...the President. He’s gotten outta weirder shit than this. *munches popcorn…* Cheers, RAH
On 2020-11-09 01:46, Robert Hettinga wrote:
...the President.
He’s gotten outta weirder shit than this.
*munches popcorn…*
Cheers, RAH
Trump has been preparing for unprecedented and extraordinary fraud for some time, and preparing for civil war for over a year. For a couple of days he was disturbingly shell shocked because so many fair weather friends deserted him, but he has assessed his remaining resources, and seems to be back in form. I think it will be impossible to separate the legitimate ballots from the midnight printed ballots in any one county, and the solution is to disallow those counties that cannot support the legitimacy of their pile of mystery ballots - which is likely to result in screams from the democrats that voters in those counties have been disenfranchised - that if there is even one legitimate vote mixed in to that strangely and unusually large pile of ballots, you have to count every ballot in the pile. The four am blue shift happened exclusively in states that were going to Trump when counting was mysteriously shut down and had Democratic administrations, and within those states happened exclusively in counties notorious for fraud even in a normal election.
On 09/11/2020 09:51, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2020-11-09 01:46, Robert Hettinga wrote:
...the President.
He’s gotten outta weirder shit than this.
Well he did have a good start - his dad Fred effectively gave him about 3 billion when he was alive through low interest loans, and left him another billion. 4 billion in Manhattan property at 1990 prices = about 20 billion today; yet he's either broke or nearly broke now.. It might be time to pay the piper now.
*munches popcorn…*
:)
Trump has been preparing for
s/for/an unprecedented and extraordinary fraud for
some time, and preparing for civil war for over a year.
Except I suppose it's not that extraordinary, Trump is well over 50% fraud anyway. Fraudulently claiming election fraud is a criminal offense. And it doesn't seem to be working. What odds he suicides before February? Peter Fairbrother
Hi Peter Fairbrother, On 11/9/20, Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
Peter Fairbrother
I'm just an exotic troll, but I wanted to share with you that I believe it is dangerous to reveal your legal name. I believe we need to set a norm of everyone using pseudonymous identities, and accessing networks via difficult-to-identify means. The reason is that there are a wide variety of community groups right now, looking for ways to break up and add stress to other community groups. If random people can't associate your name with things as easily, you, your community, and your work, are safer. What are your thoughts? Signed, - coerced-to-share-his-legal-name
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, November 9, 2020 12:33 PM, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
... I believe we need to set a norm of everyone using pseudonymous identities, and accessing networks via difficult-to-identify means.
The reason is that there are a wide variety of community groups right now, looking for ways to break up and add stress to other community groups. If random people can't associate your name with things as easily, you, your community, and your work, are safer.
What are your thoughts?
this is a great approach! the problem is: you need to begin this isolation *before* you need it. the typical scenario is using only modest protections, getting involved in activism, and then discovering your protections inadequate. once your activism and identity are compromised, it is *very* hard to undo the damage. you must *start over* with a new digital identity, adhering to operational security always. maybe move town, maybe move countries. even Barton Gellman had a hard time with this - always keeping his laptop with him like a digital albatross; always protecting passphrase input with blankets and towels; always separating untrustworthy files on isolated machines. and on and on and on and ... good luck! best regards,
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:19 PM coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, November 9, 2020 12:33 PM, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
... I believe we need to set a norm of everyone using pseudonymous identities, and accessing networks via difficult-to-identify means.
The reason is that there are a wide variety of community groups right now, looking for ways to break up and add stress to other community groups. If random people can't associate your name with things as easily, you, your community, and your work, are safer.
What are your thoughts?
this is a great approach! the problem is: you need to begin this isolation *before* you need it.
For people to do that, we need an environment of spreading it, no? Also re-iterating that new people, without the resources of government surveillance, are recruited to find people of different persuasions and effect their lives.
the typical scenario is using only modest protections, getting involved in activism, and then discovering your protections inadequate.
