Oh, I don’t think the video is fake. I was just curious about how “perky” the source was. Sadly, more traditional news outlets aren’t reliable anymore. They ignore events that counter their narrative and condemn those events that they can’t ignore. Never thought I would land on the side of distrusting media. My brother is a big Glenn Beck fan and I used to ridicule his media distrust. This year has shown that traditional media outlets aren’t trustworthy anymore. Their news is saggy and spotted. Even a miracle bra couldn’t prop up those sour milk bags.
Yes you can pretty much discount any news headline with all caps “breaking” and “game over”. Unless it’s a tweet and they have the ambulance siren emoji used at least 4 times.
You can discount anything the vocal majority thinks is false or doesn’t want to bother with. The media just focuses the vocal majority. This is our new democracy where the majority determines the truth regardless of facts.
Not sure if you are being serious or if through sarcasm you are arguing for the legitimacy of “natural news”. I think considering the source of information is an important aspect of critical thinking and analyzing of the information. YMMV.
The same people who buy every crackpot conspiracy theory imaginable are the same ones who opine that you can't trust the MSM.
I don’t care about natural news. With that said, the media deciding what to cover and what not to cover is every bit as bad as some obscure site overhyping a video or other. If the video is a real video from a Georgia assembly, then that should probably be of interest and we, the people, should sort it out. Who are the major news companies to determine what is worthy and what isn’t?
You could sort it out if you like. And you will come to the same conclusion with regards to their bias and factual inaccuracies and fabricated information that media bias trackers have. Natural News is rated as the most right leaning news outlet and the 4th least factual (behind tabloid publications). There isn’t time in the day to independently analyze every media outlet and every piece of content they produce. But you can definitely use bias ratings as a tool to filter out the extreme or fabricated sources.
So there is a video. Thats about as much proof as one could ask for to determine if the story is real. Why then, are only "right wing" news outlets reporting on this? Its surprising that the msm would see this video and be like "nobody wants to hear about how a voting machine was hacked during a senate hearing".
Yep, just like all those videos you shared last month 'proving' massive voter fraud. 🙄
There is a video of someone talking about hacking the system. What the article claims is not true though.
So the video isn't real? The guy says exactly what the article reports that he said.
Proof of votes being changed or stfu about this already. You're reaching senile old man yelling at clouds level deranged.
Why? Not saying your wrong, but that guy has longer videos he has put out with more of what is happening. He calls it proof, but it was late and I fell asleep. His name is Jovan Pulitzer and media outlets have already started bashing him because ad hominem arguments are about the only ones most journalists know how to make. I’m not sticking up for the dude (I don’t know who he is), but damn journalists are so intellectually lazy.
It basically should come down to whether he was lying when he said it, or if he was telling the truth. Thats what the media should be focusing on, but they prefer to attack his character.
I’m not disputing the content of the video. Just the content of the accompanying article.
Fair enough . I have no idea if he is telling the truth or not. When the video started I was hoping he would show proof by having someone at the polling station confirming what is happening.
IT systems are constantly combatting security vulnerabilities. But even if you take everything the guy says at face value, showing a computerized system is theoretically capable of being hacked doesn’t demonstrate that specific systems were in fact hacked and votes switched. Also any theoretically possibility of a vote switch would be temporary and not pass the muster of canvassing or match with paper ballots which were hand counted in the state. We have been over this, but actual physical ballots were recounted by hand and didn’t show any evidence of the vote switching. So this guy saying it’s theoretically possible for someone to “hack it” is not inconsistent with Georgia certifying valid vote tallies.
If it’s theoretically possible that a system has been hacked, the cyber playbook is to assume that it’s been hacked. You shut the system down, figure out what has been compromised, and only bring it back online when the vulnerability has been mitigated. That’s how it works in every important system.
Yes, it is theoretically possible for ALL systems to be hacked just as it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to escape from an escape-proof prison. But based on your Chud theory, we'd always be shut down based on an assumption of "gosh, it might happen." Instead, things are brought to a halt when a system is compromised.
