I know a lot of you hate TYT but this is hilarious and scary at the same time. Skip ahead to the CNN part and just feel your jaw slowly dropping as you watch.....like a slow motion train crash.....

Teague wrote:Can someone tell me what checks are in place for voting in the US? I mean does anyone know?

As with pretty much everything in the US, there's no singular answer.

Teague wrote:
Purp - According to Jordan Cheriton who's been going back and forth for months, the media (as in CNN et al) only showed up at the last minute. It seems as though on hearing that TYT organised 2000 veterans to go down there people suddenly got interested. Other claims are that the media were only reporting pretty much what the lying cops were telling them - as in the protestors were getting violent and starting fires when they weren't. You obviously have a different take - what's your experience?

I've been seeing bits and pieces on it for months, but yes it was drowned out by election coverage. There's no conspiracy there though; it's simply a matter of what sells. The issues surrounding the Dakota Pipeline affect a very small number of people so unfortunately the national media doesn't care because their viewers don't care.

Even the idea that they only came in last minute disproves that there is some cover up. Rather it's about what sells and what doesn't.

I can point to other stories (like the Trayvon Martin shooting) where the media was accused of a coverup but once they figured out it would get viewers they went in the opposite direction and over-saturated coverage of everything related to it. Why? Because they'll follow the money. If you don't think a genuine election rigging story is big money then you don't understand the media at all.

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:Can someone tell me what checks are in place for voting in the US? I mean does anyone know?

As with pretty much everything in the US, there's no singular answer.

Teague wrote:
Purp - According to Jordan Cheriton who's been going back and forth for months, the media (as in CNN et al) only showed up at the last minute. It seems as though on hearing that TYT organised 2000 veterans to go down there people suddenly got interested. Other claims are that the media were only reporting pretty much what the lying cops were telling them - as in the protestors were getting violent and starting fires when they weren't. You obviously have a different take - what's your experience?

I've been seeing bits and pieces on it for months, but yes it was drowned out by election coverage. There's no conspiracy there though; it's simply a matter of what sells. The issues surrounding the Dakota Pipeline affect a very small number of people so unfortunately the national media doesn't care because their viewers don't care.

Even the idea that they only came in last minute disproves that there is some cover up. Rather it's about what sells and what doesn't.

I can point to other stories (like the Trayvon Martin shooting) where the media was accused of a coverup but once they figured out it would get viewers they went in the opposite direction and over-saturated coverage of everything related to it. Why? Because they'll follow the money. If you don't think a genuine election rigging story is big money then you don't understand the media at all.

There's 2 points here I made one already.

Election rigging exposure would hurt the media as they are the establishment.

Standing Rock goes against the establishment - establishment media won't pick up on it unless they have to.

I'm pretty sure I could saturate my news network with it if I wanted to and show the war crimes the police were committing and maybe a young girl wouldn't have had her arm almost blown off by a grenade. Maybe it would have been over before hand.

Talk of the election being rigged and a general undermining of the establishment his been at the top of the news for months.

It's obviously had a noticeable effect as a candidate like Jill Stien who raised only 2m for her campaign has raised 5x that for recount efforts.

The guy who won still says it was fixed and this shit is reported on hourly. The validity of the whole system is in doubt, coming from both sides, and you want to believe the entire mainstream media is sitting on the biggest story possibly in the history of modern media?

Sorry, but that's just seeing only what you wish to see.

Teague wrote:http://www.electoralsystemincrisis.org/

That's the study tht was linked in the video which was also mentioned in the video had people watched it who didn't "Watch video's that didn't have a proper report behind them"

Well, this one does so it's all there to view.

I've got to the part where she's talking about NY and they use optical voting. They fill out a card, the machine reads the card then the results are processed and totalled by the machine and then tabulated centrally giving a few avenues to nudge things.

