The Fight for Election Integrity Continues -- Audits, Criminal Investigations, Legislative Reform

a reply to: tanstaafl

Actually, no. The ability is NOT in every printer today, what you are referring to is a special offset printing technique that the plates alone cost 20-30 thousand dollars apiece to produce.

Before you start calling people clueless, or beyond comprehension, maybe do some freakin research on the subject, oh wait I forgot, the people that are supporting all of this don't know how to do research, they listen to places like Cyber Ninjas and Gab.

Sorry dude (or dudette) I won't ever question anyone's actual intelligence, nor would I ever claim it's beyond someone's comprehension unless they said "Hey I don't understand this". This is NOT Gab, you cannot insult people just because you want to.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Boadicea

Give it a rest sparky…

Thanks for your concern... I do tend to burn the candle at both ends, but I also like it that way. So no, thanks! Props for the "Sparky" though. I'm honored to be classed with our beloved Sun Devil!

apparently NONE of the trump wins had absolutely no election irregularities, it’s just the places where Biden won that had fraudulent votes

Oh dear... you haven't been paying attention, have you? That's okay. I'm quite happy to inform you that you are very very wrong, and that not only have we called for audits in ALL Arizona counties (including the ones that Trump won), and a growing national movement to audit ALL 50 states in the union, but that many other states are also calling for audits in all counties, and that Texas is in the process of auditing select counties -- both Republican and Democrat.

You're welcome

Apparently none of you Russian loving righties thought that unusual as well, logic is your friend, but you snuggle up to right wing emos

Oh my... wrong again! You really are out of the loop, aren't you? That's okay. Fortunately, you're in the right place to fix that!

a reply to: jimmyx

They claim to be all for election integrity but also okay with Republican legislators passing bills that allows them to ignore the popular vote and decide the winner.

The fear being sold about election integrity gives them the power to write laws that effectively do the opposite.

a reply to: jrod
a reply to: jimmyx

Friendly reminder: This thread is not about other posters. It is against the T&C's to talk about posters. It's not necessary, appropriate or welcome.

This thread is not in the mudpit.

Please stop derailing the thread.

originally posted by: vkey08
a reply to: tanstaafl
Actually, no. The ability is NOT in every printer today, what you are referring to is a special offset printing technique that the plates alone cost 20-30 thousand dollars apiece to produce.

Methinks you are confused about something.

While you are correct that it isn't in EVERY printer today, the MIC - Machine Identification Code - the hidden 'fingerprint' I'm referring to is most definitely included in virtually every color laser printer and copiers sold today.

It isn't offset anything, and doesn't cost anything, it is hidden microdots that are included on every printed page that can identify what printer a page was printed on, and when.

So there is absolutely ZERO reason this shouldn't be mandated by law, and failure to do so is essentially criminal negligence.

Rep orts Of Possible Election Fraud Surface In Westport, CT School Board Race

UPDATE: Westport, CT Increases Vote Results For Conservative Candidate 335% After Residents Find Possible BOE Election Fraud

CDMedia has received multiple reports of votes not being counted during last week’s local elections for write-in candidate Alma Sarelli.

Sarelli ran as a write-in candidate for one of several Westport school board seats up for grabs last Tuesday. The town was filled with signs to ‘Write in Alama for BOE’ and instructions on how to do so at the ballot box were readily available online and via a word-of-mouth campaign.

UPDATE 1830 EST – The CT Secretary of State has increased the votes received for Alma Sarelli 335% after Westport residents contacted the town and the Secretary of State regarding fraudulent vote totals.

If there was this big an ‘error’ in votes for a BOE candidate, what else is wrong with the ‘results’ of last Tuesday’s election? Restoring election integrity is vital before this nation can continue as a republic.

This wasn't a game changer... the candidate still didn't win even with the corrected vote count. But the People won just by getting the bogus vote count corrected!
--------------------------------------------------
This one isn't a game changer either, but does seem to show a concerning lack of competence and understanding of how things are supposed to work:

Poll worker prestamped ballots with Byron Brown's name, but no proof of widespread fraud

The Erie County Board of Elections dismissed a team of poll workers Tuesday after receiving an allegation of a ballot that was prestamped for Mayor Byron W. Brown on Buffalo's West Side.

