Slashdot Mirror


Secret Service, DHS Scramble To Secure America's Election (yahoo.com)

Secret service agents rushed Donald Trump off a stage in Nevada Saturday night, CNN reports. "A scuffle could be seen breaking out in the audience, but it was not immediately clear what happened... Secret Service and police tactical units rushed in to detain a man [who] was then rushed by a throng of police officers, Secret Service agents and SWAT officers armed with assault rifles to a side room... A law enforcement official told CNN no weapon was discovered. The GOP nominee was apparently unharmed and returned to the stage minutes later to finish his speech." Meanwhile, an anonymous reader writes: "All but two U.S. states have accepted help from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to probe and scan voter registration and election systems for vulnerabilities, a department official told Reuters." Ohio is relying on the National Guard's cyber protection unit, while Arizona says they've held discussions with the FBI, DHS and state-level agents on cyber security. But in addition, "U.S. military hackers have penetrated Russia's electric grid, telecommunications networks and the Kremlin's command systems, making them vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the U.S. deem it necessary, according to a senior intelligence official and top-secret documents reviewed by NBC News."

American officials believe Russian hacking efforts will continue through 2018, according to the Wall Street Journal. "By hacking and dumping emails, Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it...to make us look no better than the Russian electoral system,'" said one senior White House official. Russia is also expected to extend their efforts toward elections in Europe.

215 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. Obviously, a failed time travel mission by BenJeremy · · Score: 4, Funny

    So close...

    1. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      not likely, she is currently losing.

    2. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Informative

      not likely, she is currently losing.

      Not according to the electoral college. Trump has to win Florida (could go either way), Ohio (went to Obama twice) and Pennsylvania (haven't gone Republican since 1988). If he doesn't win all three states, the election is over. Trump is on the way to becoming America's Biggest Looser.

    3. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by wasted · · Score: 1

      The gambling sites still have her winning. As the stock market hasn't changed appreciably, I believe businesses believe that little change will occur, which also points to another President Clinton. I expect the Clinton sequel to be as successful as The Matrix sequel, and I wasn't all that excited about the original.

      Or, I could be wrong.

    4. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      You're not wrong. His chances are very small, and never were that great. A lot of things have to go right for Trump for him to win, and I suspect all but his most fanatical supporters know that now.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everything you said is completely invalidated by the fact you can't even spell loser correctly.

    6. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      I expect the Clinton sequel to be as successful as The Matrix sequel ...

      Crash. Wham. I forgot how good that movie was. Too bad they didn't make any sequels.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Cosmodrome (available here if you subscribe https://www.netflix.com/title/... probably many other places if you don't) shows the Russians keeping pigs in their failed moon race rocket facility. Their leadership doesn't lose very gracefully.

    8. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The best thing about polls is that there are so many and they agree so rarely that you can pick any subset of them to prove anything you want.

    9. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Followed by FBI and AG announcing charges for treason, obstruction of justice, illegal firing of government employees of White House Travel Office, conflict of interest and using public office to direct White House Travel Office contract to friends who performed the same function when they were in Governor's Mansion, theft of government property, and pay-to-play with Clinton "Charity"

      Oh, and since she supported enabling private US citizens to sue a foreign Government for 9/11, the Osama Bin Laden family is suing Clinton for murdering him on foreign soil. Careful what you think is good for us, because others will do the same thing -- this is the failed policy and actions that have been a pillar of the Clinton's careers.

    10. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 3, Funny

      He's got a 34.2% chance according to 538. That's not small. That's why we need everybody to get there and vote for Hillary. Twice.

    11. Re: Obviously, a failed time travel mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's not the most direct path to victory for Trump.

      Most polls show Trump with a small lead in Ohio, though still within the margin of error. It's more likely than not that Trump will win Ohio.

      Georgia, Iowa, and Arizona are also considered toss-ups, but most polls show Trump with small leads in those states. For each of those states, it's more likely than not that Trump wins. They're within the margin of error, but Trump seems to be the likely winner in each.

      Let's assume that Trump wins Ohio, Arizona, Georgia, and Iowa. If he also carries Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada, he would have 269 electoral votes. This assumes, of course, that nothing crazy happens in Utah. In this instance, the election would go to the House of Representatives, with Trump being the likely winner.

      Maine has four electoral votes, two going to the statewide winner, and one for the winner of each congressional district. There's a larger margin of error in predicting individual districts, but there are indications that Trump is slightly ahead in the second congressional district of Maine. If he carries that along with each of the aforementioned states, that would give him 270 electoral votes.

      Recent polls show Trump with a small lead in Nevada, though early voting there probably favors Clinton. Nonetheless, RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight show Trump as having a small edge in Nevada.

      RCP shows Trump as having a small edge in recent polls in New Hampshire. However, 538 projects Clinton as being slightly more likely to win there than Trump.

      RCP shows Trump with a tiny edge in North Carolina, though well within the margin of error. He is also given justly slightly better than a 50-50 chance of winning there by 538.

      RCP shows Clinton with a small lead in recent polls of North Carolina, though well within the margin of error. However, 538 projects Trump with slightly better than also 50-50 chance of winning there.

      The most likely path to victory for Trump is to win Arizona, Iowa, Georgia, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, and the second district of Maine. None of these would be particularly crazy, considering the current polls and projections.

      Beyond that, Colorado may be the next best chance for Trump. Next on the list would be Pennsylvania. However, Clinton is projected to have slightly larger leads in those states. Michigan, New Mexico, and the two statewide electoral votes from Maine are still within the margin of error, but seem still less likely to go to Trump. If Michigan were to go to Trump, it's very possible that Wisconsin might follow, too. If the polls were really off that much, Virginia might also be in play. But all of this is getting quite unlikely.

      It's more likely than not that Clinton wins, but I think 538's projections of roughly 65%-35% are about right. I don't think Trump must get Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes to win, and I'm not sure that's the most likely scenario. That said, if Trump loses Florida, he'd probably have to win Pennsylvania and Colorado to have a chance. He'd need Pennsylvania if he loses North Carolina. And Colorado would suffice if he loses either New Hampshire or Nevada. If he lost New Hampshire and Nevada but carried Colorado and the second district of Maine, it would probably end up a tie.

    12. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Early mail-in ballot results are often not a good indicator of who is going to win a particular state.

    13. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, there are many problems with polls, including the margin of error, poor polling methods, unwillingness to release poll results that differ significantly from other polls, and inherent biases from how some polls are conducted. However flawed, they are still useful in projecting the outcome of an election. They're more accurate when you take an average of several recent polls, which is how RealClearPolitics generates their projections. This is taken further by FiveThirtyEight, which attempts to quantify the relative importance of individual polls, weighting them based on how recent they are, the sample size, and the historical accuracy of polls conducted by that firm, and quality of the firm conducting the poll. The estimates at FiveThirtyEight attempt to correct for inherent biases in some polls conducted by some firms. Because polling data can be sparse in some states, they also update their projections for individual states based on correlations with polls in other, similar, states and national polls. It's not perfect, but it probably reduces the amount of error in the estimate a bit. Just because polls are flawed doesn't mean they're useless. For example, FiveThirtyEight has an excellent record of projecting the outcome of individual states in prior elections, including many of the battleground states.

    14. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by sexconker · · Score: 1

      As the stock market hasn't changed appreciably,

      I've been losing about 1 % in most of my shit ever day that more Hillary emails hit the media.

      No Brexit style drop, but absolutely appreciable declines whenever the Donald shows signs of life.

    15. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by wasted · · Score: 1

      I have had a drink or two too many to reasonably explain the correlation between stock prices and candidate success, but let me try, anyway, as I get another beverage. And, of course, this is all just my opinion.

      Here goes. The Treasury bill is considered one of the safest investments. Money is incredibly safe in a treasury bill, and there will be some return on that investment. Investors will put money into other investments with higher risk, expecting higher return on that money. So, if an investor is going to get x percent return on a treasury bill, that investor would only invest in another stock if they were to get x+y percent return on a stock investment, where y is the additional return they would expect before investing in that stock.

      So, let's say the 1-year treasury bill has a 1 percent return, and the investor wants a 3% cushion to invest elsewhere. That means that the investor is looking for a 4 percent return on investment (ROI) annually. So, if the stock has an expected ROI of 4%, it is a break-even risk-wise with a treasury bill, and a $100 stock with a $4 ROI is an equivalent risk to the theoretical investor.

      Next, let's assume that the economy improves, so that treasury bills are paying 2%. That same stock with the same risk would now have to have an ROI of 5% for the investor to buy that stock. If the stock is expected to have the same dollar return, it is now worth only $80. The return on investment would be the same, but when the risk is compared to the risk of a treasury bill, the value is less. So, the improving economy results in a lower stock price due to the preceding dismal economy.

      As treasury bill rates are tied to the economy, eventually stock prices will fall in line and returns will increase when the economy has completely finished recovering, and treasury bill rates reflect a healthy economy.

      The other possibility would be that after the election, investors don't see any opportunities worth the risk, investments go to overseas stocks, and all of my few yards of fertile land become dedicated to growing food.

      I could have this wrong, and I hope any economists that see errors corrects me

    16. Re: Obviously, a failed time travel mission by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it will really be settled next week. If Trump loses he will claim it was rigged, and the GOP will never stop trying to impeach Clinton. If he wins, the claims of voter fraud have already been fueled by confirmed cases.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      The bad thing is that a lot of what they're saying is true. Provably true. It's gotten to the point that even if she wins she loses. She's going to start her presidency with a cloud of scandal. The majority of the people that are going to vote for her think she's a liar and corrupt....because she is. That's leaving out the 40 percent that just flat hate everything about her. It's going to start bad and then get worse. Once people start to dig into your history they don't stop and there's plenty of dirt there with no real need to invent it.

    18. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by khallow · · Score: 1

      Next, let's assume that the economy improves, so that treasury bills are paying 2%.

      That happened because the treasury bill dropped roughly 1% in value because they're moving money to some other investment, namely stocks.

      That same stock with the same risk would now have to have an ROI of 5% for the investor to buy that stock.

      Which is more likely to happen because the economy improved. You will see higher stock prices as a result.

    19. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by Z80a · · Score: 1

      If you murder Trump, pence wins, if you murder Hillary, kaine wins, mostly on the base of they not being Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

    20. Re: Obviously, a failed time travel mission by cain · · Score: 1

      ...and the confirmed cases this election are people trying to vote for multiple times for Trump because of his hyperbolic claims of rampant voter fraud.

      31 confirmed cases of voter fraud since 2000. 31 out of 1,000,000,000 votes cast. Voter fraud is a lie in the US.

    21. Re: Obviously, a failed time travel mission by Imrik · · Score: 1

      They're at the top of the list already.

    22. Re: Obviously, a failed time travel mission by Imrik · · Score: 1

      I would have more confidence in those numbers if there were actually checks for voter fraud. In my state at least illegal immigrants and convicted felons can vote without consequences as long as they're willing to lie and say they're eligible.

    23. Re: Obviously, a failed time travel mission by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Thirty one cases you say? I guess this non-exhaustive list of 430+ confirmed convictions of voter fraud must be wrong. I guess all those court decisions were faked...

