@ThenElection's banner p

ThenElection


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:19:15 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 622

ThenElection


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:19:15 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 622

Verified Email

I'd be curious to see how Californian treatment programs compare to PRC treatment programs in success rates. At least, they seem proud of it, and their statistics sound compelling: http://us.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zggs/202307/t20230706_11108971.htm

They have a clever way to encourage addicts into treatment. There are voluntary treatment programs, which you're encouraged to choose to do. If you don't, you fall through to the compulsory rehabilitation and isolation programs.

Does this shift Trump supporters at all? They believe, with reasonable evidentiary support, that Democrats see them as garbage already. This is just another piece.

I think even going with "Biden is saying it to sabotage the Harris campaign out of bitterness/revenge" would probably shift more people, sheerly out of demoralization.

It would help for identifying the ballots as fraudulent, at least, unless someone only printed a few ballots per printer.

As far as hacking a printer, it's a question of how much of the steganography is implemented in software vs physical components. At least the printer identity could be done with just physical components.

You can also similarly encode the printer's identity (and all the metadata associated with the print job--time, originating user, document name, local network information) into the depth of grays on the printout, edge noise, kerning, and probably a thousand other things. No confirmation by manufacturers or the government that that's done, but the yellow dot trick has been around for decades, and I would be very surprised if there haven't been significant advances implemented since then.

I wouldn't trust any printer made in the last two decades for printing anything you don't want traced back to you.

Left off "homeless guy setting the fire because he wants to get arrested." e.g. https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/ballots-damaged-after-usps-mailbox-lit-fire-phoenix

Probably not for an individual to publicize them. But isn't this the perennial question in security vulnerability reporting? An organization says they have perfectly secure systems; an investigator thinks of a dozen ways they're not secure and reports it; organization responds in a way that the reporter doesn't think is serious and so makes them public.

Faked registration forms had correct names,addresses, DOBs, SSNs, Driver's License numbers, and phone numbers

Where did you see this? The only thing I saw from the linked article was:

An investigation by the district attorney's office found incorrect addresses, false identification information, false names and names that did not match Social Security information.

For plan B, even without voter ID, you're limited by the number of people in on the fraud. A single person would be only able to vote a couple times in a day. Ten, maybe? I can imagine a conspiracy of one or two people doing this, but it becomes much more risky the more people you have doing it.

Plans similar to A seem much more manageable, but do any jurisdictions allow you to pick up unfilled ballots in bulk?

Printer manufacturers make it so that printers fingerprint themselves on anything that's printed (as requested by the feds), with a pattern of dots imperceptible to the human eye acting as the identifier. So you could see if there's a third party printer printing hundreds of ballots, and then track it to the purchaser.

You can acquire printers that don't do this, but if you found a bunch of ballots lacking the identifier, I'd consider it a strong sign of fraud.

Compare where we were in 2017 to where we were in 2021. Was the state more or less intrusive into our lives?

Now, you might say that's unfair, and there were new circumstances that gave the state more opportunities to seize control that Trump was unable to effectively push against. And yes: that's exactly my point. Even his greatest success during the pandemic (getting the vaccine developed ASAP) was seized from him by bureaucrats who delayed its release until after the election for the sake of "political neutrality."

Inevitably, there will be new circumstances that arise from now until 2028. The state will maneuver around him, and he'll just flail around at best. War with China? We need copious controls to make sure no one is misled by misinformation. New pandemic? Now we know better how to do a real shutdown for public health. Etc.

That trend is inevitable, regardless of who's in office. My belief is that Trump's flailing will likelier hurt the market and my 401k worse than Kamala's empty suit.

Well, I know there's some sort of "law" some political commentator coined, that says that any organization that's not explicitly right wing eventually becomes left wing.

Conquest's Law(s): https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/conquests-laws-john-derbyshire/

I agree that all of those things are bad, and I suspect some of them will be worse 4 years from now even in my "ideal" scenario.

What I don't see is Trump effectively pushing back against them. His election will cause a refocusing of the progressive movement, who will make effective state-level efforts and sabotage his leadership of the federal government. But they'll barely need to do anything to sabotage Trump, since he's pretty much self-sabotaging: he's lazy and erratic, and although he has all the right enemies, he has all the wrong enemies too.

This is basically where I'm at. My vote doesn't matter, but it's going to Kamala (unless I get particularly annoyed at something in the next week). Regardless, it's a bad sign for our institutions that these are the choices we've been given.

My personal wish casting is Republicans take the legislative branch, to make all of her policy platform stillborn. And she wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote (appearing slightly more likely in recent polls). The wailing and gnashing of teeth from everyone would be amazing.

There are some rumblings on Twitter about a tape (A TAPE) coming out tomorrow that will be highly damaging to Trump. The speculations about what it is... him groping a donor's preteen daughter, something with Ghislaine Maxwell, maybe the Russian pee tape finally?

