I'm kinda surprised to hear the claim about the Brennan Center for Justice declaring the 2020 election was "officially safe and secure". I'm curious what they based that on, or if it was distorted from what was originally said by the BCJ.
I found a few opinion articles from BCJ in the last week, but I try to ignore those anyway. Do you know where the original source is that was referred to? I'm no advocate for BCJ, just curious enough that I would like to read the original wording.
This was from WAY back in Dec 11, 2020. Still wrong, of course, but apparently goodinfo feels that there's no more reason to discuss since nearly two years ago.
And regarding BCJ, yeah, I accept these opinion pieces are no better than the MSM. Years ago, though, they did some original research into the vulnerabilities of elections and that was pretty good stuff, I thought.
Those should be seen as limited hangouts and efforts to get changes made to make the system more vulnerable. The Brennan Center exists to support global communism. And yeah, the point is that the good info site still has bad info on its front page.
I know we went back and forth on this before. I think we're just saying two different things, not disagreeing.
TODAY the NEWS BCJ puts out is "as commie as they come" - no disagreement there.
BEFORE the RESEARCH from BCJ was actually quite in alignment with what the election integrity movement now is talking about (see list below). I don't read news so much, I like reading research, so we're probably just looking at two different things.
I approached BCJ with a lot of skepticism at first, but found these informative:
-------
A. 3 Aug 2007 - POST-ELECTION AUDITS: RESTORING TRUST IN ELECTIONS
- cites all the ways that audits have gone wrong in a lot of States
-------
B. 2010 - Voting System Failures: a Database Solution.
- suggests local precinct election workers need to see the problems (technical or otherwise) happening around the nation for all election equipment. Serves two purposes:
i. debug problems with the equipment
ii. avoid causing the same problems
iii. longer-term, the visibility helps local officials know which equipment is full of problems (isn't worth the money) and should be avoided.
- makes clear (from a review of 19 contracts between voting machine suppliers and states) that there is basically no liability for any voting machine companies... and they need to be liable
- suggests contract language to hold voting machine companies liable.
-------
C. early 2000s? - Machinery of Democracy
- a 162 page report that... well, I'll just copy in the "summary" key 3 points:
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Three fundamental points emerge from our threat analysis:
i. All three voting systems have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities, which pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state, and local elections.
ii. The most troubling vulnerabilities of each system can be substantially remedied if proper countermeasures are implemented at the state and local level.
iii. Few jurisdictions have implemented any of the key countermeasures that could make the least difficult attacks against voting systems much more difficult to execute successfully
-------
I know you're on the side of "screw fixing the tech, just get rid of all of it" (Not trying to put words in your mouth, I know I'm paraphrasing, hopefully somewhat accurately.) Whether we agree on the tech or not, I'm just trying to clarify where I think BCJ used to put out something valuable (i.e. not commie propaganda.)
That’s not the argument I’m making. I’m saying their “accurate analysis” was performed in service of making the system even more vulnerable. When they want to do something, they figure out why not having that thing is a huge problem, and then say their desired solution is the only way to solve it. They are always able to tell you later why they “messed up” but now that they know exactly why, they’re the best ones to fix it. So it doesn’t actually matter that they may have addressed some “real problems”. They do that to implement more new ones. Analyzing the study and discussing it after understanding this becomes a pointless exercise.
Ah, I think I get you better now, thanks for elaborating.
For my very specific circumstance, I find purpose in understanding what has been said about the tech for a couple of decades since it was federally funded (and even before, frankly). But for understanding of the population at large, I think you're spot on, it is the sort of ridiculous retrospective thinking that only SouthPark can portray with their character "Captain Hindsight." Or outright retconning.
Seems you were doing something a little more constructive while waiting or wondering if the Steelers were going to mount any kind of offense beyond 10 yards downfield yesterday. Great insite and research, and then tying it back to our own personal rectifications——dare I say Biblical, I think so. God Bless!!!
Used to be, win or lose, you knew the team “showed up”, not so much anymore—-not a prime video member, so no game for me Thursday—-may be a blessing in disguise
One of your best shows ever... On a Monday no less... Bringin it early. Keep it up...🐸🇺🇸👊
Thanks man!
"Because everyone knows that the symbol for black activism is the Communist fist.... <somehow> ...
...because, remember, there are no black conservatives. There are a.b.s.o.l.u.t.e.l.y NO black conservatives."
LOL
Chris, I feel this was your best episode to date! Keep brining it!
Thank you!
I'm kinda surprised to hear the claim about the Brennan Center for Justice declaring the 2020 election was "officially safe and secure". I'm curious what they based that on, or if it was distorted from what was originally said by the BCJ.