      Not to mention we find report after report where dozens of ballots are sent to fictional people, where hundreds of ballots are "discovered" in an unsecured warehouse a month after the election and end up changing the results of the election, or where the dead continue to vote (and you know, it's hard to charge and convict a dead person for fraud).

      I'm sure you'll come back and say "438 is irrelevant, still a small number!" Great - so how many cases are actually needed for you to be concerned about it?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    24. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Not all the guns, not by a long shot.

    25. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      They just better be careful. Some gays have guns.

    26. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by laird · · Score: 1

      And most other analysts put Clinton 85-95% odds of winning. If you dig into 538's numbers, the polls average Clinton being up by 5%, and 538 shifts everything 2% in Trump's favor (their opinion: all polls are biased 2% towards Clinton, though it's not clear why they think so) then say that since it's only 3% gap, and individual polls typically have around a 3% "margin of error" for 95% confidence, it's possible that ALL polls are off by 3% in Clinton's favor. Mathematically true - but the odds of hundreds of polls all being off by the full margin of error in the same direction is not 35%, it's vanishingly small.

    27. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 1

      Which are based on polls that are under-sampling republicans, independents, or males by enough points to give her an edge.

      --
      Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
    28. Re: Obviously, a failed time travel mission by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      What poll is that based on? ;)

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    29. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Next time count secret service agents to determine amount of ammo to bring....

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    30. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Which are based on polls that are under-sampling republicans, independents, or males by enough points to give her an edge.

      I'm not talking about the popular vote. The electoral college map for 2016 is identical to 2008 and 2012. Hillary started off 268 electoral votes. Trump started off with 206 electoral votes. That meant that Trump had to perform better than McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 to have a chance at winning. Like everything else in this election, he blew that off too and will lose in a landslide.

    31. Re: Obviously, a failed time travel mission by mlyle · · Score: 1

      As others have already pointed out, this is not true-- there are more than 31 documented cases, and the controls to actually detect voter fraud in a way that we could consider "confirmed" or garner a conviction are very weak.

      I both A) have faith in our electoral system and B) think that there's a lot more cases of voter fraud that go undetected, but still not enough to tip over elections in anything but the most extreme circumstance... but... There's lots of smart people-- can't we figure out how to set up better controls so that we would actually know the rate and can prevent a fair bit more without unduly denying people participation in the election? Wouldn't it be better to KNOW?

    32. Re: Obviously, a failed time travel mission by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I have come to the conclusion that one of the reasons we do not have better controls in order to know the level of voter fraud is because a significant number of the people who would need to get behind implementing those controls desire some level of voter fraud. The reason I have reached that conclusion is because the arguments against controls designed to detect voter fraud are either that there is no reason to have such controls because we have never detected any significant amount of voter fraud or emotional (controls to detect voter fraud are racist, discriminate against the poor, etc). Which leads me to suspect that voter fraud occurs on a much higher level than I would have otherwise guessed.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    33. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Do you think they would go this far?

    34. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The bad thing is that a lot of what they're saying is true. Provably true. It's gotten to the point that even if she wins she loses. She's going to start her presidency with a cloud of scandal. The majority of the people that are going to vote for her think she's a liar and corrupt....because she is. That's leaving out the 40 percent that just flat hate everything about her. It's going to start bad and then get worse. Once people start to dig into your history they don't stop and there's plenty of dirt there with no real need to invent it.

      That's the notable part of this vote. BOTH candidates are hated by more people than are liked. Usually the candidates have higher likeability ratings, but the voting population hates both Clinton and Trump. The only reason Clinton is winning is they hate Clinton slightly less than Trump.

      It is expected that either candidate will be a 1-term president - the other side will simply pick a more likable candidate.

      Effectively, everyone is voting for who they hate least, not who they'd like.

    35. Re: Obviously, a failed time travel mission by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That sort of voter fraud is really inefficient. Making it hard for the people you dislike (typically ones who lean Democrat) is much more effective.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    36. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Alternately, make it hard for groups that favor your opponents to vote. The Republican way.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    37. Re: Obviously, a failed time travel mission by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      31 confirmed cases of voter fraud since 2000. 31 out of 1,000,000,000 votes cast. Voter fraud is a lie in the US.

      Which means absolutely nothing, because we have no way to detect voter fraud.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    38. Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Been watching the election results dude? I was wrong. It seems she's not going to win. It's probably the best thing that could have happened to her. I've changed my mind about her though. I don't want him to lock her up. Just let her fade away like an unpleasant memory.

  2. It was a guy with a sign by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Troll

    So, this would-be Dietrich Bonhoeffer turned out to be just a Republican with a sign. He has been released by the Secret Service. There was never a threat to Mr Trump.

    But I did notice that when Trump minced off the stage with the Secret Service the bone spurs that kept him out of the draft didn't seem to be bothering him.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:It was a guy with a sign by Xenographic · · Score: 2

      Bought media? You mean like Correct the Record and the other media we can see being in the bag thanks to Podesta's emails? Or are you going to repeat the lie that they're "altered" even though we have DKIM authentication from Google's servers (among others) for the relevant emails? Or like the Washington Post which held an illicit fundraiser with the DNC that their lawyers would "never" allow? I've linked to all of these previously many times.

      And if you want to talk about terrorists, you might want to see who has been destabilizing Syria for fun -
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      We wouldn't have a lot of this crap like the migrant crisis if they weren't trying to destabilize the area and take over.

    2. Re:It was a guy with a sign by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      I should also mention that someone was going on about assassinating Trump in the chat for that event just before this.

      So, honestly, it looks like another setup to me.

      Need to find whoever it was that started shouting about the gun.

    3. Re:It was a guy with a sign by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Need to find whoever it was that started shouting about the gun.

      It was Chris Christie.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:It was a guy with a sign by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the cleaning lady that was asked to print out e-mails so clinton could read them:

      http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/c...

    5. Re:It was a guy with a sign by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      Source?

    6. Re:It was a guy with a sign by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Source?

      Actually, I got that wrong. Now the news is reporting the first photographs of the woman who shouted "gun" at the Trump Reno rally last night:

      http://www.photoshoppix.com/mo...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. It was a guy with a sign ... by thrillseeker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... that said "Republicans Against Trump", and then some unidentified asshole yelled "gun!" and the crowd went wild - hope they find the asshole that yelled "Fire in a crowded theater" just for the hell of it, and hang his ass.

    1. Re:It was a guy with a sign ... by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      "whispering to people" - ye Gods, what was the man thinking - what's courteous discourse coming to?

    2. Re:It was a guy with a sign ... by quantaman · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ... that said "Republicans Against Trump", and then some unidentified asshole yelled "gun!" and the crowd went wild - hope they find the asshole that yelled "Fire in a crowded theater" just for the hell of it, and hang his ass.

      The reason that asshole yelled gun is because Trump regularly sicks his crowd on protesters (and the media), and has even directly endorsed violence against protesters. In this clip two of his supporters "took action" against a protester (if you jump to 4:00 it sounds like that includes punches) and Trump's reaction was to bring them on stage to thank and honour them.

      The guy who yelled gun probably probably thought Trump would congratulate him on the clever idea, and I'm not sure he was wrong.

      That's one of the ways authoritarians work, they don't need to do their own dirty work, they rely on their supporters for that. They just need to make sure their supporters know they're safe to break the rules in going after the enemy. And one thing Trump is pretty consistent on is not acting to restrain the extremists in his base.

      By contrast here's how a proper president handles a protester.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:It was a guy with a sign ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What happened to that campaign to allow guns at the rallies?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:It was a guy with a sign ... by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1
      Excerpt from a first hand account

      I'm a bit shaken still, but I wanted to get this out there: the crazy guy had a REPUBLICANS AGAINST TRUMP sign. He started shoving his way towards the front of the crowd. I was 3 people back from the front row and about 6 feet from this guy. He started to jump up and down and almost acting like a mosh pit.

      He was pushing and shoving people. He knocked people over, including elderly. Children were right there, too. You see trump shade his eyes twice as he watches what is happening and doesn't acknowledge it until the guy gets so violent that some men tackle him.

      This is when Trump made the comment about him being paid and to get him out. Many people fell over in the process. About 6 or more men restrained him, and in the process, one of those men got up and yelled that he had a gun. It took about 5 or 6 shouts before secret service heard and reacted.

      ...

      For those of you making light of the fact there was no gun -- hindsight is 20/20, but I[n] that insane moment things went in slow motion and dozens if not hundreds of us were in fear.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
  4. The summary forgot to mention something... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It doesn't help that someone shouted "gun" when the protester stood up with a sign.

    A Secret Service spokesperson said in a statement that an "unidentified individual" shouted "gun" in the audience, though no weapon was found after a "thorough search."

    1. Re:The summary forgot to mention something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Eyewitness accounts have him shoving people and making a huge amount of bullshit. He was waving a "Republicans against Trump" sign, but his name appears in the Stratfor documents on wikileaks, so he was probably another Democrat plant- "birddogging", they call it, as documented in the Project Veritas videos you inevitably don't believe even though you can see and hear them say it, or in the wikileaks emails where they discuss birddogging.

      If he had just "stood up with a sign", no one would have done anything. He made exactly as much of a ruckus as he needed to get the people around him to have the reaction that they did, and to have the Secret Service respond as they did. It's very likely that the person who yelled "gun" was also a Democrat plant, but that one we'll just have to guess about. This assclown we know for sure.

    2. Re:The summary forgot to mention something... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      A Secret Service spokesperson said in a statement that an "unidentified individual" shouted "gun" in the audience, though no weapon was found after a "thorough search."

      We now have photographs of the person who shouted "gun".

      https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:The summary forgot to mention something... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Standard practice at Standing Rock. I could have sworn that .38 handguns are not long thin cylinders made of wood.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. I wonder how they will target europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since at least in the Netherlands (and presumably in the rest of Europe) we don't use electronic voting and we require voter ID.

    1. Re:I wonder how they will target europe by GNious · · Score: 1

      There are places with electronic voting in the EU - Estonia was one of the first one to introduce it.

    2. Re:I wonder how they will target europe by RandomSurfer314 · · Score: 1

      They target Europe by thousands of trolls on forums and social media, which spread disinformation on a massive scale and link up with already existing protest-voter sentiments, and by financial and ideological support to right-wing groups. So far, it works amazingly well and I can only hope that authorities across Europe start to take actions against this. At least the botnets and fake media accounts should be destroyed more actively.

  6. Re:Jokes on them by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    The intellectuals, the technicians, the business people, even the nobility, have disentangled themselves from the and generally dampened the effects of the vote on themselves and even partake in the vote-selling for a little extra cash for that cool intellectually-pleasing bauble. Either that or engage in vote buying of their own directed at the candidate that promises them the coolest baubles. They aren't immune from wanting to pad their own accounts and believing that this is the best way to come out a little more ahead than they would previously.

  7. Re:There's already folks showing up to the polls by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I'm glad you're staying home.

    You're overlooking the fact that the OP has already voted by mail-in ballot and doesn't need to go in person to vote.

