Tag Archives: technical glitch

Altering Headlines

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Zero Hedge posted an article about a campaign tactic being used by the Harris, Walz campaign that is very misleading.

The article reports:

Despite corporate media’s unabashed u-turn to support Kamala Harris, her campaign has been busted creating made-up headlines next to the names of real news outlets to trick people into thinking they’ve stumbled upon the real thing, Axios reports.

The article includes a few screenshots of the fake headlines:

Just for the record, President Trump has made it very clear that abortion is a states’ issue. It falls under the Tenth Amendment. Roe vs. Wade was unconstitutional because of the Tenth Amendment, and any effort to ban abortion nationwide would be unconstitutional for the same reason. The issue of abortion is left to the states, so that the voters in each state can choose. I will say that I think it is criminal that abortion is a billion-dollar industry selling aborted baby body parts, but each voter has the right to evaluate that fact.

The article concludes:

Meanwhile, according to Google’s ad transparency center, the Trump campaign isn’t running these types of ads – and says that because ads on Search are prominently labeled as “Sponsored,” they’re “easily distinguishable from Search results.” A Google spokesperson added “we’ve provided additional levels of transparency for election ads specifically.”

Nevermind that news outlets pay to promote their own articles all the time.

And nevermind that there was a “glitch” which hid the ad disclosure.

A source familiar with the Harris campaign’s ads team said the campaign buys search ads with news links to give voters searching for information about Vice President Harris more context.

      • The campaign has complied with all of Google’s rules, although a technical glitch in Google’s Ad Library made it appear as though some ads lacked the necessary disclosures Google requires when they ran. (A Google spokesperson confirmed the glitch and said it’s investigating what happened.)
      • “Election advertisers are required to complete an identity verification process and we prominently display in-ad disclosures that clearly show people who paid for the ad,” the spokesperson said. -Axios

That said, according to Google the ads don’t violate its rules – however other platforms have taken action against such deception. Facebook, for example, banned advertisers from editing text from Instant Article news links in their ads in 2017, citing its “continuing efforts to stop the spread of misinformation and false news.” 

A candidate so good they have to deceive voters…

If the polls really show that they are winning, why are they cheating?

Vote Flip?

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Gateway Pundit reported on a voting problem in Cherokee County, Kansas. The original results of the election had to be changed when it was discovered that a voting machine had erroneously assigned votes to the wrong candidate due to a computer glitch.

The article reports:

Nothing to see here, folks.  Just a human error, technical glitch, or “we caught it in time”.  Those are the excuses we hear every single time.  Every time.  Antrim County, Dekalb County, Williamson County, Windham, NH.  The list goes on and on and on of jurisdictions that have some “human error” or “technical glitch” that causes votes to flip, change or swap.

Enter our latest example:  Cherokee County, Kansas.  Not to be confused with Cherokee County, GA that recently went against the will of their constituents by refusing to conduct a hand recount and sided with highly questionable legal guidance from a conflicted attorney who used to work for the Secretary of States Office that is being called into question.

Cherokee County, KS’s election was held last Tuesday on August 2nd. During a post election audit, they discovered that the thumb drives used in the election flipped the votes cast for District 1 County Commissioner Myra Frazier and instead gave them to her opponent, Lance Nichols, who was initially declared the winner.

The article concludes:

How did these machines pass the Logic and Accuracy Test?

Well, according to KOAM News:

Officials say the drives worked properly during testing, however, the malfunction was detected after the voting process.

Can these machines be programmed to act appropriately during a Logic and Accuracy Test?  Last week, we saw a small county in Michigan have major discrepancies with the ballots.  It was, once again, chalked up as <insert lame excuse here>.  But the real question that should have been asked, and should be asked in all these examples:

How do they pass the Logic and Accuracy Test?

Or is the L&A test just smoke and mirrors to give us a warm gooey feeling that the machines are doing exactly what they should be.

We need to put in place the purple fingers of Iraq and the hand-counting of ballots. It will take longer, but I think most people would be more inclined to trust the results.