☆~Donald Trump 2020~☆

[Mace1647545504]

You started your IT career in 1972?

 

Yes I did..I'm an old F..lol

Graduated in 71..worked at a few places, then I worked at a placed called columbus coated fabrics..long story short I got chemical burns in my lungs.

 

So while reading the paper there was an ad in back to take a math test and turn it in.

I did, they said I had programmer capabilities and i went to a small school for 6 months where I learned rpg, cobol, and assembler.

 

I then went to work for a small service co. that went out of business 6 months after I started.

Another long story short, I've been an operator, programmer, network engineer, systems programmer.

[greg1647545532]

Damn, impressive. Old F indeed :-P

[Mace1647545504]

Damn, impressive. Old F indeed :-P

 

Thank you.. as the grateful dead sang..."what a long strange trip it's been" and 1/31/21 I'm retiring

[Buck531]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Voteflake

[oh8sti]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Voteflake

 

I dont think that term originated with trump supporters...

[Otis Nice]

I dont think that term originated with trump supporters...

 

Had to.

 

Anyone who protests the results of the 2020 US Presidential Election

 

by popmafioso1 December 12, 2020

[oh8sti]

Had to.

 

Sure, what im saying is this concept isnt new. Im pretty sure thats what the last 4 years were, just on the other side of the coin. Randos can input terms into that site and give definition to whatever they want, whenever they want. No one cared to look back then lol.

[greg1647545532]

I know anything that's connected to the internet can be hacked...wtf are you stupid or what..you don't think it can happen...again I've been in IT for 48 years..what proff do you want??????????

 

About this statement, even hand-counted paper ballots can be "hacked."

 

The "problem" with US elections in general is that votes must be anonymous. This seemingly simple requirement makes election security almost impossible from a technical perspective, for this reason -- how can Joe Voter verify that his vote was counted correctly, while also making it impossible for anyone holding his ballot to figure out who cast it? This is a difficult problem from a technical perspective (public/private keys, sure, but then how do you create/distribute/secure those for a massive, chaotic population?), but it gets worse from here. Voter intimidation is a real thing throughout history -- imagine union bosses forcing their union members to vote for pro-union candidates (happened), or anti-union capitalists forcing their employees to vote for anti-union candidates (also happened). If Joe Voter can verify his vote after the fact somehow, then someone can force Joe Voter to verify his vote in their presence.

 

Think about how we've addressed this fundamental problem using paper ballots. You show up to vote, and are handed a paper ballot with a unique ID after verifying that you're eligible to vote. You sign your name in the voter roll, and the unique ID for your ballot is logged as now being a valid ballot. These two pieces of information must be kept separate -- the unique ID for a ballot and to whom it was given -- so that nobody can trace a ballot back to an individual voter. From a security perspective, this still works -- since you signed your name on the voter roll, you or someone pretending to be you can't vote again. Since the ballot ID was logged as being a valid ballot, nobody can just print up new ballots and stuff the ballot box.

 

However, from a voter verification perspective, this doesn't work -- and intentionally so, because of the voter intimidation reason. Once you drop your ballot in the box and leave the polling location, you can never, ever verify how your vote was counted. Ever. This means nobody else can verify who you voted for, but it also means you can never be sure that your ballot was not switched out.

 

If this is a deal breaker for someone, then god help them, because that person can never trust any US election going back to the history of the country.

 

There's an element of trust here, even with strictly paper ballots. Yes, your ballot can be hand counted again and again and again. Yes, it's impossible for paper ballots to be "hacked" easily and quickly at scale, because paper is cumbersome. But you trust that when you drop your ballot in the box, it's going to be secured by non-partisan or bi-partisan election officials, handled securely, and not modified. You can never, ever verify that this is done, so you just have to trust the system.

 

 

Long story long, even with paper ballots, it's entirely possible for election shenanigans. Voting machines do not create the problem. In some regards they make it worse, and in some regards they can make it better (because recounts and data analysis). If you have 10,000 paper ballots in a room and you send in 10 vote counters to count them, you'll get 10 different results. Paper ballots will get misplaced and then found again, or they'll get lost and never found. It's impossible to ever remove all oddities and mistakes from an election. Therefore, simply pointing out mistakes when they happen is beyond meaningless in making any broad proclamations about the outcome of an election. Simply pointing out that hacking is possible with electronic voting machines is beyond meaningless in making any broad proclamations about the outcome of elections, because it's also possible for paper ballots to be unknowingly modified.

 

So if you're not making any insinuations about the validity of the election, which I still kinda think you are, and you're truly just saying that "anything on the internet can be hacked," then the response is, OK, so what? It's a meaningless revelation. Anything printed on paper can be changed. So what? Are all elections pointless because paper can be changed, or voting machines can be hacked? Of course not. Absent any actual evidence of widespread issues or fraud, the default position should be to trust that election officials are doing their best to run a fair election, even if mistakes might happen because elections are run by humans, and even if the process can never be 100% secure.

[Rustlestiltskin]

About this statement, even hand-counted paper ballots can be "hacked."

 

The "problem" with US elections in general is that votes must be anonymous. This seemingly simple requirement makes election security almost impossible from a technical perspective, for this reason -- how can Joe Voter verify that his vote was counted correctly, while also making it impossible for anyone holding his ballot to figure out who cast it? This is a difficult problem from a technical perspective (public/private keys, sure, but then how do you create/distribute/secure those for a massive, chaotic population?), but it gets worse from here. Voter intimidation is a real thing throughout history -- imagine union bosses forcing their union members to vote for pro-union candidates (happened), or anti-union capitalists forcing their employees to vote for anti-union candidates (also happened). If Joe Voter can verify his vote after the fact somehow, then someone can force Joe Voter to verify his vote in their presence.