The report answers all of the questions asked thus far. This is not a group of biased activists, but people with a high degree of education in statistics, and strong reputations in their field. This validates what people have observed and reported, and needs to be investigated. The primary results need to be properly audited as well.

purplerat wrote:Talk of the election being rigged and a general undermining of the establishment his been at the top of the news for months.

It's obviously had a noticeable effect as a candidate like Jill Stien who raised only 2m for her campaign has raised 5x that for recount efforts.

The guy who won still says it was fixed and this shit is reported on hourly. The validity of the whole system is in doubt, coming from both sides, and you want to believe the entire mainstream media is sitting on the biggest story possibly in the history of modern media?

Sorry, but that's just seeing only what you wish to see.

Can you link to the MSM reporting on the audit initial report Teague linked? I haven't seen it. Maybe I missed it.

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:Talk of the election being rigged and a general undermining of the establishment his been at the top of the news for months.

It's obviously had a noticeable effect as a candidate like Jill Stien who raised only 2m for her campaign has raised 5x that for recount efforts.

The guy who won still says it was fixed and this shit is reported on hourly. The validity of the whole system is in doubt, coming from both sides, and you want to believe the entire mainstream media is sitting on the biggest story possibly in the history of modern media?

Sorry, but that's just seeing only what you wish to see.

Can you link to the MSM reporting on the audit initial report Teague linked? I haven't seen it. Maybe I missed it.

Haven't seen it reported on. Never said it was.

Do you have links where other experts have verified their findings?

I don't think it's a terrible thing if the media is reluctant to report on non-peer-reviewed findings, especially something controversial.

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:Talk of the election being rigged and a general undermining of the establishment his been at the top of the news for months.

It's obviously had a noticeable effect as a candidate like Jill Stien who raised only 2m for her campaign has raised 5x that for recount efforts.

The guy who won still says it was fixed and this shit is reported on hourly. The validity of the whole system is in doubt, coming from both sides, and you want to believe the entire mainstream media is sitting on the biggest story possibly in the history of modern media?

Sorry, but that's just seeing only what you wish to see.

Can you link to the MSM reporting on the audit initial report Teague linked? I haven't seen it. Maybe I missed it.

I guess you didn't check the site itself very thoroughly.

http://www.electoralsystemincrisis.org/ ... es-finally

Here's what NBC has as their top stories:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... 595977#top

I don't see this story. Like you said, biggest story of the century. I remember reports that the Russians could hack the election, not that the parties themselves rig it. Can you link to an example of the MSM coverage?

I sat the IELTS (International English Language Testing System) test this weekend. As a native speaker, it was trivial, as it should be.

Sitting behind me was a nice young woman from Nigeria. She's been living here in the US for a few years now. I asked her how her actual experience living here has measured up to her expectations before she came. She said that in most regards, it was what she expected.

Then, I asked her why she was sitting the IELTS test.

She told me she is emigrating to Canada. Since trump has been elected, she sees an uncertain future for herself here in this country. So, she's leaving. After attaining permanent residence in the US (no small achievement), she's leaving. I congratulated her on her forsight and self-determination.

This is what we've come to, here in the US. I wonder if the republicans are proud of themselves.

Willie71 wrote:Here's what NBC has as their top stories:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... 595977#top

I don't see this story. Like you said, biggest story of the century. I remember reports that the Russians could hack the election, not that the parties themselves rig it. Can you link to an example of the MSM coverage?

Right in the middle of that page is a story about the Stein led recounts.

It's a big story. Nobody is ignoring it. What does get ignored is poorly sourced, crackpot "stories" about vote padding and such.

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:Here's what NBC has as their top stories:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... 595977#top

I don't see this story. Like you said, biggest story of the century. I remember reports that the Russians could hack the election, not that the parties themselves rig it. Can you link to an example of the MSM coverage?

Right in the middle of that page is a story about the Stein led recounts.

It's a big story. Nobody is ignoring it. What does get ignored is poorly sourced, crackpot "stories" about vote padding and such.

Stein's recount coverage has little to nothing to do with the statistical anomalies and hacked machines.

