NOTE: This article is from more than 7 months ago.

Edit: I’m on my phone, so forgive any formatting snafus, but I just recently responded to a question about why that Substack post was removed for, and I think it is applicable here.

I’m a mod on c/politics. I don't speak for any of the other mods, and while I don’t recall interacting with your specific post, I’ll give you two reasons today that would likely be sufficient to me, for why I would have removed that post. (1) It’s an article to a Substack post, which isn't necessarily dispositive, but the author is unknown (at least to me), which is a ding against its credibility. (2) I don't know enough about the author's intent to know whether to characterize the article as mis- or dis-information, but I've been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect. Specifically, the author demonstrates ignorance of the technology and logistics involved in the administration of elections, along with different methods of verification.

And just to be clear, the 2024 election was not perfect and there was institutionalized voter suppression; however, that Substack post is not rooted in fact.

The response I got from that post was (the other person quoting me):

I’ve been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect.

This seems to be stating that we must accept what you say at face value without evidence. (End of the other person’s quote.)

To which I responded, and I would say is just as applicable here:

Okay, well here are some facts that you can confirm with anyone else who has been involved in election administration that support my point:

• The individual or group of individuals involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
• The technology involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
• The article completely skips over addressing how any of these changes wouldn’t be caught during count verification steps.

Those are three things undermining the article’s credibility that you can confirm for yourself. It’s spewing the same kind of bullshit theories that I heard about the 2020 election, and spent the years since, fighting. I didn’t like the outcome of the 2024 election either, but I know what I’m talking about.

The truth is worse.

That there's more people who want this (or at least did until they realised it meant their families being abducted by ICE) than people who didn't, and more people still who didn't give a fuck enough to bother voting.

That should keep them up at night more than vote rigging.

I'm just gonna say it: Everything about everyone involved in this administration screams people who are hired for their loyalty, not their skillsets.

The theory that they used Uninterruptible Power Supplies to modify the vote, and that they had enough people involved to pull this off, yet everyone kept their mouth shut, is not the level of competency I have seen from anyone in Trump's orbit.

As someone with a background in tech, I find it hard to believe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They can make up all the stories about they want in their own heads, until there's some proof of it, it's just as bullshit as Trump's claims of election fraud.

If Eaton pushed an update to those UPS units, it could have gained root-level access to the host tabulation environment—without ever modifying certified election software.

So yeah, we're gonna have to have a hell of a lot more to go on than "could have" here. Also I'm skeptical on the claim that Windows automatically trusts any connected UPS and skeptical about the "root level access" claim (including the fact that it is called administrator access on Windows, Windows doesn't have "root" accounts).

Part of the reason I'm skeptical on the root-level access claim regarding a UPS. If you could do this with any old UPS, this would make any and every UPS in existence a major attack vector to every computer and computer network in existence. I find it hard to believe that cybersecurity experts would have somehow missed this in the last 20 years that commercial level UPS's have been in use. That it was just somehow conveniently overlooked that you could override server administration with a UPS. I don't buy that.

EDIT: All this being said, I think a court case to reveal any evidence that is there is important. It's highly improbable but not impossible and so I hope the court case moves forward quickly.

This article was from right after the election, before Rockland county found that its votes didn't add up and the investigation that followed.

I'd be curious to see newsweeks update considering that information.

why does the title say left wing? musk and trump both admitted to it.

The people denying this are the same ones who screamed collusion the first time around, and this is infinitely more clear and obvious. Why are you so desperate to assert that trump won fair and square as it becomes clearer and clearer that isn't the case?

I'm just glad some of y'all are starting to realize, I remember getting banned from multiple communities for stating the obvious cx

OK, so let's prove it then.

Gather up the irrefutable concrete evidence and watch most of the people of this country either refute it or ignore it because, to them, the alternative is too difficult to face