 

Think about how we've addressed this fundamental problem using paper ballots. You show up to vote, and are handed a paper ballot with a unique ID after verifying that you're eligible to vote. You sign your name in the voter roll, and the unique ID for your ballot is logged as now being a valid ballot. These two pieces of information must be kept separate -- the unique ID for a ballot and to whom it was given -- so that nobody can trace a ballot back to an individual voter. From a security perspective, this still works -- since you signed your name on the voter roll, you or someone pretending to be you can't vote again. Since the ballot ID was logged as being a valid ballot, nobody can just print up new ballots and stuff the ballot box.

 

However, from a voter verification perspective, this doesn't work -- and intentionally so, because of the voter intimidation reason. Once you drop your ballot in the box and leave the polling location, you can never, ever verify how your vote was counted. Ever. This means nobody else can verify who you voted for, but it also means you can never be sure that your ballot was not switched out.

 

If this is a deal breaker for someone, then god help them, because that person can never trust any US election going back to the history of the country.

 

There's an element of trust here, even with strictly paper ballots. Yes, your ballot can be hand counted again and again and again. Yes, it's impossible for paper ballots to be "hacked" easily and quickly at scale, because paper is cumbersome. But you trust that when you drop your ballot in the box, it's going to be secured by non-partisan or bi-partisan election officials, handled securely, and not modified. You can never, ever verify that this is done, so you just have to trust the system.

 

 

Long story long, even with paper ballots, it's entirely possible for election shenanigans. Voting machines do not create the problem. In some regards they make it worse, and in some regards they can make it better (because recounts and data analysis). If you have 10,000 paper ballots in a room and you send in 10 vote counters to count them, you'll get 10 different results. Paper ballots will get misplaced and then found again, or they'll get lost and never found. It's impossible to ever remove all oddities and mistakes from an election. Therefore, simply pointing out mistakes when they happen is beyond meaningless in making any broad proclamations about the outcome of an election. Simply pointing out that hacking is possible with electronic voting machines is beyond meaningless in making any broad proclamations about the outcome of elections, because it's also possible for paper ballots to be unknowingly modified.

 

So if you're not making any insinuations about the validity of the election, which I still kinda think you are, and you're truly just saying that "anything on the internet can be hacked," then the response is, OK, so what? It's a meaningless revelation. Anything printed on paper can be changed. So what? Are all elections pointless because paper can be changed, or voting machines can be hacked? Of course not. Absent any actual evidence of widespread issues or fraud, the default position should be to trust that election officials are doing their best to run a fair election, even if mistakes might happen because elections are run by humans, and even if the process can never be 100% secure.

 

 

:no:

 

Tell me this is a copy/paste you found somewhere and that you didn’t just type a 744 word reply.

[spankis]

Pardons anyone?

[Mace1647545504]

Pardons anyone?

 

SOP for this time in a presidency

[spankis]

Delusional.

[Furloaf]

Every President does horseshit pardons on the way out

[greg1647545532]

And like everything else he does, Trump does the best bullshit pardons. Nobody does bullshit pardons better than Trump. Bigly.

[Mace1647545504]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Barack_Obama#May_20,_2011

 

and let's not forget the 50 billion in cash he gave to iran

[greg1647545532]

Didn't click those links but have any previous presidents pardon convicted war criminals?

[gillbot]

Every President does horseshit pardons on the way out

 

I don’t know why this is acceptable regardless of party.

[greg1647545532]

Forget war crimes, how about murder in general? Any presidential pardons for murder prior to Trump? And he's up to, what, 6 now?

 

Last minute presidential pardons are SOP, sure. Trump's list of pardons is anything but SOP. He's pardoning his friends, cronies, and war criminals. His list looks like nothing I've seen in my life. SOP, sure. Pretend this is normal if you want. But alas, all I can do is throw this on the pile of ways Trump is abhorrent. I'm all out of outrage at this point.

[Exodus]

He needs to pardon Ross Ulbricht.

 

 

Sent from my SM-F916U using Tapatalk

[greg1647545532]

He needs to pardon Ross Ulbricht.

 

 

Sent from my SM-F916U using Tapatalk

 

Only attempted murder, not racy enough.

 

(I know, I know, conspiracy to commit murder, not attempted murder.)

[Mace1647545504]

they were in the middle of a war..you've heard of ptsd..could have been that

[greg1647545532]

they were in the middle of a war..you've heard of ptsd..could have been that

 

Tried and convicted, right?

 

Eta: doesn't even matter, just say that this isn't SOP so I know you're not insane.

[Mace1647545504]

Tried and convicted, right?

 

Eta: doesn't even matter, just say that this isn't SOP so I know you're not insane.

 

I know just messin with the group..lol

But some folks might say I'm a little crazy

[greg1647545532]

Anyone gonna show up at the statehouse on Jan 6 to protest the Steal with the Proud Boys? I'm thinking about it.

[zeitgeist57]

Trump: "I refuse to sign this COVID bill."

Also Trump: "This is good. I should sign this."

 

https://www.axios.com/why-trump-signed-coronavirus-relief-5fd23003-ac26-45e0-a09e-cddefaadbd42.html

 

Butter up the President's ego and you can make him do anything. :eyes:

 

Axios is also reporting that Trump announcing his bid to run again in 2024 is effectively a done deal, so we get to hear him crow for another 4+ years. It's tiring to hear his narrative all the time, even in the rare instance he's right on a topic. Hoping that Twitter puts a muzzle on him once he's out of office.