Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Urged To Challenge Election Results Due To Possible Hacking [Update] (cnn.com)
Reader Bruha writes: After examining results in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin computer scientists have discovered Clinton averaged 7% worse in counties with e voting machines vs. counties with only paper or optical scan ballots.From a CNN report:The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked and presented their findings to top Clinton aides on a call last Thursday. The scientists, among them J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners, according to the source. The group informed John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, and Marc Elias, the campaign's general counsel, that Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic voting machines, which the group said could have been hacked.Halderman wrote more about it on Medium today in an article titled, "Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots"
Update: Green party candidate Jill Stein is asking for donations to fund a recount of her own in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which are the states key to Hillary Clinton's surprising loss. Stein says she must raise $2.5 million by Friday 4 pm central time to proceed.
Editor's note: the story has been updated and moved up on the front page.
Update: Green party candidate Jill Stein is asking for donations to fund a recount of her own in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which are the states key to Hillary Clinton's surprising loss. Stein says she must raise $2.5 million by Friday 4 pm central time to proceed.
Editor's note: the story has been updated and moved up on the front page.
Here we go, time to sit back and watch the show that is titled "America"
The DNC knows there was hacking because they've done it before and did it this election too. What a surprise.
Is this part of the fake news? Or is it actually real news? Or is it Clinton being a sore loser. The DNC and Clinton doesn't really have a leg to stand on though, especially after fixing their own primary to make sure she was the candidate.
Om, nomnomnom...
I am not an American, but I was wondering if Clinton Campaign can -- at least hypothetically -- really challenge the results? I mean, is it a thing?
Because Diebold et al have steadfastly refused to provide a verifiable paper trail, claiming it's too complicated, or incorporate any kind of audit log, we will never know if the votes which people cast were correctly recorded.
This applies to anyone during any election these machines have been in place, not only this one.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The American political cluster-fuck continues. There's no end in sight. And away we continue, one and all.
This is like calling on the electors to not choose Trump, or come up with all sorts of far fetched plans that would somehow put Clinton on the big seat. Look at the county results map. Even if the DNC can somehow find a technicality to avoid a Trump presidency, the result will be more or less a civil war imo. There is no way that the actual people in those red counties are going to let 'the big city folks' put Trump aside.
I am not a big fan of him either. Nor of Hillary for that matter. But at this point it's gone so far that either he becomes president or you'll have riots from coast to coast.
Trump winning the Republican party primary despite their best efforts to stop him proves that the Republicans aren't rigging elections.
Having read earlier reports of this analysis, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.
From what I read, there was no attempt to find other explanations, like a demographic preference for e-voting over paper, or the local economic costs of maintaining one particular voting mechanism.
Nope, let's just just straight to assuming hacking.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
So what you're saying is if there's a hint of voting fraud we should as a nation just say 'fuck it' and not take a look?
Cause that's pants on head stupid.
Yep. When corrected for race, income, and other variables, the exit polls lined up with the actual vote counts. Butt-hurt Clinton crybabies, get over it. And stop with the whole "majority of the votes" shit. Neither trump nor Clinton wan a majority of the votes. Fucking morons.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Does not imply causation.
Yes. Phony outrage about Trump statements is phony. When the press purposely goes along with the phony drama, they're intentionally faking news. Most political news is this sort of intentional dishonesty.
It is not the democrats who are bringing this up. This is being brought up by a computer science professor who believes that he has evidence that the election was rigged. As of now, no officials of the DNC have even commented on this and are not currently pushing for an audit.
If independent experts also review this evidence and agree that something is fishy, then we SHOULD perform an audit of the results. If it turns out that there is nothing there, then so be it, but if there is evidence that suggests something fraudulent is happening, then our democracy at least deserves taking the time to investigate.
Were the stats adjusted for racial and income makeup of the counties examined? Clinton underperformed among poor white voters. The reason for this "discrepency" is probably a correlation between poor counties and use of electronic voting machines. The D's (who I normally vote with) need no excuse for losing other than the shitty campaign their candidate ran. #itshillarysfault.
That is all.
Even if we had a fully open and verifiable hardware and software architecture, it doesn't prevent someone from finding weaknesses. The only solution to this potential subversion of the people's will is to get rid of e-voting entirely and go back to paper ballots.
LysDexic?
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
I don't like Trump, but in hindsight it looks a lot like his apparent reluctance to accept a losing result was bait for Hillary and the Democrats. He knew it was going to be close either way, so getting them to strongly commit to accepting the results meant a smoother path for him if he won, while retaining the option to "magnanimously" accept the result if he lost.
The crux of this is that scientists brought it forward. I would assume they'd sooner have Clinton but who knows. With the fact that it's so close, I wouldn't have an issue with checking them. I'd say the same if Trump was on the other end and was that close. I highly doubt it'll change the election but if there is evidence, why not audit it like any other election would?
Sort of...
It's also very disappointing that the polls and predictions were so wildly incorrect. That is highly irregular, though not indicative of foul play.
I'm not ambitious enough to find the article, but Nate Silver had an informative retrospective piece about how some of the most influential voting blocks ended up voting contrary to what they were assumed to do, while polls concentrated on getting accurate results in other areas more typically "on the fence".
Trump's campaign did a surprisingly good job of swaying typically-blue voters to his side, while Clinton's campaign focused on the traditional swing states. Ultimately, those states that Clinton won couldn't compensate for the masses that Trump won, so Trump won the election. Since the polls focused on those swing states as well, Clinton showed a lead there.
In the future, we'll need to have an analysis of the polls that considers their assumptions about who's important to poll. The reality is that every vote counts, even when you might not expect it to.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
It's a crock. The only "irregularity" is that their side lost. http://www.vox.com/2016/11/22/...
I'm not so sure it's a crock. I don't think that Clinton should challenge the election results, because even if the electronic voting machines were manipulated in Trump's favor, it's still clear that the voters were split basically down the middle so picking the wrong narrow-margin winner isn't a significant failure of democracy. Throwing the new president's legitimacy in serious doubt, perhaps causing a delay and a new election or possibly worse, would be.
However, I think we really should take a very hard look at these sorts of irregularities, both odd differences between counties that do and don't use the voting machines, and unusual discrepancies between exit polls and official results. And where the irregularities are significant, we should take a hard look at how the vote might have been manipulated and close those holes. I think the best way to do that is to institute a verifiable voting scheme like Chaum's Scantegrity III, but it could also be done by switching to paper ballots, or even by closer and more thorough auditing of the voting machine configuration and usage (though the latter is really difficult).
The bottom line is that it's very bad for our democracy to have these sorts of open questions. There will always be potential for election fraud, but we need to have confidence that it is sufficiently small that it can tip only the tightest of races. Right now I don't think we have that.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You can point out a flaw in the system without agreeing with the flaw in the system...
I really don't understand this us/them mentality that people keep spewing. We all work together, we are family members, coworkers and fellow human beings with the same exact needs.
