The Harris/Walz Campaign Seem To Be Busing The Same People To All Her Rallies.

[Lynyrd Skynyrd]

Of the 5,003 mobile devices at Harris's post-debate rally in North Carolina, 3,600 originated from Georgia. The majority were from Atlanta, while just under one-sixth were from Savannah.
Data expert Tony Seruga shed further analysis on this trend; of the 5,000 mobile phones present at the Charlotte rally, around 90% have attended three others so far this campaign. More than half (54%) were even at rallies in Arizona and Nevada.

https://discernreport.com/data-expert-sh...o-rallies/

[DBCowboy]

Harris/Walz couldn't pack a phone booth.

In my humble opinion.

[Lynyrd Skynyrd]

Harris/Walz couldn't pack a phone booth.

In my humble opinion.

Are the the OG Cowboy? Have you seen the denyignorance forum, as well?

[DBCowboy]

Harris/Walz couldn't pack a phone booth.

In my humble opinion.

Are the the OG Cowboy? Have you seen the denyignorance forum, as well?

Yes and yes.

 

[Maxmars]

I say let them.

If this is what they must do to offer an "appearance" of support, then let them.  It only confirms the weakness of their run...

Ask yourself "Who are they fooling?" 

The media?  Who cares?... The media has spent almost the entire last decade demonstrating for the world to see that they are simply a tool of their party... 
The media can broadcast whatever they like, it's a free country...
No one with half a brain need worry about what "they" think anymore... too many crafted 'appearances' have destroyed their credibility anyway.

[Lynyrd Skynyrd]

I say let them.

If this is what they must do to offer an "appearance" of support, then let them.  It only confirms the weakness of their run...

Ask yourself "Who are they fooling?" 

The media?  Who cares?... The media has spent almost the entire last decade demonstrating for the world to see that they are simply a tool of their party... 
The media can broadcast whatever they like, it's a free country...
No one with half a brain need worry about what "they" think anymore... too many crafted 'appearances' have destroyed their credibility anyway.

It's important to expose the mendacity of the Harris/Walz team, but none of it is illegal. About 50% of the registered voters are low-information individuals, and are still programmed by the legacy media, so this widespread media/deep state psyop is somewhat effective.

[quintessentone]

Did you check out Tony Segura's bio? "My partners and I have been lifetime data scientists. We own the digital ID of every mobile device/computer in the U.S. and have indexed and archived every IP address in the world. Our extensive experience in big and deep data, including geotracking and geolocation makes our dozens of data companies the top authority for providing data to corporations, law enforcement and U.S. government agencies like the CIA, NSA, DoD, DIA, NGA, NRO, FBI, as well as Interpol and foreign intelligence organizations."

That does not make what people say on twitter credible.

On a similar subject though...   I think that anybody who has done bad criminal activity on the internet.... even using VPN,....  even using encryption....  should be worried right now.

All of that information is saved, and law enforcement is breaking the encryption with quantum computers right now, and back tracking the VPN to your IP.

He's posted his professional credentials on LinkedIn. There are ways to check out people on Twitter, and test their credibility. He sets up geo-fences and does an analysis of the devices that are broadcasting. There are also published reports of people traveling on buses to a series of Kamala Harris rallies and being paid $100/day.

There is a big difference as to professional credibility vs. biased posting.

I'm not sure that understand your point. Are you suggesting that a digital data specialist, who sets up geo-fences professionally is a liar? Are you saying he didn't capture all those Harris rally cell signals, and didn't analyze them honestly?

Did you want to get into a discussion about inserting one's biases into one's analysis of anything and everything?

[Lynyrd Skynyrd]

That does not make what people say on twitter credible.

On a similar subject though...   I think that anybody who has done bad criminal activity on the internet.... even using VPN,....  even using encryption....  should be worried right now.

All of that information is saved, and law enforcement is breaking the encryption with quantum computers right now, and back tracking the VPN to your IP.

He's posted his professional credentials on LinkedIn. There are ways to check out people on Twitter, and test their credibility. He sets up geo-fences and does an analysis of the devices that are broadcasting. There are also published reports of people traveling on buses to a series of Kamala Harris rallies and being paid $100/day.

There is a big difference as to professional credibility vs. biased posting.

I'm not sure that understand your point. Are you suggesting that a digital data specialist, who sets up geo-fences professionally is a liar? Are you saying he didn't capture all those Harris rally cell signals, and didn't analyze them honestly?

Did you want to get into a discussion about inserting one's biases into one's analysis of anything and everything?

Maybe you don't understand the technology? A cell phone has an unique identity. If it connects to a cell signal source a record exists. There is no room for bias in the analysis. Either the record exists or it doesn't.

[Lynyrd Skynyrd]

Harris buses moving supporters from Massachusetts to attend New Hampshire rally.

https://loudobbs.com/news/kamala-harris-...lly-video/

[Blaine91555]

I have been thinking today...   Sure, I am against the US Government Censoring ideas, but if it comes from Russia, would that be a bad thing?

I think a line can be drawn there.

Free speech is a prerequisite for freedom. You can't have one without the other. It does not matter what political group a person aligns with, free speech is the most important of our Rights.  Russia's tinkering is nowhere near as dangerous as using them as an excuse for the government to censor speech.

If we are concerned, the answer is education, not censorship. If we teach our children how to think instead of what to think, anything Russia or any other country does online would be meaningless.