patrick.net

DeficitHawk says

But I voted for him.

Why? Was it his promised policies like ending the fossil fuel industry? Or did you vote for Biden because you believed the propaganda that Hunter's laptop was Russian misinformation?

Did you vote against Trump and not for Biden at all?

DeficitHawk says

I guess people united thinks people are printing or procuring extra ballots which they fill out and deposit.

Maybe be people are stealing them out of some grandma's mailbox and resubmitting them. Nit could happen. But I doubt this is a widespread occurrence, but you clearly think differently.

It seems that everything you just said were your words not mine.

There were many millions more votes counted in 2020. I believe that a lot of them were legitimate, but enough of them may have been fraudulent to make a difference in the outcome.

Additionally I believe that voting is a right, but ballots should not be spoon fed and mailed to your home (unless you go through the process of requesting and following the rules of absentee voting )

The underlying concern is that the votes that were counted are not an accurate accounting of legitimate legal votes.

But for me the concern is larger than that. The FBI colluded with Twitter, Facebook and big media to bury the Hunter laptop evidence that revealed the depravity and criminal actions of the Biden family right before the election. This alone could have changed the outcome by keeping voters ignorant of their crimes.

I have a strong dislike of Trump due to the divisive and inflammatory nature of his rhetoric. I think it is counterproductive to the unity of our country, and not how a leader should behave. I don't try to call people names and humiliate them, and I want my leaders to be a better example than I am for discourse and consensus finding in the modern world.

Biden isn't the most inspiring candidate, I'll be honest.

Policy wise, I'm probably 60% agree with Biden and the left and 40% agree with Trump and the right... Or maybe I can say I most often wish there was an in-between policy. Funny I never thought trump's policies were that much more extreme than other republicans... But the divisiveness of rhetoric is a whole different level.

The election denier stuff sort of adds on top of my previous distaste for trump, because I think it is unamerican to promote the narrative he is promoting. I think he does not respect democracy unless he can be the winner. I don't think his narrative is true, and I don't think he thinks its true either. I have no proof of what he thinks honestly, but that is my summary judgement of his character based on his rhetoric.

I think it needs to be said that our government structure is not a Democracy, and the continued bleating of “our Democracy” is something that we need to educate on. We have a Constitutional Republic, with representatives. The representatives being a democratic component, of the overall republic structure.

ForcedTQ you are right, I was using democracy incorrectly. We are a republic. I really meant that we have a rules based, vote based representative system, and I don't think Mr trump respects it unless he gets to be the winner.

Of course if we did use straight up democratic vote for president, we'd be in Hillarys 2nd term right now. Hah!

DeficitHawk says

All I'm saying is that the focus on voter id is sort of a red herring because it doesn't address the core mistrust, but I also think people hype it because of politically motivated fringe benefit

That's not true. You can easily verify that your vote was counted correctly, there are plenty of ways to achieve that while maintaining a good enough level of anonymity. If you preserve all the ballots, audits are trivial. The main problem besides straight out rigging is ballot harvesting and submitting illegal/extra ballots, which is much easier to disguise and harder to prove than straight rigging. Voter ID will fix this. The same person cannot vote twice and has to be an eligible citizen in the first place. Easy. Done.

DeficitHawk says

I don't try to call people names and humiliate them, and I want my leaders to be a better example than I am for discourse and consensus finding in the modern world.

This is disingenuous imo and typical left playbook again. Is Trump brash, narcissistic and arrogant, a blowhard at times? Sure. But you'd rather be called a name by Trump without consequences than being called racist, ableist, anti transgenderist and all the fuck the left is deliberately calling people, and with the demand for consequences such as losing their business, job, career etc, and even codifying laws and punishment for made up bullshit such as 'hate speech'. In short you cannot complain rightfully about Trumps rhetoric without condemning the whole Democrat party's rhetoric and vile attempts at passing unconstitutional commie laws to violently oppress people they call "racists" etc. If you're fine with that, you have to be fine with Trumps - who never passed a single law restricting someone's civil liberty - "divisive" rhetoric aka blowhard locker room talk.

How do you verify if your vote was counted correctly without giving up anonymity?

I'd like to see a system that allows for making sure your.vote was counted as cast, and allow auditing that extra votes were not cast, but not give up anonymity.

