President Trump 2.0

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

When Trump eventually leaves, will it be considered as a great loss to comedy?

that spray tan business will go bankrupt

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck0j0j87959eo

Right, it was a joke, course it was, isn't it always, silly me, funniest president ever, coz that's what the people want, a comedian, first bozo now whatever this is and it's such fun

"It was a joke"

i.e. thats his excuse because he made another total howler and got the wrong person to start with.

[Carth]

More howlers than a pack of Timber Wolves, when will the 'squeak like a mouse' begin?

[thenry]

When he has to hand over power to Kamala Harris

[Carth]

Quite possibly the 'post of the thread' right there

[Stephen]

The polls weren't wrong though. They predicted a huge win for Democrats.

I think his team must have been feeding him fake polls.

[damien c]

I do not believe at all that the vote was wrong.

The only thing I question is why use machines to count at all?

If it takes a week to count, then it takes a week to count, machines are to easily rigged to count votes for the wrong person, I am not saying that it happens but it's just a risk that shouldn't be there.

The other thing is the whole "not allowing" a poll watcher from a certain party to be present whilst allowing the other, it has happened to both Democrat and Republican poll watchers, it just stinks when you refuse one but not the other and if you refuse both, well that stinks even more.


Regardless of how predictions and results actually pan out, there will always be a stink depending on which side you sit, and the ones who get screwed the most are the ones sat in the middle.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by damien c

I do not believe at all that the vote was wrong.

The only thing I question is why use machines to count at all?

If it takes a week to count, then it takes a week to count, machines are to easily rigged to count votes for the wrong person, I am not saying that it happens but it's just a risk that shouldn't be there.

The other thing is the whole "not allowing" a poll watcher from a certain party to be present whilst allowing the other, it has happened to both Democrat and Republican poll watchers, it just stinks when you refuse one but not the other and if you refuse both, well that stinks even more.


Regardless of how predictions and results actually pan out, there will always be a stink depending on which side you sit, and the ones who get screwed the most are the ones sat in the middle.

Didn’t Rudy Gulliani (sp) get in serious trouble for his unsubstantiated claims about voting machines and I thought the poll watcher thing was thoroughly debunked as a simple misunderstanding, unless it's a different poll watches that was kept waiting whilst his credentials were checked

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Didn’t Rudy Gulliani (sp) get in serious trouble for his unsubstantiated claims about voting machines and I thought the poll watcher thing was thoroughly debunked as a simple misunderstanding, unless it's a different poll watches that was kept waiting whilst his credentials were checked

And Fox News paid Dominion Voting Systems nearly $800 million to avert a trial in the voting machine company's lawsuit..

[damien c]

The problem is, people on either side will claim a "debunk" is legit or not and you will not make either side happy whilst they are in use, because if the results go one way, one side will say they are wrong and if they go the other way, the other side will say they were wrong.

The following is just a hypothetical of what might be claimed by someone wanting to support a "fraudulent vote" argument.

"The software developer for the voting systems used is Canadian, they could be bought by the Democrats to ensure they Democrats get elected, in order to stop the whole "canada will become an american state" thing that Trump is pushing."

"The software developer for the voting systems used is Canadian, they could be bought by the Republicans to ensure they Republicans get elected, in order to force the whole "canada will become an american state" thing that Trump is pushing."


See how easy it is to come up with a stupid comment about the system, regardless of which side the person sits and because as far as I am aware the software is not publicly viewable meaning you cannot see what it counts as a vote for one person over another, you cannot 100% claim it's not at risk of being "rigged" however stupid it might seem.


As for the poll watchers, frankly there was a lot of garbage going around about it all, so it may have been debunked, but the fact that people were stopped whilst the count carried on, is a problem, they should have stopped the count whilst the watcher was checked, once confirmed the count resumes with the watcher in place.



I mean here in the UK, we quite simply should have a rep from each party at each counting station, each counter should have a person looking over their shoulder to ensure they are counting correctly and then there should be cameras recording the whole thing.

It's not difficult to stop fraud, but parties are more interested in trying to make sure they can use the vote count as political ammo against the opposition party.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by damien c

The problem is, people on either side will claim a "debunk" is legit or not and you will not make either side happy whilst they are in use, because if the results go one way, one side will say they are wrong and if they go the other way, the other side will say they were wrong.

The following is just a hypothetical of what might be claimed by someone wanting to support a "fraudulent vote" argument.

"The software developer for the voting systems used is Canadian, they could be bought by the Democrats to ensure they Democrats get elected, in order to stop the whole "canada will become an american state" thing that Trump is pushing."

"The software developer for the voting systems used is Canadian, they could be bought by the Republicans to ensure they Republicans get elected, in order to force the whole "canada will become an american state" thing that Trump is pushing."


See how easy it is to come up with a stupid comment about the system, regardless of which side the person sits and because as far as I am aware the software is not publicly viewable meaning you cannot see what it counts as a vote for one person over another, you cannot 100% claim it's not at risk of being "rigged" however stupid it might seem.


As for the poll watchers, frankly there was a lot of garbage going around about it all, so it may have been debunked, but the fact that people were stopped whilst the count carried on, is a problem, they should have stopped the count whilst the watcher was checked, once confirmed the count resumes with the watcher in place.



I mean here in the UK, we quite simply should have a rep from each party at each counting station, each counter should have a person looking over their shoulder to ensure they are counting correctly and then there should be cameras recording the whole thing.

It's not difficult to stop fraud, but parties are more interested in trying to make sure they can use the vote count as political ammo against the opposition party.