In voting, there are non-technical double-checks to verify the accuracy of votes. And in voting, the machines would be shut down if there was evidence they were compromised. But as we witnessed over.... and over...and over...and over again, there was no evidence of massive voter fraud.
No, you don’t understand. Once someone has found a vulnerability, then (if you’re in finance, medical, or operationally sensitive defense) you have to assume that you’ve been hacked if your system has the vulnerability. You, at the very least, check the logs and verify your data integrity. If the vulnerability allows someone to take control of your system, then you shut down all external access until you can close the hole. You issue out a press release to everyone affected and you correct whatever changes were made.
You are conflating two things. Nothing is “assumed”. There is no evidence that “systems were hacked”. There is also no demonstrable evidence that a “hack” could even theoretically alter election results. It’s why the canvassing and recount process exists, and why 95% of the country uses physical ballot paper trails.
You’re sticking your head in the sand because you have the result that you want. If a white hat can hack it, then the Chinese or the Russians or any of a number of other groups can as well. Probably did. You need access to the machines, logs, and data to determine that. Access that is being actively denied. So of course there’s been no evidence in the media’s reports. They don’t even want to cover that someone has hacked the system.
The machines are counting machines that you feed ballots into. They aren’t connected to the internet. Your misunderstanding of the vote counting process isn’t evidence that something nefarious occurred. Actual evidence of this doesn’t exist.
No, that’s not how the Dominion system works. There are more components to the suite than the vote counters. The files are taken from the counters and loaded into the tabulator. Flagged troublesome votes get dumped into an adjudicator for human review (which is supposed to occur with one Republican and one Democrat but we know that didn’t happen in Detroit at the very least). These then go into a system with a NAS, a DB, and an application server. This is supposed to be a closed restricted network but there have been reports that those networks were open to the internet or at least had WiFi routers on them. If that were true, at that point all bets are off.
So what is the contention? That someone switched votes on the tabulator? The counting machines output totals which have to match the ballots or they are rerun, and the totals from the tabulators are checked against the recorded counts during canvassing. Also they have paper ballots. It seems like a stretch to think someone is hacking systems real time to change something that is literally just the optics of a vote switch. It’s why they were able to detect the mistake in Antrim county. I mean just because your copy machine can be “hacked”, at the end of the day if you are verifying the output it seems illogical that someone is hacking it to change something. And at the end of the day you have the original anyway.
The contention is that a forensic analysis has not been performed and had been strictly disallowed by almost every jurisdiction except one. One where they found severe vulnerabilities. The contention is that if we are going to say that the integrity of our elections are paramount to our democracy, then we should have a forensic analysis to determine if these exploitable holes were exploited.
I’m not sure about the Mueller investigation, sorry you had to put up with it I guess, but in terms of the election security it is much better than it had been in previous elections. Almost all jurisdictions use paper ballots so there is an auditable trail. The benefit of “hacking” a localized counting or tabulation machine at your library or church (to the extent this guy alleges it is technically possible) is still not clear to me. I have no problem examining the machines. But to this point those taking the stance of widespread fraud in this election have little basis for the claim. Trump has been claiming fraud since the 2016 primaries with Ted Cruz. It’s his MO. It was also part of his job to “uncover” it when he founded the fraud task force headed by pence that wasted taxpayers money and found nothing. He then hired a Republican to head up the department overseeing election integrity. The guy who said the 2020 election was most secure in history. By all means spend tax payer money doing “forensic analysis” on a vote tabulator. And check my printer while you are at it.
Since you have no problem with the examination then there’s no need to gaslight me with your last sentence. Especially when it has been explained by so many in this thread that election administration is a state and county issue across the country.
Christ, talk about gaslighting. If the Mueller investigation was investigating "a pack of lies,' how come a bunch of felony convictions came out of it?
All counting is done with bipartisan observation. Areas of interest were recounted (Georgia, Wisconsin) and it turned up nothing as expected. If you still think there are outstanding fraud claims that warrant investigation that is being blocked then you are being gaslit, but it’s not my doing.