There was an apologist for government labor unions in California on Patrick.net who kinda got bullied away.

DeficitHawk says

How do you verify if your vote was counted correctly without giving up anonymity?

I'd like to see a system that allows for making sure your.vote was counted as cast, and allow auditing that extra votes were not cast, but not give up anonymity.

You get a number and can look up how your vote was counted by number, and even trigger a recount by number. There should not be more numbers than eligible voters per county, slightly less if you account for those not registered and not voting. As long as those processing the ballots verify your ID they only need to deal with numbers. Good enough anonymity.

I'll be offline for the next few hours but will return.

mell says

You get a number and can look up how your vote was counted by number

There is a hazard with that, namely that your boss or wife may demand to see you vote, knowing that you can look it up.

Maybe people should a real number, and a fake number they give to people making such demands. But that adds complexity, which is the enemy of transparency.

B.A.C.A.H. says

There was an apologist for government labor unions in California on Patrick.net who kinda got bullied away.

Right, I'm trying prevent such bullying by prohibiting personal insults, but maybe that's not enough.

Patrick says

mell says

You get a number and can look up how your vote was counted by number

There is a hazard with that, namely that your boss or wife may demand to see you vote, knowing that you can look it up.

Maybe people should a real number, and a fake number they give to people making such demands. But that adds complexity, which is the enemy of transparency.

I don't get that hazard. Nobody has any right by law to demand to see how you vote, so you don't comply. In fact you divorce/separate if it's your partner and sue if it's your boss.

A number like a stub from the ballast will let you check. But if there is a discrepancy, you have no proof and you will be told you don't remember how you voted. I think some sort of reciept is needed, maybe with a hash of the votes and some key that couldn't be altered..

And while you can check that not more votes exist than voters, you can't check if the intended people were the voters vs intercepted ballots. Even just a ripped ticket It would be better than we have now though. But is there a complete solution?

I guess anonymity to the wife or the mob boss waiting outside might get sacrificed. Ok now I'm getting in my car to drive 4 hours will check back later.

DeficitHawk says

I don't know who piles up the blue votes here and th red votes there and feeds them into a machine at different times, or this strongly blue district vs that strongly red district get tallied and added in at different times. No don't have an explanation to every glitch in those charts. But there are sensible explanations that don't involve fraud, and the people who oversee the process attest that there wasn't fraud.

But I have this time series from the NYTimes election website that shows a hockey stock. And a screen grab from NBC New showing votes going backwards. I don't believe these sources for any other news, but this is for realz! I have yet to see a voting time series from a secretary of states election results page that shows the aforementioned behavior. Anybody?

DeficitHawk says

I have a strong dislike of Trump due to the divisive and inflammatory nature of his rhetoric.

I don't think Trump has ever been nearly as divisive and inflammatory as Biden was in his obviously Nazi-inspired speech about MAGA:

PeopleUnited says

But for me the concern is larger than that. The FBI colluded with Twitter, Facebook and big media to bury the Hunter laptop evidence that revealed the depravity and criminal actions of the Biden family right before the election. This alone could have changed the outcome by keeping voters ignorant of their crimes.

Right, it seems obvious to me that the FBI is not at all impartial law enforcement, but is in fact committing crimes on behalf of the Democrats.

I'm sure it's justified by reasoning that it was necessary to destroy democracy in order to save it.

DeficitHawk says

I guess people united thinks people are printing or procuring extra ballots which they fill out and deposit.

In California, you are able to print your own ballot at home. Printing extra ballots is simply a matter of changing the number printed.

I assume other Democrat-majority states also allow ballot printing at home.

This should never be allowed imho, because it is an open invitation to fraud. You just need to find the names of people who are not likely to vote because they are, say, in nursing homes or recently dead or haven't voted in years, and then the odds your fraudulent ballot will be caught and rejected are pretty much near zero.

FredH says

The NYTimes? Paywall for garbage! Give us a break from obvious propaganda.

@FredH I referred to the NY Times to prove that even the most partisan of newspapers has to admit the truth sometimes.

FredH says

It is impossible not to offend a leftist when speaking the truth.

@DeficitHawk says he is a Democrat and is apparently not offended yet. Not that Democrat and leftist are identical, but there is substantial overlap.

