Professor shows Georgia Judge how to hack voting machines.

[Twilight Hue]

You are so illogical, so why am I wasting my time with such nonsense.

I sincerely hope so. People simply don't need the type of self styled logic that you and others like you on the left continually put out.

Thanks for the break. Have a good day.

 

[McBell]

I'm pointing out the fact that these machines have been shown and proven to be compromised. That is what you are ignoring.

Please present where the machines that handled the election were compromised.
Until you do, you are merely blowing smoke up....

Thus far you have only repeatedly made this bold empty claim.
All you have been able to present thus far is that they can allegedly be compromised really easily.

You have NOT shown or sourced where a machine used for/during the election has been.

But people like you don't see that and don't want to see that.

Cause all you have down is claim it.
You have not shown or sourced that any of the machines used during the election have been.

You just want to project what your thoughts are and habitually putting in your own words as if the other person said stuff that they haven't actually said or stated.

Actually, that is what YOU have been doing.
You make bold empty sus claims then run tail tucked when asked to support them.

I am flat out calling out your claim that the machines have been compromised.
Either put up or shut up.

My backyard is very clean unlike yours.

You appear to be the Shrek of this thread.

 

[McBell]

I sincerely hope so. People simply don't need the type of self styled logic that you and others like you on the left continually put out.

Thanks for the break. Have a good day.

You have brown eyes, don't you?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Please present where the machines that handled the election were compromised.
Until you do, you are merely blowing smoke up....

Thus far you have only repeatedly made this bold empty claim.
All you have been able to present thus far is that they can allegedly be compromised really easily.

You have NOT shown or sourced where a machine used for/during the election has been.


Cause all you have down is claim it.
You have not shown or sourced that any of the machines used during the election have been.


Actually, that is what YOU have been doing.
You make bold empty sus claims then run tail tucked when asked to support them.

I am flat out calling out your claim that the machines have been compromised.
Either put up or shut up.


You appear to be the Shrek of this thread.

Bull****ting your nonsense like usual.

Show me where I said they were actually compromised during the election. Guess what sunshine, I didn't, and you know it.

I just said it was possible they were compromised since it's proven now that those machines are no longer secure.

Like usual you just make things up and and try to accuse other people of things they never said and take it completely out of context as you masturbate your inflated ego over it.

Not surprised. Just continue on with your ridiculous dumb antics. It's really hilarious and incredibly amusing to see each time you do it to people.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You have brown eyes, don't you?

I guess you're bigoted toward people with brown eyes. Oh well, nothing can I do about it.

 

[McBell]

I guess you're bigoted toward people with brown eyes. Oh well, nothing can I do about it.

It is reference to an old time saying that goes "You are so full of s*** your eyes are brown"
So yeah, there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[McBell]

Show me where I said they were actually compromised during the election. Guess what sunshine, I didn't, and you know it

No, you did not flat out say it.
You did however, heavily imply it.
If they were not compromised during the election, then what is your actual argument?
That they "might" be?
That they "could" be?
Is that really all you got?

I just said it was possible they were compromised since it's proven now that those machines are no longer secure.

Nope.
You said they "have been shown and proven to be compromised"

I'm pointing out the fact that these machines have been shown and proven to be compromised. That is what you are ignoring.

I have looked numerous times the word "probably" is just not there....

Like usual you just make things up ....

Except for the fact that I presented the post right here in this post where you said what I said you said and your back peddling claimed qualifying modifier "probably" is not where to be found.
So what did I make up here?

Not surprised. Just continue on with your ridiculous dumb antics. It's really hilarious and incredibly amusing to see each time you do it to people.

You really need to practice your snarkiness.
It really really needs work.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, you did not flat out say it.
You did however, heavily imply it.
If they were not compromised during the election, then what is your actual argument?
That they "might" be?
That they "could" be?
Is that really all you got?


Nope.
You said they "have been shown and proven to be compromised"

I have looked numerous times the word "probably" is just not there....


Except for the fact that I presented the post right here in this post where you said what I said you said and your back peddling claimed qualifying modifier "probably" is not where to be found.
So what did I make up here?


You really need to practice your snarkiness.
It really really needs work.

Yeah they were compromised all along, and you're correct that I said the machines were compromised because the professor has shown that they were and demonstrated it in front of others and don't forget I also said Trump could be right in light of that.

The only thing is nobody knows for sure if shenanigans were in play or not at the time.

That is something that has yet to be determined if it ever will be one way or another. Too late anyways it's a new election coming up.

You really have to work at looking more closely at what people actually write in a post.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah they were compromised all along, and you're correct that I said the machines were compromised because the professor has shown that they were and demonstrated it in front of others and don't forget I also said Trump could be right in light of that.

The only thing is nobody knows for sure if shenanigans were in play or not at the time.

That is something that has yet to be determined if it ever will be one way or another. Too late anyways it's a new election coming up.

You really have to work at looking more closely at what people actually write in a post.

I think he showed that they could become compromised. Not that they actually were.

 

[McBell]

Yeah they were compromised all along, and you're correct that I said the machines were compromised because the professor has shown that they were and demonstrated it in front of others and don't forget I also said Trump could be right in light of that.

You do understand there is a difference between compromised and can be easily compromised, right?
The professor showed the latter.
That they are easy to compromise.
The professor did NOT show that they were compromised.

You really have to work at looking more closely at what people actually write in a post.

Actually, you need to pay better attention to what it is you actually post.

I mean,

• you posted something,
• I commented on the exact thing you posted
• you claim you did not post what I commented on
• I prove you did in fact post exactly what I said you said.
• You then agree that you did post that which I said you said.

Now you claim it is I who needs to pay better attention?

Can we say "transference"?

 

[Valjean]

That is true. And do you know how they are caught?

That I would say is fallacious. Do you remember the supposed expert that you found in a NY Post article? Even he seemed to think that it was impossible for a Presidential election. Cheating may work on small elections. But effective cheating is very labor intensive. And the more people involved in a conspiracy the more likely it is to fail.

Cheating is a high risk, low benefit enterprise. It's rare, and usually unintentional.

The party promoting unpopular policies tries to impede voting by demographics unlikely to support it. It makes wild claims of cheating by opposing voters. It seeks to wipe large tranches of opposing votes from the official count.

Repeat an unevidenced claim often enough, and from enough sources, and the public begins suspecting there must be some truth to it. When investigated, though, these allegations rarely come to anything statistically relevant. The Republicans claim thousands of deceased voters, and investigation uncovers two. They claim widespread tampering with voting machines, and investigations find no supporting evidence, with hand recounts of ballots in agreement with machine counts.

But what else is a party supporting a platform of unpopular policies to do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cheating is a high risk, low benefit enterprise. It's rare, and usually unintentional.

The party promoting unpopular policies tries to impede voting by demographics unlikely to support it. It makes wild claims of cheating by opposing voters. It seeks to wipe large tranches of opposing votes from the official count.

Repeat an unevidenced claim often enough, and from enough sources, and the public begins suspecting there must be some truth to it. When investigated, though, these allegations rarely come to anything statistically relevant. The Republicans claim thousands of deceased voters, and investigation uncovers two. They claim widespread tampering with voting machines, and investigations find no supporting evidence, with hand recounts of ballots in agreement with machine counts.

But what else is a party supporting a platform of unpopular policies to do?

Hmm, maybe acknowledge defeat gracefully and take a serious look at one's policies and see what went wrong??? Naaah! You are right. Howl about cheating even though no one, not even the officials in your own party, believe you.