US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence

[dimsum]

As far as DDOS, I think everyone can agree you aren't the authority on that. I'll believe Musk over you on this until proven otherwise.

I’m not. But I’m not just pulling this out of nowhere. If it were a DDOS attack, all of X would have gone down, not just a delay in one specific part (the interview).

Denial-of-service attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You have conveniently ignored the EU Commission threats.

I’ll admit that I wasn’t following the EU Commission stuff. But, it seems like they’re backtracking anyway.

Brussels slaps down Thierry Breton over ‘harmful content’ letter to Elon Musk

Internal market commissioner’s warning to owner of social media site X was not approved

www.ft.com

Question, are you also ok with the UK's stance on jailing people and attempting to extradite foreigners over social media posts? Wondering where your limits are?

Are you referring to this? If so, the “social media posts” aren’t “leftists bad” or even “F Trudeau”. They were specifically inciting violence.

Two men jailed for social media posts that stirred up far-right violence

People who threw stones, hurled racist abuse and pushed a burning wheelie bin at police also sent to prison

www.theguardian.com

But as to whether or not I’m ok with it - it’s kind of hard to say that they didn’t try to incite violence when it was obviously on their social media. At some point, what you post is communication, and no different than saying it out loud.

If those two said those things out loud in public rather than posting on social media (arguably even more public) then would they be arrested under UK law? If so, then they should be as well.

 

[QV]

GOP Prepares Scapegoat in Case Trump Loses

Without it, they might force a government shutdown

open.substack.com

So I’m mainly sharing this as part of it pertains to the Save Act - and how it’s perceived.

If it wasn’t so important it would funny, as depending on one’s perspective it is either a major issue or a nothing burger.

Frankly I think Democrats miss a major aspect by not supporting/ignoring it. I tend to think most of the States do a good job vetting their eligible voters, but more transparency as to status of voters isn’t a bad thing, and would eliminate the perception that illegals are voting.

By and large the Freedom Caucus isn’t - and I’d gladly take a ball peen hammer to their heads if given the opportunity to not face any legal repercussions (the same for the bat shit crazy Squad of AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley)

I don't understand how ensuring election integrity is such a polarizing issue. Close to half the country believes there problems, that in itself should warrant significant action to ensure and demonstrate the elections are secure.

 

[QV]

Are you referring to this? If so, the “social media posts” aren’t “leftists bad” or even “F Trudeau”. They were specifically inciting violence.

Two men jailed for social media posts that stirred up far-right violence

People who threw stones, hurled racist abuse and pushed a burning wheelie bin at police also sent to prison

www.theguardian.com

But as to whether or not I’m ok with it - it’s kind of hard to say that they didn’t try to incite violence when it was obviously on their social media. At some point, what you post is communication, and no different than saying it out loud.

If those two said those things out loud in public rather than posting on social media (arguably even more public) then would they be arrested under UK law? If so, then they should be as well.

Inciting violence should of course be a crime. I think this UK law goes much further than that - that said, I'm not totally familiar at the moment but I'll read up on it before commenting further.

 

[brihard]

I’m not. But I’m not just pulling this out of nowhere. If it were a DDOS attack, all of X would have gone down, not just a delay in one specific part (the interview).

Denial-of-service attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I’ll admit that I wasn’t following the EU Commission stuff. But, it seems like they’re backtracking anyway.

Brussels slaps down Thierry Breton over ‘harmful content’ letter to Elon Musk

Internal market commissioner’s warning to owner of social media site X was not approved

www.ft.com

Are you referring to this? If so, the “social media posts” aren’t “leftists bad” or even “F Trudeau”. They were specifically inciting violence.

Two men jailed for social media posts that stirred up far-right violence

People who threw stones, hurled racist abuse and pushed a burning wheelie bin at police also sent to prison

www.theguardian.com

But as to whether or not I’m ok with it - it’s kind of hard to say that they didn’t try to incite violence when it was obviously on their social media. At some point, what you post is communication, and no different than saying it out loud.

