. I suspect you have only one side of the story.

That is not correct. Her side of the story was raised in detail before and during her trial.

[flockofseagulls104]

Exhorting me to ask Tina Peters about anything cracked me up. She has been roundly censured throughout Colorado for illegal actions in her attempt to undermine the validity of Colorado's election system. She provided illegal access to systems, was charged with four felonies as a result, and was found guilty.

Since we're talking about Colorado. I'll send a big Thank You to Wayne W. Williams for an elections system which has been extolled as the gold standard for elections from New York to California. Mr. Williams, with the help of Colorado County Clerks, set it up, and we enjoy it to this day. And when Tina Peters tries to trash our election systems, who you gonna call to repair the damage? Wayne Williams!

Thanks, Wayne.

I admit I am not as up on the Tina Peters case as you. We have our own shit going on in Georgia. But I've seen what shows up on google when you search. Full of 'election denier' headlines. Nothing about her side of the story.
I do know what's happening in my state. And the lawfare in our state trying to avoid the truth from coming out is amazing. The lengths that TPTB are going to in order to sweep things under the rug are ridiculously obvious. I would venture that it is overwhelming in a state like Colorado. I suspect you have only one side of the story.

That is not correct. Her side of the story was raised in detail before and during her trial.

Any essay disguised as a 'news' story that contains the words 'election denier' or purports to say that anything has been 'debunked' cannot possibly be relied on to contain any actual facts that can be relied upon. That should be clearly obvious to anyone that can do critical thinking. The ''journalists' who produce these stories cannot have any possible way to have determined whether anything has been debunked, and should certainly not be putting negative labels on people in a supposedly objective account.
I attempted to get a clear account on the Tina Peters situation by searching the web, but could find nothing except these kinds of accounts.
What I have heard from people whom I have grown to trust because I have been able to verify some of the evidence that they have produced, is that they believe she has been railroaded and is another victim of lawfare.
So at this point, we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't know enough about it.

[SportsFan68]

I just don't know enough about it.

That is correct.

[wbtravis007]

I just don't know enough about it.

That is correct.

Perfect response, Sprots.

Rec!

[flockofseagulls104]

The judge in the Tina Peters case sentenced her to 9 years in prison.

Here is the view of the other side, sprots. If you care to peruse it. It's full of data and specific information, so it might not be easy reading. I know judges and lawyers lose interest very fast.

[SportsFan68]

The judge in the Tina Peters case sentenced her to 9 years in prison.

Here is the view of the other side, sprots. If you care to peruse it. It's full of data and specific information, so it might not be easy reading. I know judges and lawyers lose interest very fast.

I took a look and didn't find anything that could be described as "the other side." The reports were filled with data irrelevant to the case, such as quoting laws and regulations at length. Those reports show that much of what the defense gave as justification for Peters' lawbreaking occurred as a result of her illegal actions.

This interview contains some illuminating information: https://www.cpr.org/2024/09/11/intervie ... ters-case/

[Weyoun]

This Brazil stuff went nowhere. Pretty typical for a flock rant.

[flockofseagulls104]

The judge in the Tina Peters case sentenced her to 9 years in prison.

Here is the view of the other side, sprots. If you care to peruse it. It's full of data and specific information, so it might not be easy reading. I know judges and lawyers lose interest very fast.

I took a look and didn't find anything that could be described as "the other side." The reports were filled with data irrelevant to the case, such as quoting laws and regulations at length. Those reports show that much of what the defense gave as justification for Peters' lawbreaking occurred as a result of her illegal actions.

This interview contains some illuminating information: https://www.cpr.org/2024/09/11/intervie ... ters-case/

I am not surprised you got nothing out of the evidence I sent to you. It probably lost you after the first paragraph, just like it lost the corrupt judge that ran the Peter's case and sentenced her. If he even bothered to read the first paragraph.

So,
Here's a quote from your 'republican' DA.

Rubinstein: Yes. And that a lot of these efforts to try to find something to hang their hat on, to show that there was a problem with election security, is really about him getting out of his defamation case because truth is a defense to defamation.

So a lot of these myths about election security have been perpetuated for somebody to get out of a civil suit.

The truth, sprots, is dvscorp08!.

That is the HARDCODED encryption key for ALL Dominion software. It is stored in CLEAR TEXT on all dominion machines where any hacker with minimum skills can find it and get access to the system to change pretty much anything they want to without detection. My County Republican Party sued our SOS about this. I won't bother to take the time to link to the hours of expert testimony documenting and proving, once again, the extreme vulnerability to bad actors, because I doubt you'd read it and I don't want to waste my time. The Peters case, and all the evidence you dismissed, showed the same vulnerabilities.