I work in a heavily republican environment. But they are all good people and I respect my co-workers. I don't believe in some of their choices, but who cares? Why should someone's choice for president make them the enemy? It's just stupid.
The only reason I can come up with is that it is in the best interest for those in power to keep the voting base divided. So all these "problems" are weaponized and sold to us as the bogey man coming to take our children.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Well, she and the Dems did get more total votes than the Republicans in both the presidential and senate elections. And as far as appealing to middle and lower classes, Hilllary lead in the votes of those with family incomes of $50K and less, and she lost those with higher incomes (http://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11/#the-racial-divide-between-democratic-and-republican-voters-was-clear-3). So we have to be very specific in discussions of which of the lower and middle class voters the Dems don't appeal to. The ones they do appeal to seem to have been forgotten in all these post election analyses.
If they did they'll find all the votes for Cliton from people that have been buried for years, people that don't really exist, and votes that changed after being submitted.
Reference please. This says just the opposite.
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
Because a few computer scientists investigating a trend and making a statement about it is "disrespecting the outcome of a legal election and pissing on our republic's history of a peaceful transition of power."
I missed the part where Clinton is leading an army to DC to seize control in a military coup. She's doing a pretty poor job of it, with the concession and stepping out and all.
They (the handful of scientists who made this recommendation) could be right or wrong; we won't know unless we look. Maybe they're "just upset", maybe they legitimately think they've found something (and someone can legitimately think they've found a trend and be mistaken). But we've had recounts in a number of recent relections. Asking for an examination of the voting devices is NOT the same as "pissing on our republic's history of a peaceful transition of power" especially when it doesn't even look like Clinton is pushing for any sort of recount!
Yes. She can - or more properly her campaign can, on behalf of the slates of Democratic electors in the affected states. They would normally have to file for recounts and then challenge ballots one by one. In this kind of case...it would be a pretty new thing for the courts.
The truth of the matter is that in most cases the election results have already been certified, which pushes things to another level. You'd have to get some judge in each state to agree to let this happen, and then after that you'd have to expect to get appeal after appeal. Moreover, it'd have to happen in three separate states to change the election result. The margins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are much larger than in Michigan, so they'd have to invalidate a lot of ballots to get there. Fail in one, and you lose anyway. Also, if you assume electronic modification of ballots, how do you identify the ones that are invalid?
This would not fail to provoke Republican counter-challenges in states like New Hampshire and Minnesota, so you'd have more states in play then.
This would also cost a mint (states charge on a per-ballot basis for recounts, varies by state). Stuff would be found that has been relatively secretive until this point - such as the dead vote and illegal alien voting. This would possibly - in fact probably provoke an armed response at this point. I'm not kidding about the armed response bit. Tempers are on edge here, and if you think the Democrats are the only ones angry, you're not taking into account that the Republicans are just more disciplined in general. Also, better armed.
Last point - the House would just vote Trump into office anyway if there were this disaster going on and no one were sure about the electors. Each state gets a vote, and each state's House delegation would vote internally on their collective vote.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
What's "pants on head" stupid is that the only time "fraud" is ever a serious concern is when Democrats lose. The same Democrats who belittle and pooh-pooh Republicans who point out actual, in the flesh fraud. Because, remember:
Fraud doesn't exist
I mean just ask Obama: “You are much likelier to get struck by lightning than to have somebody next to you commit voter fraud,” he said. “You’d win the Powerball.”
And maybe those people tend to project their bad behaviors at others.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
It's not cool to project.
I was wondering what kind of things that would happen if Trump won, one thing we can be pretty sure of is that the establishment doesn't let 30+ years of comfortable ruling go without a fight, and that means a fight to the bloody end, claws, fingers, nails and craniums. Bring out your tinfoil hat folks, and get ready to watch the show of the century unfold.
The hacker accusations is just the very beginning of the show, there's all kinds of stuff gonna happen now, I personally predict that they'll work 24H to dishonor him in some way so they can regain the power without angering the public, but it won't go down without a price. The "tinfoil hat" voters will have their theories verified if he either gets assassinated, dishonored enough to have to leave by any sort of disqualifications. And it has NOTHING to do with Trump, it's voting for none of the above that it is all about, and he was the lesser evil of the two.
I'm a bit scared too - you should be too, because we're in for a rough ride. Civil unrest will come as a result of this, whether he stays or the above alternatives happens. Mark my words - you're never going to forget this event in history.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
I'm saying you should probably be certain before you go to the press. Do your analysis, have other researchers take a look and try to reproduce your results or poke holes in your methodology, take it to the other campaign and see what they want to do. Only after you're sure do you go to the press and say "HAX!!!!" But when you go to the press before you've done that you just stoke resentment and maybe incite riots.
That said I'm fine with it as is. Angry buttmad lefties rioting in impotent rage are entertaining, look awful to moderates, and waste time instead of trying to mount an effective response.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
That's your justification? It's never been proven so let's not give a hoot?
I wouldn't even call this a 'serious concern', somebody pointed out some strange data and is asking people to take a look to confirm it. The only ones crying about this seem to be on the winning side.
While I'm sure you're right, it's possibly more helpful to also illustrate where this has been debunked.
She lost in places that don't have the money to buy fancy electronic voting machines because the people are poorer.
No, she lost in places that do have the money to buy fancy electronic voting machines.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
While you may be right that no hacking was involved. How would one know?
You need "proof" before you can accuse the machine, but the machines are designed specifically to avoid any such proof.
The machines are black boxes that nobody is allowed to audit, there is no paper record of what happened, and short of each and every person who voted testifying under oath as to what they chose and it not lining up with the results, there's no way to prove what actually happened. Even then, someone would accuse a percentage of those testifying under oath of lying and insist the electronic machines were right.
Without any possible way of auditing the results, these machines are really no better than a random number generator.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/out...
https://www.salon.com/2016/11/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
We live in an age where you don't 'go to the press', the press finds the story and pushes it out there as soon as they can with as little hard facts as possible.
I don't disagree in principle that it'd be better to keep this stuff under wraps until you're certain, but that's just not reality anymore. Were in the age where I'm reading in the news about whatever thing Trump decided to put in twitter every other day as if it's important.
And by using buzzwords and calling everyone who disagrees with you every -ism in the book, we know you're a Clinton supporter.
computer science professor who believes that he has evidence that the election was rigged.
I can count on one hand how many professors I've met who aren't Democrat and still have fingers left to pick my nose.
Did you not read the wikileaks emails that showed the Clinton camp conspiring with the MSM, fudging the sampling? Make sure to read the attachment, as you'll see them recommend strategies for different regions and states. For instance, in Florida, it was recommended that "independent" voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly, so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first. And by doing this, they manufactured a big lead in the polls for their candidate, hoping to convince Trump supporters that he was going to get slaughtered, so they would not bother to get out and vote.
The scientist does not believe he has evidence. See his blog. He basically has nothing: "Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don’t believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other."
Thanks for Correcting the Record.