DeficitHawk says

I think most people agree its ok for people not to be vaccinated if they are in a shack in the mountains, and aren't going to be mixing with people. And I think most people agree that a private house or club can set inclusion requirements like vaccine. Do we agree up to that point?

Actually no. First of all, no one has the right to know your medical history at all, and to demand it violates HIPAA, not to mention basic human decency. "Inject this or you can't be anywhere near me" is the very opposite of tolerant peaceful co-existence. It's frankly Nazi.

Secondly we were lied to about the Wuhan Virus vaccine (I strongly prefer the original virus name as used in the media before the woke crowd suppressed it.)

Biden lied to America point blank: "If you get this vaccine you will not catch the virus." Knowing this was a lie, why would you now believe anything else about the vaxx?

DeficitHawk says

This is a judgement call honestly with a sliding scale for risk benefit

I disagree. There is never, under any circumstances, justification for demanding that anyone be injected with anything and imposing penalties if they are not.

I think the fallacy of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is the core evil of Communism, and of modern times in general. The train-track thought experiment is invalid. You never know what the results of deliberately killing an innocent person will be. No innocent person should be deliberately killed under any real-world circumstances.

DeficitHawk says

Patrick I have also seen some of your comments on this topic which I regard as over the top... Hanging people etc.... So while I actually agree with you on the point of mandates, I think your position is missing the nuance of risk benefit analysis and is pretty stark rhetoric.

I disagree there too, and think hanging is a very mild punishment for the utter and abject evil of mandated global injections of ineffective experimental products with no long-term safety record, for the profit of Pfizer et al, deliberately stoking fear of a quite mild virus, to set people against each other.

I cannot think of any worse evil committed against the whole world at any point in history.

@DeficitHawk

EBGuy says

enable javascript for imasdk.googleapis.com (That usually gets the Rumble vids going for me).

Ah, I have a complete ban on my laptop of all Google domains. I prefer life that way.

Patrick says

DeficitHawk says

This is a judgement call honestly with a sliding scale for risk benefit

I disagree. There is never, under any circumstances, justification for demanding that anyone be injected with anything and imposing penalties if they are not.

I think the fallacy of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is the core evil of Communism, and of modern times in general. The train-track thought experiment is invalid. You never know what the results of deliberately killing an innocent person will be. No innocent person should be deliberately killed under any real-world circumstances.

Since you do not believe in Democracy (because the majority would have voted to have everyone vaccinated), it would be interesting to know your core beliefs on who should be able to set the rules for society.

Misc says

Since you do not believe in Democracy (because the majority would have voted to have everyone vaccinated), it would be interesting to know your core beliefs on who should be able to set the rules for society.

That's a deliberately personal comment, trolling in order to inflame, but I won't mark it personal.

Democracy does not and never did mean that the minority can be oppressed by the majority. It means "majority rule, minority rights". Those rights are in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and arguably in the Nuremberg Code as well.

As cisTits put it, we don't have a (direct) democracy, and that is a feature, not a bug. It was planned that way, as is documented in The Federalist Papers.

The public sets the rules for society by electing representatives to create and enforce those rules, but only within the limits prescribed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

DeficitHawk says

because I think it is unamerican to promote the narrative he is promoting.

What if it is true, that there were enough illegitimate votes counted in swing states to overturn the will of the voters?

What if the powers that be knew there was enough fraud to overturn the election but did not want to act on that knowledge out of fear that it would discredit the system and potentially lead to more violence from Antifa types around the country that would make the anti police riots of 2020 look like child’s play.

Then who would be unamerican? The people who exposed the fraud or those who covered it up?

I’m still waiting for DH to address what is unamerican exposing fraud or covering it up?

In America under the Constitution, Democracy comes with protections in the Bill of Rights, for example.

I was talking about America.

DeficitHawk says

How do you verify if your vote was counted correctly without giving up anonymity?

I'd like to see a system that allows for making sure your.vote was counted as cast, and allow auditing that extra votes were not cast, but not give up anonymity.

Verifying that your own vote was recorded correctly is ez. But I can't think of a great way to ensure additional votes were not added.

