Now that FOX has admitted to lying about the 2020 election do you still believe with no proof it was "stolen"
- Thread starter StmarysCity79
- Start date
Clem72
Well-Known Member
I didn't say anything about the burden of proof or who needs to prove what, I said they did not address the accuracy of the claim which you clearly stated they did when you said they showed the systems were accurate and secure.
You literally did the exact same thing Fox did in the other direction. Fox said their machines have issues without proof, you said their machines are shown to be accurate and secure, when they have not. They don't allow independent verification of their system for "security reasons" and they did not address it during this trial.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
I am basing what i said on fact and proof. Unlike Fox news
The machines have been repeatedly tested and found to be accurate despite what Fox news told you.
Why do you keep repaeting lies and misinformation when the truth is easily found?
Clem72
Well-Known Member
I hope you don't believe those certification test reports prove anything with respect to security of the systems. In fact it literally states that the security IS NOT PART OF THIS TEST.
TestReport.PDF said:
So instead of testing security they said "someone else did a source review, some security tests, and a functional configuration audit." The results of those ARE NOT PUBLIC so we can't validate how they performed those tests.
Source test reviews are basically junk and entirely dependent on the personal capabilities of the reviewer(s). They check for plain text keys and other super obvious issues. It would be limited to the software directly developed for the application and none of the rest of system. (I.E. the vulnerability likely isn't in the voting application but rather in SQL or in the OS or a driver, etc. which would not be covered by this).
Second, the "Security tests" are almost certainly to be STIG compliance tests since that is basically all that is ever done on government IT systems. These stigs are constantly updated because, drum roll.......they are constantly finding new issues. It's incredibly unlikely they developed some bespoke security test outside of the ones that test against the STIGs, but if they did we will never know because they won't tell us.
And as for the FCA that has basically nothing to do with security and would only find the most basic functional errors. It shows that functional system requirements are met. I clicked box one and the machine sends out a vote for box 1, not box 6.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
You continue to change your claim the more and more proof i provide to you.
Just admit you only care about what you feel not the actual facts. There will never be enough evidence in the world to show you how wrong you are.
Why did Fox settle if it was so easy to prove that the machines have not been tested and are not secure?
Also why did swing state counties where dominion machines were used overwhemingly go to Trump?
Thank god we don't elect people based on how morons feel and actually tabulate votes.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Well, when one is part of the cause as to why Fox is having to pay out more than a quarter of a billion dollars to Dominion, it's no surprise Tucker got sh!tcanned.Tucker is out. F Fox.
Fox can become another CNN soon.
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
Except...you would be wrong...but thanks for playing
awpitt
Main Streeter
Ah... No. Not wrong. Except for one thing. Fox settled for three quarters of a billion dollars to Dominion, not a quarter of a billion dollars to Dominion.
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
Ah...yes. Still YOUR opinion
Or would you care to post the final Judgement stating it's Tucker's fault because he's a sh!tbag?
Because, what I'm hearing in REAL TIME....sounds a whole lot like you haven't got a clue what you;\'re talking about
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
Clem72
Well-Known Member
No I provided context and explanation of why your "proof" doesn't say what you think it does. My original (and only) claim was that they haven't shown the system was "secure and accurate". You're saying look here's a document some dumbass on NBC says is proof does not mean it constitutes proof. I worked with securing and accrediting government IT systems for more than a decade before I retired, I know more about it than you do. But I can see you don't listen to actual reasoned arguments so instead of engaging with you any further I will simply state you are wrong and nobody likes you not even your dog.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
You snowflakes sure do cry alot.
Youve shown nothing yet claim to be correct.
Meanwhile I've shown they have taken every available step and provided proof of that to ensure their systems are secure. Including multiple recounts and hand recounts that came to the same conclusion as the machines.
Again to claim differently you must show proof which you repeatedly fail to do.
Just like the idiot who claimed dead people voted because their were dead people on the voter rolls.
Becuase it maybe be theoretically possible to cheat doesnt mean it happened, effected the outcome in any way or is of any consequence.
