My exclusive morning conversation with Grok - which cuts to the heart of the matter and puts fraudsters on notice. Can we call Grok to testify at the trials?
That Captain, was my first reading from AI, that I am aware of, and I laughed like I did in pac-man era, watching a digital baseball game. Thanks for sharing, even though GROK can spit out responses in unbelievable time, analysis from countless sources, My Bet Is Still On You Captain, you will get it right.
Seth, that is the most amazing analysis I have ever read after 50,000 + hours of research in to their election crimes…. a few weeks ago, I gave a Captain K subscription to my Henrico County, VA supervisor - remember how they smeared and feared you - thank you for leading us through their jungle of corruption…..GM
Congress has the authority to establish rules for Federal elections. How much do we (Grok and I) have to pay to get you to write your own Federal election law - one that assures the essential promise of the 14th Amendment of 1 citizen=1 Federal vote? If you wrote down Keshel's Law (ink on paper, not typing; it would guarantee that you kept things as simple and direct as possible), three things would instantly happen: (1) you could stop verbally litigating the past, (2) you could share your real expertise about voting systems as a neutral expert, and (3) you might even escape Paine's financial dilemma of getting no royalties for writing Common Sense.
I’m the EIC Chair for a small county in corrupt Washington state. I just read this substack post - from top to bottom. I can’t believe I read the whole thing, but it was that interesting.
As I understand it, elections/voting is gifted to us by our Federal Constitution and then each state governs voting within its own constitutions and then, at least in our state, each county Auditor processes elections any way they please (e.g., some more transparent than others).
My take on what I read (the common denominator) is that, in my opinion, states should be governed by very STRONG FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS, that make elections more universal and less of a circus — limit the control these state ringmasters (AG, SOS, Governor) have over our federal rights to fair, honest and transparent elections.
Trump and Bondi have their work cut out for them, but finding the loopholes that give them more power over how states conduct elections might be a start. Maybe not legally feasible, but I’m an optimist.
Gayle, thanks for the comment and your valuable insight. I’m speaking as keynote for Benton Co on 5/17 at their Lincoln Reagan dinner. Maybe you should get me set up to address you guys and we can have lots of people there for the festivities!
I do worry about Federal (micro) management of state elections though. I have a question I always force myself to scratch whenever I get that "there oughtta be a law" itch: "would I want to give this power to my worst adversaries?"
You see my point, I am sure. Once we open the door to Federal supremacy in state election law, how will we stop the Other Side from twisting that knife around in ways we won't like?
Like Thomas More, I'd much prefer to keep hiding in the thickets of the law rather than bringing the Federal scythe in to cut them down. Let's stick to reforms that are clearly and unambiguously within the Federal purview, or we may yet live to regret it.
I don't know if you are aware of it, but the Florida 2000 fiasco provided a very useful unplanned experiment which you may want to examine for yourself.
At that time each of Florida's counties (IIRC there are 62) had the authority to determine the type of machines they used. During the 2000 elections, there were six separate and distinct types of machines in use, including (among others) the infamous punch-card machines (the ones with the "hanging chads") and my preferred method, which I refer to as the "SAT system" (that's the one where you fill in the ovals with a black felt-tip and then your ballot is optically scanned).
Turns out that the "SAT system" had the lowest error rate of any of the six systems (about 0.25 percent) while the punch-card system had the highest (IIRC around 2-3 percent, I don't remember the exact figure).
One of the features of the optical-scan system was that the scanner would reject your ballot if it had stray markings in the wrong places, and it was possible to correct that...again, it's been a quarter-century and I don't remember the details. However this significantly decreased the error rate as "spoiled ballots" could be cured on the spot.
Unrelated to the above: In the Commonwealth of Virginia, state law required that there be election monitors from both major parties at every voting location. Voting or vote counting without monitors from one of the parties was a violation. So at least you avoided the "let's kick all the Republicans out of the room and then we'll count" syndrome. So you might want to add that to your portfolio of proposals.
I do not know if any of this would help you advance the ball but I bring it to your attention in the hope it might be helpful. Either way, my prayers are with you! :-)
Interesting. However, Grok's reasoning is flawed. The arguments against hinge on Grok's undisclosed assumption that the the news articles reporting problems and errors are all completely correct and unbiased.
I probably will never trust AI. It has all of the biases that its programmers have, plus its programmed to sell itself so honest criticism is unlikely, at least less likely. Unlike human intelligence it cannot think for itself, only the way it is programmed to think.
That Captain, was my first reading from AI, that I am aware of, and I laughed like I did in pac-man era, watching a digital baseball game. Thanks for sharing, even though GROK can spit out responses in unbelievable time, analysis from countless sources, My Bet Is Still On You Captain, you will get it right.
