Another election conspiracy theory...

[seer]

It was on Monday that The New York Times ran an article claiming that "election deniers" had made Konnech the center of a "conspiracy theory." The article claimed that these "election deniers" had used "threadbare evidence" to suggest that Konnech "had secret ties to the Chinese Communist Party and had given the Chinese government back door access to personal data about two million poll workers in the United States."


Oops...

CEO of US election software firm Konnech arrested for storing data on servers in China

Eugene Yu, the CEO of the software firm Konnech, has been arrested in connection to the storage of data on servers in China.

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaki...rvers-in-china

[Sparko]

[seanD]

In one day...




NYT on the job conveying impartial political facts as usual.

[Mountain Man]

Does Hunter's laptop have any emails from China promising they'll do everything they can to help the big guy win the election?

[Ronson]

I don't even want to click on NYT anymore. If you can get an article title, I can probably find it on archive.today and link that here.

[rogue06]

310936731_10229692586120674_8291307814117964947_n.jpg

[Ronson]

The deciding factors for me on conspiracy theories are
(1) Are the gains worth the risks?
(2) How many people would need to be involved? The more people, the more likely to fail or be exposed
(3) How complicated is it? People are generally too stupid to pull off anything very complex.
(4) Am I entertaining this conspiracy theory because of incredulity?

The last one had me second-guessing the conspiracy theory that Trump was "robbed" of the 2020 election victory. It seemed impossible that he would lose based on everything that I witnessed. But in order for there to be a coordinated conspiracy that involved numerous states and precincts and gobs of people, it just couldn't have been pulled off. I am convinced that I witnessed some shenanigans, but I now believe it was localized and not far-flung enough to affect the outcome. Still, safeguards need to be implemented now so we don't have any doubts in future national elections. I mean, the same doubts were circulating in 2016, so this needs to be addressed.

[NorrinRadd]

The deciding factors for me on conspiracy theories are
(1) Are the gains worth the risks?
(2) How many people would need to be involved? The more people, the more likely to fail or be exposed
(3) How complicated is it? People are generally too stupid to pull off anything very complex.
(4) Am I entertaining this conspiracy theory because of incredulity?

The last one had me second-guessing the conspiracy theory that Trump was "robbed" of the 2020 election victory. It seemed impossible that he would lose based on everything that I witnessed. But in order for there to be a coordinated conspiracy that involved numerous states and precincts and gobs of people, it just couldn't have been pulled off. I am convinced that I witnessed some shenanigans, but I now believe it was localized and not far-flung enough to affect the outcome. Still, safeguards need to be implemented now so we don't have any doubts in future national elections. I mean, the same doubts were circulating in 2016, so this needs to be addressed.

It doesn't take a "conspiracy" in a formal sense to believe that Big Tech and Mainstream Media functioned as information gatekeepers in a way that made sufficient difference in key close races to decide the election for Brandon -- not necessarily because of any collusion or conspiracy in the technical sense, but because they were all just like-minded.

As I understand it, the difference was about 40,000 votes in key districts in key States.

[seanD]

The deciding factors for me on conspiracy theories are
(1) Are the gains worth the risks?
(2) How many people would need to be involved? The more people, the more likely to fail or be exposed
(3) How complicated is it? People are generally too stupid to pull off anything very complex.
(4) Am I entertaining this conspiracy theory because of incredulity?

The last one had me second-guessing the conspiracy theory that Trump was "robbed" of the 2020 election victory. It seemed impossible that he would lose based on everything that I witnessed. But in order for there to be a coordinated conspiracy that involved numerous states and precincts and gobs of people, it just couldn't have been pulled off. I am convinced that I witnessed some shenanigans, but I now believe it was localized and not far-flung enough to affect the outcome. Still, safeguards need to be implemented now so we don't have any doubts in future national elections. I mean, the same doubts were circulating in 2016, so this needs to be addressed.

But we know there was a conspiracy to get Biden elected. The laptop is proof positive the election was rigged based on unethical behavior between multiple powerful and influential groups and people. We also know there was a conspiracy in 2017 to get Hillary elected based on unethical behavior between multiple powerful and influential groups and people.

[rogue06]

It doesn't take a "conspiracy" in a formal sense to believe that Big Tech and Mainstream Media functioned as information gatekeepers in a way that made sufficient difference in key close races to decide the election for Brandon -- not necessarily because of any collusion or conspiracy in the technical sense, but because they were all just like-minded.

As I understand it, the difference was about 40,000 votes in key districts in key States.

maxresdefault (1).jpg

[Ronson]

It doesn't take a "conspiracy" in a formal sense to believe that Big Tech and Mainstream Media functioned as information gatekeepers in a way that made sufficient difference in key close races to decide the election for Brandon -- not necessarily because of any collusion or conspiracy in the technical sense, but because they were all just like-minded.

As I understand it, the difference was about 40,000 votes in key districts in key States.

I go with "like minded." Plus, there is a human trait to overlook or diminish the importance of something if it runs contrary to your overall sensibilities. Like Jared Kushner getting $2 billion from Prince Salman for his equity firm while Trump was president. The story barely made a blip in right-leaning news media for the same reason Hunter's laptop was ignored; in the vast scheme of things it didn't seem important to people who supported Trump. Not a conspiracy to cover it up, just a lack of interest in exploring it.