In mathematics, this is what's known as a lurking variable. Just because there's a correlation between counties with digital voting machines and a higher percentage of them voting for one candidate over the other does not mean one caused the other to happen. I too believe the lurking variable is likely economic factors of the demographic and their corresponding voting trends. Alternatively, it may just be that counties who lean Republican are more likely to elect county leaders who push for digital voting machines.
They're doing exactly what they said they feared Trump supporters would do if he lost
They're doing nothing at all like what Trump[supporters] did before the results were even known. First of all, Trump himself claimed the election was rigged before any evidence at all surfaced. Then, his supporters claimed there has already been mass election fraud without any evidence. This was well beyond what any candidate or party has done before. No surprise the results of this were a lot of voter intimidation (funny). Note this is the first election since the Voting Rights Act has been curtailed.
My point is that one side has already gone well, well beyond the norm when it comes to claiming an election is rigged. I'm quite positive they would've done more than mostly peaceful rallies if they had lost. Now, the dems have this study, and are simply asking for more investigation. So tone down the outrage.
Technically the electoral college hasn't voted Trump in. That said, the odds are extremely high that they will in fact do that, but there is actually no requirement that they do.
That however is not a saving grace of the system, in fact it's a massive flaw that needs to be fixed. Having unaccountable people who nobody knows deciding on the President of the US is not a good thing, even if they tend to vote the way their state population asked them to.
Meh, it's the standard difference between the parties' approach, and I'd be shocked if you didn't actually know why.
* Republicans focus on voter fraud because stricter restrictions on what people need to vote most often discourage or prevent youth and minority turnout.
* Democrats focus on disenfranchisement, not fraud, for precisely the same reason.
To be fair to Democrats, cases of confirmed voter fraud are exceedingly rare (31 cases between 2000 and 2014 - rarer than being struck by lightning), while cases of confirmed erroneous disenfranchisement are not (tens of thousands erroneously removed from the rolls). The reason that voter fraud (impersonation) is rare is because the risks vastly exceed the reward. You don't throw an election by casting one extra vote for your candidate at the risk of facing a $10k fine and jailtime if you're caught - per case. Even most of the extremely-reported cases of "dead people voting" in recent history have turned out to be clerical errors (e.g. wrong date on the death certificate). With millions of people dying every year, these sorts of errors will happen at a given rate every election.
As for the particular example of Voter ID laws: Not everyone in the US has a photo ID. Those who don't are proportionally younger (e.g. haven't registered yet, haven't gotten a driving license yet, etc), poorer (no money for a car so no driving license; not traveling so no need for passport, etc), often minorities, Native Americans, etc - groups that tend to be overwhelmingly Democrats. So it shouldn't be much of a surprise that Republicans support these laws and Democrats oppose them. The courts have generally gone against them because they proportionally disenfranchise certain groups, and more to the point were often explicitly planned to do so. In the case of North Carolina, for example, the legislature explicitly requested data on different methods of voting by race, and then explicitly crafted legislation to target African Americans based on that data.
If the US could get its act together and issue everyone a national ID, the situation would be different. But I know Americans are often against things like national IDs involving national databases and other scary things.
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
The article says:
"An August study by the Washington Post found 31 credible cases of impersonation fraud out of more than 1 billion votes cast in elections from 2000 to 2014."
But you linked it with the phrase "Fraud doesn't exist"
Seems like you don't understand the difference between "doesn't exist" and "isn't happening on a large enough scale to influence elections"
If Donald Trump had gotten 2 million more popular votes than Hillary Clinton and still lost the election, would he and his supporters have accepted it graciously and not claimed fraud?
Hell, Trump was claiming fraud before the election even took place.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe you should see a doctor.
As someone utterly terrified by a Trump presidency and the damage it's going to do I say she goes for it. The point isn't to win, it's to bog down the Trump administration to limit the damage he can do. The Repubs did it to Obama (though I'd argue Obama was actually trying to Govern where Trump is just the world's largest scam). As the saying goes, this is how the sausage is made.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why do you have to debunk something that hasn't yet been proven?
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
"Why won't Democrats support the outcome?"
You do realize that the Democrats do support the outcome, right? Hillary Clinton conceded and called on her supporters to accept the US election result. Hillary's campaign is not contesting the election.
The article in question here is from a computer security specialist who is not with the campaign or with the Democratic party saying that the Democratic party should ask for a recount
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Why do you have to debunk something that hasn't yet been proven?
???
Really?
Complacency is what kills Democracies faster than anything else I've ever seen. We already pay these agencies to audit and monitor elections, that's the entire point of them existing.
You don't have to do anything. But if you dislike people believing something that isn't true, then debunking it is a good way to achieve this aim.
"...the effect COMPLETELY DISAPPEARS once you control for race and education levels."
See Nate Silver's tweet's here.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Of course, it's not like the state actors in control of the voting machines would tilt the electoral college outcome while deliberately conceding the popular vote so as to encourage this kind of mind-blowing tea leaf reading of manipulated data.
If the electronic vote was systematically manipulated no conclusions whatsoever can be drawn from the "apparent" outcome by anyone who values the integrity of the future process.
Man, the tally is either as correct as historical norms allow, or it isn't. Sheep wearing sunshades not required.
The polls are totally indicative of foul play. It's indicative of how media attempted to skew public opinion in favor of a specific candidate. It's also hilarious that it didn't work.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Richer precincts are more likely to have e-voting machines. Richer precincts are also more likely to lean Republican. Therefore, precincts that have e-voting machines are more lean Republican.
It's odd that you would say this, given the almost perfect polarization between urban, educated, rich precincts that almost without exception voted for Clinton and the rural, comparatively poor, precincts that voted for Trump. It is also something that is easily controlled for. The problem is that they compared counties with SIMILAR populations and the ones with voting machines produced a 7% surplus for Trump. Fairly consistently. This is not only not expected, it is (given a consistent pattern over many such counties and precincts) almost impossible, statistically. Yes, correlation is not causality, but at some point the p-value of the null hypothesis of an unrigged election goes to zero, independent of glib explanations like this one.
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
When corrected for race, income, and other variables, the exit polls lined up with the actual vote counts.
I'm pretty sure that one could create any number of "variables" and then "correct" for them to show any result they desire.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Hillary Clinton gave a concession speech. It was watched by millions of people. Learn to use Google--it's accessible via your Breitbart box.
What's "pants on head" stupid is that the only time "fraud" is ever a serious concern is when Democrats lose.
I think that is a bit rich, when Trump was the one hinting very heavily that he would only accept the election result if he won. Yes, I know, he never stated this clearly and unambiguously, but you have to be more than a little disingenious to explain his words any other way. And the objective fact is that the popular vote (ie. what is what real people on the ground actually wanted) stands very, very close to 50-50. In that situation it is perfectly reasonable to scrutinise the result carefully, to make sure that it is not in doubt. I would say the same no matter which side had won, because the winner will otherwise be open to the accusation, that he/she doesn't have a true mandate from the voters, whatever the technicalities of the electoral system.
