97
Duty to Warn Letter Regarding Hacking of 2024 Election
(substack.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
97 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3244 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
123,000 Arizonans voted only for President & nobody else? That is weird.
As odd as it is, you are not cramming 123,000 ballots in there without anybody noticing. It's just not going to happen. Even spread out, that's still thousands if not tens of thousands of ballots per district. Somebody would have noticed. Somebody would have said something. Some counties would have vote counts higher than the number of registered voters. There would be a giveaway. You don't cram 7.2% of Trump's total vote in a state as big as Arizona and leave no trace. That's just impossible.
EDIT: People are saying these were digital counts that were manipulated. The argument still stands, though. For that argument to be valid, that would mean that our elections are so insecure that Trump and the brainworm crew were able to hack into voting systems nationwide, en masse, and without anybody noticing. Thousands of people would still have to be involved. There would be a digital trace showing something happened, even if we couldn't figure out exactly what or by whom. Someone would have made a human error that would stick out like a sore thumb. Digitally or physically, you are not pulling that kind of stunt at that level without anybody noticing, particularly not those lead paint eaters.
The letter is suggesting that the vote counting machines were compromised, adding fake digital votes to the total after it had counted all of the real physicsl ballot votes. The letter suggests that a hand count of the physical voted would show the manipulation, because the extra digital votes would not show up in the physical ballots.
They've been replacing election officials with partisan hacks for several years now. Especially in arizona. They are really pissed at the more populated areas that tend to go democrat.
Does it mean the election was stolen. No. Would it be criminally negligent not to investigate this after Republicans told us they were going to do this and put people in place to do this. Yes.
It is not criminally negligent to ignore claims that have no basis in reality. In fact, it would be more criminally negligent to waste taxpayer money to give credibility to these claims by investigating.
Only one of these two sentences can hold true
Our elections are safe and secure, with multiple fali-safes in play to ensure said integrity.
Our elections are so insecure that people can simply drop off thousands or even millions of fake ballots across the country, mix them in with the real ones, and absolutely nobody notices. In multiple states.
Again. Think of what it would take to be able to cram tens of thousands of ballots into the ballot box without a trace in multiple states across the country. Thousands of people would be needed to print, fill out, drop off, mix in, and count these ballots. And not one person has said something? Not one person let the cat out of the bag? Not one county ended up with an anomoly where there were more votes than voters? And it still doesn't explain the 10 million or so Biden voters who just stayed home.
We lost, and these theories have no basis in reality. If they did, we'd know it by now.
Here's your reality basis. With them every accusation is a confession. They've been putting partisan election deniers in positions of control in many state and country elections office. Just for this sort of thing.
I never said we didn't. But as I posted the theories are strongly based in reality. General polling shows ignorant young and minority men swung hard for trump. White people in general held to tradition, carrying water for fascism as well. He likely did win. These sort of outliers should be checked however. And no, as long as we rely on states to set procedure and police themselves. No I don't trust them implicitly. These are the groups that implemented poll taxes and practiced heavy handed disenfranchisement. Chances are this is nothing. But it is worth being sure.
Ok, but ask yourself.....even under a best case scenario, what do you expect to realistically accomplish? Trump won, but by slightly less?
Because if you prove anything, that also comes with the side effect of proving that our elections are not secure. You just proved that __________ successfully hacked voting machines across multiple counties in several swing states without being detected. It doesn't matter who you put in that blank. Trump's cronies. Russian hackers. North Korean hackers. Chinese hackers. Killer clowns from outer space. All of the above. Doesn't matter. You've just told the entire population of the United States that their vote really doesn't matter because the election is going to be decided by whatever hacker group is most successful. Good luck trying to get any voter to believe our elections are secure ever again. No matter what happens, the losing side will always just blame "the hackers". Those lawsuits against Dominion and the other voting machine manufacturers? Yeah, they're going to be giving that money back, because you just proved that any old hacker group actually could get into them at will and change the outcome of the election. Fox News will gladly take back their 800 million. Good luck getting anyone to believe that either the 2020 or 2024 election was legitimate. Or any other election ever again, for that matter.
Source?
It doesn't say. It does also mention
Which - is at least believable.