Crayfish3348's comments

It might depend upon how much real-time attention would be needed by the alleged hackers, on voting day.

"With the ePollbooks connected to the internet, it would have been possible to hack into the system and, using voter profiles of each registered voter who had been checked into a polling station, determine which candidate was gaining in each state. In the final hours, it would have then been possible, using the secondary pollbook created by the $1 million sweepstake, to determine which Trump voters had not shown up and mark enough of them on the ePollbook as having voted. These become the bullet ballots."

https://www.planetcritical.com/p/cyber-security-experts-warn...

A bullet ballot is when a voter casts a vote for president and makes no other selections on the ballot, such as for a senator or congressperson ("down-ballot" voting). A bullet ballot contains one vote and one vote only, for president. In presidential races since 1980, bullet ballots have rarely accounted for more than 1% of the total votes, including Trump’s winning 2016 election and losing 2020 election. 2024 is different.

In the election this month, for 43 states, bullet ballots made up the typical >1%. In the seven swing states however, 600,000 votes for Donald Trump were bullet ballots. In NC alone, 350K votes for Trump were bullet ballots or drop-off votes, comprising 11% of Trump’s winning total. In AZ, such votes comprised 7.2% of Trump’s total. In NV, 5.5%.

Trump's sweep of all seven swing states has resulted in a computer entrepreneur named Stephen Spoonamore saying that the numbers demand scrutiny. He cites an open letter to Kamala Harris, signed by computer experts, also pointing out the historically unprecedented numbers and asking that officials recount the votes to verify the results.

The deadline for requesting a recount in NC is today Nov 19 at 5PM Eastern Standard Time.

A book came out in August 2024 called "Soda Science: Making the World Safe for Coca-Cola," by Susan Greenhalgh. She's a professor (emeritus) at Harvard. The book is a history. It shows how the Coca-Cola Company turned to "science" when the company was beset by the obesity crisis of the 1990s and health advocates were calling for, among other things, soda taxes.

Coca-Cola "mobilized allies in academia to create a soda-defense science that would protect profits by advocating exercise, not dietary restraint, as the priority solution to obesity." It was a successful campaign and did particularly well in the Far East. "In China, this distorted science has left its mark not just on national obesity policies but on the apparatus for managing chronic disease generally."

Point being, the science that Coca-Cola propagated is entirely legitimate. But that science itself does not tell the whole, obvious truth, which is that there is certainly a correlation in a society between obesity rates and overall sugar-soda consumption rates. "Coke’s research isn’t fake science, Greenhalgh argues; it was real science, conducted by real and eminent scientists, but distorted by its aim."

"Trust the science" can thus be a dangerous call to arms. Here's the book, if anybody's interested. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo221451...