But we know that you don't have one.
Don't be a pussy and try to distance yourself from his extremism. Own it.
Both choices for president were very flawed in different ways. Your logic is that if you support either candidate that their flaws reflect on the voter's personal character. See the cognitive distortion there yet? Hint: it's called black and white thinking. Why don't you own that as it seems to be a reflection of your character?
We'll make great pets
Actually I didn't vote for Clinton, but I did listen closely to what Trump said.
Anyone with any modicum of reasoning could figure out pretty quick that he isn't cut out for being POTUSA.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
If there was a hint of voting fraud, sure. That hint just isn't here in this case. What is here in this case is a bunch of people who are so convinced they couldn't possibly have lost that they're looking for literally any excuse to make it otherwise.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Please. You can audit the software, and the networks, and the process of preparation. The problem is that software audits have ALREADY demonstrated that the machines can be hacked. There may well be direct evidence that they HAVE been hacked if one audits their internal firmware, and this could easily be done and wouldn't even be that expensive.
If one finds even a single machine that has been hacked, of course, chaos ensues. The founding fathers never anticipated this. The only fair thing to do would be to go back to the precincts and either hold an open re-vote or limit a re-vote to people who actually voted in the original, this time with paper ballots and a crowd of poll-watchers, but I don't think the constitution has any provision for this; at best the courts would have to order it in the absence of law or precedent. And "fair" isn't the standard "prescribed in the constitution" is.
But if there were clear evidence of tampering in these states -- really clear evidence -- if Republicans challenged both the clear evidence that Clinton won the popular election by a solid margin AND the clear evidence that the election in key "battleground" states was tampered with in favor of Trump (possibly with evidence of who did the tampering) then they'd be well advised to either concede the election in the electoral college (in exchange for keeping Trump actually out of jail) or at the very least, replace Trump with somebody centrist, that is to say NOT with Mike Pence. Maybe McCain. Even Ryan, although it isn't clear how centrist he really is. Or one of Trump's primary opponents that the Dems could live with. Otherwise they would face the mother of all backlashes in the next elections, forever.
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Actually, the behavior displayed by Trump during the campaign was obviously irrational and demagogic.
His behavior, even up to the current day hinges on unstable.
It is pretty easy to use those words to describe Trump and his attitudes towards various minority groups.
It is right there in the public record.
But sure, if you choose not to use those words that is your decision.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
I only call it like I see it.
But at least I can make a cogent point instead of passing off some sad attempt at a comeback.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
IF the election results show an anomaly, why would we automatically assume hacking of voting machines instead of ballot-stuffing or other issues at polling places without electronic voting?
Curiosity about Wisconsin has centred on apparently disproportionate wins that were racked up by Trump in counties using electronic voting compared with those that used only paper ballots. The apparent disparities were first widely publicised earlier this month by David Greenwald, a journalist for the Oregonian.
However, Nate Silver, the polling expert and founder of FiveThirtyEight, cast significant doubt over this theory on Tuesday evening, stating that the difference disappeared after race and education levels, which most closely tracked voting shifts nationwide, were controlled for.
Silver and several other election analysts have dismissed suggestions that the swing state vote counts give cause for concern about the integrity of the results.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The HBO documentary Hacking Democracy shows how easy it is. The Voting Machines In The Feature Film 'HACKING DEMOCRACY' Counted America's Votes In The November 2016 Elections.
During the 2004 presidential election in Florida, Gore had negative votes (or not enough positive ones to reach zero) on some of the voting machines. The smart card prior to being used is initialized and a summation of all the candidates votes is taken and checked to be zero. If some candidates have a positive number and others have negative values and the sum is zero, it passes its integrity check.
See http://www.hackingdemocracy.co...
Wanting to enforce immigration laws is not xenophobia.
Accurately pointing out violent, criminal illegal immigrants is not xenophobia.
Detesting sharia law is not xenophobia.
Wanting people to be treated by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin is not racism.
All lives matter is not racism.
Criticizing a judge who belongs to La Raza is not racism.
Treating women with the same vulgarity that we treat men with isn't sexism, or misogyny.
Holding a woman to a high standard of classified document handling isn't sexism, or misogyny.
Disagreeing with current abortion laws isn't sexism, or misogyny.
Disagreeing with coddling college students in "safe spaces" isn't bigotry.
I own *all* of that. You can continue your own personal bigotry against those who disagree with you by labeling them "extreme", but it might help if you actually looked past the MSM sound bites, and understand that Trump is a crass reaction to the smothering politically correct left wing that has gone to ridiculous extremes over the past 20 years.
I think Hillary was a total turd in many ways, but at this point she hasn't contested the election results. I'm pretty confident that she won't either. Most likely she's already accepted the reality and I'm betting she's now relieved that it's over. The amount of stress that situation must generate has to be astronomical for any candidate, and after a year of it I'm guessing the lines between "normal" and "overstressed" become blurred.
That said, I'm happy she didn't win. The US doesn't need a staunch SJW in office.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Sort of like "correcting" things for the variable of "evoting machines"?
Make no doubt, I *firmly* agree with you - it's just that the sword cuts not just both ways, but *all* ways :)
Try to learn the difference between a guy in a dress (transvestite) and a transsexual. Me vegan? Nope, never happened. As for angry feminazi, I guess you missed that I routinely dump all over SJWs, political correctness, and make fun of Germaine Greer as seriously outdated. 3rd wave feminism is also dead. Time to start looking for equality of the sexes, not stupid fights.
As for the whole "pathologically immature and needs to look down on everybody" bit - you're projecting there. Though I do admit to looking down upon adults who can't even make a grilled cheese sandwich without screwing it up. As I pointed out elsewhere, hominids before us were perfectly capable of cooking, even though they didn't have modern equipment, and they had an estimated IQ of 60, which places them firmly in moron territory.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Most things I can think of alternatives either have manipulable human intervention or compromise vote privacy.
Let's say you print a receipt to the voter with a key to check if the vote was logged correctly (and a matching paper record that is anonymous). That would put power in the hands of the people to detect hacking of the vote count, assuming the hack was in the recording of the vote, not the tabulation of recorded votes (the latter of which can be machine or human). But that risks compromise of voter privacy. After all, you have a potential trail back to the voter.
Let's say you do paper ballots which are anonymous but numbered. You can double-check via sampling every election to do "quality control" which would also detect tabulation hacking. The results of that, again, do no good with crooked election officials. Easy enough to cover up the tabulation error.
Keeping votes anonymous, preventing recording manipulation, and preventing tabulation and reporting manipulation all have to be dealt with or the subject of assumptions. Which ones do you want to preserve?
If Politifact rejects claims of rigging, then they just can not be true, can they be?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If I were a republican, I would shout "Let us verify the results" as loud as possible. That way you can shut up those pesky democrats. As a side effect, you have done an audit. Nothing to be lost here.
All it shows me is that there is a blind trust from ALL sides concerning the functioning of the system.
