Slashdot Mirror

Democrats concerned about secure and honest voting? That's rich!

Dems are against voter ID laws
Dems racism exposed in their anti-Voter-ID crusade
Dem caught commiting voter fraud
DeBlasio cans whistleblower on Dem voter fraud
Illegal aliens voting
Pelosi wants voter age lowered to capture recently indoctrinated youth

It goes on and on with these traitors.

Zuckerberg has been selling off his FB stock quite a bit these last months, and it makes me wonder if he knew something would happen.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news...

Whaddaya know, FB, Google and Twitter were in a congressional hearing on censorship and has been caught "shadow banning" pretty much every conservative voice (supposedly by preventing 95% of the users that would normally see their posts from appearing on their wall/feed/recommendations), including Donald Trump, almost every republican politician (but not John McCain), Fox News, the NRA and especially Alex Jones. Apparently conservative and libertarian opinions are far more mainstream than they would have you believe.

Remember in October 2016 when r/The_Donald hit the front page of Reddit and it turned out to be a "bug"?

Reddit admin /u/redtaboo said, âoeMy understanding is a database update caused the process that updates /r/all to stop working properly, the long and short of it is that /r/the_donald is incredibly active voting wise, so when the algorithm [that] sorts /r/all brokeâ¦that subreddit was the one to be pulled into the vortex.â

âoeThe /r/all algorithm doesnâ(TM)t single out any specific subreddits, but it does make it so no single subreddit can take over completely,â they explained. âoeThe_Donald happens to be incredibly active voting wise (more so than larger subreddits) so when things broke the posts in that subreddit were the ones most actively being voted on and got picked up.

Of course it was a bug, a bug in the software that was preventing the regular Reddit users from realizing how popular Trump is. Before a major election.

Twitter engineers have also been caught on camera saying that they prevent posts involving the second amendment, the flag, and a few other terms, from being seen by others.
https://www.projectveritas.com...

Time to abandon ship and replace all social media with an open source alternative.

Van Jones: Russia is "Nothing burger" -- American Pravda: CNN Part 2

https://www.projectveritas.com...

I'm noticing this around other sites as well, conversation about nothing illegal the messages just vanish. I have also noticed if you start typ31ng lik3 th1$, stuff g3ts thr0ugh.

Free speech is essential .

Project Veritas is such a pain the ass to people who refuse to accept evidence of reality because they tend to go undercover and get indisputable video (and other) records of shenanigans going on.

Since you don't like the video-only YouTube stuff (and to be honest the modern era of making everything and video and having print stuff become increasingly rare and hard to filter and find bothers me too) I'll leave you with a couple of less video-centric links.

https://www.projectveritas.com...

https://www.projectveritasacti...

These guys are great, providing video evidence of all sorts of unethical behavior by government/companies:

https://www.projectveritas.com...

People have been fired/charged by their findings.

Yes, but those people are almost exclusively Progressives and Democrats so Project Veritas is Eeeeviiilll!!!1!! and are very likely Russian spies working for Trump. /s

Strat

These guys are great, providing video evidence of all sorts of unethical behavior by government/companies:

https://www.projectveritas.com...

People have been fired/charged by their findings.

Has been busted fabricating news ON VIDEO, no less than 2 DOZEN times in the past decade alone... This "Study" is likely just more leftist BS.

I'm just going through the paper right now, but there's a ton of sketchy and indefensible assumptions.

For example, the study relies on a list of sites known to have fake news, with a "representative article" for each site.

Taking one at random, apparently this news article was enough to get Breitbart listed as a "fake news" site.

The problem is that the article in question is completely and totally accurate, but was probably branded "fake news" because it went against the narrative of many Hillary supporters.

Another entry shows hannity.com, and the link (no longer working at Hannity) was about an undercover journalist who managed to impersonate Huma Abedin at the polling station; effectively, able to vote as someone else.

A quick search shows that this actually happened, it's a Project Veritas sting, and there's a youtube.com video of the incident.

It is immediately apparent that neither of these "representative" articles is fake in any way. I couldn't even find inaccuracies or bad framing in the articles - there's no sound reason to say that these are examples of fakery.

This paper does not at all rise to the level of quality and fact-checking that a published paper should have!

It's nothing more than a leftist hit piece.

Note: Check out the people who post one-line insults as a response to an organized argument with links. To mis-quote Chris Farley: "They're awesome"! :-)

There is more then one video. You can watch all the unedited videos right there. You sure you want to argue that it was bullshit again? Those are the words of their own people.

{sarcasm}Thanks for making it easy by providing direct links to the unedited videos...{/sarcasm}
Flag as Inappropriate

I'm sorry, I mistakenly assumed you knew what Google was and that you could spell "Project Veritas".

https://www.projectveritas.com...

https://www.projectveritas.com...

https://www.projectveritas.com...

My bad. I'll not assume that level of competence from you again.

