- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Meanwhile, in another Georgia election back in 2022.…
Posted on 12/22/25 at 9:46 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/22/25 at 9:46 am to SlowFlowPro
VoterGA Filing Emergency Federal Suit to Vacate Dominion Cert
What: VoterGA will announce filing of an emergency federal lawsuit intended to force the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to vacate the 2019 certification of the Dominion Democracy Suite 5.5-A voting system currently used in Georgia. Garland Favorito will highlight unrefuted expert witness testimony showing the voting system never met 2005 certification requirements for encryption key protection and secure password management. These and other recently revealed security flaws enable undetected remote access to election results. Garland will also overview forensic studies supporting the expert testimony and expose false statements published about Colorado forensic reports by the Colorado County Clerks Association.
VoterGA’s Garland Favorito highlighted the five-year history of Fulton County’s resistance to producing a copy of their 2020 election ballots for the State Election Board, active criminal cases, U.S. Department of Justice criminal and civil divisions and two VoterGA civil suits. He also showed video clips of false statements made by Fulton County Commission Chairman Robb Pitts’ in recent interviews and why this cover-up may be the greatest voting rights violation in Georgia history.
Link to article…
Now, why would they do this if everything was fine??? Hmmm…..
What: VoterGA will announce filing of an emergency federal lawsuit intended to force the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to vacate the 2019 certification of the Dominion Democracy Suite 5.5-A voting system currently used in Georgia. Garland Favorito will highlight unrefuted expert witness testimony showing the voting system never met 2005 certification requirements for encryption key protection and secure password management. These and other recently revealed security flaws enable undetected remote access to election results. Garland will also overview forensic studies supporting the expert testimony and expose false statements published about Colorado forensic reports by the Colorado County Clerks Association.
VoterGA’s Garland Favorito highlighted the five-year history of Fulton County’s resistance to producing a copy of their 2020 election ballots for the State Election Board, active criminal cases, U.S. Department of Justice criminal and civil divisions and two VoterGA civil suits. He also showed video clips of false statements made by Fulton County Commission Chairman Robb Pitts’ in recent interviews and why this cover-up may be the greatest voting rights violation in Georgia history.
Link to article…
Now, why would they do this if everything was fine??? Hmmm…..
This post was edited on 12/22/25 at 9:48 am
0
Posted on 12/22/25 at 9:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The reason I went form incredibly respected on here (2005-2015) to villain (2016-present) was maintaining my principles
Nah... It's because you let your TDS cloud your judgement and you refuse to believe anything that legitimizes Trump or Trump/MAGA stances in anyway.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 10:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You keep focusing on this when it's not really relevant,
your lack of understanding of the relevance does not make it irrelevant
quote:
Every system will have errors and every system that relies on humans will have a lot of them
The risk of misstatement drives the control environment.
If you are willing to have a weak control environment, it will produce incredible results.
quote:
This means the error has no relevance anymore to the discussion
Risk of error = risk that an error is not detected and corrected.
When designing a control system, the errors are always relevant.
quote:
In a legal system, the will always require public intervention. This is another failure in your argument.
This is a voting system, not a legal system. Your argument is obtuse and nonsensical, I don't need your assessment of mine which is based on a well accepted science that I'm trying to explain to you.
quote:
No. I'm labeling those ignoring the intervention in 2020 as conspiracy theorists.
Let me simplify this. You are saying the "system worked". The "system" involves publishing the results, the public (or in this case the candidate) questioning the results to the point that the results are recomputed using a different system entirely from the one the results originally came from, until the public is satisfied with those results. If it requires public intervention, those intervening are not conspiracy theorists, they are part of a system that is necessary to produce credible results.
That is, if the public is a necessary control, the result will be noise from the public.
quote:
As I already posted, the same safeguards were also utilized in 2020 and the election was certified. Again, another example of why the underlying issue isn't relevant.
The reason the people ignoring this are called conspiracy theorists is because the results have gone through multiple safeguards and analyzed from multiple parties and were still validated. The reason why a conspiracy is necessary is to deflect form the impact of these safeguards, which requires adding another layer to the conspiracy.
None of this makes any sense. In this example, Dominion was used, it didn't produce credible results and entirely different system was used. Did that happen wholesale in the 2020 election? No, it didn't. Quit trying to equate these "safeguards", its not the same fact pattern because it didn't have the same corrective action.
We don't have a credible voting system, and folks like yourself have harbored that far more than the "conspiracy theorists" that you claim are a necessary control. What is the conspiracy? Not trusting the system?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 10:29 am to OceanMan
quote:
your lack of understanding of the relevance does not make it irrelevant
I understand the lack of relevance, which is why I"m not going down that path of digression and trying to steer you into relevancy.
quote:
Risk of error = risk that an error is not detected and corrected.
Again, this is not the issue in play, no matter how much you want to steer the discussion towards the digression.
quote:
This is a voting system, not a legal system.
The legal system is part of the safeguards over the voting system.