And guess what? The verdict in our case was that it was dismissed. Why? The judge (the infamous Scott McAfee of Fani Willis fame) said the law stated that Brad Raffensperger, the SOS, only had to certify the software as safe and secure when he bought it. Nothing in the law required him to KEEP it safe and secure. Great way to cover his own ass.

This is how they do it. Tina Peters is just another victim of it.

[jarnon]

Flock, I think you know the difference between an encryption key, a decryption key, and a password. It seems many people on your side don’t.

[flockofseagulls104]

Flock, I think you know the difference between an encryption key, a decryption key, and a password. It seems many people on your side don’t.

What 'sides' are you referring to?
I am referring to the 'sides' that want to have elections that 'We the People' can verify and validate vs those that don't.

Yes, I know the difference. I have been working in IT for decades. It seems like you don't know the difference. An encryption key can be used both ways. This is different than a hash. If you have the encryption key you can use it to decrypt. Hashes cannot be decrypted. And I know that the election software is vulnerable to attacks from bad actors. And that, in Georgia at least, nothing has been done to ameliorate those vulnerabilities. In DeKalb GOP v Raffensperger, it was shown that bad actors could access the election system, make any changes that they want, and leave without leaving any trace they were on the system. Specific steps were outlined where, at least, a record of anyone accessing the system could be logged. The dismissal of the case leaves it where it is. Raffensperger could order these steps be taken on his own without judicial mandate, which could be done with relative ease and NOT affect the election systems. But as of now, he has not done it, has not indicated he is considering doing it, and early voting has already started.

[SportsFan68]

The judge in the Tina Peters case sentenced her to 9 years in prison.

Here is the view of the other side, sprots. If you care to peruse it. It's full of data and specific information, so it might not be easy reading. I know judges and lawyers lose interest very fast.

I took a look and didn't find anything that could be described as "the other side." The reports were filled with data irrelevant to the case, such as quoting laws and regulations at length. Those reports show that much of what the defense gave as justification for Peters' lawbreaking occurred as a result of her illegal actions.

This interview contains some illuminating information: https://www.cpr.org/2024/09/11/intervie ... ters-case/

I am not surprised you got nothing out of the evidence I sent to you. It probably lost you after the first paragraph,

There's no need to be insulting, Flock, although I wasn't all that unhappy with it. Whenever you start with the ad hominem attacks (a rhetorical strategy where someone attacks the person making an argument instead of the argument itself), it shows me that you believe you lost the argument.

just like it lost the corrupt judge that ran the Peter's case and sentenced her. If he even bothered to read the first paragraph.

So,
Here's a quote from your 'republican' DA.

Rubinstein: Yes. And that a lot of these efforts to try to find something to hang their hat on, to show that there was a problem with election security, is really about him getting out of his defamation case because truth is a defense to defamation.

So a lot of these myths about election security have been perpetuated for somebody to get out of a civil suit.

The truth, sprots, is dvscorp08!.

That is the HARDCODED encryption key for ALL Dominion software. It is stored in CLEAR TEXT on all dominion machines where any hacker with minimum skills can find it and get access to the system to change pretty much anything they want to without detection. My County Republican Party sued our SOS about this. I won't bother to take the time to link to the hours of expert testimony documenting and proving, once again, the extreme vulnerability to bad actors, because I doubt you'd read it and I don't want to waste my time. The Peters case, and all the evidence you dismissed, showed the same vulnerabilities.

And guess what? The verdict in our case was that it was dismissed. Why? The judge (the infamous Scott McAfee of Fani Willis fame) said the law stated that Brad Raffensperger, the SOS, only had to certify the software as safe and secure when he bought it. Nothing in the law required him to KEEP it safe and secure. Great way to cover his own ass.

This is how they do it. Tina Peters is just another victim of it.

Since the truth is dvscorp08!, I googled it to get a good definition. I found nothing of the sort, just page after page of sites trying to sell me stuff with dvscorp08! emblazoned on it.

The truth is that Dominion vote counting equipment cannot be hacked because there is no internet link. The clerk's staff prints out the results, then types them up and E-mails them to interested individuals and news agencies. At that point, the E-mailed results can be changed by "any hacker with minimum skills . . ."

Tina Peters is a victim of her own ineptitude and her willingness to break election laws.

[flockofseagulls104]

The truth is that Dominion vote counting equipment cannot be hacked because there is no internet link.

Sprots, the ONLY sources you have for that statement are pronouncements from government officials and Dominion itself. If you were inclined to use some reason, you might determine these entities have somehwat of a conflict of interest, and, to my knowledge, none of them have been sworn in at a court of law under penalty of perjury.