I guess, if you're going to release a video at the last minute to sway the election, might as well go all out and put all of it in it hoping something sticks.

For what it's worth:

So many comments about the @latimes Editorial Board not providing a Presidential endorsement this year. Let me clarify how this decision came about.

The Editorial Board was provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation. In addition, the Board was asked to provide their understanding of the policies and plans enunciated by the candidates during this campaign and its potential effect on the nation in the next four years. In this way, with this clear and non-partisan information side-by-side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being President for the next four years.

Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision. Please #vote.

https://x.com/DrPatSoonShiong/status/1849217132183060705

His very online progressive daughter retweeted that as well, along with an excerpt about how he got arrested for participating in anti-apartheid activities.

Rogan is a very deferential interviewer. Both Trump and Harris would do fine on it, assuming they don't find a way to hang themselves on their own.

Rogan's fans are diverse and not ideological, and any candidate going on has the opportunity both to sway their vote and to increase the likelihood of existing supporters to actually vote.

Huh. Didn't know that. If I were vetting candidates to be VP, I would almost require that they submit their detailed earnings report and their tax returns, so it would surprise me if she didn't have it from 2019.

Have you worked in a big campaign? I think it would be fun and enlightening if you shared your experiences on the thread!

Democratic Senate campaign, prominent at the time but losing, and I was lowest level paid staffer. Also a mayoral campaign for a major city but minor candidate.

It is indeed very regarded, but my personal experiences were dominated by 1) having a giant crush on the press secretary I worked under, 2) pretending to be the candidate to call major donors' offices, and then transferring to him if his secretary said they were available, repeat. Also, going to a strip club where every stripper was 50+ after a major victory. At one point we had a freakout over baking soda being sent in the mail (accompanied by an abortion letter).

The only real insight I have is that any conspiracy theory requiring that Democratic candidates and staffers be hyper competent ideologues is wildly off-base.

I agree that the Harris campaign would have more motivation than anyone else. I just think this is assuming malice when incompetence is more than sufficient. Campaigns are extremely crazy internally (it's really hard to convey just how crazy they get unless you've been on one), with unclear lines of responsibility and a giant workload that you'll never get fully through. Even if they have Harris' lifetime tax records on hand (they should if they're available, but they might not be), there's no particular reason to think some intern or junior staffer would have an easy line to pass them on to Snopes. And even if they did, the expected benefit of convincing a Snopes reader that Harris worked at McDonald's might be outweighed by other considerations (giving away unrelated information that could provide avenues of attack, or just in setting a precedent).

To be fair, I would also ignore any media organ asking for comment from me on something long ago. In 2022 one reached out about an old college roommate who was running for office, and I sent the email straight to the trash.

I don't think McDonald's headquarters would respond about a private employment matter, and I'm not even sure it would have employment records from almost half a century ago.

It seems more likely that we wanted to destroy the Taliban because they harbored Osama Bin Laden after 9/11; cobbled together a messy coalition of liberals, tribal traditionalists, and the plain corrupt; and then looked the other way for the sake of maintaining coalition politics than it is we supported child rape at the behest of domestic LGBT politics.

Fits with the "power fantasy for women" hypothesis. It's not to convince men that if they vote for Harris they'll get lots of hot women, but to convince the average woman that she can be a top woman too with the pick of the litter if she votes for Harris.

There's an angle, definitely. But my visceral response is that people would be much less angry at Trump doing a CostCo photo op than a McDonald's photo op. And, by the same token, there's a reason his campaign decided to do a McDonald's photo op over a CostCo photo op. The role McDonald's plays in the American imagination is key. Or, rather, in the two decidedly different American imaginations: one where it's symbolic of all the worst of American culture, and one where it gives fast convenient yummy oily treats.

The status dynamics are interesting. Having worked at McDonald's sometime in the past clearly isn't something that Democrats feel there should be shame over--regardless of the veracity of Kamala's work history, it's still something she thinks gives a boost to her resume. But the response is nevertheless unhinged.

Is it some kind of stolen valor? I'm imagining Trump stocking shelves at CostCo in a photo-op, and I doubt he'd even get any media attention. Or even doing the same exact thing at Burger King: despite being identical slop, the response wouldn't be nearly so vituperative.

It has to do with what McDonald's represents. Kamala worked at McDonald's, but it was something horrific she was forced to do, serving the lowest of the low so she could better herself. If her life is ever dramatized by Netflix, her last day there will depict her departure as she gives a soliloquy about the depravities of mass consumerist slop, corporate wage slavery, car-centric culture, and factory farming. Trump, by contrast, is not only going there voluntarily, but going there as if there were nothing wrong or shameful about going there. Anyone with his privileges doing something so declasse is breaking a code.