I literally addressed her points in the other comment.
You didn’t at the time I wrote the other comment. Again: wtf are you trying to pull off, lying and shit?
she basically agrees with me.
the guy was right before 2000, we know that Republicans do steal elections and try to steal one 4 years ago, so we should do recounts this time.
No, she doesn’t. He didn’t claim anything like that in 2000. From the transcript:
Need I go on? This “lifelong Republican,” (as he stated in his letter to Kamala Harris) has previously campaigned to reverse the 2004 election in which George W. Bush beat John Kerry–the year Bush won even the popular vote, by the way, not the year he actually stole the election in Florida.
you didn’t watch her video did you?
First, you call her right wing, then you claim that she’s lying, then you claim that she agrees with you by misquoting her. Pathetic.
1.you’re being so informal and dude-ish with me, though.
do you think you win arguments by running down tangents and just ignoring all the facts or relevant topics?
haha, because I’ll tell you, that’s not how you do it.
again the facts:
4 years ago, Trump and his team perpetrated the fake electors game and try to steal the election.
2 years after that, we had proof that they stole voting software.
now, many security experts are telling us that because of that stolen software and the fake electro scheme, we should manually count the votes in the states that determined the presidential election because they easily could have been manipulated or fabricated.
you don’t like this one other scientist guy.
fine, write him a me and letter where you make stuff up about him.
but all that other stuff is real and all those other computer scientists?
I’d like for people not lying about shit they said.
Edit: so you think that shit went puplic 4 years ago and didn’t even work back then would work now, when everybody knows he already tried to pull that shit?
I don’t understand how the software sourcecode having leaked means that machines have been compromized. That only means thatecurity through obscurity policies won’t work anymore. But that’s a horrible policy.
okay, you don’t understand how manipulating software means voting machines could be compromised.
dang, really?
I’m going to try and analogize this…
okay, you can think about compromising a software program like physical sabotage.
so let’s say you have an ice cream machine with two levers sticking out front that gives out chocolate and vanilla ice cream.
If you pull the chocolate tap, you’ll get chocolate ice cream.
If you pull the vanilla tap, you’ll get vanilla ice cream.
let’s say you only like chocolate and have access to the inside of the ice cream machine.
so if you can get inside the machine, you connect both lovers to the chocolate press tab but remove the vanilla press tab, so now, pulling either the chocolate or vanilla will only dispense chocolate ice cream.
The machine might look normal on the outside, but now regardless of the input, it’s giving you the output that you want.
so if you get inside something, you can change how it works, so that it gives you the result you want.
does that make sense?
you can do the same thing with a computer program.
you can go inside, change what it says, to do what you want.
I’ve seen that trash several times now
mega heads have been posting it.
have fun making things up.
Says the person whose primary source pretty much only writes in conditionals and calls them “facts”.
If you watched it so often, why don’t you address her points, then?
I literally addressed her points in the other comment.
which part confused you?
she basically agrees with me.
the guy was right before in 2004, we know that Republicans do steal elections and try to steal one 4 years ago, so we should do recounts this time.
you didn’t watch her video did you?
you just went along with the headline.
You didn’t at the time I wrote the other comment. Again: wtf are you trying to pull off, lying and shit?
No, she doesn’t. He didn’t claim anything like that in 2000. From the transcript:
First, you call her right wing, then you claim that she’s lying, then you claim that she agrees with you by misquoting her. Pathetic.
yeah dude, i didn’t answer you before you asked a question.
do you understand how questions work?
go ahead. keep making stuff up, anyone can scroll up.
1.you’re being so informal and dude-ish with me, though.
haha, because I’ll tell you, that’s not how you do it.
again the facts:
4 years ago, Trump and his team perpetrated the fake electors game and try to steal the election.
2 years after that, we had proof that they stole voting software.
now, many security experts are telling us that because of that stolen software and the fake electro scheme, we should manually count the votes in the states that determined the presidential election because they easily could have been manipulated or fabricated.
you don’t like this one other scientist guy.
fine, write him a me and letter where you make stuff up about him.
but all that other stuff is real and all those other computer scientists?
also real, whether you like it or not.
I don’t like you assuming my gender, homie.
I’d like for people not lying about shit they said.
Edit: so you think that shit went puplic 4 years ago and didn’t even work back then would work now, when everybody knows he already tried to pull that shit?
I don’t understand how the software sourcecode having leaked means that machines have been compromized. That only means thatecurity through obscurity policies won’t work anymore. But that’s a horrible policy.
your gender?
what the tangent are you talking about?
okay, you don’t understand how manipulating software means voting machines could be compromised.
dang, really?
I’m going to try and analogize this…
okay, you can think about compromising a software program like physical sabotage.
so let’s say you have an ice cream machine with two levers sticking out front that gives out chocolate and vanilla ice cream.
If you pull the chocolate tap, you’ll get chocolate ice cream.
If you pull the vanilla tap, you’ll get vanilla ice cream.
let’s say you only like chocolate and have access to the inside of the ice cream machine.
so if you can get inside the machine, you connect both lovers to the chocolate press tab but remove the vanilla press tab, so now, pulling either the chocolate or vanilla will only dispense chocolate ice cream.
The machine might look normal on the outside, but now regardless of the input, it’s giving you the output that you want.
so if you get inside something, you can change how it works, so that it gives you the result you want.
does that make sense?
you can do the same thing with a computer program.
you can go inside, change what it says, to do what you want.