Trust is good. Control is better.
This just to detect and solve not so much fraud, but malfunctioning of systems. Most people here have at least written a script and know that things can, no, WILL go wrong.
And if you are unwilling to do this for your democratic system, you better remove that part and be done with it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Actually, she lost in all kinds of places. Oklahoma, for example, she did not win a single county. It looks like Oklahoma uses paper ballots. She also lost every single county in West Virginia, which uses paper or machines with a paper trail.
Here's a list of the states using paper ballots, and who got their votes:
Montana - Trump
New Mexico - Clinton
North Dakota - T
South Dakota - T
Nebraska - T
Oklahoma - T
Minnesota - C
Iowa - T
Michigan - T
Alabama - T
New York - C
Maryland - C
Vermont - C
NH - C
Mass. - C
Conn. - C
RI - C
Maine - C
The paper-only states are the ones colored gray here:
https://ballotpedia.org/Voting...
For reference:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/...
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You are most definitely a fucking moron. I don't support either one. I'm in the 95% of the world laughing at how ridiculous this election was. Too stupid to use paper ballots, even though there have always been problems with voting machines. Even 3rd world countries can do it, so why can't you?
You would think that the Florida ballot that got Bush over Gore would have taught you a lesson, but no ...
So you own your own failure as a nation to use common sense to fix a known problem of national importance that has problems with accuracy and audit trails. You got what you deserved in this past election, so YOU own it.
As for the claims that Russians rigged the election, puh-lease. The US has interfered with or actively overthrown more than 50 governments since the second world war, including those that were democratically elected. So don't bitch if someone does it to you, hypocrite. Again, you got what you deserved if the was any interference, and also if there wasn't.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You could just thumb mark every voter with ink. Keep them down to one vote each.
There isn't really a good substitute. We should accept our elections are just as subject to fraud as any third world nations.
Clear ballot boxes are needed too. Long history of box stuffing in the USA (and the rest of the world).
Right now we have a balance of cheating situation. Neither side really wants anybody looking too close.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
And anyone who has followed politics in the last 2 decades knows that Clinton is in the back pocket of the corporations and wall street, same as her hubby was. You want the kleptocracy to continue?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
And Clinton has said in the senate that marriage is sacred, between one man and one woman. And on Ellen. She's a homophobe. It's right there in the public record. Sounds like a tea party candidate.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It would be really terrible if someone put a GPS tracker on one of those buses. Terrible, if it showed the bus going from polling place to polling place with no stops in between.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
She lost in places that don't have the money to buy fancy electronic voting machines because the people are poorer.
No, she lost in places that do have the money to buy fancy electronic voting machines.
Either way, it tells us exactly nothing because there's no context for why one area chooses one voting tech over another or where the money to pay for it comes from, or what the cost difference is.
And that's the problem with this "news" story. Computer scientists, who are not sociologists or political scientists, made a statistical observation and have said that it could be caused by hacking, except they have no evidence of hacking and no way to provide evidence of hacking.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Trump did 7% worse in places with paper voting, suggesting that there were irregularities with paper voting.
The only good thing that can come out of this is a nationwide mandate to require paper ballots or some other "human-readable, voter-readable" official ballot like a Polaroid snapshot of the electronic voting machine's screen.
In the case of a Polaroid, the voter would inspect the Polaroid photo and say "cast ballot or void ballot and start over" as the last step when voting. This Polaroid photo would serves as the "official" ballot for recount purposes.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
No, I meant it. You have a lot of hate in your heart. You should be treated by a doctor.
It's not nearly as out of whack in the physical sciences and engineering.
Of course they know to keep their mouths shut about it on campus, less the torches and pitchforks come out in the *studies building.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
When I read your post, it is obvious you are a Trump supporter, and by finishing your statement with "Fucking morons" you definitely fit the mold of a Trump supporter.
That's your criteria? Any given day I could find examples here of Clinton or Bernie supporters who say the same thing, in the same way, or even nastier (especially on threads discussing climate change). Trump supporters hardly own the trademark on insults and ad-hominems. Insults and epithets been flying around here since forever.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
The Senate, House, and local winners in those states are going to be livid because that could impact their races, too, so you can expect lots of home court resistance in each state to doing anything like this.
This would be Florida 2000 x5 or x10. Very bad.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Nope.
The p-value you "calculate" is not for the hypothesis "the election was hacked." It is for the hypothesis "counties with electronic-only voting machines vote differently than counties with paper-trail voting machines." One, but only one, explanation for why they might be different is that the electronic, but not the paper trail, voting machines were hacked. The other explanation, not ruled out, is that the type of voting machine is indicative of counties that are different in other ways as well.
Also, I note that you are "computing" p-values without actually looking at data-- basically, you're recycling rumors. What is the standard deviation by county for counties that have electronic-only voting, and what is the deviation for counties that don't? You don't have that data. So, you actually can't calculate statistics.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The electoral college electors are known and there is not a secret ballot.
These are party bigwigs who have their lives invested in their position. If they vote 'wrong' they are 'independants' the next day.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Actually, America's interests would be served by doing a recount of some portio of the ballots to verify accuracy. Quite apart from who won, it's valuable to check, check, and check again to verify if there is an error or tampering.
But, yes, it may not be in the Democratic Party's best interest. Although to be frank, they are already being labelled "sore losers" despite conceding the election and explicitly instructing their supporters to accept the results, so I doubt it would make any difference in how they are perceived.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Strategically speaking, that doesn't make much sense. If you want to win an election, you make your side afraid that it might lose. If instead you present polls saying that your side is a shoe-in, then many people will not bother to vote. I'm happy to entertain that many facets of the media attempted to skew public opinion, but I don't see any reason to believe that one of their methods was to fudge the polling.
In every race, a recount from random sample of precincts AND a random sample of every type of voting machine needs to be done.
The main goal is to find counting equipment that is mis-configured, out of calibration, hacked, or otherwise faulty.
A secondary goal is to find MODELS or BRANDS of equipment that have higher-than-average failure rates.
Doing both will greatly increase the confidence in the outcome, which is very important in any election.
These recounts don't all have to be done by hand: They can be done using different equipment. For example, if the original ballots were scanned using Brand A equipment, re-count them using equipment from a competitor.
You need to do enough samples of precincts (to catch locally-targeted hacking or local poor upkeep of equipment) and types and brands of equipment (to catch design faults in the equipment) to have statistical confidence that the "counting-introduced margin of error" was acceptably small - that is, well below the margin-of-victory that would trigger an automatic hand-recount.
In states where there is no automatic hand recount provision, I would recommend enough testing that you can be 95% confident that the "counting-introduced margin of error" is less than 0.5% in all races and less than half of the margin of victory in races where the winner won by less than 1%.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Leave it to the states. Nothing is improved by moving this process and responsibility to Washington.