You claim it's a crackpot story, but very credible people have spoken out on this. A former president of the American Statistical Association is one of the people doing the analysis. Another statistician has been published over 400 times. Crackpots? Greg Palast did a great documentary on crosscheck. None of the MSM networks would touch it. Why do you think that is? I watched to documentary, and no unsubstantiated claims were made. Zero. No conspiracy theories, just the evidence of voter purges.

How do you explain away the statistical anomalies. You could read about them in the report Teague linked.

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:Here's what NBC has as their top stories:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... 595977#top

I don't see this story. Like you said, biggest story of the century. I remember reports that the Russians could hack the election, not that the parties themselves rig it. Can you link to an example of the MSM coverage?

Right in the middle of that page is a story about the Stein led recounts.

It's a big story. Nobody is ignoring it. What does get ignored is poorly sourced, crackpot "stories" about vote padding and such.

Stein's recount coverage has little to nothing to do with the statistical anomalies and hacked machines.

The whole basis for her seeking a recount, and how she raised so much money, was over concerns of hacked machines and anomalies. This was well reported on in the MSM.

Jill Stein, liberals seek voting hack investigation

Willie71 wrote:
You claim it's a crackpot story, but very credible people have spoken out on this. A former president of the American Statistical Association is one of the people doing the analysis. Another statistician has been published over 400 times. Crackpots? Greg Palast did a great documentary on crosscheck. None of the MSM networks would touch it. Why do you think that is? I watched to documentary, and no unsubstantiated claims were made. Zero. No conspiracy theories, just the evidence of voter purges.

I said the Wisconsin vote padding story which you were spreading was 'crackpot'. I don't believe it speaks for all other concerns but when you have a "throw anything that stinks at the wall and see what sticks approach" that deserves criticism for lack of proper skepticism and reasoning.

purplerat wrote:

crank wrote:

purplerat wrote:

crank wrote:
You are just flat out wrong, ill informed, if you think security experts are for machine voting without a guaranteed paper backup. The best and brightest of them think it is likely impossible.

I never said computer security experts are for it. But once again putting words in my mouth is a favorite pastime of yours. What I'm speaking to, and rejecting, is the notion that voting machines could be tampered with on a scale of 10s of millions without a trace.

You don't need a paper trail, or even to valid the votes, in order to inspect machines to see if they have been tampered with.

And I asked a simple question, how can you know a machine vote is valid if you have no paper trail to check it?

For the record I've already said I think there should be a paper trail. But still, how do you know the vote is valid in the 99.9...% of elections which don't have a hand recount done to valid the results? How do you know that judges in states like Wisconson and Pennsylvania who have recently rejected such efforts aren't in on the fix? Having a paper trail doesn't fix that.

Your position is incoherent. I didn't put words in your mouth. You say it can be detected, the experts say it can't, period. I always stated my position as 'without paper backup'. There is always a possibility for the hand counts to be rigged in some way, that's when your objections have merit. Plus, there are supposed to be reps from all sides to observe. Any vote rigging operation that tried to jigger 10's of millions of votes would be too stupid to think possible. It's something that's been clearly stated to be done in the swing states, someplace with the most swing for the least rig. And that sounds like some kinda double entendre but isn't supposed to be.

You're confusing being able to validate the vote against a paper trail and being able to identify if there had been an error or tampering with machines. Obviously it's not possible to validate against a non-existent paper trail. It doesn't take an expert to know that. But if anybody is saying that large scale tampering would be impossible to detect even with the most advanced computer forensics, then they are just trying to get a headline.

I'm confused? I think not. OTH, you certainly appear to be based on your recent posts, with a position shifting weirdly from one incoherent post to the next.

crank wrote:

purplerat wrote:

crank wrote:

purplerat wrote:
I never said computer security experts are for it. But once again putting words in my mouth is a favorite pastime of yours. What I'm speaking to, and rejecting, is the notion that voting machines could be tampered with on a scale of 10s of millions without a trace.