If those two said those things out loud in public rather than posting on social media (arguably even more public) then would they be arrested under UK law? If so, then they should be as well.

The Europeans haven’t been pushing back on Twitter/X for anything to do with the a Trump interview, but because Twitter has become a hotbed of misinformation/disinformation, promotion of hatred, and incitement of violence. Europe’s regulatory reach derives from Twitter choosing to do business and gain revenue in this markets. There’s nothing new there.

And yeah- the claim that the issues with the a Trump interview was a DDOS relies on a “the internet is a series of tubes” level of understanding of how these platforms work. Musk is counting on the fact that he has a horde of fanboys who will uncritically parrot him and take everything he says without question, plus others utterly lacking technical knowledge to know better.

 

[dimsum]

I don't understand how ensuring election integrity is such a polarizing issue. Close to half the country believes there problems, that in itself should warrant significant action to ensure and demonstrate the elections are secure.

Because the SAVE Act says:

Furthermore, the Continuing Resolution should include the SAVE Act—as called for by President Trump—to prevent non-citizens from voting to preserve free and fair elections in light of the millions of illegal aliens imported by the Biden-Harris administration over the last four years.

What is the first thing you have to do when you enroll or go to a voting area? Show them your documentation. What “illegal alien” (AKA undocumented people) would have documentation? Furthermore, what undocumented person in their right mind would go to the one place where they ask 100% of the people to show proof of eligibility to do something?

This particular thing is polarizing because the GOP is trying to bring in something completely redundant. If illegals are allowed to vote, how about the Permanent Residents, Canadians on Visa status, etc? Why not ban them too?

Because none of them can vote as it stands.

 

[QV]

Because the SAVE Act says:



What is the first thing you have to do when you enroll or go to a voting area? Show them your documentation. What “illegal alien” (AKA undocumented people) would have documentation? Furthermore, what undocumented person in their right mind would go to the one place where they ask 100% of the people to show proof of eligibility to do something?

This particular thing is polarizing because the GOP is trying to bring in something completely redundant. If illegals are allowed to vote, how about the Permanent Residents, Canadians on Visa status, etc? Why not ban them too?

Because none of them can vote as it stands.

Are you telling me that there has be no ineligible people voting in any US election?

 

[KevinB]

I don't understand how ensuring election integrity is such a polarizing issue. Close to half the country believes there problems, that in itself should warrant significant action to ensure and demonstrate the elections are secure.

I agree with you in principle, however it can get couched into methods than can restrict legitimate voter access.

Are you telling me that there has be no ineligible people voting in any US election?

Several states have been audited - while many illegals have tried to vote, there have not been any documented cases of it actually occurring.
That said the states that potentially have the largest ability to have fraud haven't been audited.
- The REAL ID requirements down here came about some states (like California) giving illegals Drivers Licenses, so now to get a REAL ID Drivers License one needs to provide proof of Citizenship or Legal Residency.

What has been discovered is people voting for others, mail in ballots getting sent in by those others than the eligible voter the ballot was for etc.


We do need a NON Partisan effort for Election Integrity - but seeing as both sides game the system and then cry foul when they lose - we don't get it and the shenanigans continue.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't understand how ensuring election integrity is such a polarizing issue. Close to half the country believes there problems, that in itself should warrant significant action to ensure and demonstrate the elections are secure.

Over the last week, I've watched reports of different states cleaning up their voter rolls. Combined, they have removed hundreds of thousands of ineligible names. Georgia removed 309,000, Ohio removed 155,000 and Wyoming at around 83,500. Other states are in the process of cleaning their rolls before voting starts.

 

[dimsum]

Over the last week, I've watched reports of different states cleaning up their voter rolls. Combined, they have removed hundreds of thousands of ineligible names. Georgia removed 309,000, Ohio removed 155,000 and Wyoming at around 83,500. Other states are in the process of cleaning their rolls before voting starts.

So…another thing that the US is already doing, so no need for the SAVE Act to duplicate it.