Feel free to try again or to explain why counties with Dominion voting systems overwhelmingly went towards Trump? What fraud you beleive Dominion is guilty of and where your proof comes from.
And why you believe you have information Fox News didnt have and was therefore willing to pay $787 million?
Clem72
Well-Known Member
To prove your claim of verified security you provided a document that explicity says that it doesn't cover security. You provided both your "proof" as well as the proof validating my very own claim. Why should I bother to find more evidence when you provided it for me?
It should also be noted that the fact that I found such a glaring issue with your proof within seconds means you either lack the capacity to understand the document or didn't read it. If you are arguing for something you don't understand or wont bother to put in even the most rudimentary effort to verify, then you are arguing from bad faith and it does no one any good to respond to you.
Tilted
..
I wasn't surprised that Fox (both FNN and FC) agreed to settle this case, but I was surprised that they agreed to settle for as much as they did.
This case was always likely to be a loser for Fox. But after the judge's summary judgment rulings Fox was dead in the water with only one hope: Seat some jurors who might be in the tank and wouldn't care about the facts or the law and who were going to rule for Fox (or against Dominion) no matter what. If Fox could do that, they could maybe get a hung jury and drag the case out even more than they could otherwise. So I thought they'd continue through jury selection and then possibly settle.
As it turned out, Fox's lawyers must not have thought they got what they needed in a jury. But Fox still could have dragged the case out for a while and had a decent chance of eventually paying less than what they settled for. The internal communications which they might not have wanted revealed were already revealed. So why agree to settle for so much? Well, obviously Dominion knew it had a winning case and was playing hardball in its settlement demands. And Fox must have just wanted this over and to move on with (what seems to be) a bit of a revamp.
As for the case itself and to make a few things clear: Fox wasn't arguing that the Dominion claims were true. That ship sailed. Indeed, in discovery it was revealed that FNN's own internal fact-checking department had concluded, in essence, that those claims were nonsense. (To be clear, there were a lot of different claims made. For some the fact-checking department concluded there was no evidence supporting them and for some it concluded they were "100% false.") At least one Fox executive indicated that, based on that, the claims shouldn't have been aired. But, of course, they were.
That said, Fox's arguments were essentially this: (1) It didn't make the claims itself, it just accurately reported what others (e.g., President Trump, Ms. Powell, Mr. Lindell) were claiming. So it wasn't legally responsible for those false claims. (2) When it comes to the things its own people actually did say, they were either opinion or Dominion hasn't proven that they were made with actual malice (i.e. knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for whether they were false). (3) Dominion hasn't proven it was actually harmed.
The judge's summary judgment rulings wrecked the first argument and handicapped the third. This was defamation per se (as the judge correctly ruled), so Dominion wouldn't have even needed to prove damages in order to win a judgment. But I suspect it could have proven substantial damages anyway. As for the second argument, the revealed internal communications pretty well sunk that one but the judge did let the actual malice question go to the jury.
To me, these details are mostly noise. What I really want to comment on is what I see as the broader takeaway from this case...
This case was always likely to be a loser for Fox. But after the judge's summary judgment rulings Fox was dead in the water with only one hope: Seat some jurors who might be in the tank and wouldn't care about the facts or the law and who were going to rule for Fox (or against Dominion) no matter what. If Fox could do that, they could maybe get a hung jury and drag the case out even more than they could otherwise. So I thought they'd continue through jury selection and then possibly settle.
As it turned out, Fox's lawyers must not have thought they got what they needed in a jury. But Fox still could have dragged the case out for a while and had a decent chance of eventually paying less than what they settled for. The internal communications which they might not have wanted revealed were already revealed. So why agree to settle for so much? Well, obviously Dominion knew it had a winning case and was playing hardball in its settlement demands. And Fox must have just wanted this over and to move on with (what seems to be) a bit of a revamp.
As for the case itself and to make a few things clear: Fox wasn't arguing that the Dominion claims were true. That ship sailed. Indeed, in discovery it was revealed that FNN's own internal fact-checking department had concluded, in essence, that those claims were nonsense. (To be clear, there were a lot of different claims made. For some the fact-checking department concluded there was no evidence supporting them and for some it concluded they were "100% false.") At least one Fox executive indicated that, based on that, the claims shouldn't have been aired. But, of course, they were.