Allison, who is a Walton supporter, said it appeared the election inspector might have made a mistake. She said she perceived no ill-intent from the woman.

“It didn’t strike me as anything covert or malicious," she said. "She was very open about it. I got the sense that she did what she thought she was supposed to do.”

Still, Mohr said elections inspectors at the Belle Center on Maryland Street erred in allowing stamps created for Brown's write-in campaign to be placed at the check-in tables of the polling place.

Brown supporters handed out stamps to make it easier to vote for the four-term mayor after Walton defeated him in the Democratic primary. Legally, volunteers could only hand out those stamps at least 100 feet away from polling sites.

I'm actually more disgusted with the waste than the mis-stamping! Imagine having stamps manufactured to hand out to voters for one use... just once! I suppose it helps ensure his name is spelled correctly, but just wow.
-------------------------------------------------

BREAKING: Lawsuit Filed Against Michigan’s Dishonest Sec of State Jocelyn Benson...Legal Group Found Nearly 26K Potentially Dead Voters On Voter Rolls...4K Dead For At Least 20 Yrs

“For over a year, we’ve shared specific data with the Michigan Secretary of State’s Office about the alarming problem of deceased registrants on Michigan’s voter rolls,” Adams said, adding, “Secretary Benson has done nothing to resolve the problem and is even refusing to hand over public documents related to these failures. The failure to remove deceased registrants creates an opportunity for fraud and makes Michigan’s elections less secure.”

With all the modern technology, this shouldn't even be a thing. There should be a way to automatically remove the deceased from voter rolls, as well as voters who have moved out of the county. If there were the will to do so, there is a way to do so.

a reply to: tanstaafl

no methinks you are confused.

Any Canon printer prints exactly the same way no deviation, HP same, Epson etc etc. There are no hidden codes printed on every page that allow anyone to tell, outside of brand, what printer printed anything, and the only way to tell by brand is that every company has a slightly different inkjet configuration to send the ink through the nozzles, but if someone say printed on a Canon printer in East Nowherestan the same thing printed on a Canon in West Nowherestan there is no way to tell that they were not printed on the same printer.

I dunno where you ever got that idea from , but it would make investigating crimes a heck of a lot easier if that were indeed the case.

a reply to: vkey08

If i could provide some (what i consider to be) much needed clarity, I think you guys are actually having 2 different discussions.

I think you're having an Inkjet versus LaserJet print-off.

Inkjet's have no way of providing identifiable markings short of paper watermarks.

LaserJet's on the other hand have nano-dot technology that describe the printer down to serial number, model etc. A great example of how they were used recently in Law Enforcement would be the Reality Winner case. She was identified in the case against her by way of these nano-dots.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: vkey08

If i could provide some (what i consider to be) much needed clarity, I think you guys are actually having 2 different discussions.

I think you're having an Inkjet versus LaserJet print-off.

Inkjet's have no way of providing identifiable markings short of paper watermarks.

LaserJet's on the other hand have nano-dot technology that describe the printer down to serial number, model etc. A great example of how they were used recently in Law Enforcement would be the Reality Winner case. She was identified in the case against her by way of these nano-dots.

He was claiming inkjets had them as well, which was patently false

originally posted by: vkey08

He was claiming inkjets had them as well, which was patently false

Yup, inkjets cant do the magic. The best anyone could get with inkjet is, like you said, the really expensive MICR magnetic version.

originally posted by: vkey08
a reply to: tanstaafl

Actually, no. The ability is NOT in every printer today, what you are referring to is a special offset printing technique that the plates alone cost 20-30 thousand dollars apiece to produce.

Before you start calling people clueless, or beyond comprehension, maybe do some freakin research on the subject, oh wait I forgot, the people that are supporting all of this don't know how to do research, they listen to places like Cyber Ninjas and Gab.