Seth, that is the most amazing analysis I have ever read after 50,000 + hours of research in to their election crimes…. a few weeks ago, I gave a Captain K subscription to my Henrico County, VA supervisor - remember how they smeared and feared you - thank you for leading us through their jungle of corruption…..GM
Thanks so much for the high praise, Geoff - I still have a major axe to grind with Henrico and maybe should air it out again.
Can I access a recording of the live videos, Seth?
Congress has the authority to establish rules for Federal elections. How much do we (Grok and I) have to pay to get you to write your own Federal election law - one that assures the essential promise of the 14th Amendment of 1 citizen=1 Federal vote? If you wrote down Keshel's Law (ink on paper, not typing; it would guarantee that you kept things as simple and direct as possible), three things would instantly happen: (1) you could stop verbally litigating the past, (2) you could share your real expertise about voting systems as a neutral expert, and (3) you might even escape Paine's financial dilemma of getting no royalties for writing Common Sense.
My endorsement is for the MESA legislation. It covers most of the best above but not voter registration.
I’m the EIC Chair for a small county in corrupt Washington state. I just read this substack post - from top to bottom. I can’t believe I read the whole thing, but it was that interesting.
As I understand it, elections/voting is gifted to us by our Federal Constitution and then each state governs voting within its own constitutions and then, at least in our state, each county Auditor processes elections any way they please (e.g., some more transparent than others).
My take on what I read (the common denominator) is that, in my opinion, states should be governed by very STRONG FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS, that make elections more universal and less of a circus — limit the control these state ringmasters (AG, SOS, Governor) have over our federal rights to fair, honest and transparent elections.
Trump and Bondi have their work cut out for them, but finding the loopholes that give them more power over how states conduct elections might be a start. Maybe not legally feasible, but I’m an optimist.
Thanks for a great article.
Gayle, thanks for the comment and your valuable insight. I’m speaking as keynote for Benton Co on 5/17 at their Lincoln Reagan dinner. Maybe you should get me set up to address you guys and we can have lots of people there for the festivities!
I do worry about Federal (micro) management of state elections though. I have a question I always force myself to scratch whenever I get that "there oughtta be a law" itch: "would I want to give this power to my worst adversaries?"
You see my point, I am sure. Once we open the door to Federal supremacy in state election law, how will we stop the Other Side from twisting that knife around in ways we won't like?
Like Thomas More, I'd much prefer to keep hiding in the thickets of the law rather than bringing the Federal scythe in to cut them down. Let's stick to reforms that are clearly and unambiguously within the Federal purview, or we may yet live to regret it.
I don't know if you are aware of it, but the Florida 2000 fiasco provided a very useful unplanned experiment which you may want to examine for yourself.
At that time each of Florida's counties (IIRC there are 62) had the authority to determine the type of machines they used. During the 2000 elections, there were six separate and distinct types of machines in use, including (among others) the infamous punch-card machines (the ones with the "hanging chads") and my preferred method, which I refer to as the "SAT system" (that's the one where you fill in the ovals with a black felt-tip and then your ballot is optically scanned).
Turns out that the "SAT system" had the lowest error rate of any of the six systems (about 0.25 percent) while the punch-card system had the highest (IIRC around 2-3 percent, I don't remember the exact figure).
One of the features of the optical-scan system was that the scanner would reject your ballot if it had stray markings in the wrong places, and it was possible to correct that...again, it's been a quarter-century and I don't remember the details. However this significantly decreased the error rate as "spoiled ballots" could be cured on the spot.
Unrelated to the above: In the Commonwealth of Virginia, state law required that there be election monitors from both major parties at every voting location. Voting or vote counting without monitors from one of the parties was a violation. So at least you avoided the "let's kick all the Republicans out of the room and then we'll count" syndrome. So you might want to add that to your portfolio of proposals.
I do not know if any of this would help you advance the ball but I bring it to your attention in the hope it might be helpful. Either way, my prayers are with you! :-)
Interesting. However, Grok's reasoning is flawed. The arguments against hinge on Grok's undisclosed assumption that the the news articles reporting problems and errors are all completely correct and unbiased.
Captain I have been in awe over your work since you started doing this...but I have to say I'm in awe over Grok after reading this!
I probably will never trust AI. It has all of the biases that its programmers have, plus its programmed to sell itself so honest criticism is unlikely, at least less likely. Unlike human intelligence it cannot think for itself, only the way it is programmed to think.
Wow. I really do love the hard hitting analytics, but not many have the time for it.