Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

The Trump Card...

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
I know a little bit about it. Hammer and Scorecard were designed to interfere in the elections of other countries. (Oh, yeah, we do that a lot). It's kind of like when bank and stock transactions are made, there is always fractions of pennies that get left behind because of rounding. If might be 3/100th of a cent in one transaction, 7/100th on another, and so on. You can have a computer program collect all this fractions, from millions of transactions, and it adds up. It will never be discovered unless there's a deep digital audit that discovers it. Which is what happened 30 years or so ago when it was discovered, and banking systems were changed to prevent that from happening.

I stunt know if the penny robbers got the idea from someone in the CIA, or the other way around. But it was back in the late 80s and early 90s when computers were becoming more a part of the critical operations in business, finance in particular.

Hammer and Scorecard do essentially the same thing (I'm over simplifying) where lots and lots of votes are changed, but at a rate so small as not not attract attention. In a close election, like in battleground states, it doesn't take much. Just change 1 or 2 or maybe 3 votes or if every 100 counted, age you've got a 1-3 percent vote swing that can swing an election.

I certainly have no way of knowing if it was used in our elections, but I heard people in 2012 wonder if it wasn't tested out on a small scale then, knowing that Romney wasn't going to beat Obama. And I heard it might have been tested on a larger scale in 1016, but not really in earnest since Trump wasn't going to beat Hillary, not even close.

But if it worked well enough in 2012 and again in 2016,seems like a no-brainer to use it in 2020 when the chances of getting caught are just about zero, and the consequences of allowing an unfettered, legitimate election take place could give Hitler another four years in the White House, and that's just not even an option.

A full digital audit or a full hand recount would expose the fact that that, or something like it happened, but you still couldn't prove it, because there wouldn't really be anything to point to.

But if something like that did happen, it would certainly explain a lot.
 

coalminer

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
From time to time, I take an EO hiatus. It's time for one again. We're onboarding two new employees, which takes a lot of time and energy. Four gyms in our area have gone broke or been sold to new owners (corona). That's a competitive opportunity for us that also takes time and energy. A new major-brand gym is coming to town. That's a competitive threat to us that also takes time and energy. The busy season (January rush) will be here before we know it, which also requires preparation. See you again sometime before Spring.

You all have fun. And thanks for the recent fun here.
Good luck, we will still be here when you have time to come back!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackpup and pjjjjj

pjjjjj

Veteran Expediter
Offline
I know a little bit about it. Hammer and Scorecard were designed to interfere in the elections of other countries. (Oh, yeah, we do that a lot). It's kind of like when bank and stock transactions are made, there is always fractions of pennies that get left behind because of rounding. If might be 3/100th of a cent in one transaction, 7/100th on another, and so on. You can have a computer program collect all this fractions, from millions of transactions, and it adds up. It will never be discovered unless there's a deep digital audit that discovers it. Which is what happened 30 years or so ago when it was discovered, and banking systems were changed to prevent that from happening.

I stunt know if the penny robbers got the idea from someone in the CIA, or the other way around. But it was back in the late 80s and early 90s when computers were becoming more a part of the critical operations in business, finance in particular.

Hammer and Scorecard do essentially the same thing (I'm over simplifying) where lots and lots of votes are changed, but at a rate so small as not not attract attention. In a close election, like in battleground states, it doesn't take much. Just change 1 or 2 or maybe 3 votes or if every 100 counted, age you've got a 1-3 percent vote swing that can swing an election.

I certainly have no way of knowing if it was used in our elections, but I heard people in 2012 wonder if it wasn't tested out on a small scale then, knowing that Romney wasn't going to beat Obama. And I heard it might have been tested on a larger scale in 1016, but not really in earnest since Trump wasn't going to beat Hillary, not even close.

But if it worked well enough in 2012 and again in 2016,seems like a no-brainer to use it in 2020 when the chances of getting caught are just about zero, and the consequences of allowing an unfettered, legitimate election take place could give Hitler another four years in the White House, and that's just not even an option.

A full digital audit or a full hand recount would expose the fact that that, or something like it happened, but you still couldn't prove it, because there wouldn't really be anything to point to.