 

[GR66]

Over the last week, I've watched reports of different states cleaning up their voter rolls. Combined, they have removed hundreds of thousands of ineligible names. Georgia removed 309,000, Ohio removed 155,000 and Wyoming at around 83,500. Other states are in the process of cleaning their rolls before voting starts.

I wonder if the number of eligible voters changes over the time between elections? People dying, moving, coming to voting age, etc.

 

[Brad Sallows]

This particular thing is polarizing because the GOP is trying to bring in something completely redundant. If illegals are allowed to vote, how about the Permanent Residents, Canadians on Visa status, etc? Why not ban them too?

Because none of them can vote as it stands.

It wouldn't be the first redundancy in law.

It's curious that some people are so resistant to tightening up voting control measures even if the measures aren't expected to achieve much concretely. Abstractly, they will strengthen the perception of the integrity of the system, which is an unmeasureable and necessary good. I don't find "we don't need to make voting fraud just a little bit harder" very convincing.

 

[dimsum]

I agree with you in principle, however it can get couched into methods than can restrict legitimate voter access.


Several states have been audited - while many illegals have tried to vote, there have not been any documented cases of it actually occurring.
That said the states that potentially have the largest ability to have fraud haven't been audited.
- The REAL ID requirements down here came about some states (like California) giving illegals Drivers Licenses, so now to get a REAL ID Drivers License one needs to provide proof of Citizenship or Legal Residency.

What has been discovered is people voting for others, mail in ballots getting sent in by those others than the eligible voter the ballot was for etc.


We do need a NON Partisan effort for Election Integrity - but seeing as both sides game the system and then cry foul when they lose - we don't get it and the shenanigans continue.

Almost like there should be a non-partisan election commission that covers the country, not just allowing each state to run its election system for a federal election.

Maybe Elections…US.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So…another thing that the US is already doing, so no need for the SAVE Act to duplicate it.

And if you follow US politics closely enough, you'll have come across evidence that there are people who resist initiatives to clean up voter rolls. The obvious question: why?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

When you have someone sitting at their dining room table, signing hundreds of mail in ballots and putting them in drop boxes, it'll take more than purging voter rolls to clean things up.

 

[QV]

When you have someone sitting at their dining room table, signing hundreds of mail in ballots and putting them in drop boxes, it'll take more than purging voter rolls to clean things up.

By some accounts that problem is in the thousands. And there is the testimony about thousands of what looked like pristine ballots all for one candidate, so pristine they looked like exact copies run off a printer and stacked.

 

[dimsum]

When you have someone sitting at their dining room table, signing hundreds of mail in ballots and putting them in drop boxes, it'll take more than purging voter rolls to clean things up.

How are they getting hundreds of mail-in ballots?

And if mail-in voting was so bad, why is the GOP pivoting on it this time around after lambasting it in the 2020 election (which may have cost them the election)?

 

[dimsum]

By some accounts that problem is in the thousands. And there is the testimony about thousands of what looked like pristine ballots all for one candidate, so pristine they looked like exact copies run off a printer and stacked.

Sources on those claims?

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing. I want to know where you’re getting that info from. You got me reading about the EU Commission thing as well as the UK social media arrests.

 

[KevinB]

By some accounts that problem is in the thousands. And there is the testimony about thousands of what looked like pristine ballots all for one candidate, so pristine they looked like exact copies run off a printer and stacked.

Well keep in mind there are a few Republicans that got convicted of Vote Harvesting too.
My point is both parties do it - so neither want it addressed until their candidate doesn't win...

 

[QV]

Sources on those claims?

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing. I want to know where you’re getting that info from. You got me reading about the EU Commission thing as well as the UK social media arrests.

I see much of those claims on Rasmussen Reports X (Twitter) handle where they share videos of hearings regarding all manner of election fraud and include posting some documents and testimony. Latest material is focused on election software issues.

 

[dimsum]

I see much of those claims on Rasmussen Reports X (Twitter) handle where they share videos of hearings regarding all manner of election fraud and include posting some documents and testimony. Latest material is focused on election software issues.

To quote from another thread:

Rasmussen hasn’t been on the up and up for a long time.