too bad the jury is made up of lib types. I'm sure most of them had checked guilty. before testimony began.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
This particular case will be lost on appeal. This judge has obvious bias and has done some shady stuff.
Agreed.
Right now you are identified (via ID or verifying name-address-roll, or sig-matching for mail-in, etc) then the ballot itself has no name.
And yeah, then some machine helps tabulate. But the paper is your source for audit. I don't know how the paperless DRE systems audit actual results (thankfully there aren't many and they are mostly in NOT in swing districts).
So yeah, the "front end" is probably the most different, in addition to the lack of paper.
All sign-ins seem hackable. Crypto wallets get hacked. Like i said, people are even hacking biometric auth. People will lose private keys...
If you tie ID verification to the vote then you lose anonymity of votes.
Some type of unique digital voter ID does sound good for all the tracking purposes you mention, but once you stick the internet (post-auth) between anything and the "ledger" you are adding denial-of-service potential, Man-in-middle potential, other buggy/reliability potential at a bunch of spots (client OS, client browser, wifi, isp).
Not really, i think there are probs during auth, during transmission of the vote AND after.
The problem-after-the-vote stuff is all related to a lack of paper-trail "manual insurance" IMO. Is it possible to audit a blockchain ledger?
Is there something like a 5-step verification?
Use your private key, then your eye or fingerprint, then receive a text (and hope your SIM hasn't been hacked), then use your password, then pingID or other MFA. But then how are we sure @blazers isn't fraudulently giving that person $10 to write-in Soros?
In-person, paper-based, anonymous still seems necessary, even if you couple it with more digital based parts of tracking (for eligibility, etc).
I see at least two maga types who I’m sure have checked innocent before testimony began. Probably shallow state plants. He only needs one. Necessary due to law enforcement, the judge, the clerk, sketch artist and the pizza delivery guy all being biden plants.
Last edited:
You reason well, BUT... almost every objection you raise is either after the ballot is "handed out" and therefore not a legit criticism of identifying yourself on line, or is less secure than the way we do it now.
Try this thought experiment where the only thing being changed is how you are identified and authorized to receive a ballot....
You go into your school gymnasium, as usual, but instead of going up to a poll person sitting at a table with a shoe box of cards or a printout, you go to a computer. There you go through a thorough, encrypted, blockchain mined/authenticated, face-ID'd, fingerprint-checked, 2-way verified (...keep adding whatever you want) identification process. Takes 23 seconds.
Once confirmed, you get a ballot.
How it that LESS secure than showing your NRA membership card or Chick-fil-A rewards card to a kindly octogenarian with coke bottle glasses?
That's just the ID part of voting. But can't we agree that computers are at least as good at that as how we do things now?
If we can agree with that, then we can move on to other aspects of voting.
well it’s obvious you have a slime ball politician who surrounded himself with slime ball people in order to do slime ball shyt. It does speak to the horrible judgement of a man wanting to be the most powerful man in the world but I don’t see the criminality yet.
Yes, except that if you are online "at home", then you are just as exposed to cash-for-vote as someone doing mail-in. So you aren't improving that aspect of people's complaints regarding in-person vs mail-in/internet.
I like it as long as my grandma can go thru the steps, and as long as there is redundancy to thwart denial-o-service or client-side bugs that interupt auth, etc. We know impersonation fraud is rare, so should probably do the cheapest thing that makes people feel the process is secure.
You can verify photo ID and a voter-roll with a flashlight... but if you make something digital more foolproof, then as long as it is "in person" at a monitored polling place, sounds good.
Congrats and bonus points. People on here never want to take the conversation back to our current president and his issues.
yeah, I was thinking that as well
good assessment. Astute observations. Invaluable information. You're doing a good job, please continue the mission.
Can you imagine Biden in there?
Needed Moochelle there for a circle jerk.
Can you imagine Biden in there?
You’re my inspiration. Give yourself an attaboy. But i didn’t think you were following the trial.
From an evidence standpoint, almost the entire trial is Michael Cohen. He's either going to be the smoking gun or a water pistol. Which just gets back to the problems of why this case was brought in the first place, the location of where it was brought, and the judge who was "randomly" picked to oversee it and make all these critical rulings.
Not to mention that the DA prosecuting the case was a Biden DOJ guy. Also the federal attorney general and FEC declined to prosecute. How does a state DA bring a federal charge anyway?
I'm not. Why would I when I just have to follow your excellent rundowns. That way I get the facts AND the analysis.
yet you’ve decided the case will be overturned on appeal, the judge has done shady stuff, the judge has obvious bias, and the jurors have already decided trump is guilty.
so I'm good at reading between the lines. Sue me.yet you’ve decided the case will be overturned on appeal, the judge has done shady stuff, the judge has obvious bias, and the jurors have already decided trump is guilty.
I'm not seeking out info about the trial or much of anything else for that matter. This knowledge stuff seems to just come at me from out of nowhere.
Maybe you are underestimating the depth of analysis you've been providing??yet you’ve decided the case will be overturned on appeal, the judge has done shady stuff, the judge has obvious bias, and the jurors have already decided trump is guilty.
He's not just a Biden DOJ guy. Check this out.