Indeed, much will be lost. Like credibility, integrity, and accountability. Nothing given to Washington escapes the taint.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
People are fine until they're told repeatedly that Trump voters are white nationalists / actual Nazis. Thanks to the 24 hour "news" cycle and the human capacity for developing bad habits, we've got wholly programmed individuals walking around operating on this false us-vs-them narrative.
Richer precincts are more likely to have e-voting machines. Richer precincts are also more likely to lean Republican.
Wait a minute. I thought that the college educated people all voted for Clinton, and the poor uneducated people voted for Trump. Not to mention how many of the ultra-rich are major liberal backers.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
They reached the wrong conclusion but then they are biased. My Occam's razor says the non-electronic ballots were manipulated by the Democrats. They would have far more experience in stuff the ballot box than manipulating the electronics. The electronics are correct, it's the paper ballots that are wrong!
The "correction" is essentially fitting a model. When you fit a model with a single parameter you have some chance of finding a spurious relationship. As you add parameters that chance gets bigger and bigger. When you have as many independent parameters as data points your model will always fit perfectly.
The number of counties involved doesn't look particularly big. If you kept adding demographic factors to your model it might not be long before you succeeded in making any differences go away.
After all, he was the one who repeated over and over that the election was rigged. This would be an opportunity for him to prove his point.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
No that's what a bunch of self-important media persons claimed a year ago. Once Clinton was the obvious future-nominee, many people secretly applied that statement to the Democrats.
Now we know which side had the better intuition.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
So all those people across the country destroying property are not Democrats? Nor are all the people signing petitions to turn electors against Trump?
I voted for Jill Stein, not Trump, but the hypocrisy from the left is making me glad Trump won over Hillary.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Sure, that would be worthwhile if there was any evidence that people voting multiple times was an issue.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Actually, more about white vs. non-white. Trump swept whites in every economic, education, and sex category, except college-educated white women where Clinton scraped a razor-thin majority (51%).
Now let's talk working class whites. I grew up as non-white among working class whites, so I'm well aware that working class whites are a very diverse bunch. My best friends growing up were white. But I knew plenty of bigots too. The worst were twisted with pathological rage -- often alcoholism and abuse were part of their family background. They were people who felt so powerless they needed someone more vulnerable than them to take it out on. They weren't uncommon, but their existence in the group doesn't taint the entire group.
The Trump to Clinton ratio was 2::1 among voters who turned out. That stipulation is important, because Trump spent almost his entire campaign energizing his working class white supporters. So it's a pretty fair bet we're seeing a different sample of working class whites than we did in other recent presidential elections.
So the real mystery isn't why Trump won the working class whites; he courted them and energized the people within that group who might not have turned out. The real mystery is why educated white people, even nearly half of college-educated white women voted for him.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
In order to take it to court, I imagine one must have standing to sue. A single elector may have trouble proving standing, as their one vote, by itself, is unlikely to tilt the election. However, there's no disputing (I think) that Clinton would suffer irreparable harm, assuming the results are tampered. She has standing. The academics do not.
To disclaim bias, I say this happy that Clinton did not win. (But not happy that Trump won... sigh) As I've said before, I'd rather honesty and transparency than fraud, regardless of what that brings to light. If Clinton should have been the legal winner of those college votes, then she should have them, and should sue to get that done. Though I can understand a reluctance - undermining the fiction of votes counting also undermines the validity of future Democrat presidents, not just the current Republican president-elect, and her chances of winning are likely quite low. There's little upside to the challenge for her, and great downside for her party.
It doesn't matter anyway because she still won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote.
This is true. She didn't make a single campaign stop in Wisconsin. Those states were just taken for granted. That was bad strategy.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Take a good look at the world we live in and then consider that question again. There are lots of things that go undone that it would be better done and vice-versa.
Their was outcry before the election from Trump supporters for allowing Soros, someone who spent 10 million, that we know of, trying to get Clinton elected, to supply the voting machines.
Their is no reason to allow this, but the establishment did not care when legitimate concerns like this were raised.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I sort of thought the evoting machines are used to save money. No one actually seems to prefer them, but if they can replace thousand of counters they could save loads of money and effort
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
So, is the electoral college useless because it will never vote any other way than as directed? in which case it should be abolished as it does nothing.
Or is the electoral college undemocratic because they could some day decide to vote in a way other than as directed? in which case it should be abolished as it goes against the will of the people.
Which one of those reasons do you subscribe to?
I said this before the election, when everyone assumed the election was going to have different results, and I will say it now. Why on earth do we allow contractors to build machines that are closed source?
No matter which way this election went, we were bound to have claims of fraud. I am not accusing one way or another here, it is just that without the ability for the public to audit the means of counting, it is unfair and unethical. The reason for a paper vote, as opposed to a voice vote, was partially as an audit trail and public record. The voting machines themselves should be audit-able before they begin counting and the public has a right to know that they have not been tampered with. It is a conflict of interest to have secretary of states be in charge of "verifying" the voting machines, while they themselves are often part of the political machine. While at some level, this is inevitable, we can introduce a measure of integrity through open sourcing of the machines themselves.
The government should require as part of the contract with voting machine producers, that the system is open and audit-able. They should test ahead of time and agree upon a finished version before the election. This version and hash code should be available to the public at each voting machine. It should be a crime to use "unverified" versions of the software, unless under direct orders from a judge.
WALLACE: Mr. Trump, I want to ask you about one last question in this topic. You have been warning at rallies recently that this election is rigged and that Hillary Clinton is in the process of trying to steal it from you.
Your running mate, Governor Pence, pledged on Sunday that he and you -- his words -- "will absolutely accept the result of this election." Today your daughter, Ivanka, said the same thing. I want to ask you here on the stage tonight: Do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely -- sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of this election?
Perhaps he should've asked Clinton that question?
> They are already being labelled "sore losers" despite conceding the election and explicitly instructing their supporters to accept the results
I'm sure SOMEBODY in the world called SOME Democrat a sore loser based on something they said. As one Slashdot's resident conservatives, I applauded Mrs. Clinton's concession speech. I post to Facebook about twice a year, and one of those was "Clinton showed some class this this morning". I thought it was worth bringing attention to her response to the election, which was more "statesman-like" than many politicians.
Your county must be doing something wrong. We also had about 25 items to vote on, but the paper voter card was one card and simple. Here's an example section:
President:
- Fred Smith.... [23] __
- Martha Jones [24] __
- Kermit Frog....[25] __
Proposition X: legalization of green pants:
- Yes.. [26] __
- No... [27] __
The actual voting card has numbered slots to fill in, like a school "Scan-Tron" test form. If you voted for Kermit, and voted "No" on Proposition X, you'd darken in the corresponding bubble, shown as "O" in Ascii art:
23 (_)
24 (_)
25 (O)
27 (_)
28 (O)
Etc...
The card can contain up to about 200 "slots", being it has about 4 columns, if I remember correctly.
A machine could optionally "print" (mark) the card for the voter to make things easy, but otherwise can be manually marked and/or checked by the voter if they want (including mailed in.) The machine counts can then be later verified against the physical cards. You can have the best of both worlds.