All I'm saying is there was a famous poll watcher, well he was made famous by donnie claiming he was denied access and it turned out what ever state he was in had specific rules about what cities and counties poll watchers can watch in so he was denied access whilst they checked and once verified he was allowed in to watch the poll as for the voting machines, they are stupid arguments that don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny and the simple fact is the votes cast aren't destroyed, any sort of mischief can be checked and verified, there is no mass scale fraudulent votes, I thought this was established when donnie went to court countless times after his failed insurrection and lost repeatedly? In 2020 in the 6 swing states 25 million votes were cast and something like 450 or 500 were considered iffy, not found to be just considered, its a complete non problem being turned into something because someone's precious ego can't handle being told he lost and no one likes him

There’s a lot of independent testing of the Boting Machines at Federal and Statelevel…

https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/fi...States_508.pdf

Overview of Voting Systems Testing and Certification in the United States

Voting System Certification
A voting system is considered EAC-certified when it: has been tested by a federally accredited test laboratory; has successfully met the requirements of the VVSG and any other claims made by the voting system manufacturer; and has undergone vulnerability review and penetration testing for machines tested pursuant to volume three or later of the EAC testing program manual, and the
EAC has issued a certificate that all the steps required of the lab and the manufacturer have been completed.

The EAC accredits independent test laboratories (voting system test laboratories or VSTLs) that evaluate voting systems, including their software, against the VVSG to determine if they provide all of the basic functionality, accessibility, and security capabilities required of these systems. The test laboratory provides a recommendation to the EAC through a test report which is reviewed by the Testing and Certification team. Once documentation demonstrating the successful completion of the requirements have been met by the system and all steps have been completed by the lab and manufacturer, the Testing and Certification Program Director issues a recommendation to the Decision Authority who determines whether to issue a certification. Once a decision has been made, the EAC will post the information on the Voting System Certification section of the EAC website.

Before final certification is granted, the VSTL must deliver specified elements to the EAC repository, including the source code used for the trusted build and its file signatures, a detailed description of the build environment including setup and configuration, executable code, and all documentation to provide evidence to verify that a particular system has met all requirements.

In addition to system certifications, the EAC also processes minor change orders.

These are minor changes to a previously EAC-certified system, such as updating end-of-life commercial hardware components or applying security patches.

State Testing and Certification Programs
Although the VVSG and the EAC’s Testing and Certification Program are not mandatory, many states require their use through statute or rule. Since states have different requirements for voting systems, the EAC’s programs are not a substitute for state-based requirements and testing. Many states use the VVSG or the EAC’s Testing and Certification Program as a baseline while adding their own requirements and testing protocols. Most states require the use of EAC-accredited test laboratories for any certification testing performed at the state level.

There are several ways states use the VVSG and the EAC’s Testing and Certification Program, including:
• Requiring voting systems to be EAC-certified. Tennessee, for example, specifies “All new precinct-based optical scanners purchased
or leased pursuant to this chapter shall be certified pursuant to §2-9-110 and shall have been certified by the Election Assistance Commission as having met the applicable voluntary voting systems guidelines” (Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-20-104). In Ohio, “any voting machine, marking device, or automatic tabulating equipment used in this state shall meet, as a condition of continued certification and use, the voting system standards adopted by the federal election commission in 2002 or the voluntary voting system guidelines most recently adopted by the federal Election Assistance Commission. A voting machine, marking device, or automatic tabulating equipment initially certified or acquired on or after Dec. 1, 2008, also shall have the most recent federal certification number issued by the Election Assistance Commission” (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3506.05).

• Requiring voting systems to be tested to the VVSG or federal standards. Kentucky requires vendors seeking to sell a voting system in the state to request examination from the State Board of Elections before entering the market and include a report that shall “demonstrate that the voting system meets all Election Assistance Commission standards” (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 117.379). Maryland requires a voting system to be “examined by an independent testing laboratory that is approved by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission; and shown by the testing laboratory to meet the performance and test standards for electronic voting systems established by the Federal Election Commission or the U.S. Election Assistance Commission” (Md. Code Ann. Elec. Law § 9-102).
• Requiring voting systems to be tested by federally accredited test labs. Arizona, for example, specifies that “machines or devices used at any election for federal, state or county offices may only be certified for use in this state and may only be used in this state if they comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and if those machines or devices have been tested and approved by a laboratory that is accredited pursuant to the Help America Vote Act of 2002” (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-442). Idaho law states, “Except for functions or capabilities unique to this state, voting machines and vote tally systems shall be tested by a voting system testing laboratory prior to the examination of voting machines and vote tally systems by the secretary of state” (Idaho Code Ann. § 34-2409).
Forty-one states require some aspect of the federal testing and certification program. Some of these states require full EAC certification, while others require testing to federal standards or testing by a federally accredited laboratory. For more information on state requirements, view the chart starting on page 9.

Some states do not use the federal program but have robust state-based standards, as well as testing and certification programs. California law, for example, requires that the Secretary of State adopt and publish voting system standards that meet or exceed federal voluntary voting system guidelines. State-level certification includes testing and examination by a state-approved testing agency or expert technicians. In Florida, the Bureau of Voting Systems Certification within the Department of State is responsible for voting system standards and certification. And some states partner with universities to conduct certification and testing of voting equipment. For example, in Indiana, Ball State University’s Voting System Technical Oversight Program advises the secretary of state on the certification of voting systems (Ind. Code § 3-11-16-4).