Jump to content

Exclusive: Top official on U.S. election cybersecurity tells associates he expects to be fired


Recommended Posts

Posted
6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The past doesn't necessarily determine the future.  You could have two strikes and still hit it out of the park.  Your reasoning is logically flawed.  No matter.  We're all going to have to wait it out.

Santayana said those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Your baseball analogy is flawed too, there have been more than two strikes against Trump's lawyers.

The only win they have had is getting observers closer to the vote counters in  Pennsylvania. That's a walk to first base, not a home run.

To use a cricketing analogy instead, Trump's lawsuits are like a batsman being squared up by a fast bowler. Or perhaps I should go to Hail Mary passes.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Santayana said those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Your baseball analogy is flawed too, there have been more than two strikes against Trump's lawyers.

The only win they have had is getting observers closer to the vote counters in  Pennsylvania. That's a walk to first base, not a home run.

To use a cricketing analogy instead, Trump's lawsuits are like a batsman being squared up by a fast bowler. Or perhaps I should go to Hail Mary passes.

It was an analogy, you understand.  This, though, is not a baseball game so more "strikes" are allowed.  You can also hit quite a few home runs, too.

 

The Santayana quote is an ill fitting analogy.

Posted
18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The past doesn't necessarily determine the future.  You could have two strikes and still hit it out of the park.  Your reasoning is logically flawed.  No matter.  We're all going to have to wait it out.

Talk about logically flawed reasoning:  The past has shown that Trump has been filing lawsuits without evidence.  So the answer to your question remains "yes".

  • Like 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The law of probability.

I know that's just a joke.  As long as freedom exists probabilities cannot always be determined.  The future is plastic, based on probabilities, and none can say what it holds.

  • Sad 1
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I know that's just a joke.  As long as freedom exists probabilities cannot always be determined.  The future is plastic, based on probabilities, and none can say what it holds.

Right. Every day is a new day and what we've learned in the past is entirely irrelevant. Yours is an arguement in favor of spending all your money on lottery tickers.

Edited by placeholder
  • Haha 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

In other elections that has held true, DSD.  In this election, though, no one has conceded. 

Let's be honest about this though. It is the loser in this election who has not conceded.

Something that has never happened before, once the race was "called." Biden has won, simple as that.

As I stated earlier today I do not object to people using their legal options, to which they have every right.

The word "frivolous" has been used repeatedly in recent days about the legal challenges here though.

While I admire the tenacity of people to fight when the chips are down, there has to come a moment when reality overtakes ideology and delusion.

For a growing number of Americans that is happening more and more with every passing day, painful as it is.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Seems everyone here is citing the same reasoning.  I've already shown that it's flawed.  It's not so difficult to understand.  You can't take what happened in the past and project the same results indefinitely, or even short term, into the future.  If that's you're only argument, a logically flawed one, then I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Get thee to the lottery station.

  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Right. Every day is a new day and what we've learned in the past is entirely irrelevant. Yours is an arguement in favor of spending all your money on lottery tickers.

Then please be so kind as to provide a detailed explanation of how probabilities work.  Just make sure it's a functioning explanation.  You know, absent any leaky holes.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Seems everyone here is citing the same reasoning.  I've already shown that it's flawed.  It's not so difficult to understand.  You can't take what happened in the past and project the same results indefinitely, or even short term, into the future.  If that's you're only argument, a logically flawed one, then I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

ANd of course, as we've seen from a different thread, it seems quite likely that Trump isn't fighting this to win, he's fighting it to make money. What kind of lowlife does it take to ask supporters to donate money to fight a legal case but then keep most of it for his own purposes?

  • Like 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

Let's be honest about this though. It is the loser in this election who has not conceded.

Something that has never happened before, once the race was "called." Biden has won, simple as that.

As I stated earlier today I do not object to people using their legal options, to which they have every right.

The word "frivolous" has been used repeatedly in recent days about the legal challenges here though.

While I admire the tenacity of people to fight when the chips are down, there has to come a moment when reality overtakes ideology and delusion.

For a growing number of Americans that is happening more and more with every passing day, painful as it is.

 

 

DSD, to say that Trump's lawsuits are warrantless and frivolous depends on where you get your information from.  Let's do be honest and admit that the entire MSM hates Trump.  What kind of reporting can one then expect from them?  To me that's only common sense.  If I wanted to date a woman I didn't know well, who just had a knock down ugly break up with her boyfriend, and I wanted someone's opinion the last person I'd go to for an objective opinion would be her old boyfriend.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

That's an opinion too.  Call it a "credentialed" opinion if you like.  It's still an opinion.

 

"Credentialed" opinion?? If that's your way of saying that it's an opinion formed on the basis on facts?

LOL, I really hope you're able to undo the knot you've tied yourself into!

  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

The Department of Homeland Security breaks from Trump and his baseless claims of election fraud, calling this year's presidential race 'the most secure in American history'

 

"The Department of Homeland Security broke from President Donald Trump's baseless allegations of a "stolen" election on Thursday and said there is no evidence of fraud. 

"The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history," the DHS said in a statement. The Department's Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees found "no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.""

 

Now you know what the OP is all about and why Trump is dumping him.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Now you know what the OP is all about and why Trump is dumping him.

 

Trump is not dumping anyone. At this point, being dumped by Trump is the most valuable credential in your CV, when you can't hide that you were part of this for the last 4 years.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...