Here's some testimony from the court case I'm tangentially involved in. These technical experts were sworn in, and their testimony is now public record. And guess what? Judge McAfee dismissed the case because Raffensperger certified it as 'safe and secure' back in 2019 when he bought it, but the court ruled he could find nothing in the law that required him to keep it safe and secure. A nice way of covering his ass.

Maybe you missed this evidence? Or this? Or this? Or hundreds of other examples of evidence that was ignored from 'election deniers'.

I have even seen photos of the wifi chips on the mother boards of Dominion machines. I'm not going to spend the time looking for them, because you are programmed, apparently, to only believe people with obvious conflicts of interest on this subject. And no amount of evidence in your face will apparently influence you to use your common sense, unfortunately. I don't understand it, but that seems have become a rampant behavior among some ordinarily discerning, reasonable people.

Tina Peters was railroaded by another corrupt, owned judge with your mindset.

[SportsFan68]

The truth is that Dominion vote counting equipment cannot be hacked because there is no internet link.

Sprots, the ONLY sources you have for that statement are pronouncements from government officials and Dominion itself. If you were inclined to use some reason, you might determine these entities have somehwat of a conflict of interest, and, to my knowledge, none of them have been sworn in at a court of law under penalty of perjury.

Here's some testimony from the court case I'm tangentially involved in. These technical experts were sworn in, and their testimony is now public record. And guess what? Judge McAfee dismissed the case because Raffensperger certified it as 'safe and secure' back in 2019 when he bought it, but the court ruled he could find nothing in the law that required him to keep it safe and secure. A nice way of covering his ass.

This unsupported testimony, presented here without evidence, properly failed to prevail. And throwing in "Similar activity also happened in Colorado, Michigan, and other states" is especially unpersuasive.

Maybe you missed this evidence? Or this? Or this? Or hundreds of other examples of evidence that was ignored from 'election deniers'.

I don't consider dredged up X posts without supporting documentation to be evidence, especially when the Peters trial transcript demonstrates the contrary.

I have even seen photos of the wifi chips on the mother boards of Dominion machines. I'm not going to spend the time looking for them, because you are programmed, apparently, to only believe people with obvious conflicts of interest on this subject. And no amount of evidence in your face will apparently influence you to use your common sense, unfortunately. I don't understand it, but that seems have become a rampant behavior among some ordinarily discerning, reasonable people.

Tina Peters was railroaded by another corrupt, owned judge with your mindset.

She wasn't, and no amount of evidence will influence you. It's time to agree to disagree and move on.

[flockofseagulls104]

She wasn't, and no amount of evidence will influence me. It's time to agree to disagree and move on.

Fixed that for you. I provided evidence, you did not. But I realize you want to move on. So be it.

[wbtravis007]

The truth is that Dominion vote counting equipment cannot be hacked because there is no internet link.

Sprots, the ONLY sources you have for that statement are pronouncements from government officials and Dominion itself. If you were inclined to use some reason, you might determine these entities have somehwat of a conflict of interest, and, to my knowledge, none of them have been sworn in at a court of law under penalty of perjury.

Here's some testimony from the court case I'm tangentially involved in. These technical experts were sworn in, and their testimony is now public record. And guess what? Judge McAfee dismissed the case because Raffensperger certified it as 'safe and secure' back in 2019 when he bought it, but the court ruled he could find nothing in the law that required him to keep it safe and secure. A nice way of covering his ass.

This unsupported testimony, presented here without evidence, properly failed to prevail. And throwing in "Similar activity also happened in Colorado, Michigan, and other states" is especially unpersuasive.

Maybe you missed this evidence? Or this? Or this? Or hundreds of other examples of evidence that was ignored from 'election deniers'.

I don't consider dredged up X posts without supporting documentation to be evidence, especially when the Peters trial transcript demonstrates the contrary.

I have even seen photos of the wifi chips on the mother boards of Dominion machines. I'm not going to spend the time looking for them, because you are programmed, apparently, to only believe people with obvious conflicts of interest on this subject. And no amount of evidence in your face will apparently influence you to use your common sense, unfortunately. I don't understand it, but that seems have become a rampant behavior among some ordinarily discerning, reasonable people.

Tina Peters was railroaded by another corrupt, owned judge with your mindset.

She wasn't, and no amount of evidence will influence you. It's time to agree to disagree and move on.

Nice to see you here, Sprots. Most sane people on the bored don’t even bother anymore.

Well done.

[wbtravis007]

She wasn't, and no amount of evidence will influence me. It's time to agree to disagree and move on.

Fixed that for you. I provided evidence, you did not. But I realize you want to move on. So be it.

You’re such a gentleman, to fix things for her.

I must confess that I haven’t appreciated that quality until now.

I’m wondering whether your imaginary friend from South Texas, whom you lied about, thinks in your mind that you are chivalrous.

Please do spill.