I found a few opinion articles from BCJ in the last week, but I try to ignore those anyway. Do you know where the original source is that was referred to? I'm no advocate for BCJ, just curious enough that I would like to read the original wording.
It’s linked on the good info website. Brennan center is as commie as they come.
OK, thanks, found it:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/its-official-election-was-secure
This was from WAY back in Dec 11, 2020. Still wrong, of course, but apparently goodinfo feels that there's no more reason to discuss since nearly two years ago.
And regarding BCJ, yeah, I accept these opinion pieces are no better than the MSM. Years ago, though, they did some original research into the vulnerabilities of elections and that was pretty good stuff, I thought.
Those should be seen as limited hangouts and efforts to get changes made to make the system more vulnerable. The Brennan Center exists to support global communism. And yeah, the point is that the good info site still has bad info on its front page.
I know we went back and forth on this before. I think we're just saying two different things, not disagreeing.
TODAY the NEWS BCJ puts out is "as commie as they come" - no disagreement there.
BEFORE the RESEARCH from BCJ was actually quite in alignment with what the election integrity movement now is talking about (see list below). I don't read news so much, I like reading research, so we're probably just looking at two different things.
I approached BCJ with a lot of skepticism at first, but found these informative:
-------
A. 3 Aug 2007 - POST-ELECTION AUDITS: RESTORING TRUST IN ELECTIONS
- cites all the ways that audits have gone wrong in a lot of States
-------
B. 2010 - Voting System Failures: a Database Solution.
- suggests local precinct election workers need to see the problems (technical or otherwise) happening around the nation for all election equipment. Serves two purposes:
i. debug problems with the equipment
ii. avoid causing the same problems
iii. longer-term, the visibility helps local officials know which equipment is full of problems (isn't worth the money) and should be avoided.
- makes clear (from a review of 19 contracts between voting machine suppliers and states) that there is basically no liability for any voting machine companies... and they need to be liable
- suggests contract language to hold voting machine companies liable.
-------
C. early 2000s? - Machinery of Democracy
- a 162 page report that... well, I'll just copy in the "summary" key 3 points:
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Three fundamental points emerge from our threat analysis:
i. All three voting systems have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities, which pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state, and local elections.
ii. The most troubling vulnerabilities of each system can be substantially remedied if proper countermeasures are implemented at the state and local level.
iii. Few jurisdictions have implemented any of the key countermeasures that could make the least difficult attacks against voting systems much more difficult to execute successfully
-------
I know you're on the side of "screw fixing the tech, just get rid of all of it" (Not trying to put words in your mouth, I know I'm paraphrasing, hopefully somewhat accurately.) Whether we agree on the tech or not, I'm just trying to clarify where I think BCJ used to put out something valuable (i.e. not commie propaganda.)
That’s not the argument I’m making. I’m saying their “accurate analysis” was performed in service of making the system even more vulnerable. When they want to do something, they figure out why not having that thing is a huge problem, and then say their desired solution is the only way to solve it. They are always able to tell you later why they “messed up” but now that they know exactly why, they’re the best ones to fix it. So it doesn’t actually matter that they may have addressed some “real problems”. They do that to implement more new ones. Analyzing the study and discussing it after understanding this becomes a pointless exercise.
Ah, I think I get you better now, thanks for elaborating.
For my very specific circumstance, I find purpose in understanding what has been said about the tech for a couple of decades since it was federally funded (and even before, frankly). But for understanding of the population at large, I think you're spot on, it is the sort of ridiculous retrospective thinking that only SouthPark can portray with their character "Captain Hindsight." Or outright retconning.
Seems you were doing something a little more constructive while waiting or wondering if the Steelers were going to mount any kind of offense beyond 10 yards downfield yesterday. Great insite and research, and then tying it back to our own personal rectifications——dare I say Biblical, I think so. God Bless!!!
Yeah, yesterday’s garbage did not require much attention. Tomlin is insufferable.
Could be worse, you could be a Cowboys fan... 🐸🇺🇸 🤠
I suggest that the Real One will ✝️🌹.Thanks Chris, you are firing on all cylinders Brother. Every episode is relevant and in depth. Be well ✝️ 🌹 🍻
That episode rocked!
I’m am in PA but was never a Steeler’s or Eagles fan. My husband was a diehard Cowboys fan. Haven’t had a game on for 2 years.
Just curious how you became a Steelers fan being from LA?
Another great article. Good to see you on DPH with BB and Patel. Thank you for your insights!
Used to be, win or lose, you knew the team “showed up”, not so much anymore—-not a prime video member, so no game for me Thursday—-may be a blessing in disguise