Strat

{sarcasm}Thanks for making it easy by providing direct links to the unedited videos...{/sarcasm}
Flag as Inappropriate

I'm sorry, I mistakenly assumed you knew what Google was and that you could spell "Project Veritas".

https://www.projectveritas.com...

https://www.projectveritas.com...

https://www.projectveritas.com...

My bad. I'll not assume that level of competence from you again.

Strat

{sarcasm}Thanks for making it easy by providing direct links to the unedited videos...{/sarcasm}
Flag as Inappropriate

I'm sorry, I mistakenly assumed you knew what Google was and that you could spell "Project Veritas".

https://www.projectveritas.com...

https://www.projectveritas.com...

https://www.projectveritas.com...

My bad. I'll not assume that level of competence from you again.

Strat

Project Veritas just released a new story about how twitter bans people who have opinions they don't like.

Basically, any message deemed "offensive" can be attenuated in various ways, but of course being pro-Trump is claimed to be offensive by some so it becomes politically partisan.

I don't know why any company, or any person, would attempt to limit someone else's expression of ideas. It's very clear that companies who do that hurt their own bottom line, there are numerous examples in the past year. So long as the expression isn't explicitly against the law (notably threats and kiddie porn), why bother?

Any methods to limit offense should apply to the listener, not the speaker. If the company wants to give the listener the ability to mute ideas, phrases, or people they don't like, then that's fine. The speaker can still have their message, and the old saw "but no one's obliged to listen to you" still applies.

Facebook, Google, Twitter... all the big players have an idea of what "incorrect behaviour" is, and want to enforce their vision on everyone.

It's ill-advised, badly implemented, and financially a mistake.

And for the record, Gab.ai is the new twitter that does just that: if you don't like the tone of what people say, you can mute people or words or phrases you don't like.

Why do people even do that? I thought we went over this in grade school: freedom of speech is a right.

Step out of your echo chamber, more than 20 over here, https://www.taskade.com/v/ByzM... . Or how about more than one higher employee calling the entire Russian story BS. https://www.projectveritas.com... .
CNN is worse than other left wing news organizations is because they pretend to be non-partisan

Project Veritas got a couple of CNN folks to admit that the Russia collusion story was bullshit.

http://breaking.projectveritas...

More videos of CNN dishonesty and partisanship here:
http://projectveritas.com/tag/...

Anyone who believes anything they see on CNN needs to have their head examined.

Project Veritas got a couple of CNN folks to admit that the Russia collusion story was bullshit.

http://breaking.projectveritas...

More videos of CNN dishonesty and partisanship here:
http://projectveritas.com/tag/...

Anyone who believes anything they see on CNN needs to have their head examined.

LOL! The wiki article is just a collection of the same unsubstantiated BS that the MSM has been slinging around for the past 6 months. "Intelligence agencies" said so, therefore it's fact, eh pleb? The same intelligence agencies that severely discredited themselves over the past decade or so and provide proof like "the hacks happened at night, which is daytime in Moscow. Therefore... Russians!"

But, that's not to say skullduggery didn't occur during the elections. Indeed, there were some evil actors attempting to rig it.

Here's some hard, video evidence for ya, and admission of cheating in the debates in order to deceive voters about their candidate's diplomacy skills. But it implicates the DNC and not the Russians, so I'm sure you'll go apeshit and start frothing at the mouth, claiming it's all a conspiracy.

Oh, and if you're going to claim the Veritas videos are doctored: Prove it or STFU.

I read about things.

You READ about things? Well, stop the presses then! With literally millions of news sources, could you cite something at least a bit specific?

Voting machines being few and defective in Democratic areas.

States run the elections and voting places, so why would Democrats tamper with voting machines in their own areas?

Voter ID laws combined with closing offices that issue licenses in heavily Democratic areas.

Voter ID laws prevent illegals and dead people from voting, not to mention preventing people from voting multiple times. Again, why would Democratic states close offices earlier if it impacts Democrats from voting?

Illegals and dead people do not vote in significant amounts. This is the sort of fraud that would be easy to find lots of examples of it it were going on, and we haven't seen them.

Funny, but Google pulls up enough examples of voter fraud:

• Hidden Camera: NYC Democratic Election Commissioner: They Bus People Around to Vote
• North Carolina Hillary Supporter Brags on Facebook about Voting Multiple Times
• Double Voting - Even Triple Voting - Found in US Elections
• Democrat Confirms Rampant Voter Fraud
• CBS4 Investigation Finds People Voting Twice
• Detroit Recount Reveals Major Vot Fraud by Dems
• A JMU Student has allegedly registered 19 dead people to vote

Read some real news sometime.

May I suggest the same to you?

In person voter fraud is a manufactured myth created by the GOP

You might find this interesting. straight from the mouth of a NYC (Democratic) election commissioner.