Again, you are not dumb. Stop being purposefully ignorant.
quote:
I don't need your assessment of mine which is based on a well accepted science
Your using that to discuss irrelevant things in this discussion. You fail to understand that you can be correct and it still doesn't matter within the actual discussion being had...it only matters within your digression attempt.
quote:
You are saying the "system worked".
The safeguards corrected the initial errors. That's the point of having safeguards in place.
quote:
None of this makes any sense.
That's a "you" problem, at this point. I can't make it any simpler for you.
I have tried.
I have broken it down into elementary-level concepts.
quote:
In this example, Dominion was used, it didn't produce credible results
Did the safeguards produce credible results?
Or are we going to call the purported correction a failure, too?
Posted on 12/22/25 at 10:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The reason I went form incredibly respected on here (2005-2015) to villain (2016-present) was maintaining my principles
You are seen as a villain because you see yourself as "me vs the world". You don't seek validation, you seek argument. You conjure up "cults" and vague groups of "conspiracy theorists" in which all of your arguments are directed - in is very evident in your arguments you are challenging a collective opinion, whether it has been demonstrated or otherwise clearly identifiable in any given thread.
You return to this "echo chamber" more than any other individual poster, for what? To change minds? Enlightenment? Or to feed this mentality that you must challenge the collective opinion(s) that you see as flawed.
In this thread, you have failed to identify who these "conspiracy theorists" are, what they are challenging and corrective actions they have called for. You have demonstrated a poor understanding of internal control and reject explanations as to why the specific "safeguards" are not adequate at producing credible results. This behavior can only be explained by being intentionally argumentative or sheer stupidity. I really think its the former, which is why you get so much engagement, but your lack of self awareness makes it much easier to accept that latter.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 10:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Sure, but this doesn't apply to 2020 (Which was the focus of this thread), because 2020 had a recount
Nothing in the OP was about 2020. It was simply an example of the machines failing.
And not every county of every state was recounted in 2020. Only one state, Georgia, had a full recount. Three other states had recounts in specific counties. How many counties had "errors" that gave votes to the wrong candidate and were never caught because nobody focused on them? Maybe zero, or possibly everyone. And it isn't just 2020; it is any election that has ever used these machines in the past.
If we can't require voter ID for fear of disenfranchising even one voter, then the possibility of disenfranchising thousands through machine error should require a reevaluation of the whole system.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 11:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Again, this is not the issue in play, no matter how much you want to steer the discussion towards the digression.
You don't understand the concept I'm trying to explain
that doesn't make it irrelevant. quote:
The legal system is part of the safeguards over the voting system.
The voting system giving a candidate zero votes when they got the most votes doesn't need a "legal system" to safeguard it. It needs a better control environment so that external controls are not necessary, as external controls detecting error implicitly call out failure of the underlying system and its ability to produce credible results.
quote:
Again, you are not dumb. Stop being purposefully ignorant.
I'm trying to explain something about a subject that I am much more familiar with than you.
quote:
The safeguards corrected the initial errors. That's the point of having safeguards in place.
If public intervention is a safeguard, expect public intervention.
quote:
Your using that to discuss irrelevant things in this discussion. You fail to understand that you can be correct and it still doesn't matter within the actual discussion being had...it only matters within your digression attempt.
It clearly does matter. I'm digressing to the core issue: whether the voting system produces credible results.
This is a crazy tactic you are using by the way
quote:
Did the safeguards produce credible results?
What safeguards? The ones within the system that produced wildly inaccurate results? No, they didn't, which is why I keep talking about things you don't find relevant
quote:
I have broken it down into elementary-level concepts.
And I am attempting to break it down into professional level concepts that are used in practice when the goal is to reduce the risk of misstating actual results.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 11:00 am to OceanMan
quote:
You are seen as a villain because you see yourself as "me vs the world".
No.
quote:
You return to this "echo chamber" more than any other individual poster, for what? To change minds?
Hopefully.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 11:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:By running form thread to thread.
Hopefully.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 11:01 am to Nurbis
quote:
Nothing in the OP was about 2020. It was simply an example of the machines failing.
And not every county of every state was recounted in 2020. Only one state, Georgia, had a full recount. Three other states had recounts in specific counties. How many counties had "errors" that gave votes to the wrong candidate and were never caught because nobody focused on them? Maybe zero, or possibly everyone. And it isn't just 2020; it is any election that has ever used these machines in the past.
He has already stated that none of this is relevant because safeguards.
Posted on 12/22/25 at 11:04 am to OceanMan
quote:
You don't understand the concept I'm trying to explain
I do. I'm just not letting the conversation go down the path of digression.
quote:
The voting system giving a candidate zero votes when they got the most votes doesn't need a "legal system" to safeguard it.
Except this story shows it clearly does.
quote:
. It needs a better control environment so that external controls are not necessary, as external controls detecting error implicitly call out failure of the underlying system and its ability to produce credible results.
Nobody is arguing otherwise, but even then, you would still need a legal process to safeguard that new system.
quote:
What safeguards?
The legal process to give oversight and review results.
quote:
The ones within the system that produced wildly inaccurate results?
The safeguards discussed in my initial post, which corrected the issues in the initial election.
Did those safeguards produce credible results?
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News