But if something like that did happen, it would certainly explain a lot.
What would it take to do a full digital or manual recount?
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackpup and muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
So they used election software that caused a person here in Michigan to make an error and give 6,000 votes to Biden instead of Trump. This software was used in something like 40 counties here in Michigan. It was also used in the majority of states, some of which are currently being contested. What are the odds that only ONE person made an error like that with the software?
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
What's up with Fox News, or is it just the msm making more fake news?
Many viewers are tuning them out. Election night was the last straw, imo.
They called Arizona early for Biden, but were somewhat slow with the Florida call. Just yesterday finally called North Carolina for Trump. Arizona, they are still counting votes and is much closer than North Carolina. The decision desk for Fox is led by a past Democratic donor so there may be some bias there with him.
Chris Wallace's pitiful anti Trump moderator performance and comments since then have enraged viewers. That and the multiple anti Trump personalities that lie, give misinformed comments, and out right cut off guests and end interviews with Trump surrogates have greatly turned off viewers.
You can watch that Fake News on CNN so why bother watch Fox.

Fox News said on election night that Dems would expand their majority by at least 5 seats. Umm, no.

 
Last edited:

pjjjjj

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Many viewers are tuning them out. Election night was the last straw, imo.
They called Arizona early for Biden, but were somewhat slow with the Florida call. Just yesterday finally called North Carolina for Trump. Arizona, they are still counting votes and is much closer than North Carolina. The decision desk for Fox is led by a past Democratic donor so there may be some bias there with him.
Chris Wallace's pitiful anti Trump moderator performance and comments since then have enraged viewers. That and the multiple anti Trump personalities that lie, give misinformed comments, and out right cut off guests and end interviews with Trump surrogates have greatly turned off viewers.
You can watch that Fake News on CNN so why bother watch Fox.

Fox News said on election night that Dems would expand their majority by at least 5 seats. Umm, no.

I meant... hasn't fox done a flip to become less fox-like and more cnn-like, seeming to be less supportive of the Republicans, with even other msm reporting on their behavior ....and what's up with that? Ie what's up with fox's flip flop or is that my imagination?
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
8The decision desk for Fox is led by a past Democratic donor so there may be some bias there with him.
Possibly. But more information indicates he's not as nefarious as some people believe. He did donate to a Democrat, $500 to a college classmate. He also donated $300 to a Republican, also a college classmate.

He seems pretty typical of most data nerds in that he's not particularly political.

Did you see the video of Marta McCallum where she thought her head and voice weren't being broadcast, and she was incredulous at an onscreen guest who dared question Fox News calling a state too soon.

The Murdock family is split on Trump. One of the brother's wives makes Nancy look like she's got a crush on Trump. I think somebody at Murdock gave some people at Fox the OK to go full-on anti Trump. It kind of started with Wallace, who's always been anti Trump. Then you had Harris Faulkner just shut down Newt when he mentioned George Soros in the midst of spewing verifiable facts. Her non walk-back walk-back the next day was just embarrassing.

But somebody from Murdock almost had to have said something, because like a lightswitch a few people either flipped or opened up wide their positions. Martha, Bret, Hemmer, Howie, Faulkner. Even Cavuto, who never tried to hide his disdain for Trump, went into overdrive on it.

Hannity is a homer, and Laura Ingraham, as is Judge Jeanine. She had her show pulled on Saturday (preempted, they say, for all breaking non-news) because she announced on Twitter that her show later that night would focus on the voter fraud allegations. Not sure about Shannon Bream because I haven't watched her much since the election.

But there's a reason Tucker has the best ratings in all of cable, he's not in the tank for anybody. He calls balls and strikes and won't take crap off anybody. He took a swipe at Cavuto the other day, after Cavuto went into Biden Protection Mode and cut away from Kayleigh McEnany because he didn't like what she was saying. Tucker smacked down Shepherd Smith so hard that Smith quit. :D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pjjjjj and davekc

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
They're going to do a recount in Georgia. Separating Biden and Trump ballots and then sending thru a counting machine. Counting each piece of paper( ballot). I like this way of doing it. If the Dominion software made humans to make errors or to intentionally add or subtract votes, the recount should at least correct that issue. What happens if there is like a 50,000 vote swing? Crap will hit the fan. Recounts in Wisconsin are also taking place as well. Michigan legislature wants to run an audit of the votes. I would also like to see a recount here as well. Or at least in some of the counties. Macomb county (a bell weather county) went for Trump 53 to 47 percent.
This seems like an accurate result. There was a lot of Trump support here. I also saw light to moderate support for Biden. The Trump/ Republican vote in Macomb County swept all but one (Sheriff) of the Dems out of office and replaced with a republican.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle and pjjjjj

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Fox News, WaPo, NYT, CNN and others have all talked with election officials who deal directly with the ballots, and every single one of them said they did not engage in voter fraud, nor did they witness anyone engaging in fraud. So, I feel pretty good about the integrity of the election.
 
Top