I saw a zine in virginia a couple years ago, about new activists getting targeted. The targeters would focus on the areas without experienced activism; higher return. (i am not connected with activism these years)
once your activism and identity are compromised, it is *very* hard to undo the damage. you must *start over* with a new digital identity, adhering to operational security always. maybe move town, maybe move countries.
I used to find this easy to do on the internet, but never did it in face-to-face interactions. You have to tell people with confidence you have a different name. There are two concerns: if you are targeted, your communities could become targeted if you're not anonymous. This prevents their work. Meanwhile, if you become a critical worker among a targeted community, you could become targeted. This ruins your life forever.
even Barton Gellman had a hard time with this - always keeping his laptop with him like a digital albatross; always protecting passphrase input with blankets and towels; always separating untrustworthy files on isolated machines. and on and on and on and ...
good luck!
How do you feel about spreading the message of not using your legal name? I took the opportunity to express this, because nobody else is.
best regards,
On 2020-11-09 22:09, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 09/11/2020 09:51, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2020-11-09 01:46, Robert Hettinga wrote:
...the President.
He’s gotten outta weirder shit than this.
Well he did have a good start - his dad Fred effectively gave him about 3 billion when he was alive through low interest loans, and left him another billion.
4 billion in Manhattan property at 1990 prices = about 20 billion today; yet he's either broke or nearly broke now..
Trump has six hundred millon in debt, and, according to you twenty billion in assets. Hence nineteen billion, and I think you are wildly under estimating his assets. Most of his assets are far beyond Manhattan. I can visit Trump facilities all over the world.
I think it will be impossible to separate the legitimate ballots from the midnight printed ballots in any one county,
because there wasn't any fraud. Trump is just a loser. He lost his first election and he lost this one as well. so one is trump ordering his armies to 'fight for justice'?
the real fraud is recording messages and spreading them everywhere as the 'current dialogue', instead of fostering discussions between all the voters and spreading the points they develop. usa votes are near 50% every year. if we were talking, we'd end up actually deciding on something. On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:52 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
I think it will be impossible to separate the legitimate ballots from the midnight printed ballots in any one county,
because there wasn't any fraud. Trump is just a loser. He lost his first election and he lost this one as well.
so one is trump ordering his armies to 'fight for justice'?
On Monday, November 9, 2020, 10:52:01 AM PST, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
I think it will be impossible to separate the legitimate ballots from the midnight printed ballots in any one county,
> because there wasn't any fraud. How do you know this? Maybe you can say, "we don't know if there has been fraud". But that's not the same thing.
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 00:39:24 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Monday, November 9, 2020, 10:52:01 AM PST, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
I think it will be impossible to separate the legitimate ballots from the midnight printed ballots in any one county,
> because there wasn't any fraud.
How do you know this? Maybe you can say, "we don't know if there has been fraud". But that's not the same thing.
actually I'm assuming there's been as much fraud as in the past and on both sides, so it cancels out/is irrelevant. On the other hand it should be obvious that trump 'partisans' screaming fraud are just a bunch of liars and sore losers. There's exactly 0 reasons to take their current accusations of fraud seriously, because THEY are political frauds. Yeah yeah, trump's going to 'drain the swamp' at any moment now. And look at what James wrote anyway. He says there was fraud but he can't tell which votes are fraudulent. He wants people to believe in X while explicitly admiting that he can't prove X. Come on.
Hi Robert Hettinga, On 11/8/20, Robert Hettinga <hettinga@gmail.com> wrote:
Cheers, RAH
I'm just an exotic troll, but I wanted to share with you that I believe it is dangerous to reveal your legal name. I believe we need to set a norm of everyone using pseudonymous identities, and accessing networks via difficult-to-identify means. The reason is that there are a wide variety of community groups right now, looking for ways to break up and add stress to other community groups. If random people can't associate your name with things as easily, you, your community, and your work, are safer. What are your thoughts? Signed, - coerced-to-share-his-legal-name
participants (7)
-
coderman -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
jim bell -
Karl -
Peter Fairbrother -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 -
Robert Hettinga