  8. Re:election is compromised by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I suppose if there's a therapy that can make you like skirts... https://www.youtube.com/result...

  9. And that's how it is done by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All but two U.S. states have accepted help from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

    I would much rather have someone that I trust helping than the D.H.S.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:And that's how it is done by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      All but two U.S. states have accepted help from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

      I would much rather have someone that I trust helping than the D.H.S.

      Just be thankful we're not getting the help from the TSA.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:And that's how it is done by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

      Who do you think runs the T.S.A.?

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    3. Re:And that's how it is done by bugs2squash · · Score: 1
      --
      Nullius in verba
  10. not in N.C. by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Funny

    In N.C. the feds struck down our law to require ID because it discriminated against those wanting to commit voter fraud.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re: not in N.C. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sure both individuals who will comit voter fraud are delighted.

    2. Re:not in N.C. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      In N.C. the feds struck down our law to require ID because it discriminated against those wanting to commit voter fraud.

      It was a bit more complicated than that. NC Republicans hired consultants and statisticians to analyse voting patterns, and then legislated restrictions on early voting, closed polling places in minority neighborhoods, and yes, instituted voter ID requirements. All of this was carefully planned and scientifically designed to suppress minority voting. Basically, NC Republicans Moneyballed racism.

    3. Re:not in N.C. by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Informative

      Voter fraud is extremely rare, and the courts are enforcing federal law that makes sure people like you can't use it for cover to disenfranchise minorities.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:not in N.C. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Rare would mean statistically insignificant, which is what voter fraud is. Unfortunately, other kinds of rigging, like targeting certain groups of minority voters and trying to prevent them from voting, is a bit more common, but I don't see any tears being cried over that by the alt-right delicate snowflakes who are so infantile that they have to spin tales of conspiracy because they're too emotionally unstable to accept that Trump was possibly the worst choice the Republicans could have made in a presidential candidate.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:not in N.C. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Arizona we require identification in order to vote. Strangely this law has not been struck down. It's almost as though it's common fucking sense to require everyone to provide ID.

      Or would you be totally fine with, say, Russian agents voting in our elections because nobody bothered to make sure they were citizens?

    6. Re:not in N.C. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Voter fraud is extremely rare, and the courts are enforcing federal law that makes sure people like you can't use it for cover to disenfranchise minorities.

      Not entirely.

      It's beyond doubt that a lot of mail-in votes, if they're not actually filled in by a spouse, are done with the spouse's supervision (probably the man) to make sure the right candidate is being chosen.

      Of course this kind of fraud is very hard to prove. And since mail-in voters are predominantly Republican no one is trying to suppress it.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:not in N.C. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2, Informative

      I applaud you sir! You have, in your mind, defined the problem so narrowly that you are only willing to see evidence that cannot possibly exist. You must've been paying attention in Gaslighting 101.

      I assure you that only diehard fanatics like yourself obsess over whatever activity you specifically define as "voter fraud". Most of us humans, however, are gravely concerned about honest and fair elections, and the threats are many, including voter fraud, election fraud, and whatever other forms of fraud could possibly interfere.

      Indiana

      California

      Florida (Note that the response to this was to send out 173,000 more blank ballots.

      More Florida

      Anyone that cares to spend a little time searching can probably find similar stories from nearly any state. Oh, and of course the Project Veritas Action videos show people discussing the mechanics of successful fraud, clearly from a position of personal knowledge.

      Keep in mind that a lot of this fraud is very hard to prove. In nearly every story, the people involved protest their innocence. Bank robbers caught in the act tend to do that too, of course, as do innocent people. A year from now, we'll know the extent of the fraud that was caught and prosecuted, and maybe have an idea of the fraud that was caught, but not prosecuted, and absolutely no idea how much fraud was not caught.

      Further info:

      Racist India

      Racist Mexico

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    8. Re:not in N.C. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      In N.C. the feds struck down our law to require ID because it discriminated against those wanting to commit voter fraud.

      So far, it looks like the only ones committing voter fraud are Republicans. From: Republicans and the Myth of Election Fraud

      Many of these voter-suppression measures have become law despite clear evidence that voter fraud is practically nonexistent.

      Recently, though, a fraud case did arise — though it wasn’t exactly the kind that Republicans have so loudly warned about.

      Last week, around the time when Donald J. Trump was in Iowa, the Des Moines police arrested a resident named Terri Lynn Rote on suspicion of voter fraud, a Class D felony in Iowa. Apparently persuaded by Mr. Trump’s rhetoric that the “system is rigged,” Ms. Rote, the police said, cast ballots for Mr. Trump at two early voting sites.

      In Florida, another crucial swing state where Mr. Trump has fumed about a vast conspiracy to rig the election against him, a poll worker in Miami, Gladys Coego, was accused of illegally marking ballots on behalf of a Republican mayoral candidate. She has also been arrested.

      Apparently, NC has been trying especially hard to suppress Democratic voters:

      Unfortunately, early voting in North Carolina has already demonstrated the need for greater voter-protection efforts. When the Fourth Circuit’s ruling late last summer required restoration of early voting hours, the chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, Dallas Woodhouse, sent a memo instructing Republican members of local election boards to make “party line” decisions in early voting plans. These orders were sent — and to a large degree carried out — despite the court’s statement that using race as a proxy for party “constitutes discriminatory purpose.”

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    9. Re:not in N.C. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Obama is encouraging illegals to vote in our election. I love the part about voter fraud being extremely rare. What a laugh. Ever been to Chicago?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:not in N.C. by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

      Lets be sure we all understand what has long been going on. For decades the Democrats were in power and set up voting districts. There was one insanely gerrymandered district that cut across a large portion of the state, and the Democrats were quite clear that they had done it for racial reasons. When the Republicans finally got power and drew up districts the Democrats claimed they improperly used race as a basis to create the districts, and Democratically controlled federal courts sided with them. See anything strange there?

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    11. Re:not in N.C. by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Try here for the ruling Judge's commentary on clear intent with "surgical precision" for suppression of minority votes.

    12. Re:not in N.C. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Rare would mean statistically insignificant, which is what voter fraud is.

      You're fucking retarded if you don't see why such a statement is absurd.

      Hint: Successful voter fraud isn't detected and thus doesn't show up on statistics reporting about voter fraud (actually, it shows up on the other side, as legitimate votes, helping downplay the scale of voter fraud).

    13. Re: not in N.C. by LanceMcGrath · · Score: 1

      Letting people elect their own president has sometimes shown to do more harm than good as well, but I don't see anyone arguing against that. Voter ID is one of those common sense things that should be in place by default; if you're incapable of obtaining identification which most people have (state ID, drivers license, etc.) then perhaps you shouldn't be entrusted with a vote.

    14. Re:not in N.C. by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Scroll up. There are far more instances of voter fraud in favor of Democratic candidates.

      Using a puffed-up New York Times deflection piece (written and published in response to the revelations of the Democrats cheating, as referenced above) doesn't help your non-argument.

    15. Re:not in N.C. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Then stop using those fucking stupid Diebold machines and you won't have so much uncertainty.

    16. Re:not in N.C. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Successful voter fraud is easily detected. More votes than the register has listed as voting. Easy to find, and quite common. The response is: count all votes as valid, even when we know some of them are fraudulent. That's the real voter fraud. Throw out every one and require a re-vote. For the re-vote have more poll workers, and count the ballots on-site before moving them. When you move them and "mix" them in with the other votes before anyone knows what's happened, there are piles of places where fraud can happen.

    17. Re: not in N.C. by msauve · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure both individuals who will comit voter fraud are delighted."

      Not really, it didn't make any difference because neither Donald nor Hillary were registered to vote in NC.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    18. Re:not in N.C. by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      > Voter fraud is extremely rare

      Exactly how do we know that when we've made it nearly impossible to find unless the person doing it is a moron?

    19. Re:not in N.C. by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Anyone that cares to spend a little time searching can probably find similar stories from nearly any state. Oh, and of course the Project Veritas Action videos show people discussing the mechanics of successful fraud, clearly from a position of personal knowledge.

      Keep in mind that a lot of this fraud is very hard to prove. In nearly every story, the people involved protest their innocence. Bank robbers caught in the act tend to do that too, of course, as do innocent people. A year from now, we'll know the extent of the fraud that was caught and prosecuted, and maybe have an idea of the fraud that was caught, but not prosecuted, and absolutely no idea how much fraud was not caught.

      This happens every election cycle. Republicans claim they've found absolute proof of countless cases of voter fraud and the right wing media starts freaking out that the election was stolen!

      Then authorities investigate, and they find a bunch of administrative errors and no actual cases of ineligible people voting or voter impersonation, although sometimes a permanent resident will get confused while filling out paper work and end up registering to vote as well.

      Of course the right wing media doesn't actually follow up to let the audience know it was just a big misunderstanding, so the audience just goes on believing it was proven that the election was stolen.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    20. Re:not in N.C. by swb · · Score: 2

      Why is there a Republican conspiracy to prevent minorities from voting, but no Republican conspiracy to keep minorities off airplanes or any other location that requires positive ID?

      Frankly I'm more worried about the every day constraints on free movement than the periodic and de minimis reduction in voting.

    21. Re:not in N.C. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You links are all innuendo and speculation. Not one links to an actual investigation showing proof that fraud took place. That's because...

      Voter fraud really isn't a big problem. 31 probable cases out of over 1 billion votes cast.

      The precision with which they target African American voters is pretty shocking. For example, they researched various types of ID and then banned the ones most common with African Americans, only allowing the types that white people are more likely to have. They blocked early voting because African Americans were often motivated to vote by their church on a Sunday.

      These laws are not about stopping largely imaginary and totally insignificant fraud. Stop believing Trump, he doesn't have any evidence that its rigged against him or he would have requested a formal investigation. They are about stopping Democrats voting, by targeting certain groups, often by race.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:not in N.C. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Successful voter fraud is done in the open, on camera with voting sticks.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re: not in N.C. by swillden · · Score: 1

      Voter ID is one of those common sense things

      The great thing about calling something "common sense" is that it can be applied to absolutely anything. It doesn't have to correct, it just has to be a common belief and be able to survive a very shallow logical analysis. And, actually, it doesn't even have to all that common... you can also use it to describe something you'd like to portray as a common belief in the hope that it will become one.

      Common sense is neither common, nor sense. We should ignore it and instead focus on reasoned sense, based on solid data. And from that perspective there is absolutely zero evidence that voter ID is necessary... or even useful.

      if you're incapable of obtaining identification which most people have (state ID, drivers license, etc.)

      Mu.

      No one is saying people are incapable of obtaining identification, but there is a large minority of people who don't need identification in their daily lives, and therefore don't have it. Requiring them to obtain it solely for the purpose of voting places a large obstacle in front of them... especially if the government also "consolidates" DMV offices, closing the ones within easy reach of the people who don't have identification, which was also done in NC. Even without that step, it's a great way to discourage people from voting, to add one more (rather large) obstacle. How many people who have ID don't vote because they're too busy to make it to the polling place? Now tell them they have to first spend half of a day sitting in a DMV office several weeks beforehand. Oh, and that's half a day during working hours; so they have to take time off -- and the class in question does not get paid time off, so it's also expensive.