That said, Fox's arguments were essentially this: (1) It didn't make the claims itself, it just accurately reported what others (e.g., President Trump, Ms. Powell, Mr. Lindell) were claiming. So it wasn't legally responsible for those false claims. (2) When it comes to the things its own people actually did say, they were either opinion or Dominion hasn't proven that they were made with actual malice (i.e. knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for whether they were false). (3) Dominion hasn't proven it was actually harmed.
The judge's summary judgment rulings wrecked the first argument and handicapped the third. This was defamation per se (as the judge correctly ruled), so Dominion wouldn't have even needed to prove damages in order to win a judgment. But I suspect it could have proven substantial damages anyway. As for the second argument, the revealed internal communications pretty well sunk that one but the judge did let the actual malice question go to the jury.
To me, these details are mostly noise. What I really want to comment on is what I see as the broader takeaway from this case...
Tilted
..
That broader takeaway I referred to in the previous post is just reiteration of what I've been telling people for years. The real problem isn't that various media outlets (to include many that, ostensibly, are reporting news or news-opinion) spread misinformation. They deceive, misled and sometimes outright lie. But they aren't the core of the problem. They're just filling demand - much like dealers selling meth, fast food restaurants serving salty fries, and bartenders pouring double shots.
People, whether they're self aware enough to recognize it or not, want to be lied to. Rather, they want to believe what they want to believe and they want to be armed with supposed facts and various narratives which ostensibly support what they want to believe. And they want that more than they want to know the actual truth or be well and accurately informed on various matters. Sure, if the actual truth and a fair understanding of reality support what they want to believe, then they're happy with those things. But if those things don't support what they want to believe, then they don't want them - then they'd prefer to be lied to or misled.
What people by and large want from their chosen information outlets is ammunition - ammunition to support what they want to believe, mostly to make themselves feel more comfortable in believing it but also, I suppose, to use to argue to or with others. People chose who they listen to largely based on their sense or who best provides them with that ammunition. If you're listening to Tucker Carlson, it's likely because he provides you with heaping portions of the flavor of bullshit you crave. Likewise, if you're listening to Lawrence O'Donnell it's likely because he provides you with heaping portions of the flavor of bullshit you crave. Regardless, we don't listen to those information sources because we want to have fuller and fairer understandings of reality - delude ourselves and try to convince ourselves otherwise though we may.
There are no doubt media outlets with overriding agendas that would drive them to push certain narratives regardless of what a potential audience might demand. But that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that we want those narratives to be pushed. There's broad and deep demand, so of course there's going to be broad and deep supply.
The people at the top of Fox don't, for the most part, push the narratives they push (accurate or otherwise) because of an overriding ideological agenda or a controlling intent to push the world one way or the other politically. They don't employ the personalities they employ for such reasons. They're just giving their audience what it wants, or they were. Not much could illustrate that point as well as this case has. The internal communications revealed in this case paint a pretty clear picture. Most at Fox didn't believe the Dominion claims. They realized the claims were BS and it was wrong - past some point, perhaps even dangerous - to push them. But it was what their audience wanted and they feared that, if they didn't give their audience what it wanted, that audience would go somewhere else to get it. They could already see that dynamic playing out.
So there was a struggle: How far down this rabbit hole do we go trying to indulge our audience? At what point do we get off this particular train and risk their defection? When is it safe to do that?
Fox knew this narrative was poppycock. The meth dealer knows his fentanyl-laced product is bad. McDonald's knows its McGriddles aren't the healthiest things people can eat. But this is what the customer wants. So this is what the customer gets. That's the business most businesses are in. You have to be really good to (successfully) be in the business of convincing customers what they should want instead of what they currently do want. Most can't pull that off or don't even try. Regardless, to the extent there's blame to assign, most of it should probably fall on the customers who want what they want - whether they're willing to acknowledge what they really want or not.