Well, you might find it interesting if your confirmation bias isn't extreme.

ID's don't prevent voter fraud anyway.

Neither do re-inforced cockpit doors prevent hijacking... however both make either goal much more difficult.

In person voter fraud is a manufactured myth created by the GOP

Just keep telling yourself that: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws....

In person voter fraud is the most difficult way to commit fraud and carries the least reward.

Which is why no one ever admits to knowing about such schemes: http://projectveritas.com/2016...

and they don't have a problem with fraud.

That you or they know of... or care about.

EVERYBODY knows that to tamper in an election all you have to do is find a million people that will sell their vote for $100 or so

Maybe some people, know things you don't as you incorrectly assume you need to target the voters and not simply their ballot.

How hard would it be for a malicious actor to say... request 10,000 absentee ballots, likely for targeted individuals who they believe will vote 'the other way' or not likely to vote (maybe recently deceased), then cast those ballots on their behalf.

10k not enough? That's just from one small crew. Need to say... swing Florida to Romney in 2012? Just need 8 crews doing 10 ballots each to hit the margin... which isn't all that many people.

oh and hide a $100M paper trail...oh and the big one, keep a million people quiet who's loyalty is for sale

Really? So simply getting a bus full of dedicated party loyalists of want to be criminals together to drive from polling place to polling place wouldn't work? http://projectveritas.com/2016...

There are plenty of ways to commit massive voter fraud under all systems in place in the US today, most just don't want to see how easy it really is.

And yet somehow they don't seem to have any problems with voter fraud,

How do you know that?

How do they know that?

Even if they did know it... you assume they care.

Didn't we just see news out of New York City this week of election commissioner describing fraud there? http://projectveritas.com/2016...

I can't speak specifically to Oregon, but up here in Washington I know there exists several vulnerabilities in our election system which could be used to cast hundreds, if not thousands of votes from ones own basement. Even if the county or state figured out what was going on, it'd be near impossible for them to finger who did it.

I've a hard time believing that I'm the only one who noticed these issues here, I'm just ethical enough not to use it, but also know (given state politics) I've I disclosed it, I'd more or less get a "we don't care".

For example:

http://projectveritas.com/2016...

And don't bother drooling out "but it's James O'Keefe". The guy either said they bus people around or he didn't. He did. O'Keefe didn't make him say it.

We all know it's going on, and we know that IDs help with the problem. They don't eliminate it, but they help. And there's one party doing that, by the way.

If you need a picture ID to vote it should be your voter registration card given to you free of charge at the time you register to vote.

"So you are saying you've grown 6 inches, gained 200 lbs, changed your hair & eye colors as well as your sex... that's the reason you don't look anything like your photo from 20 years ago? Ok... here is your ballot."

Little different than the ID-less system we have today, just mention a name on a street and get offered a ballot: http://projectveritas.com/2016...

Project Veritas is by James Okeef who is anything but trustworthy and honest, but then neither was your argument. Same day register registration with a reasonable level of verification is certainly doable. A drivers license would work. Failing that, just require the same things required to get a drivers license, or any reasonable preponderance of similar evidence. Also, if your getting a new ID your picture would be taken making fraud that much harder to commit.

In short, while I don't agree this fraud is a real issue, since there is so little proof it is actually concurring in significant numbers, you could easily limit the possibility to an arbitrarily small number. Sure, OKeef is a talented con man, and he apparently managed it, but widespread, I just don't buy it. Conspiracies that wide do not remain secret. Either way, I'm fine with reasonable ID requests, or at least requesting the little card, but if you require ID, you have to make it free and easy to get.

More importantly, I'd focus on these problems:
1) End first pass the vote voting with something better. Multiple rounds. Ranked voting/Instant run off/something. (This system makes it very difficult for third parties to remain viable, and encourages extreme candidates.)
2) Similarly end partisan redistricting. Find an algorithm that draws districts simply with no political bias and use it.
3) Require a voting machine paper trail and also require good security on the systems.
4) Somehow we need to get politics back to the issues and have honest discussions. Having an accurate summary of choices and candidates on a ballot would help. Perhaps we could have something like Jury Duty to assemble them? That way lies might be less effective.

They wouldn't necessarily even have to be current, if it was say a senior citizen who was not currently driving. Ultimately any form of ID has to be based on public record data, so any form of id that can be generated should be possible to be generated same day. It is not as if visiting three different public offices increases security. Beyond that you would have to have multiple people testify to who you are or do actual genetic testing which is infeasible.

If you need a picture ID to vote it should be your voter registration card given to you free of charge at the time you register to vote.

"So you are saying you've grown 6 inches, gained 200 lbs, changed your hair & eye colors as well as your sex... that's the reason you don't look anything like your photo from 20 years ago? Ok... here is your ballot."

Little different than the ID-less system we have today, just mention a name on a street and get offered a ballot: http://projectveritas.com/2016...