      The effect is not only predictable, it's measurable, and has been measured. There are many studies, actually, that article discusses only one of them.

      then perhaps you shouldn't be entrusted with a vote.

      You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that, much less saying it. If you're going to do that, why not limit the vote to male landowners, or have income level requirements, or IQ tests?

      The government should represent all of the people it governs, not just the ones you think are "worthy". I'll grant that there are other big problems with our achievement of that ideal, but that's no reason to add more.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    24. Re:not in N.C. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Even if we accept this evidence (I have not checked it), it doesn't prove widespread fraud.

      Presumably this evidence has been passed to the police, and if true they face a $10k fine and a few years in jail. For one extra vote. It's a pointless crime unless you can do it hundreds of thousands of times in the most closely watched swing areas.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:not in N.C. by swillden · · Score: 2

      See anything strange there?

      Nope. The Democrats used to be the party of the racists, which is why they controlled the deep south. Then LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed, and enforced it, which caused the racists in the deep south to switch to the Republican party... but the racists remained in control.

      So, nothing strange at all. The racists gerrymandered districts on a racial basis, regardless of which party they claimed to be in.

      Note that I'm not saying the Democratic party used to be racist, or that the Republican party is now. One particular (and large) voting bloc in the south is overtly racist, and that bloc embraced one party and then the other. Neither party rejected the power the racist bloc gave them.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    26. Re:not in N.C. by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Or so said a three-Democrat panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Shocking, really.

    27. Re:not in N.C. by Imrik · · Score: 1

      There's also the possibility of people registering when they aren't eligible to vote. Additionally, if someone is registered but isn't voting, someone else could vote in their place.

    28. Re: not in N.C. by Bartles · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lots of people are saying black people lack the ability to get identification. It's one of the glaring instances of racism perpetrated by Democrats.

    29. Re:not in N.C. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the authorities are sometimes honest, and you end up with a list of 438 convictions for voter fraud, as just a sampling of what's gone on. Never mind nearly 100 ballots for ficticious people being delivered to a single address this last week, no just an administrative mistake, pay no attention! And of course we cannot disenfranchise the dead, right?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    30. Re:not in N.C. by chispito · · Score: 1

      Voter fraud is extremely rare

      But what if it isn't?

      Don't get me wrong, I'm of this general opinion. But if we're wrong, how would we know?

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    31. Re:not in N.C. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There's also the possibility of people registering when they aren't eligible to vote.

      That's the real point of voter ID laws, right? I have multiple friend who came into the US illegally (none Mexican). Registering to vote is trivial. But getting an ID these days requires a SSN, ostensibly because white American deadbeat dads would commit ID fraud to get around child support requirements. But, since you require an SSN to get an ID, to prevent deadbeat dad fraud, then you can require an ID to vote, and thus require an SSN to vote.

      The simpler answer is always the best. Seems simpler to require an SSN to register. Done.

      Better yet, auti-register everyone who gets an ID, or registers for the Selective Service, or any other government service that requires citizenship.

      Expand Selective Service to all people male and female, and auto-enroll everyone on their 18th birthday in that, and local voting. Problem solved. Anyone who is naturalized will have their voter-registration filed with the naturalization. Problem solved.

      The problem of people voting for someone else is tiny. It's a felony you have to do in person. And if you go through the same polling station 10 times under different names, someone may notice. Since your vote is private, but whether you voted isn't, we could solve that problem with a face-recognition system.

      The easiest fraud is generating 10,000,000 mail-in votes for your candidate, and sending them all in under the names of everyone eligible to mail-in-vote. If they also mail-in-vote, you've, at worst, spoiled a random vote. If they vote in person, the mail-in is usually discarded. But if they don't vote, then your vote would be counted. And ID is never shown with mail-in-votes.

      But the fix to every vote-fraud currently in use is to abandon secret voting and go to open voting. When you can verify your own vote, you can raise an alarm if the vote is mis-counted. With the current system, your vote can never be known. Not even to you.

    32. Re:not in N.C. by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      > Voter fraud really isn't a big problem. [youtu.be] 31 probable cases out of over 1 billion votes cast.

      We've made sure it's really hard to actually catch people doing it. Putting on a blindfold and then saying you can't see a problem doesn't really prove much. Personally, I wish we'd do what they do in India and such when you vote--just ink one of your fingers with something that won't wash off.

    33. Re:not in N.C. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So you are saying there is all this fraud, secret shadowy organisations controlling everything through vote rigging. But they are so powerful, so good at it that there isn't any hard evidence, but also so incompetent they leave a trail that Trump fans on Reddit can follow

      Sounds like a classic conspiracy theory to me. Impossible to disprove, requiring massive conspiracies involving many thousands of people with little reason to keep quiet...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re:not in N.C. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I don't know, what if Elvis is still alive and there's an alien living on the dark side of the moon?

      Voter fraud has been studied. It simply isn't a significant factor in US elections.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    35. Re:not in N.C. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Or you could just admit voter fraud is rare.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    36. Re:not in N.C. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Speaking of voter fraud, Obama tells illegal invaders that it is safe to vote.

      paraphrased question: "I'm illegal. If I vote, will they come for my family and deport us?"

      Actual quote from his response: "When you vote, you are a citizen yourself"

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    37. Re:not in N.C. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      An argument made by people who oppose every effort designed to determine what the extent of voter fraud is. The reason that voter fraud appears to be very rare is that we have NO mechanisms in place to systematically detect if it is happening. Almost every time someone has tested whether voter fraud was possible in a given election they have discovered that it was possible and their efforts to prove it was possible have gone undetected.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    38. Re:not in N.C. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      In a closely divided nation it doesn't have to be common to be effective. At the right place and right time a few hundred votes out of millions can tip the fate of an election, create a majority, and suddenly 16% of your economy is under government control, along with major taxes and the result is the big problems now seen in the US.

      Rampant Voter Fraud Alleged In Minnesota

      Of course you stand with the faction engaging in fraud, and like the outcome, so we have that.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    39. Re:not in N.C. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Then LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed, and enforced it, which caused the racists in the deep south to switch to the Republican party... but the racists remained in control.

      False.

      The “Southern Strategy” Debunked Again

      You should think about it - LBJ got the Civil Right Act passed with the help of the people that had passed the previous ones - the Republicans. The people that tried to block it were Democrats. What sense would it make for racists Democrats to bolt for the party that had been mainly responsible for passing civil rights legislation for a century? You've fallen for a narrative, not history.

      The Party of Civil Rights

      Also, this makes for an interesting wild card:

      Is it prohibited to draw majority-minority districts?

      No. Over 30 years ago the Supreme Court held that jurisdictions are free to draw majority-minority election districts that follow traditional, non-racial districting considerations, such as geographic compactness and keeping communities of interest together. Later Supreme Court decisions have held that drawing majority-minority districts may be required to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    40. Re:not in N.C. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Because the Republicans don't generally do that sort of voter fraud. They have more efficient ways of rigging elections.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re:not in N.C. by swillden · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced. But in any case it really doesn't matter. Whatever the cause of the swap, the racist South did flip from D to R.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    42. Re:not in N.C. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      You're kidding. Open your eyes. http://joeforamerica.com/2016/...
      Heck, instead of me pasting in a bunch of URLS from around the country, just google voter fraud 2016. Plenty of verified stories about it, and they are always for the Democrats.

      This goes back years. I remember in the 1996 election in Maryland, they were able to show the dead were voting in court. Before that they had to do away with the good old lever voting machines because they found massive voter fraud in Maryland because too many people had keys to the machines. They'd open them and set them to what they wanted. Not to pick on Maryland, same story - your state if the Democrats control it. The Republicans don't do that, that's why the country is slowly turning blue. This election, there are 6 close states and 5 of them used to be solidly red.

    43. Re:not in N.C. by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      "I just sued two Virginia counties this week for concealing alien voting records, the list of foreigners who are on the voter rolls," said J. Christian Adams on Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM. "In Virginia alone, our litigation found a thousand aliens in just eight counties. These are the only eight counties that complied with our document requests. And they were voting! So if you take a thousand aliens who were accidentally caught in eight Virginia counties, and there's 135 Virginia counties, that tells you that the number of aliens on the voter rolls in just this swing state is in the five figures."

      "The same is true in Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona," he continued. "More so in Texas, Pennsylvania. These are places where alien voting will make a difference. And it made a difference in California. California became the deepest shade of blue, in part, because of problems with the voter rolls, with illegal alien voting."

      "We have a blind spot," Adams added. "I don't think Republicans are aware of this problem to the degree they need to be. Some of them are. Most aren't. There are very few tools, and the Obama administration has been blocking the use of those tools. For example, there is a federal database called SAVE. It is a list of aliens, all the aliens who are in the federal system. Under federal law, that data has to be made available to the states. Well, when Florida asked for that data to clean their voter rolls, the Obama administration refused to give it. So Florida had to sue in federal court to get it. They got it. The DHS is throttling it. They're making it very hard to use the data."

      Source

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    44. Re:not in N.C. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If by "aliens" they mean "immigrants who have a legal right to vote in the US" then it doesn't surprise me that they found thousands. Seems like they need some hard data with a bit more in-depth investigation than simply checking the voter rolls for "aliens".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    45. Re:not in N.C. by swillden · · Score: 1

      "The racists stuck with the Democrats"

      This is _delusional_.

      Totally.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  11. hardly losing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In your dreams. 538 has him at 35% probability of winning as I write this;

    And that's only naively counting the electoral college. You think they are going to let Trump-the-Pussygrabber onto the highest seat in the land? Not likely. How many Republican party luminaries have already stated "country over party" and refused to back Trump? This many! This election is the perfect excuse for the electors to vote their consciences. If they need tom which is doubtful.

    And then there's a disparity in the women's vote: currently standing near 50% in favor of Clinton.

    There's no way Trump can win. None. You're just fooling yourself. Enjoy it while you can, because come Wednesday morning, we'll have a woman in the white house. And Washington will go on just as it always has, Republicans blocking every bit of progress they can, democrats fumbling around in a non-unified manner, and idiots like the tea partiers throwing monkey wrenches in everywhere they can, and all the while the lobbyists will be proffering handfuls of money to everyone in sigh, the president not fulfilling a plugged nickle's worth of the promises made on the campaign trail.

    You come back here Wednesday, you'll see I called it exactly. If you can find this post after the load of butt-hurt moderation falls on it, lol

    1. Re:hardly losing by flargleblarg · · Score: 4

      because come Wednesday morning, we'll have a woman in the white house.

      I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I believe we won't have a woman in the White House (serving as President) until January 20, 2017.

    2. Re:hardly losing by chispito · · Score: 1

      because come Wednesday morning, we'll have a woman in the white house.

      I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I believe we won't have a woman in the White House (serving as President) until January 20, 2017.