You don't need a paper trail, or even to valid the votes, in order to inspect machines to see if they have been tampered with.


For the record I've already said I think there should be a paper trail. But still, how do you know the vote is valid in the 99.9...% of elections which don't have a hand recount done to valid the results? How do you know that judges in states like Wisconson and Pennsylvania who have recently rejected such efforts aren't in on the fix? Having a paper trail doesn't fix that.

Your position is incoherent. I didn't put words in your mouth. You say it can be detected, the experts say it can't, period. I always stated my position as 'without paper backup'. There is always a possibility for the hand counts to be rigged in some way, that's when your objections have merit. Plus, there are supposed to be reps from all sides to observe. Any vote rigging operation that tried to jigger 10's of millions of votes would be too stupid to think possible. It's something that's been clearly stated to be done in the swing states, someplace with the most swing for the least rig. And that sounds like some kinda double entendre but isn't supposed to be.

You're confusing being able to validate the vote against a paper trail and being able to identify if there had been an error or tampering with machines. Obviously it's not possible to validate against a non-existent paper trail. It doesn't take an expert to know that. But if anybody is saying that large scale tampering would be impossible to detect even with the most advanced computer forensics, then they are just trying to get a headline.

I'm confused? I think not. OTH, you certainly appear to be based on your recent posts, with a position shifting weirdly from one incoherent post to the next.

I've not changed. There's simply what I've said versus what other people said I've said. Funny how I've asked for citations and gotten none.

Didn't I go through this with you months ago where you repeated for pages something I'd never said and then finally you want back and checked only to find out you were wrong and had to eat crow?

willhud9 wrote:You know the thing is if that video that Teague claims actually is true that would be the story of the century. CNN, MSNBC, and most importantly Fox News (who has been harping about voter fraud for years) would pounce on that because it would generate coverage and people would actually tune in to watch. They would make a ton of money off of a story like that.

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/23/13726784/trump-clinton-election-audits

“Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not,” Halderman writes. “I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.” But he argues that a recount is the best way to make sure.

Hacking is not likely. But that doesn't mean recounts shouldn't happen, or paper trails shouldn't exist.

But making a conclusion based on half-hearted facts? Nope.

The My Lai Massacre was a huge story. Thing was, and something well known today, there were My Lais virtually every day in that war. There are huge stories that the MSM ignores every fucking day, you can see this by checking their coverage with that of a good independent news organization.

crank wrote:

willhud9 wrote:You know the thing is if that video that Teague claims actually is true that would be the story of the century. CNN, MSNBC, and most importantly Fox News (who has been harping about voter fraud for years) would pounce on that because it would generate coverage and people would actually tune in to watch. They would make a ton of money off of a story like that.

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/23/13726784/trump-clinton-election-audits

“Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not,” Halderman writes. “I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.” But he argues that a recount is the best way to make sure.

Hacking is not likely. But that doesn't mean recounts shouldn't happen, or paper trails shouldn't exist.

But making a conclusion based on half-hearted facts? Nope.

The My Lai Massacre was a huge story. Thing was, and something well known today, there were My Lais virtually every day in that war. There are huge stories that the MSM ignores every fucking day, you can see this by checking their coverage with that of a good independent news organization.

We discovered that there were more massacres post war. That wasn't because MSM didn't want to cover it, but because they did not have access to that information. The MSM were being supporters of the anti-war movement. My grandfather has a distrust of the MSM because he remembers it pushing liberal agendas.

Funny hearing progressives having the same distrust as my red-blooded conservative grandfather, but because they believe the MSM is too right wing.

Also what is your qualification for a "good" independent news organization.

And that I think will lead to a can of worms on its own.

They don't ignore them. They don't have access or credible people to run with.

Yep. You read these independent news agencies and you check their sources and usually its not a well-placed source. Because of that MSM cannot run the story because unlike those smaller news agencies the MSM can lose a lot of credibility by running a false story. We have seen this happen.

The Newsroom did a good job representing this: