WWTBAM Bored

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 03, 2024 5:38 am

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.

jarnon wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 03, 2024 8:06 am

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 03, 2024 5:38 am

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 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 03, 2024 9:26 am

jarnon wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 03, 2024 8:06 am

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 03, 2024 5:38 am

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.

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 wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 05, 2024 6:32 pm

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 wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 05, 2024 8:39 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 05, 2024 6:32 pm

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.

I just don't know enough about it.

SportsFan68 wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 05, 2024 9:55 pm

I just don't know enough about it.

That is correct.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 05, 2024 6:06 pm

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 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 15, 2024 11:04 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 05, 2024 6:06 pm

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/

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.

jarnon wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 16, 2024 12:26 am

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 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 15, 2024 9:28 pm

SportsFan68 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 15, 2024 11:04 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 05, 2024 6:06 pm

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.

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

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 17, 2024 8:45 pm

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.

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

SportsFan68 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:52 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 17, 2024 8:45 pm

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 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 21, 2024 7:29 pm

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.