(Samples approximate only, due to limits of Ascii art.)
Table-ized A.I.
A pro Hillary government, using voting machines owned by pro-Hillary companies, gets rigged by the smallest cheapest campaign in the history of America.
The reason why we should think so? The exit polls, are off by a few percentage points, while the pre-election polls were off by 90 percentage points.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Any ballot postmarked election day is still being processed in WA and CA and a bunch of other states.
Last update had Trump lose by 2,100,000 votes.
Then one can sue over Russian hacking in a state which was in violation of gerrymandering laws according to the FEC ruling.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
So all those people across the country destroying property are not Democrats? Nor are all the people signing petitions to turn electors against Trump?
This is an example of what should be on the list of logical fallacies, the "ambiguous specifier". The post said "Why won't Democrats support the outcome?" What does that word "Democrats" specify? All Democrats? Some Democrats? Most Democrats? At least one Democrat? The official Democratic policy? The Democratic leadership?
The Democratic Party stated that they accepted the outcome of the election clearly, explicitly, and without qualifications. The Democrats most explicitly did support the outcome. If some individuals apparently don't, they are not doing so with the support of the Democratic party.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Oh bullshit. Minorities have no problems getting IDs and you implying otherwise is racist as fuck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm not a "precious little snowflake". So go f' yourself. I have legitimate reasons to fear Trump, to wit:
.com bust as companies bring trillions of dollars back to the USA in the wake of Trump tax cuts letting them off scott free and promptly embark on the biggest Merchants & Acquisitions buying spree in history. Oh, and look forward to prices skyrocketing as competition basically ends.
1. Repeal ACA. I have friends who depend on the medicare expansion to live. One's a Type-1 diabetic who until Obamacare didn't have enough insulin. Almost died a few times. He's 8 years older now and probably gonna die the next time.
2. End of Roe v Wade. My daughter has several congenital problems that might some day necessitate an abortion. Mike Pence would rather see her flown into God's embrace than risk the sin that is Abortion. Yeah, I'm being flippant by putting it that way, but it doesn't make it less true.
3. Cash repatriation. Got a job? Got friends with jobs? Prepare for the biggest round of layoffs since the
I could go on and on. Trump supporters who aren't millionaires are all fucked, and they've dragged me and my family and friends along for the ride. If you see a train coming your way and you can't get out of the way because of a gaggle of morons any sane person would react with fear.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You want the kleptocracy to continue?
You wanted to end the kleptocracy, so you elected the guy who said that it's impossible for him to have a conflict of interest? The guy who, already before getting elected, has started merging his personal business with government business, and leveraging his political position to drive customers to his private business? The guy who has repeatedly cheated on his taxes, refused to pay vendors and contractors the money they're owed, and driven several businesses into the ground?
Good luck with that. It's almost as funny as the people who say that they voted for Trump because they're tired of rich, arrogant, entitled people from big cities running the country, and they wanted someone who understood the plight of the common man.
I was pretty sure the tone of that statement could be easily-recognized as facetious-derogatory, essentially an elaborate way of saying "cause-head" or similar. You're always shouting at people for being on the wrong side of some cause--any side of any cause, really--and never seem to agree with anyone at any given time. You dump all over SJWs while getting all angry about people not having gender and orientation equality already--not so much on-the-fence as on both sides at the same time.
Every negative observation about someone isn't projection. It's also notable that many people like to elevate themselves by admitting that they can and have been wrong--but never quite bring anything up to current date into that conversation, essentially maintaining that they're right about everything right now, in context, immediately, and are ambiguously wrong sometimes, in the past, and may be the future, in some as-yet-unforseen situation. This allows them to claim the great virtue of humility while never actually admitting to being wrong at any time.
My observation of you has been that you're pretty much always looking to attack people. Always. The only time you stop is when you rescue baby wildlife and talk about how everyone else is assholes because you rescued baby wildlife and they obviously would have all just stomped on it and paved a shopping mall parking lot. When you show up, it's approximately guaranteed you have some reason why everyone is a moron and an evil asshole. At a point, I do give up on assuming all people are good people, and resort to simply diminishing bad people as a source of amusement; that's not necessarily wholly-mature, either, but I don't hit all of the markers for maturity anyway (I hit quite a few for neurosis, as well as an active personality disorder--not APD or BPD, though). No sense in pretending to be more grown-up than I am, after all.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Both sides were cheating in this election. I couldn't say which cheated worse. What I can say is that the Supreme Court wouldn't look favorably upon the challenge. It doesn't really matter that it's valid, what matters is that it's useless.
And based on the prior instance, after they rule, they'll seal the evidence so that nobody can see it for the next 50 years.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The actual article states the exact oposite. What the living fuck?
"Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked."
It sure seemed to me that the Hillary supporters were among the nastiest of the bunch, but where they really dominated was in the condescension. The Trump and Bernie supporters called others names of course, but no one was remotely as condescending as the Hillary supporters.
As for the Bernie supporters, it seemed they saved most of their negative energy for those condescending Hillary supporters, and they had good reason for it, since they were the recipients of the condescension.
In a way, I was really glad to see Trump win, just to spite those fucking Hillary lovers. At least with the Trump supporters, I could understand why they voted the way they did, even if I didn't agree with them and thought many of them to be rather dumb. The Hillary supporters, by contrast, were a bunch of condescending assholes supporting corrupt establishment politics at its worst.
You said "blatantly illegal"--words have meaning and facts are real things. Back up your claim or you're just another liar on the internet.
Nate has since turned it into a full article:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/
Republicans have been for a long time calling for voter ID, voting machines to be made only in the US for US elections, and open source code that can be independently reviewed for security and accuracy, along with an online validation system that ties your voter ID to the vote, so you can log on and verify that your vote has been properly counted. It is the Democrats that are the party of criminals (8:1, look it up) the party of dead voters, the party of voter fraud, the party of illegal alien voters, the party of pay to vote (a la free booze for homeless etc.), the party of busing mental deficients to polling places, the party of basically any kind of voter fraud you can think of, and some you probably couldn't. I am not a huge fan of Trump, but his message resonated: "I am just a guy, a successful business owner, who is sick of Washington politics. They are wrecking the country and destroying the middle class. Vote for me, warts and all and I will clean house and try to get the country back to where it was in 1985."
If you are paying attention, it already seems pretty clear from his changing positions that he is not a radical guy and he can be persuaded by reasonable arguments. Democrats need to stop believing their own propaganda. The election is over. Time to sack up and judge Trump's actions.
As far as the 7% differential, in a vacuum that is absolutely meaningless and is just a bunch of butt hurt losers. If you can find counties that voted only for Trump (like the counties that voted 100% for Obama in previous elections) or that every voting machine county voted EXACTLY 7% (hint, they didn't) or other real statistical anomalies, then you can allege hacking. The real headline should read: "Butt hurt Democrats unable to find any hacking in election machines, still bitching about losing."