Sorry dude (or dudette) I won't ever question anyone's actual intelligence, nor would I ever claim it's beyond someone's comprehension unless they said "Hey I don't understand this". This is NOT Gab, you cannot insult people just because you want to.

What I saw Jovan Pulitzer display was a tiny yellow dot matix.

The use of "plates" makes no sense to me in this case.

Any printer should be able to be programmed to print a tiny yellow dot matix code that contains data like, the date and type of machine.

originally posted by: vkey08
a reply to: tanstaafl

no methinks you are confused.

Any Canon printer prints exactly the same way no deviation, HP same, Epson etc etc. There are no hidden codes printed on every page that allow anyone to tell, outside of brand, what printer printed anything, and the only way to tell by brand is that every company has a slightly different inkjet configuration to send the ink through the nozzles, but if someone say printed on a Canon printer in East Nowherestan the same thing printed on a Canon in West Nowherestan there is no way to tell that they were not printed on the same printer.

I dunno where you ever got that idea from , but it would make investigating crimes a heck of a lot easier if that were indeed the case.

I see you are well acquainted with the notion that ignorance is bliss. I linked to the proof of what I'm saying, and you either ignored it or it is just too complicated for you to comprehend. I used to feel sorry for people like you. I don't any more.

Wallow in it.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: vkey08
I think you're having an Inkjet versus LaserJet print-off.

As I already clarified in my last post linking to exactly what I'm referring to.

Election printers are laser printers not inkjet. I thought that was understood, but I guess some people just need to have their hand held all the way to the trough.

originally posted by: vkey08
He was claiming inkjets had them as well, which was patently false

I actually didn't... I said 'virtually all printers', without clarifying I was talking about laser printers/copiers. I thought that was obvious... sorry you are still clueless.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
As I already clarified in my last post

You didn't clarify though, all you did was merely post a link without even the benefit of enclosing ex/ex snippets of what you were trying to get across. A link isn't clarity being made by you.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
but I guess some people just need to have their hand held all the way to the trough.

Some people don't like instantiating outside links especially if they're on a mobile device with less than stellar broadband, its why snippets are helpful.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
in reply to: tanstaafl
"As I already clarified in my last post"

You didn't clarify though,

Yes. I did.

all you did was merely post a link without even the benefit of enclosing ex/ex snippets of what you were trying to get across. A link isn't clarity being made by you.

When the link actually fully explains in detail the point being made from a relatively authoritative source (wikipedia isn't authoritative for health or political questions, but for some things, it is fairly reliable)... yes... it is.

"but I guess some people just need to have their hand held all the way to the trough."

Some people don't like instantiating outside links especially if they're on a mobile device with less than stellar broadband, its why snippets are helpful.

In this case, a snippet wouldn't do it, and I can't help it if someone is so ignorant about how computers work they are incapable of grasping how to hover over a link to see the destination (in this case, wikipedia).

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: vkey08
I think you're having an Inkjet versus LaserJet print-off.

As I already clarified in my last post linking to exactly what I'm referring to.

Election printers are laser printers not inkjet. I thought that was understood, but I guess some people just need to have their hand held all the way to the trough.

The very first sentence on the link provided about MICs speaks of lazer printers. You said election printers are lazer printers, correct?

A Machine Identification Code (MIC), also known as printer steganography, yellow dots, tracking dots or secret dots, is a digital watermark which certain color laser printers and copiers leave on every single printed page, allowing identification of the device with which a document was printed and giving clues to the originator. Developed by Xerox and Canon in the mid-1980s, its existence became public only in 2004. In 2018, scientists developed privacy software to anonymize prints in order to support whistleblowers publishing their work.

originally posted by: IndieA
The very first sentence on the link provided about MICs speaks of lazer printers. You said election printers are lazer printers, correct?

Not sure if I did, but if I didn't, I figured it was understood.

Regardless, it should be mandated by law that every single ballot be identifiable as to what printer printed it, where, and when - and I'll even go so far as to say by WHOM (current logged in user account).

a reply to: IndieA

Indie:

Some states use InkJet's with a special ink to print the ballots, not laser ones. I won't publicly post which states, but there are at least 10, maybe as high as 15.