      I'm not a statistician or economist, but I believe there just may be a woman in the White House right now.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    3. Re:hardly losing by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      538 also said Trump had a 1% of winning the nomination. And flipped between 60-90% of the UK not leaving the EU.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:hardly losing by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      because come Wednesday morning, we'll have a woman in the white house.

      I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I believe we won't have a woman in the White House (serving as President) until January 20, 2017.

      Furthermore the vote coming Tuesday is just the popular vote which is just symbolic more than anything else. The actual vote, of the Electoral College, takes place December 19th and the electorates are free to basically ignore the popular vote as proven in the 2000 election.

    5. Re:hardly losing by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's not symbolic. It determines who the Electoral College votes for. The Electors haven't ignored the popular vote in my lifetime. There have been cases where the popular vote for a state was recorded incorrectly, by accident or design.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  12. Does anyone else think this is insane? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But in addition, "U.S. military hackers have penetrated Russia's electric grid, telecommunications networks and the Kremlin's command systems, making them vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the U.S. deem it necessary, according to a senior intelligence official and top-secret documents reviewed by NBC News."

    Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this is insane?

    Assange never gives out details about who his leakers are, but even he took the time to state categorically that the Podesta leakers are did not come from the Russian government.

    Clearly he feels that there is some danger here for him to take this extraordinary step.

    Instead of setting up a hair-trigger response shouldn't we first have an investigation, and then approach this through diplomatic channels?

    Ye gods, Putin has to keep the appearance of strength in his country. What do you think he'll do if we start messing with their electrical grid?

    And in other news, we have Obama encouraging illegals to vote, which would appear at first glance to be Obama committing a felony on camera.

    What the fuck is happening to this country?

    1. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Assange never gives out details about who his leakers are, but even he took the time to state categorically that the Podesta leakers are did not come from the Russian government.

      Clearly he feels that there is some danger here for him to take this extraordinary step.

      Or his source has never clearly identified itself as the Russia government and he's trying to maintain plausible deniability as to not destroy Wikileaks' credibility.

      And in other news, we have Obama encouraging illegals to vote, which would appear at first glance to be Obama committing a felony on camera.

      Which is why you should take a second glance. Did you notice how her question doesn't actually make sense? That's because someone cut off the first part of it and I'm very suspicious of what they left out. What seems to be the general question and answer is the following:

      Interviewer: American citizens who are the children of illegal immigrants are scared to vote because they they'll draw scrutiny and cause their families to be deported.

      Obama: That will not happen.

      What the fuck is happening to this country?

      People are lying to you about the state of the world, and you believe them.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Because Trump is weaker and easier to manipulate, if not outright control from the Kremlin like a puppet.

    3. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? Citation needed. We already know for a fact that the Clinton Foundation and Islamic State receive funding from the same people. How much more proof do you need?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What do you think he'll do if we start messing with their electrical grid?

      "Accidentally" shoot down a few US planes over Syria.

    5. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Or his source has never clearly identified itself as the Russia government and he's trying to maintain plausible deniability as to not destroy Wikileaks' credibility.

      The funny thing is that it shouldn't matter who the source is as long as the information disclosed is true.

      It appears to be true, as not even those who should face jail time over it deny it. If you can't attack the message, attack the messager. And the american public is stupid enough to get so easily distracted. Look, a three-headed monkey !

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    6. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Or his source has never clearly identified itself as the Russia government and he's trying to maintain plausible deniability as to not destroy Wikileaks' credibility.

      The funny thing is that it shouldn't matter who the source is as long as the information disclosed is true.

      The purpose of this disclosure isn't to expose corruption or educate the public, it's to swing an election.

      That is not supposed to be Wikileaks' purpose, and it is why Assange is rightly being criticized.

      It appears to be true, as not even those who should face jail time over it deny it. If you can't attack the message, attack the messager. And the american public is stupid enough to get so easily distracted. Look, a three-headed monkey !

      The fact that something was leaked doesn't actually mean it exposed wrongdoing.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      > Assange never gives out details about who his leakers are, but even he took the time to state categorically that the Podesta leakers are did not come from the Russian government.

      From looking into the leaked Podesta emails, they cut off shortly after a phishing email arrived. It was a completely bogus email from "Google" with a fake bit.ly reset link claiming that his account had been accessed from the Ukraine.

      You'd think the real hackers wouldn't want to point people back at themselves. If anything, I suspect an insider. I'm not too clear on why her IT staff actually fell for a bad phishing email for one thing. Though perhaps they didn't mean for him to use the link in the email?

    8. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      Isis was created by our actions as an excuse to start more wars and take over in that area.

      Do you really want a war with Russia over Syria to be next on the menu? Because that's what they appear to have in store for us.

    9. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by RandomSurfer314 · · Score: 1

      But in addition, "U.S. military hackers have penetrated Russia's electric grid, telecommunications networks and the Kremlin's command systems, making them vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the U.S. deem it necessary, according to a senior intelligence official and top-secret documents reviewed by NBC News."

      Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this is insane?

      I completely agree with you. If this is true, then this high-ranking NBC source in the US government /intelligence apparatus has gone insane. Making such claims defies all logic whether they are true or not, such an announcement makes no sense, neither from a military nor from a diplomatic point of view.

      The rest of what you say is kind of irrelevant and more of an opinion, though. The claims of this anonymous source are criminally irresponsible no matter whether Russia tries to influence US elections or not.

    10. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by sribe · · Score: 1

      Assange never gives out details about who his leakers are, but even he took the time to state categorically that the Podesta leakers are did not come from the Russian government

      What on earth makes you think that Assange is truthful, or even that he necessarily knows for certain the original source of the hacked emails???

      Instead of setting up a hair-trigger response shouldn't we first have an investigation, and then approach this through diplomatic channels?

      What on earth makes you think there has been no investigation and no approach through diplomatic channels???

      And in other news, we have Obama encouraging illegals to vote...

      I watched the video and that is ABSOLUTELY NOT what he said, not at all. When he says "when you vote you're a citizen" he means that only citizens get to vote, it's insanely addle-headed nonsense to spin it as though he meant, "if you can manage to sneak into a polling booth illegally, *poof* you become a citizen".

    11. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      How many of the Podesta emails have you read? The FBI FOIA dumps?

      Right, thought so. Hell, they talk about creating another 'spring' movement like the Arab Spring. We have info on why Vile Rat was left to die in Benghazi over weapons sales in the area. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    12. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by Tom · · Score: 1

      The purpose of this disclosure isn't to expose corruption or educate the public, it's to swing an election.

      So you are also not doubting that what was revealed was true?

      Conspiracy to commit fraud, possibly treason? That the FBI re-opened an investigation, a highly unusual procedure, doesn't stir you as "omg, there's something wrong there"?

      The fact that something was leaked doesn't actually mean it exposed wrongdoing.

      Maybe you should look at what was leaked before you join a discussion about it then?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    13. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The purpose of this disclosure isn't to expose corruption or educate the public, it's to swing an election.

      So you are also not doubting that what was revealed was true?

      Conspiracy to commit fraud, possibly treason?

      I think the content of the emails was probably true, but it shows neither fraud nor treason.

      That the FBI re-opened an investigation, a highly unusual procedure, doesn't stir you as "omg, there's something wrong there"?

      And then they realized the new evidence wasn't new after all and re-closed the case, but I expect you'll just write that off as a conspiracy theory.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    14. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by Tom · · Score: 1

      I think the content of the emails was probably true, but it shows neither fraud nor treason.

      Wow.

      In every european country, if you were involved in even half the scandals that Clinton is, you would be completely inelectable. Your party would throw you out, your career would be over and you'd be asked to resign all your positions. Acting presidents have stepped down for a small fraction of that shit.

      It completely baffles me that in the USA this level of corruption, election fraud and treachery is considered par for the course. That you can still call for votes saying you're the lesser evil. That absolutely fucking nobody stands up and shouts "what the fuck lesser evil - we don't want any evil in the White House!"

      Absolutely batshit crazy.

      And then they realized the new evidence wasn't new after all and re-closed the case, but I expect you'll just write that off as a conspiracy theory.

      It could be they are doing their job very, very carefully, making sure nobody can gut them for not mentioning something in time, or it could be that they got pressure from up top. We will never know, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    15. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So you're willing to accept FBI announcements that fit with your world view happily, but reluctantly and half-heartedly if they disagree with your world view?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    16. Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? by Tom · · Score: 1

      It's got little to do with the FBI.

      Given the sheer list of corruption and questionable actions surrounding the Clintons, from the governeur times, it's a case of "fool me once..."

      Yes, if anyone presents any evidence of Clinton being corrupt, I would say that the chances for it being right are better than 50/50.

      But, you know, at least I am willing to accept proof that I was wrong, even if reluctantly.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  13. Re:Hillary at it again... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Learn what exactly, that fit the alt-right, black lives don't matter?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  14. Someone isn't very tech savvy by wasted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "By hacking and dumping emails, Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it...to make us look no better than the Russian electoral system,'" said one senior White House official.

    "Hacking and dumping" emails is not the same as changing vote counts or forcing people to vote a certain way. The exposure of the content of emails was likely embarrassing to the Democratic Party and HRC, but it isn't election tampering.

    1. Re:Someone isn't very tech savvy by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not even clear Russia did anything.
      And the American electoral system looks chaotic enough on its own. It's the people running who make it look bad, not foreign hackers.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Someone isn't very tech savvy by wasted · · Score: 1

      "Hacking and dumping" emails is not the same as changing vote counts or forcing people to vote a certain way. The exposure of the content of emails was likely embarrassing to the Democratic Party and HRC, but it isn't election tampering.

      This was considered very illegal back in 1972 when the DNC was burglarized and files stolen from their offices in the Watergate hotel. How does doing the same thing, only by computer, somehow make it legal?.

      I don't remember saying it was legal. I said that it wasn't election tampering.

    3. Re:Someone isn't very tech savvy by bradley13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Russia is behind this, shame on them. However, there is no proof that this is the case. The Hillary campaign declares this, to distract from...

      ...the actual, important issue: the corruption and criminality exposed by those emails. Interestingly, no one is saying that the information is actually incorrect.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    4. Re:Someone isn't very tech savvy by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      "By hacking and dumping emails, Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it...to make us look no better than the Russian electoral system,'" said one senior White House official.

      "Hacking and dumping" emails is not the same as changing vote counts or forcing people to vote a certain way. The exposure of the content of emails was likely embarrassing to the Democratic Party and HRC, but it isn't election tampering.

      You're right. Foreign powers hacking a political party with the express purpose of helping and supporting another party who has favorable policies could not possibly be election tampering.

      The Newsweek article on the extensive and well organized Russian propaganda/misinformation network was quite eye opening. Seems our allies have been a bit more diligent on the whole Trump/Russia thing than we have. The Trump campaign has essentially been compromised. Trump himself just appears to be more of a "useful idiot", though Russia considered dropping support entirely over the summer because he appeared to be to "unhinged" (fighting with a gold star family is just plain stupid).

      --
      ~X~
  15. Paper Ballots Counted At The Precinct Level by TheNarrator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You want to prevent all hacking? Just use paper ballots counted at the precinct level. India has a billion people and it works just fine. Our election is important enough that it's foolish to trust it to unauditable, easily hacked voting machines when the alternative of hand counting is not that hard.