Give each voter a printout which has :
-a summary of their votes,
-a unique/unpredictable vote record id
-a checksum of those votes and their voter id number. like SHA(vote1 + vote2 + ... voteN + voterId + voteRecordId)

Then the user can (and should as their civic duty), verify online that their vote was recorded as they cast it by checking a a website - they enter a vote record id, and can view the votes associated w/ that id. If they see a problem, they can report it. Their printout has the info needed for auditors to determine if it was tampered with as the checksum would no longer match upon tampering.

Now, the verification website could lie, and maybe even just lie under certain conditions and/or temporarily, but the vote records could be made totally public (theres no privacy issue showing how an arbitrary voteId voted, since no personally identifying info is displayed along with it), allowing:
-independents to make snapshot copies of the data periodically through said website, so they can compare and identify any records that report differently on different days.
-checksums could again be used to fingerprint the combination of all vote records. Auditors and independents could easily verify these checksums theirselves to identify tampering. Since this would be computed by combining data from all vote records, you cannot add, remove, or change a single vote record without changing the overall checksum, making it easy to identify tampering.
-independents could even host copies of the verification website, and encourage people to check using multiple sites to ensure the data matches. This would help fight exploitation of the primary website, because if a cheater managed to make the website lie under some conditions, then a mismatch will be identified.

Doing this would make changing/discarding votes a very risky move because if someone checks, they will see the change. The nice thing about this is its end to end in the sense that even if fraudsters manages to modify election software/systems, they still stand a great chance of getting caught: if they modify the vote record of a person who happens to check it, then it simply will be discovered. People should verify their vote online both immediately after voting, as well as after some time passes and the election is considered complete/sealed/no more votes being added.

I think at this point, most election fraud would focus on adding fake votes for people that dont exist, or did not vote, because changing/discarding votes would be gravely risky to attempt in anything but small numbers. And I think theres ways to address added votes too, but I cant think of anything simple and solid that doesnt sacrifice privacy. But, I think there's some methods that may help a lot, while only making minimal privacy sacrifices.

Patrick says

In America under the Constitution, Democracy comes with protections in the Bill of Rights, for example.

I was talking about America.

African Americans before the constitutional amendment, Native American treaties that were not honored, Japanese citizens detained in 1940’s, basically every section of the national firearms act, we could go on and on with examples of how America has trampled on groups and rights with impunity.

And this is also the country that has built an empire around the world using military force, economic pressure and if need be war to get is way and exert control over other sovereign nations. I guess what I am saying is that we are are fortunate to be Americans, but being the least bad place on earth to live does not mean that America is righteous nor that it follows the ideals we were taught in school.

Patrick says

Misc says

Since you do not believe in Democracy (because the majority would have voted to have everyone vaccinated), it would be interesting to know your core beliefs on who should be able to set the rules for society.

That's a deliberately personal comment, trolling in order to inflame, but I won't mark it personal.

Democracy does not and never did mean that the minority can be oppressed by the majority. It means "majority rule, minority rights". Those rights are in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and arguably in the Nuremberg Code as well.

As cisTits put it, we don't have a (direct) democracy, and that is a feature, not a bug. It was planned that way, as is documented in The Federalist Papers.

The public sets the rules for society by electing representatives to create and enforce those rules, but only within the limits prescrib...

In most cases, the elected Representatives have ceded their ability create the rules to the bureaucracy because Congress critters have very limited knowledge of how most things work.

Just because something is Constitutional does not make it right (IMHO). As an example, it would have been perfectly constitutional for the California governor to mandate that everyone in the State get the vaxx (under the Emergency Declaration the governor is given exceptional powers and the State is granted almost unlimited powers under the Constitution). The US did not sign on to the Neurenberg Code, so we cannot be held to that. So you see, the enforcement of laws comes down to who is willing to use force,

EBGuy says

Here's a video where they claim that when they put up their data, it got hacked by the Chinese actors and the servers were wiped.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/11/gregg-phillips-explains-catherine-engelbrecht-sent-prison-irrefutable-evidence-entire-pa-voter-registration-file-living-server-china-serial-numbers/

We democratically elect our representatives.

We democratically elect our representatives and more or less majority rules except for the carve outs that are represented in the bill of rights, which are definitely meant as exceptions where even majority or elected representatives doesn't get to rule.