People, whether they're self aware enough to recognize it or not, want to be lied to. Rather, they want to believe what they want to believe and they want to be armed with supposed facts and various narratives which ostensibly support what they want to believe. And they want that more than they want to know the actual truth or be well and accurately informed on various matters. Sure, if the actual truth and a fair understanding of reality support what they want to believe, then they're happy with those things. But if those things don't support what they want to believe, then they don't want them - then they'd prefer to be lied to or misled.
What people by and large want from their chosen information outlets is ammunition - ammunition to support what they want to believe, mostly to make themselves feel more comfortable in believing it but also, I suppose, to use to argue to or with others. People chose who they listen to largely based on their sense or who best provides them with that ammunition. If you're listening to Tucker Carlson, it's likely because he provides you with heaping portions of the flavor of bullshit you crave. Likewise, if you're listening to Lawrence O'Donnell it's likely because he provides you with heaping portions of the flavor of bullshit you crave. Regardless, we don't listen to those information sources because we want to have fuller and fairer understandings of reality - delude ourselves and try to convince ourselves otherwise though we may.
There are no doubt media outlets with overriding agendas that would drive them to push certain narratives regardless of what a potential audience might demand. But that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that we want those narratives to be pushed. There's broad and deep demand, so of course there's going to be broad and deep supply.
The people at the top of Fox don't, for the most part, push the narratives they push (accurate or otherwise) because of an overriding ideological agenda or a controlling intent to push the world one way or the other politically. They don't employ the personalities they employ for such reasons. They're just giving their audience what it wants, or they were. Not much could illustrate that point as well as this case has. The internal communications revealed in this case paint a pretty clear picture. Most at Fox didn't believe the Dominion claims. They realized the claims were BS and it was wrong - past some point, perhaps even dangerous - to push them. But it was what their audience wanted and they feared that, if they didn't give their audience what it wanted, that audience would go somewhere else to get it. They could already see that dynamic playing out.
So there was a struggle: How far down this rabbit hole do we go trying to indulge our audience? At what point do we get off this particular train and risk their defection? When is it safe to do that?
Fox knew this narrative was poppycock. The meth dealer knows his fentanyl-laced product is bad. McDonald's knows its McGriddles aren't the healthiest things people can eat. But this is what the customer wants. So this is what the customer gets. That's the business most businesses are in. You have to be really good to (successfully) be in the business of convincing customers what they should want instead of what they currently do want. Most can't pull that off or don't even try. Regardless, to the extent there's blame to assign, most of it should probably fall on the customers who want what they want - whether they're willing to acknowledge what they really want or not.
Last edited:
The 2020 election was clearly cheated and stolen. I didn't need Fox or Trump or anyone else to tell me that. A simple observation and the Democrats in their own words makes it absolutely clear. Did Dominion have a role in that? Maybe - I have no idea and nobody is allowed to investigate it or they'll be destroyed. That alone should make you raise your eyebrows.
But it doesn't. The Democrats own the media, and the media owns the populace. The end, no more to discuss. AOC and Chuck Schumer, just to name two, have been threatening Fox if they don't fire Tucker (and everyone else they don't like). Fox caved and did as they were told. If that's not politicizing our news media I have no idea what is.
Ya'll psychotic Dembots can make excuses all you want and point to your overlords' proclamations as "proof" - "We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" - but that makes you the cultists, not me.
So great - you win. State run media that will offer no information that isn't approved/disseminated by the government. Yay you.
But it doesn't. The Democrats own the media, and the media owns the populace. The end, no more to discuss. AOC and Chuck Schumer, just to name two, have been threatening Fox if they don't fire Tucker (and everyone else they don't like). Fox caved and did as they were told. If that's not politicizing our news media I have no idea what is.
Ya'll psychotic Dembots can make excuses all you want and point to your overlords' proclamations as "proof" - "We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" - but that makes you the cultists, not me.
So great - you win. State run media that will offer no information that isn't approved/disseminated by the government. Yay you.
Let me ask you a question:
Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden got 81 million legitimate votes? More than any other presidential candidate in history? 81 million Americans looked at that guy and said, "Man, THAT is a leader. THAT is who I want running this country."
Do you believe that?
A simple yes or no will do.