    1. Re:Paper Ballots Counted At The Precinct Level by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Sigh...not this shit again!

      The PRI in Mexico rigged elections for 80 years using nothing but paper ballots. Plus, this election we NEED the voting machines to keep a dangerous fascist demagogue out of the Presidency. If it were up to the American people, they'd elect him and we'd all be screwed. Be careful what you wish for...

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Paper Ballots Counted At The Precinct Level by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Our election is important enough that it's foolish to trust it to unauditable, easily hacked voting machines when the alternative of hand counting is not that hard.

      To them, our election is important enough that it's foolish to trust it to voters.

    3. Re:Paper Ballots Counted At The Precinct Level by Tom · · Score: 1

      Not just India. Germany is using the same system and it works wonderfully. As I hear, most of Europe uses such a system or variations of it.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:Paper Ballots Counted At The Precinct Level by swillden · · Score: 1

      You want to prevent all hacking? Just use paper ballots counted at the precinct level. India has a billion people and it works just fine. Our election is important enough that it's foolish to trust it to unauditable, easily hacked voting machines when the alternative of hand counting is not that hard.

      That's an okay solution -- though somewhat vulnerable to fraud conducted by the vote counters in precincts that don't get adequate oversight -- but we have the technology to do better. For the last couple of decades academic cryptographers have been trying to solve the problem of how to ensure fair elections, and they've come up with some remarkable techniques that allow elections to be strongly verified, making any tampering obvious. And they've refined their techniques to make them quite practical as well.

      Check out Scantegrity. Note that it does use paper ballots. Counting can be done at the precinct level or at any higher level; doesn't matter. If the vote isn't tabulated correctly, the error will be exposed. Individual voters can also verify that their vote was counted correctly -- but without being able to prove how they voted. It's an excellent design.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Paper Ballots Counted At The Precinct Level by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The Swiss use this every 3 months, and it works very well. No indications of fraud, no long-delayed results, no other issues. And of course, these are done on the weekends and there are no long waiting-times or anything.

      Quite frankly, the abysmal state of US election technology just shows one thing: They cannot get important things done well. Not a good sign at all.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Paper Ballots Counted At The Precinct Level by Tom · · Score: 1

      Honestly, it's so badly broken that it is clear that they don't want it fixed. You couldn't fuck up an election system so bad if you tried. If you didn't know about it, and were tasked with designing the worst imaginable election system for a comedy movie, you couldn't come up with this.

      Why keep such a broken system? Well, for one, with all these always-very-close results, it is incredibly easy to swing the election this way or that.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    7. Re:Paper Ballots Counted At The Precinct Level by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      How do you have precincts that don't have adequate oversight?

      Every interested political party sends an observer, as does the non-partisan government elections body, and anybody who cares to show up and watch, does. This isn't difficult.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    8. Re:Paper Ballots Counted At The Precinct Level by swillden · · Score: 1

      How do you have precincts that don't have adequate oversight?

      Precincts which very heavily favor one party and have little organized resistance. Granted that in such precincts the vote will be overwhelmingly for the local party, but that doesn't mean the opposing votes shouldn't all get counted.

      Regardless of that, though, there's huge value in a system that allows people to verify that their vote was counted correctly.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  16. I wish by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    I wish some time we could get competent people in government.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:I wish by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Just gotta get people to vote for 'em. Wouldn't hurt to hang the Sword of Damocles over their heads either. It's all up to us.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:I wish by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Just gotta get people to vote for 'em.

      Um.........

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:I wish by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Um... what? Is there another way?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:I wish by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Probably not another way.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  17. Got any reality to go with your hallucinations? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Informative

    Massage is done. After this election stunt, even if Ecuador let's him stay, he's brought Wikileaks disrepute that the press will ignore him. Snowden had taken his mantle.

    Everything you've said is completely and totally bogus.

    1) "Ecuador lets him stay": Ecuador has repeatedly reaffirmed their intention to let him stay, even after cutting his internet access.

    2) "Disrepute": Wikileaks recently published the DKIM proofs for the Podesta E-mails, putting the lie to any claims of tampering. For example, Donna Brazile claimed that E-mails showing her giving debate questions to Clinton were tampered, but they were vetted using Google's gmail.com DKIM signature.

    3) "Massage": Learn Engrish.

    4) "Stunt": He's been publishing pretty-much continuously for 10 years, and you think "stunt" describes his actions?

    5) "Press will ignore": Uh... yeah. Right. You think this is what will happen?

    6) "Snowden": Snowden took his mantle... without being in the news or having done anything of recent significance?

    In general, everything you said is simple sock-puppetry intended to sway uninformed people. It's intellectually dishonest, and it doesn't even promote the mainstream view.

    I mean, really. Absolutely *no one* in the media is making any of your claims.

    I'd ask for links, but in this case I don't think that's possible.

  18. Re:rare and well done by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And you have actual citations for these claims (and no, some alt-right blog is not a reference). Provide actual citations, preferably actual electoral records. Otherwise, I call bullshit.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  19. I always wonder by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

    How many of these 'crises' are either enormously exaggerated, or manufactured out of whole cloth? After all, they are so very useful for creating jobs, justifying power and autonomy grabs by various TLA's, and distracting the masses from noticing that their basic rights are being systematically torn down and burned.

    Yes, by all means, protect this election. Protect it from becoming a third-rate reality show - a freaky, depraved, but strangely irrelevant spectacle that proudly and defiantly puts the 'circus' in 'bread and circuses'. Oh, wait... it's way too late for that.

    I'm starting to see the attractions of the Libertarian point of view. It's delusional and naive, to be sure - but would it produce a hell any worse that what we're currently experiencing?

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  20. Re:rare and well done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fact check yourself.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/voting-conspiracies/

  21. Douglas Adams Predicted This by wasted · · Score: 1

    Douglas Adams predicted this election, and probably most others, in his HHGTG series with this: It is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. It is number 23 on the list. I don't know that number 42 on that particular list applies to this election, though.

    1. Re:Douglas Adams Predicted This by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It is just far more obvious in this election, with two candidates that are completely and utterly obviously unsuitable for the job. This is a failed society. A pity it is so large and has the potential to take th rest of the world to hell with it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  22. Re:rare and well done by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Informative

    And you have actual citations for these claims

    Of course not, because they are nonsense. These bullet points are copied verbatim from a viral image that has been circulating among alt-right kooks, including my idiot brother-in-law. All of these claims have been thoroughly debunked.

  23. I'd like to think by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that he's just concerned for my safety.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  24. Re:rare and well done by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Ugh, had to do my duty and call my mother today. So much politics, about how the country is over if hillary wins, about the websites I should visit that have *proof* she's guilty of something or other, about how Obama loves muslims and hates christians, Hillary's advisor is a muslim (oh ya, she thinks that's enough to make her a traitor). All the while she's on the verge of crying because those frauds on the internet have convinced her of these conspiracy theories. There's so much bullshit out there, any fool can claim they have proof of something or other, and then other people go and cite that as evidence.

  25. Reaping what you sow by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Troll

    Trump's been encouraging a climate of violence and fear at his rallies for months' now. I'm just surprised this didn't happen sooner. The real thing to come out of this that'll hurt him is how he sorta hobbled away. Sure, he's 70, and to any sane person that's to be expected. But he's been cultivating an image of virility for months now and having it undermined in the press 3 days before game day is gonna be a problem.

    I forget who said it but somebody said whoever can keep the spotlight off is gonna win since neither candidate is well liked. Trump just put the spotlight on 100%.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Reaping what you sow by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Prompted signaling designed to attack the opposition, even when they are just holding a sign. Obama gives protestors more respect, like a real President should.

    2. Re:Reaping what you sow by dbIII · · Score: 1

      how he sorta hobbled away

      It's those damn spurs on his feet that kept him out of 'Nam (but not off the track team).
      How the fuck did this trust fund baby that sums up just about everything wrong with America end up getting so far?

  26. Re:rare and well done by whoever57 · · Score: 2
    I think that you copied your bullet points from Snopes. Perhaps you should have noted the large "False" image on the page also?

    But thanks for outing yourself as yet another person who lacks critical thinking skills.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  27. Re:Red Flag Team vs Blue Flag Team by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Your words echo Trumpsky's denials but US Intelligence service says otherwise: http://www.theverge.com/2016/1...

    Yeah, you know how US Intel has been known to lie, both on purpose and also on accident? I have absolutely no reason to believe them when they say 'trust us', especially when they are talking about starting a cyberwar.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  28. Russian Hackers with Scruples? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight, they set up man in the middle attack servers, sent attack emails to DNC staff, intercepted emails for the election, and selectively leaked those to Julian Assange for a bit of Wikileaks innuendo attack.... to get their guy Trump into power. Yet they wouldn't hack election machines, counting machines or vote counters emails?

    And you think that's "tech savvy"? And there are enough GOP and Putin astroturfers here to mod you to a +4?

    That hacking DNC email, and using the intelligence in the email to get their puppet into power *ISN"T* election tampering???

    If Russia was trying to put Clinton in power, you'd be screaming for the CIA to protect the election from Putin's tampering, instead you side with a foreign power simply because you think he's helping get your guy elected! Bad news he's not your guy, he's Putin's guy.

    1. Re:Russian Hackers with Scruples? by wasted · · Score: 1

      Yet they wouldn't hack election machines, counting machines or vote counters emails?

      If the voting machines or vote-counting computers are connected to the internet, there is an incredibly big security issue that needs to be addressed. Who cares about emails regarding vote counts, provided the votes are tallied correctly, and reported as required by law, which would involve a method removed from the internet.

      That hacking DNC email, and using the intelligence in the email to get their puppet into power *ISN"T* election tampering???

      No, it is not. No votes have been changed post vote, nor purchased or influenced with threat to my knowledge.

      If Russia was trying to put Clinton in power, you'd be screaming for the CIA to protect the election from Putin's tampering,

      You don't know me. If Trump's emails were leaked, I'd still feel that it wasn't election tampering, unless there was an email showing that Russia had found vunerable voting machines connected to the internet that they intended to use to swing the election.

      I thought my post was in terms simple enough for folks to get the point - there is a difference between leaking embarrassing information and tampering with elections. Maybe you obviously are so enamored with your candidate that you can't see that, you are on the HRC payroll, or you need some sleep.

    2. Re:Russian Hackers with Scruples? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The really funny (or annoying) thing here is that a major donor to the Republican party - Diebold - lobbied hard with the Republican party to get their voting machines in place and now a guy who claims to represent the Republican party is sowing doubt about the electoral process because of those machines.

      Instead of these losers screaming about their own mistakes how about they fix them?

  29. Not russians as they would use for blackmail by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 2

    I very very very much doubt that this is the work of the russian government. Simply put, given all these emails, they would use them to better understand who is really in power, and then use them for blackmail. AFTER she became president. They wouldn't even blackmail her, but would blackmail some of the various players who wouldn't want these coming out.

    .