There is no mention of vaccines in the bill of rights, so I suppose it is left to the discretion of our elected representatives.

Patrick pretty clearly has strong feelings on vaccines. But even what we call mandates are not requirements to get a vaccine... they are merely are requirement IF you want to be employed at a particular place or attend a particular school. If you dont do those things, you dont have to get a vaccine.

But if I want someone to have a vaccine before coming to my house, that up to me. people dont have to come to my house. If my mom who is diabetic and high risk profile wants to set the same requirement, she can. Its not a hippa violation to ask someone about their health or communicable diseases or vaccine status. it is violation for medical professionals to disclose that information without consent.

Patrick,

I checked out this article you linked, but it has nothing to do with election fraud. It is about improper storage of election worker personal data.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/technology/election-software-arrested.html

Did I miss something?

DeficitHawk says

But if I want someone to have a vaccine before coming to my house, that up to me. people dont have to come to my house. If my mom who is diabetic and high risk profile wants to set the same requirement, she can.

Sure but that has absolutely nothing to do with the jab mandates.

DeficitHawk says

Its not a hippa violation to ask someone about their health or communicable diseases or vaccine status.

Yes it is.

I'm getting the feeling this is a pointless exercise, as you wildly conflate totally unrelated issues such as what you do in the privacy of your own home with violating hippa, severely restricting civil liberties and inflicting great bodily harm with experimental gene therapies onto citizens under the threat of losing their livelihood. Hopefully you are not deliberately obtuse.

OK Mell, I have to ask you to cite the Hipaa regulation that prevents me from asking someone if they have a disease or were vaccinated for it.

I do not believe it exists, but if you cite it I will change my opinion.

As far as I know, Hipaa places restrictions on the doctors/medical providers that they can not release information without the patients consent. It does not place restriction on me from asking about someone's health or vaccine status, nor does it place restriction on their response.

Hircus says

Verifying that your own vote was recorded correctly is ez. But I can't think of a great way to ensure additional votes were not added.

Give each voter a printout which has :
-a summary of their votes,
-a unique/unpredictable vote record id
-a checksum of those votes and their voter id number. like SHA(vote1 + vote2 + ... voteN + voterId + voteRecordId)

Then the user can (and should as their civic duty), verify online that their vote was recorded as they cast it by checking a a website - they enter a vote record id, and can view the votes associated w/ that id. If they see a problem, the...

Hircus, I think what you outline here is as good as I can think of too. but no solution yet for proving that no "nonvoter" had a ballot submitted for them, or that the counting system didnt take the nonvoted people and assign them votes. even if a non-voting person can check their registration ID and see a vote they didnt place... they would have no proof they didnt just discard their printout. The only way to solve that problem I can think of is to have a requirement that if you are registered you must vote so there are no registered but non voted people. That would be pretty hard to achieve. And of course all of these schemes still have the 'mobster in the alley who wants to see your voting receipt' problem.

Patrick says

I don't think Trump has ever been nearly as divisive and inflammatory as Biden was in his obviously Nazi-inspired speech about MAGA:

Patrick, I dont really listen to political speeches much and I hadnt heard this one... but I image searched and figured out which one you were referring to and listened to it. I can definitely see why you would view this as divisive. Biden was calling out Trump and Trump supporters as being against democratic principles because of the perpetuation of election theft claims and political violence on Jan 6. So I get why you felt like he was attacking you. He lumps all Trump/MAGA supporters together into a group and attacks them as unamerican because of election denying and the violence that came from it.

But at the same time, the speech is disparaging political violence and the refusal to peacefully transfer power after an election. Trump is the first president to have refused peaceful transfer of power after an election, and Biden called him out on it. Harsh. Not inclusive. But true.

I also am a fan of leadership trying to build consensus rather than fighting against portions of the constituency. Its hard, though, when you are attacked from day 0 not to call it out.

Libtard, KommieKunt, Crazy, Loser... those are the labels applied to people like me in this thread before I even get a word out. Dont worry Bd6r, I am not personally discouraged, but lets be honest about where this hostility is originating. It didnt originate from me. You cant be part of a group that is doing and saying these hostile things, perpetuating untruths, and perpetuating political violence and then get your feelings hurt when someone calls you out on it.