The big difference is the "mainstream media" is so heavily weighted to the Left that these tendencies appear like a conspiracy.

[Ronson]

But we know there was a conspiracy to get Biden elected. The laptop is proof positive the election was rigged based on unethical behavior between multiple powerful and influential groups and people. We also know there was a conspiracy in 2017 to get Hillary elected based on unethical behavior between multiple powerful and influential groups and people.

As in my response to NorrinRadd, I think this was mostly just like-minded people behaving predictably. I say "mostly" because occasionally things surface that can only be explained by people agreeing to some secret agenda. Like Bernie Sanders getting pushed aside in the DNC.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...s-2016-215774/

[firstfloor]

NYT latest:

Editors’ Note, Oct. 6: After this article was published, the chief executive of Konnech, Eugene Yu, was arrested in connection with an investigation into the possible theft of personal information about poll workers. In communications with The Times for this article, neither Mr. Yu nor a spokesman for Konnech said that the company was the subject of an investigation. They also asserted that all the company’s data was stored on servers in the United States; prosecutors in Los Angeles, who brought the charges against Mr. Yu, said that they had found some company data stored on servers in China. The Times is continuing to report on this story.


The top executive of an elections technology company that has been the focus of attention among election deniers was arrested by Los Angeles County officials in connection with an investigation into the possible theft of personal information about poll workers, the county said on Tuesday.

Eugene Yu, the founder and chief executive of Konnech, the technology company, was taken into custody on suspicion of theft, the Los Angeles County district attorney, George Gascón, said in a statement.

Konnech, which is based in Michigan, develops software to manage election logistics, like scheduling poll workers. Los Angeles County is among its customers.

The company has been accused by groups challenging the validity of the 2020 presidential election with storing information about poll workers on servers in China. The company has repeatedly denied keeping data outside the United States, including in recent statements to The New York Times.

[rogue06]

As in my response to NorrinRadd, I think this was mostly just like-minded people behaving predictably. I say "mostly" because occasionally things surface that can only be explained by people agreeing to some secret agenda. Like Bernie Sanders getting pushed aside in the DNC.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...s-2016-215774/

And yet those like-minded people also collude.

I've seen various charts showing how one after another various parts of the MSM started using the exact same words and phrases to describe various things, but if you want a smoking gun one need look no further than JournoList (a private Google Groups message board for discussing politics and the news media established by Ezra Klein who limited participation to several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics saying he excluded conservatives to keep conversations from degenerating into flame wars) incident in 2010 when it was revealed they they were discussing ways of explaining away or outright ignoring stories that were detrimental to Obama. IOW, colluding.

One of their primary goals appears to be to kill stories about Jeremiah Wright, Obama's radical, racist pastor for 20 years and who Obama praised in his memoirs and early campaign speeches.

Obama also credited Wright with introducing him to his Christian faith

The contributors were obsessed with finding ways of killing the Wright story, as it was reflecting negatively on Barack Obama. Chris Hayes, a top editor for The Nation and host of a daily program on MSNBC, encouraged his colleagues to avoid covering Wright because talking about it at all would hurt Obama.

Spencer Ackerman, one time associate editor at the New Republic and then part of the American Independent Institute (which funds liberal investigative journalism efforts which, as they say, exposes "the nexus of conservative power in Washington") went further making the following suggestion:

"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists"

And right after John McCain nominated Sarah Palin to be his running mate in 2008, members of JurnoList had one and only one concern -- how to take her down. The tone was more campaign war room than any newsroom.

"Okay, let's get deadly serious, folks," Ed Kilgore of the Washington Monthly wrote adding

"Sarah Palin's just been introduced to the country as a brave, above-party, oil-company-bashing, pork-hating maverick "outsider." What we can do is to expose her ideology."

Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama's non-official campaign would need to work hard to discredit Palin.

"This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn't say -- very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here -- scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away ... bang away at McCain's age making this unusually significant ... I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama]."

Suzanne Nossel, the executive director of PEN American Center, which ironically purports to defend free expression by writers and others (as long as they aren't conservative I guess) made the following suggestion:

"I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views."^[1]

Jonathan Stein then with Mother Jones was giddy about this approach writing:

"That’s excellent! If enough people -- people on this list? -- write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket."

Nick Baumann, then senior editor with Mother Jones and now senior enterprise editor at Huffington Post added: "Say it with me: ‘Classic GOP Tokenism’."

Chris Hayes, a writer for The Nation, wrote: "Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get."

I think it is pretty clear that these journalists and their friends were acting as an unofficial wing of the Obama campaign, and today they really don't even try to hide it.



1. Remember how when it was "Her Turn" how Hillary relied heavily upon the fact that she's a woman as the reason women should vote for her (her husband's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, even suggested that women who don't support Hillary are earning "a special place in Hell.")

[Ronson]

And yet those like-minded people also collude.

As far as seeing the same wording in different publications, that is also evidence of lazy news writing. When I worked at a newspaper, we'd get lots of "press releases" from various groups that had a tidbit of news but also wanting to promote something. Like, say NASA just got a big boost in funding. It would send out a press release all over the country announcing it, but some of the details about it were wrapped up in self promotion. Like "NASA received this $3 million grant after pioneering space flight-technology that is the envy of other nations." A lazy news writer just does a copy/paste and the promotion gets included, and also ends up looking just like another publication where the same thing occurred.