    1. Re:Not russians as they would use for blackmail by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's just like the climate leak dump before the Copenhagen summit - a big pile of not much released to sow confusion and stop action. The same methods were used in both cases and fingers have been pointed at Russia both times.
      For blackmail there has to be something close to murder or having sex with thirteen year olds (I hope you behaved yourself on those trips to Russia Donald) to have an impact afterwards.

  30. Re:Evidence based motive, opportunity, etc. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Not "trust us", US intelligence has enumerate exactly how it was done, by whom, where and when. The current hacker going by Guccifer 2.0 was pretending to be Romanian, but when faced with a translator, was found to be Russian.

    That's not much.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  31. Re:rare and well done by meglon · · Score: 1

    http://www.factcheck.org/2013/...

    You are either a worthless piece of shit liar, or a complete fucking idiot.... or both. When you wonder what is wrong with this country... look in the mirror. Worthless piece of shit with no integrity.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  32. Re:Red Flag Team vs Blue Flag Team by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Your words echo Trumpsky's denials but US Intelligence service says otherwise:
    http://www.theverge.com/2016/1...

    Wow, what a trustworthy source!

    Remember when they kept trying to get people to believe that North Korea hacked Sony over a shitty movie? Remember when there was zero evidence of that happening or even being remotely possible? Remember when they quietly dropped it when the truth started coming out?

  33. Our Government in the US by hackus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some things I find disturbing:

    "By hacking and dumping emails, Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it...to make us look no better than the Russian electoral system,'" said one senior White House official. Russia is also expected to extend their efforts toward elections in Europe..."

    Let me get this straight.

    Even IF Russia was dumping Emails, and let me be clear...they are not...all of these Emails have been verified by FBI sources. Which, means, the democratic party has voters who do not care if their candidate is a treasonous criminal, the are voting for Hillary anyway.

    Secondly:

    "U.S. military hackers have penetrated Russia's electric grid, telecommunications networks and the Kremlin's command systems, making them vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the U.S. deem it necessary, according to a senior intelligence official and top-secret documents reviewed by NBC News."

    This is an act of war. Not on a goat herding nation that can't fight back. These VERY DESPERATE OLIGARCHS are trying to start a distraction from their criminal activities, and provoke a NUCLEAR POWER, that could wipe out the eastern seaboard in about 20 minutes.

    No Russia is not Iraq, far from it.

    These people kicked Napoleans ass, Hitlers ass while European fags cowered in their boots and some, Like the French surrenderd without even a fight in World War 2.

    All of this activity by the US government is TREASON, they have no right to start a war without full authorization from Congress let alone attack another country either cyber or physically wise.

    One more thing.

    These Executive orders effectively has made the President a king. These have to be immediately reversed an stopped.

    No individual branch of goverment has that sort of authority except congress with a majority vote of 2/3rds.

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:Our Government in the US by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There is evidence that Russia is providing the emails through Wikileaks. The evidence I've got isn't conclusive, but flat claiming that Russia didn't do it suggests that the poster doesn't actually care about the evidence.

      There's lots of Democrats who don't care that a bunch of Republicans call Clinton a treasonous criminal, lacking decent evidence for either treason or crime.

      You're also casually assuming that US intelligence services are lying, and that for some reason Obama wants to provoke Russia. US intelligence services are not known for their honesty, and Presidents have done stupid things before, but you're assuming that Russia is innocuous (an odd conviction) and that Obama wants a war with Russia.

      Your WWII history isn't any better. The Luftwaffe lost about the same number of planes in the Battle of France as the Battle of Britain, if I remember correctly, and nobody's accused the British of rolling over. France fell so fast because of General Gamelin's strategy, not any lack of fighting spirit, complicated by the problems with French armor and air doctrine. The French fought hard when they could fight, and improved their tactics as the battle went on.

      Presidential directives are essentially orders to the executive branch on how to execute their duties, and have been issued by Presidents for a long time. Last I looked (a few years ago), you had to go back to Grover Cleveland to find a lower rate of directives. They do not carry the force of law.

      Presidents have been committing acts of war without Congressional approval for a long time now. This isn't just a modern or a Democrat thing.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  34. Hilarious by byrdfl3w · · Score: 1

    "make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it"
    In other words, make it look exactly like it is.

  35. incompetence by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it...

    No need to do anything on that front. All of Europe has been laughing about the US voting process for decades. You've got the most complicated, error-prone, untrustworthy election system I personally have ever seen or heard about. The fact that you're incapable of fixing it is the best proof that the whole system is broken beyond repair.

    I'm not just talking voting machines, I also mean Gerrymandering, the fact that you vote on a working day (seriously?) or that there are hour-long queues. You are holding elections the way 3rd world countries hold their first election in history, and it's just absolutely pathetic.

    What could Russia possibly do to discredit this abomination? If I were the russian general in charge, I'd tell my hackers to stay out of this, lest they accidentally fix something and make it better.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:incompetence by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Oh, we laugh here in Australia too, at the absolute circus that is the US electoral system.
      Any government whose leader is not assured a majority in at least the lower house (Congress) is designed to be dysfunctional.
      Its scary that such lunacy affects the rest of us.

    2. Re:incompetence by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons it is so fucked up is that we don't have AN election system, we have 50 election systems. It was designed that way for several good reasons, which I am not going to go into here. The real problem is that there are people who are trying to make it ONE election system without going through the correct process for making the change (amending the Constitution). Some of them do not realize that elections are run by the states and that tells you all you need to know about why THEIR ideas would not work (if you don't actually know how the system currently works, you certainly are not going to be able to fix it). Some of them know full well that the system is run by the states and would like to change that but know that doing it the right way would involve people learning WHY it was designed that way, and they suspect most people would agree with the reasons for doing it that way if they became aware of it.

      The problem is that most of the few honest people involved want to fix the whole thing at once rather than go through the process of getting each state to fix what's broken in that state, complicated by the fact that what is broken varies from state to state.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:incompetence by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      You are holding elections the way 3rd world countries hold their first election in history, and it's just absolutely pathetic.

      For even funnier schadenfreude, take a look at all of the stuff that America enforces when they help supervise elections in actual third-world countries to combat fraud and electoral shenanigans.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re:incompetence by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Any government whose leader is not assured a majority in at least the lower house (Congress) is designed to be dysfunctional.

      The US system was not designed to avoid being dysfunctional. It also wasn't as well designed as it would have been with hindsight. The President was supposed to replace the King, on a temporary and elected basis. Kings were generally not officially partisans, although they might favor one party more than another. Many of the Founders didn't want political parties to form the way they did.

      Personally, I think it was a darn good piece of work for when it happened and with such limited experience, but it has its flaws.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:incompetence by Tom · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the whole system was designed for the world of 1800 or so. I know the reasoning behind the Tuesday voting (ancient times, few poll stations, Monday for travel, etc.) - but it's insane that in the last 100 years since railways became common and cars were invented nobody thought that maybe it might need an update.

      That includes the fact that each state has its own voting system. That might've made sense 200 years ago. Does it still make sense today?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    6. Re:incompetence by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Yes, it makes sense for each state to have its own voting system. That allows for different states to try different things without breaking the entire nation's elections if it turns out to be a stupendously stupid idea (it is much easier to find and implement work-arounds for one state when something doesn't work as advertised than it is to do so for all 50 states at once). It also means that you do not have one contracting authority which might give the contract for voting machines in all 50 states to one company that does not know how to make voting machines.
      And yes, it would make sense to change some of the things which are set up the way they are (election day being on Tuesday is the main one). The problem is that, at this point in history, you could not convince people to limit themselves to "fixing" (the quotes are because not all of the things that people would want to change are broken) just one thing at a time to see how that changes the way other things work (a problem which we see exhibited in a lot of other areas as well).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:incompetence by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      My favourite response to the republiican movement in Australia is, name a classier more competant head of state than our current Queen.
      Gets them every time, we have Governor generals who do the official ceremonies and open fates and such things, who are usually non partisan.
      A presidential system seems to always lead to a politicised head of state.

  36. Re:Are there no guns allowed at Trump rallies? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    No but think about it, all this time they were worried about Obama coming for their guns, and Orange Hitler comes along and they're ready to just hand them over. What could that possibly reveal?

  37. Wouldn't that impression reflect reality? by Morpf · · Score: 2

    By hacking and dumping emails, Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it...to make us look no better than the Russian electoral system.

    I'm going out on a limb here, but wouldn't that impression be the actual truth? How the democrats rigged against Sanders, that apparently the Democrats and their candidat got hacked, we know for ages that voting machines are not trustworthy, there is the concept of gerrymandering, and how on earth became Trump even a candidate, not speaking about that the charges against Hillary were dropped.

    Not sure whom to attribute those hacks, but isn't it actually a good thing, that this knowledge is now spread between the voters so they can make a more informed decision? Isn't it better to know what is going on than to life in fluffy unicorn land?

    All the governments are always saying: No need to fear, if you have nothing to hide. Well...

  38. Brought to you by people who enjoy #spiritcooking by Xenographic · · Score: 2

    You might want to check the Project Veritas video--we have people like Zulema Rodriguez to thank for those protests turning violent. And we can fact check that all the way back to her illegal actions at the AZ protest, lying to cops, and being on the Democratic payroll thanks to the FEC site. So you might be inclined to believe the people you don't like are violent, but we have videos that can be independently corroborated, as well as discussions in the Podesta email dump to tie it all together.

    And there was also this guy who attempted to steal a gun: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/19/...

    So we can hardly rule out any sort of dirty tricks here, especially with Hillary's poll numbers taking a dive lately.

    There were also fake pedophile smears against Julian (Todd & Claire) as well as Trump (Epstein has way more ties to Bill, and Podesta has a ton of pedo friends apparently, including the former Republican speaker/convicted child molester so one really wonders what *they* have in common...) with that lawsuit now being voluntarily dismissed after being debunked even by Jezebel, Popehat and many other sources.

  39. Re:Brought to you by people who enjoy #spiritcooki by quantaman · · Score: 1

    You might want to check the Project Veritas video

    James O'Keefe's is famous precisely for making videos dishonestly edited and presented to create fake scandals.

    I'll watch his video on a scandal after I finish reviewing Bernie Madoff's report on my mutual funds.

    And there was also this guy who attempted to steal a gun: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/19/...

    And a mentally ill guy from Britain has to do with what?

    There were also fake pedophile smears against Julian (Todd & Claire) as well as Trump (Epstein has way more ties to Bill, and Podesta has a ton of pedo friends apparently, including the former Republican speaker/convicted child molester so one really wonders what *they* have in common...) with that lawsuit now being voluntarily dismissed after being debunked even by Jezebel, Popehat and many other sources.

    Well we don't actually know the accusations against Trump were fake, they were damn sketchy but that doesn't mean they were fake.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  40. U.S. military penetrated Russia's electric grid? by khz6955 · · Score: 1

    "U.S. military hackers have penetrated Russia's electric grid, telecommunications networks and the Kremlin's command systems, making them vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the U.S. deem it necessary, according to a senior intelligence official and top-secret documents reviewed by NBC News."

    Only if the Russians are dumb enough to connect their SCADA systems directly to the Internet and run them on Microsoft Windows.

