Trump Twitter Ban and Sidney Kraken SUED

[n david]

Being connected to the internet and actually engaging in fraud are two different things.

Pulitzer claimed his team found that a precinct had a machine connected to the internet. He notably did NOT claim any fraud was occurring.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by n david

Being connected to the internet and actually engaging in fraud are two different things.

Pulitzer claimed his team found that a precinct had a machine connected to the internet. He notably did NOT claim any fraud was occurring.

There were clear violations of both the federal and state Constitutions.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Being connected to the internet and actually engaging in fraud are two different things.

Pulitzer claimed his team found that a precinct had a machine connected to the internet. He notably did NOT claim any fraud was occurring.

“It is communicating two ways in real time. That means it is receiving and sending data. That should never happen. Shouldn’t be WiFi. We have that now documented in real time. That is going on right there where everyone is voting. I just wanted to get that into the record.”

So, David, if it should not be happening that the poll pad is hooked up to WiFi and it IS sending and receiving data, where is your proof there is no fraud taking place? Because being hooked up to WiFi, sending and receiving data is proof there is.

Your argument is weak. But, hey, try to win that argument. You do you, David.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

“It is communicating two ways in real time. That means it is receiving and sending data. That should never happen. Shouldn’t be WiFi. We have that now documented in real time. That is going on right there where everyone is voting. I just wanted to get that into the record.”

So, David, if it should not be happening that the poll pad is hooked up to WiFi and it IS sending and receiving data, where is your proof there is no fraud taking place? Because being hooked up to WiFi, sending and receiving data is proof there is.

Try an experiment, PO. Connect something to your WiFi and just let it sit there. Now using another source, connect to your router and you’ll see that data is being both sent and received between the device and router via WiFi. You could leave it sit there all day and not touch it but there will be data going back and forth between the device and router.

I dont need to offer proof, I’m not the one make baseless accusations that not even Pulitzer would make.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Your argument is weak. But, hey, try to win that argument. You do you, David.

My argument is weak? Ha! You’re the one with absolutely no proof or evidence. All you do is insult and insinuate that I’m stupid.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

“It is communicating two ways in real time. That means it is receiving and sending data. That should never happen. Shouldn’t be WiFi. We have that now documented in real time. That is going on right there where everyone is voting. I just wanted to get that into the record.”

Originally Posted by n david

Try an experiment, PO. Connect something to your WiFi and just let it sit there. Now using another source, connect to your router and you’ll see that data is being both sent and received between the device and router via WiFi. You could leave it sit there all day and not touch it but there will be data going back and forth between the device and router.

Let’s do an experiment, David. Read Pulitzer’s comment again. Focus on - “Shouldn’t be WiFi.”

You are instructing me to connect to WiFi. Pulitzer says that is a big no-no. What part don’t you get?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Let’s do an experiment, David. Read Pulitzer’s comment again. Focus on - “Shouldn’t be WiFi.”

You are instructing me to connect to WiFi. Pulitzer says that is a big no-no. What part don’t you get?

You claimed, without any proof or accusation from Pulitzer or anyone else, that simply because a machine was connected to WiFi and there was data being sent/received that there was fraud happening.

I'm saying that just because it was connected to the WiFi and data was being sent/received does not mean fraud was occurring.

What part of that do you not understand? You made a baseless accusation that is not correct. Now you want to ignore that.

I know that GA Rule 183-1-12-.05.2 states: "Electronic ballot markers, ballot scanners, and election management systems shall not be connected to the internet and no other software shall be loaded onto or maintained or used on computers on which the election management system software is located except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of State."

(There is nothing in 183-1 anywhere I've read detailing the penalty for doing so)

It's impossible to have a conversation with you. Go ahead and post as much unverified and misleading information as you wish.

I'm done.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm done.

My brother, you till have more to say on this matter. Please continue to do so.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

You claimed, without any proof or accusation from Pulitzer or anyone else, that simply because a machine was connected to WiFi and there was data being sent/received that there was fraud happening.

I'm saying that just because it was connected to the WiFi and data was being sent/received does not mean fraud was occurring.

What part of that do you not understand? You made a baseless accusation that is not correct. Now you want to ignore that.

When Pulitzer says - NO WIFI - his testimony indicates he expects fraud is occurring. That is probably why the Senate Hearing voted to investigate.

I know that GA Rule 183-1-12-.05.2 states: "Electronic ballot markers, ballot scanners, and election management systems shall not be connected to the internet and no other software shall be loaded onto or maintained or used on computers on which the election management system software is located except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of State."

(There is nothing in 183-1 anywhere I've read detailing the penalty for doing so)

It's impossible to have a conversation with you. Go ahead and post as much unverified and misleading information as you wish.

I'm done.

When the rule says ONLY the SOS can “specifically authorize”, that indicates you might be facing a “penalty” if you violate that rule.


Did you fall on yo head, Fred?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

When Pulitzer says - NO WIFI - his testimony indicates he expects fraud is occurring. That is probably why the Senate Hearing voted to investigate.



When the rule says ONLY the SOS can “specifically authorize”, that indicates you might be facing a “penalty” if you violate that rule.


Did you fall on yo head, Fred?

OK, with all this hullabaloo what is the happy ending?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

“It is communicating two ways in real time. That means it is receiving and sending data. That should never happen. Shouldn’t be WiFi. We have that now documented in real time. That is going on right there where everyone is voting. I just wanted to get that into the record.”

So, David, if it should not be happening that the poll pad is hooked up to WiFi and it IS sending and receiving data, where is your proof there is no fraud taking place? Because being hooked up to WiFi, sending and receiving data is proof there is.

Your argument is weak. But, hey, try to win that argument. You do you, David.

Anyone who thinks there wasn't massive coordinated fraud in these recent elections is willfully deaf, dumb, and blind. And therefore their "opinion" is wholly irrelevent and is nothing more than a propaganda talking point. Even when proof is demonstrated live right in front of them they just live in denial.

Italygate, anyone?