Ex-top Biden DOJ official now prosecuting Trump was once paid by DNC for 'political consulting'
EXCLUSIVE: The Democratic National Committee paid prosecutor Matthew Colangelo thousands of dollars for “political consulting" in 2018, Fox News Digital has learned.
I was going to mention that but, you know, "the source".He's not just a Biden DOJ guy. Check this out.
Ex-top Biden DOJ official now prosecuting Trump was once paid by DNC for 'political consulting'
EXCLUSIVE: The Democratic National Committee paid prosecutor Matthew Colangelo thousands of dollars for “political consulting" in 2018, Fox News Digital has learned.www.foxnews.com
LOL. I get it. But the source was the Fed Election Records where the payments were reported. Fox just made the connections. Not that any of it matters to the haters. If improper things are done by people who shouldn't be making such decisions or even involved, it's irrelevant so long as they get the evil, bad man. Do the ends justify the means is the only question ever asked.
But won't that still tie Trump up in court through the election? That seems to be the main agenda for the left.
And that's the ugly truth about the left. I literally don't even think they'd stop short of murder in order to remain in power.
Stormy testified trump had her roll up a magazine and spank him on his bare ass
At this point I don’t really care what happens any further. They could declare a mistrial, reveal the jurors to all be wearing “deep state rocks” tee shirts, and the judge to be using hunter bidens Lap top. It was all worth it for that piece of gold.
At this point I don’t really care what happens any further. They could declare a mistrial, reveal the jurors to all be wearing “deep state rocks” tee shirts, and the judge to be using hunter bidens Lap top. It was all worth it for that piece of gold.
please God tell me, I gots to know...was it The Atlantic? I'm done with Trump if it was The Atlantic.Stormy testified trump had her roll up a magazine and spank him on his bare ass
At this point I don’t really care what happens any further. They could declare a mistrial, reveal the jurors to all be wearing “deep state rocks” tee shirts, and the judge to be using hunter bidens Lap top. It was all worth it for that piece of gold.
I'm surprised you find this so entertaining though, considering how much you like having your ass spanked with a rolled up poster of Donald Trump.
Well, push me over with a feather. A trial allegedly about an accounting entry that was criminally committed and a porn star gets up and tells a porn script story? I'm not actually surprised that she made such a claim. I'm also not surprised that this partisan judge allowed her to testify about something completely irrelevant and prejudicial to the defendant. I'm not even surprised that he then failed to grant a mistrial after her testimony. I AM surprised you fell for it and are treating it like solid gold. Orange may have done that, he may not. We'll never actually know one way or the other, but don't be a dope and take the word of an "actress" who shortly thereafter testified under oath that she is only about the money, is selling her story to a documentary that her proceeds will be paid to her daughter's LLC because she has no intention of ever paying the existing judgment against her held by the man she also admitted she hates.Stormy testified trump had her roll up a magazine and spank him on his bare ass
At this point I don’t really care what happens any further. They could declare a mistrial, reveal the jurors to all be wearing “deep state rocks” tee shirts, and the judge to be using hunter bidens Lap top. It was all worth it for that piece of gold.
This type of testimony is just one reason this verdict will ultimately be overturned. It will not matter, however, as the only intention is to be able to say conviction leading up to November. It's this election's Russia, Russia, Russia. A complete lie that will be revealed only after the minions have mailed in their ballots.
So you're still open to the possibility that Donald Trump paid the woman $130,000 not to have sex with him? Riiight.
You b!tches are hilarious. Waaaaay the prosecutor doesn't like me, it's not fair. The DA's job is to protect America from criminals. Trump is innocent til proven guilty, but the evidence will come out (FOR AND AGAINST), the judge will decide, that's how the system works.
If the Defense Attorney worked for Biden or Bill Gates, THEN you'd have a legit gripe about bias.
And i think the state/fed interplay is cuz the falsifying-company-records is state-level (misdemeanor), but there are federal (election/campaign) implications (felony).
Quit whining. Someday maybe, just maybe you'll have sex too.So you're still open to the possibility that Donald Trump paid the woman $130,000 not to have sex with him? Riiight.
Make America Guffaw AgainStormy testified trump had her roll up a magazine and spank him on his bare ass
At this point I don’t really care what happens any further. They could declare a mistrial, reveal the jurors to all be wearing “deep state rocks” tee shirts, and the judge to be using hunter bidens Lap top. It was all worth it for that piece of gold.
Well, we can't all live in Nebraska where fukking the livestock is acceptable.
is that what Hillary told you? Just STFU with your condescending and hypocritical lecture on how the system 'works' .
.And an additional **** you for disingenuously not acknowledging the completely obvious, that this is nothing more than a political lynching timed to interfere with Trump's hope of returning to the presidency.
You got some balls on you though, to be able to whine about insurrection and threats to 'our democracy' even while our democracy is being trashed and made a mockery of by your ilk.
And in case I forgot to mention it, fvck you. No I'm not mad, just disgusted to have to breathe the same air as such jerkoffs.
no, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that just as with you, we shouldn't believe anything she says.So you're still open to the possibility that Donald Trump paid the woman $130,000 not to have sex with him? Riiight.
Similar threads