  41. Re:Brought to you by people who enjoy #spiritcooki by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    > James O'Keefe's is famous precisely for making videos dishonestly edited and presented to create fake scandals.

    The video can be corroborated by a wealth of independent evidence as I discussed here: https://slashdot.org/firehose....

    A few more bits of corroboration came out after that, but so much came out that I never got it linked up. I would also like to mention that the emails can be validated by DKIM, so nobody has been altering them.

    > And a mentally ill guy from Britain has to do with what?

    He attempted to steal a gun to shoot Trump. Just saying this isn't the first assassination scare. I think it's the 4th?

    > Well we don't actually know the accusations against Trump were fake, they were damn sketchy but that doesn't mean they were fake.

    You'd get better odds on a Royal Flush. An anonymous victim with anonymous witnesses for something that allegedly happened decades ago and involving a well-known pedophile (Epstein) where Bill Clinton took 20+ trips on his "Lolita Express" with several of those trips having no SS agents present. Yeah, lots of people were on that guy's plane but with Podesta being into that creepy as hell #spiritcooking crap, you have to kind of wonder.

    P.S. here's a good summary of most of the Podesta email findings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  42. Re: by srichard25 · · Score: 1

    First, I'm trying to understand why people think ANY level of fraud is ok.

    Second, The President of the United States is on YouTube telling ILLEGAL aliens not to be scared to vote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCLO0WBvhF8

  43. Re:Brought to you by people who enjoy #spiritcooki by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    You'd get better odds on a Royal Flush. An anonymous victim with anonymous witnesses for something that allegedly happened decades ago and involving a well-known pedophile (Epstein) where Bill Clinton took 20+ trips on his "Lolita Express"

    If you had confidence that Trump didn't fuck a child you wouldn't be mentioning Bill Clinton at all. That's handwaving bullshit. Pay no attention to the man we're actually talking about right now!

    If you want an agreement that Bill Clinton is a squashed shit, here it is. But try to stay on topic, son.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  44. Re:Evidence based motive, opportunity, etc. by khallow · · Score: 1

    US intelligence has enumerate exactly how it was done, by whom, where and when.

    So did Germany when a radio station on the border of Poland was attacked in 1939. It turned out to be staged by the Germans themselves, but the lie was good enough to justify the invasion of Poland.

  45. surely not by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    "By hacking and dumping emails, Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it..."

    US voting system untrustworthy? Surely not....
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  46. Re:Brought to you by people who enjoy #spiritcooki by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    I think he's saying Bill's pedo ties provide motive for the left to falsely accuse Trump. That's rule #1 of the left: always accuse your opponent of whatever you're doing.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  47. Does not matter much anyways by gweihir · · Score: 1

    This election is a choice between the Plague and Cholera. Hillary will be a bit better short-term, but she will continue and cement the overall downwards-trend. Trump would be without doubt a catastrophe, but this may be a case of rather an end in tears than tears without end. The fact of the matter is that if these two are the best the US political landscape has to offer and who the voters are willing to vote for, then the country is already in a late phase of the decline and essentially doomed.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Does not matter much anyways by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      I wholeheartedly agree with you.

      This country is the laughing stock of the planet in choosing two very substandard candidates.

      There is now way we can come out of this election in a good way.

      My only hope is whoever is elected President has a health problem and is replaced with their Vice President.

      In both situations, the VP appears to be a better candidate than the abysmal presidential choice.

  48. The Farce is Strong with you by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Trump letting people know that they can LEGALLY change an early vote is not wrong. It's legal. Not only that, but it's worth nothing to people who probably didn't know it was LEGAL. Compared to DNC coolest guy Bob Creamer funding busing of minority groups for money across State lines to vote ILLEGALLY is so offensive it can only be described as idiocy.

    Of course you are anonymous because we would all be able to peg Shill accounts by name. I'm guessing the DNC is paying you to post, and paying you from a different country.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  49. Not just a troll, but a lie by s.petry · · Score: 2

    Funny that you don't mention Bob Creamer in your comment, or any of the dozen or so people seeding provocateurs into not just Trump gatherings but Sanders gatherings. You don't mention the people on campuses shutting down speeches, visits, and gatherings for people who are conservative leaning. Being "alt-Right" is not an excuse to deny someone's first amendment rights. These are not one time gigs, but on Campuses have been going for years and for the election over a year.

    Also consider that the only candidate to have someone actively attempt to assassinate them was Trump, when a whacko attempted to steal a gun from a guards belt to shoot at him.

    If you actually recognize those real events, you would understand that someone behaving oddly would be at least suspicious. If he was reaching into his jacket pocket to get a phone and looked that far out of place you bet your ass people would think and perhaps say "gun".

    Now consider the massive amount of emails found on Weiner's laptop and what we know the NYPD was investigating. Not just child pornography, but trafficking. Podesta being invited to events most people would say are occultist. How many politicians are going to be implicated by Weiner's laptop? I'm sure there are plenty of politicians worried right now. People who find information outside of the politically controlled media are, and should be, on high alert. Citations should not be needed, you know damn well how to perform Google searches and type search terms into Wikileaks. The UK has very recent examples of Government involvement in sex trafficking and pedophilia at massive scale. Politics is not immune to corruption, it attracts it.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Not just a troll, but a lie by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The FBI has concluded that the additional emails they're looking at do not change their recommendation of no prosecution, so all of you email alarmists should back down. It's possible that other people may get into trouble from that investigation, but not Clinton.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Not just a troll, but a lie by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Not relevant to the conversation. Try to read and keep up with the big people

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  50. Re:rare and well done by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Maybe you could get someone going on this then: Voter fraud cases (open in new window)

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  51. Re: Are there no guns allowed at Trump rallies? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    the same question to BLM negroes ...

    Please don't TLA Black Lives Matter to BLM.

    Out here in the not-so-urban areas (where much of the pro-Trump people live) "BLM" is the Bureau of Land Management - a federal bureaucracy whose overreach is one of the major issues in the presidential politics this cycle.

    The TLA is already in use, and recycling it for another actor in this drama causes initial misreading of posts that do this.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  52. Re:Red Flag Team vs Blue Flag Team by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Remember when there was zero evidence of that happening or even being remotely possible? Remember when they quietly dropped it when the truth started coming out?

    Actually I didn't know that part happened, so thanks for pointing it out.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  53. Wrong side of the country. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Are there no guns allowed at Trump rallies?

    Nevada allows guns even in casinos (concealed with a shall-issue (i.e, go through the hoops and they must issue it) permit). But federal law prohibits them in zones around people being bodyguarded by the Secret Service. Federal law trumps state law and this law hasn't been tested in court against the Second Amendment.

    How did they get all those hillbillies to leave their guns at home?

    In addition to being racist and intolerant of diverse cultures, this use of "hillbillies" is incorrect, and displays your provincialism. The term applies to people in portions of the Appalachian mountain range, on the opposite side of the continent and more than 2,000 miles away from both the Sierras (where Reno is located) or the (somewhat more eastward) Rockies.

    If you really want to flame the people of Nevada, try "cowboys". (Also Indians: A substantial fraction of the local population and culture happen to be members of, or descended from, one of the several local tribes.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re: Wrong side of the country. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      2015 census shows 1.6 percent of the entire population of Nevada claims American Indian heritage. Reno's demographic is even lower than the state average. This is a substantial proportion in your book?

      1. Many people with some American Indian ancestry (my wife, for instance) don't claim it on the census. (Especially in the western US, where census data was used to round up people with Japanese ancestry and intern them in concentration camps during WW II (which also kept them from paying taxes, mortgages, and business obligations, resulting in the loss of homes and businesses and impoverishing them when they were finally released.) This is still remembered, as are many of the other instances where the federal government interacted badly with tribals. After more than two centuries of bad track record, don't expect Indians to fall for claims by bureaucrats that "It's different now!" and admit to being members of a group that has often been the target of invasion and genocide.

      2. Reno the city, and other cities along the west side of Nevada (the part with which I'm familiar), have adjacent and/or nearby reservation land, with substantial housing occupied primarily by people of tribal descent. Functionally they're suburbs, so their populations don't count to the core city numbers even though they may work in the city, shop there, participate in sports, go to the university, vote in the county, state, and national elections that affect the city, campaign for or against candidates, etc.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  54. Um, no weapon found. by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Jitters?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  55. Re:rare and well done by HBI · · Score: 1

    There is intensive voter fraud going on in all the East Coast cities (my experience being exclusively with those), though I am told the Midwest has the same issue going on in the urban areas. The dead vote regularly. It's all there if you want to look for it. The reason why no one really cares is that most of these places haven't had a competitive election in 50+ years. It tends to drive popular vote counts up in Senate races and presidential election years. As you would expect, it favors Democrats exclusively since you'd be hard pressed to find an urban area fully controlled by Republicans in the entire country. Does it turn elections? Not usually. It is a safety net if the GOTV efforts fail to get enough old people and minorities to the polls. 1960 was believed to turn on this factor, based on late returns from Chicago. It may well be that 2000 was only close because of this - though the situation was so muddy we'll never know.

    Suburban/rural voter fraud exists, but is less systematic and much less frequent. Too many eyes, and people care, and most importantly the repository of potential voters is smaller than in the cities.

    Pretending it doesn't exist means you aren't being honest or serious.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  56. Re:Brought to you by people who enjoy #spiritcooki by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    > If you had confidence that Trump didn't fuck a child you wouldn't be mentioning Bill Clinton at all.

    They all run the Clinton Foundation together with Chelsea, which appears to be in on some of this stuff.

    Let's just say it doesn't surprise us that the Clintons would come up in relation to the Wiener probe.

    But yes, I do have confidence that Trump did no such thing, he had nothing to do with Epstein (and even banned him from one of his properties) years before it came out the guy was a pedo.

  57. They almost got away with it... by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...

    Yeah, they almost got away with another bird dogging attempt.

    No wonder they were so quick to interview him on the media and get this story out, whereas you see little mention of that guy in Nevada who tried to steal guard's gun at a rally to shoot Trump.

  58. Re:rare and well done by HBI · · Score: 1

    I don't really care enough to dig up documentary evidence. It's happening - there were ample records of this back in the 90s in New York City - in particular, the 1989 mayoral election. My father was involved in Jersey politics...no one there would argue the position you are arguing, since we all knew it to be true.

    But, i'll leave this here for you, since you doubt such things.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  59. Uphill battle in North Carolina by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

    When it all comes down to it, I think he may lose the election squarely because of HB2. North Carolina, being a purple state with large urban centers, has a lot of very ticked off voters in Wilmington, Asheville, Charlotte, and Raleigh because of what the Republican-controlled state house and governer's office has done to the state with the discriminatory law. For someone like me whose fairly young (31) and suffering political burnout, the law has had the opposite effect that state republicans intendend: it didn't galvanize the far right but instead pissed off the moderates who tend to be financially conservative but socially liberal. I will be showing up at the polls specifically to vote out the idiots in the state legislature who passed this atrocity as well as tell the governor where he can stick it. I suspect a large percentage of voters in this pool aren't inclined to vote for Trump.