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Both choices? Both? Seriously? There were states with more than 10 candidates on the ballot. I personally voted for Evan McMullen
Ok Mr./Mrs. Pedant calm down. Take a chill pill and come back down to reality. You're splitting hairs. There are two major political parties, Republican and Democrat. I'm pretty sure you're not stupid enough to not recognize that was implied. I did notice that Gary Johnson scored a record high popular vote for the Libertarian party but come on now. You're acting as if an independent political candidate has any realistic chance of winning a presidential election in the United States. Certain things we need to happen in order for the generally stupid American public to feel compelled to think outside the box. Have you ever bothered to look at the track record of independent candidates over history? So, what do you want to gripe about? That the American public is too stupid to realize they have other choices besides Red and Blue? Go right ahead but I'll tell you it's a complete waste of time and energy and you only get so much in this life.
If you're really that butt hurt over it and you really want to change things, organize a grass roots campaign to change American politics. Ranting and raving on Slashdot isn't going to do a damn thing except possibly get you all worked up to the point that you have a heart attack. Geesh.
We'll make great pets
Not "extremely high"; 100%. There's simply no chance the electoral college will vote Clinton, even if they're not legally obliged to.
Seriously? Unlike Trump?
I think the confusion is that it happened the next day. On the night of the election, she went to bed while we were all waiting on results and eventually I think it was Podesta that told everyone to just go home.
If the electronic vote was systematically manipulated no conclusions whatsoever can be drawn from the "apparent" outcome by anyone who values the integrity of the future process.
My point was that the electorate is so close to evenly divided that all sorts of things can push it one way or the other. Weather, for example. Or FBI announcements. It's not as though one side was clearly and strongly selected by the voters and manipulation gave it to the other side. So democracy is not seriously harmed by the decision, whichever way it goes... what may seriously harm democracy is if the people believe the results are invalid.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Also, what's up with this Electoral College garbage. Seriously, it's 2016, not 1776.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Isn't this the same group that assured all the voters that the election results could not possibly be manipulated when Trump suggest just that, prior to the election? And the same group that, given Hilary's higher popular vote numbers, are calling for the abolition of the Electoral College?
I think that Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the CNN crew and still grumpy that Hillary lost. Well get over it Wolfie - you got your ass handed to you. Despite your one sided reporting and thinly veiled rooting for Hillary you lost.
CNN and MSNBC and others are just pissed off that they have been exposed as surrogates of the Democrat party. I think that a lot of people have long suspected that is the case but now it is in full view. If you want to hear Democrat cheerleaders then go to CNN or MSNBC. If you want to hear Republican cheerleaders then go to FOX. If you want the actual truth, you know that thing that used to be called "news", then you are going to have to go to a variety of web sites and other outlets and try to filter out all the political BS. That's what the world has come to.
...by various analysts, including the un-conservative Nate Silver: "Some *very* quick analysis which suggests the claim here of rigged results in Wisconsin is probably BS: Run a regression on Wisc. counties with >=50K people, and you find that Clinton improved more in counties with only paper ballots. HOWEVER: the effect COMPLETELY DISAPPEARS once you control for race and education levels, the key factors in predicting vote shifts this year. Maybe a more complicated analysis would reveal something, but [it’s] usually bad news when a finding can’t survive a basic sanity check like this. Nothing in Pennsylvania, either, whether or not you control for demographics. And Michigan has paper ballots everywhere, so not even sure what claim is being made there."" https://twitter.com/NateSilver...
Most states have some sort of faithless elector law. Whatever the Founding Fathers' vision for the EC, Walter Bagehot called it right nearly 150 years ago:
Walter Bagehot - The English Constitution
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Actually I didn't vote for Clinton, but I did listen closely to what Trump said. Anyone with any modicum of reasoning could figure out pretty quick that he isn't cut out for being POTUSA.
You don't get free nonstop press by being boring. Perhaps his supporters were the rational ones and we were the ones who could not comprehend things as they were?
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
...STUPID!
I have voted in several places over the years. In NJ we used to use these lever machines with a punched card in the back. Each lever was labeled with a candidate/race/issue/whatever. They'd run it through a punched card reader to tabulate the results after you voted. You saw them remove the cartridge with the card in it from the voting machine between each voter. It was rather reliable and obvious.
In MD now, we use a bubble sheet like a standardized test. You bubble it out and then insert it into the reader yourself. Election worker verifies it got read and you leave.
I would rather have either of these systems than a person in control of tabulating the votes. First, the political parties have judges in each precinct that can go over attempts at fraud or damaged ballots. Second, at the end of the night, they can re-tabulate the ballots as necessary to verify the vote counts.
I really do not see the problem with the system as it exists in any of the places I have lived.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
the left need their own Fox News. If MSNBC was 1/3 what Fox was this would be on air and on their site non-stop for the next 4 years. That said I don't think Liberals can support a Fox News equivalent. Go watch Fox sometime, and watch the adverts the come on. Every single one is a scam of some kind or another. The left don't have a base that can support that kind of shenanigans.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Even most of the extremely-reported cases of "dead people voting" in recent history have turned out to be clerical errors (e.g. wrong date on the death certificate).
I'm sure a lot of dead people vote every year. I could easily have cast my father-in-law's ballot this year. His mail-in ballot arrived at his house a month after he passed and I really doubt anyone would have noticed if I'd filled it in, scrawled a signature and dropped it in the mail. If I'd been a little bit careful about it I could have made sure no one could prove I'd done it even if they had noticed. Instead, I shredded it.
However, those sorts of fraud opportunities are pretty randomly distributed, so they shouldn't produce a significant systematic effect unless there's a strong generational difference.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You need to get some.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
The point of the electoral college is not to decide anything. The point is to give smaller states a minimum say in who gets to be president. They should vote according to the results of their state though there is.. technically some wiggle room there. You get a popular vote decision state by state but the small states get a minimum of 3 voters in the college. They are still dwarfed by Cali or New York but they are at the table. This was one of their requirements before agreeing to join the union.
Well, if she wasn't a democrat and married to Bill, she would have made a wonderful Republican presidential candidate, but I don't think the Tea Party would have accepted her, though.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Among the many problems with this is that I'm told that all counties in Michigan use paper ballots, so arguments that there is a 7% difference between paper ballots and voting machines are bogus. Can anyone name any Michigan county that didn't use paper ballots.
What the hell is Jill Stein whining about? Does she think that she had enough votes anywhere to change anything??? Or is it just an attention getting stunt (rhymes with .... ) to waste money (and perhaps steal some)?
I love all the stupid stories about trying to get the electoral college members to change their votes. Particularly Hillary supporters trying to get votes changed in states where she supposedly won, just to show that the system is flawed. Hillary was a senator and could have introduced an amendment to change that system but never did. Some fools even think they can make a difference by assuring that no one gets to 270 in the electoral college. Do they really think that the Republican Majority who then has to decide the election will give it to Hillary????
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
The various types of voting machines aren't distributed randomly, so the first question is the assumption that any difference between electronic voting machines and optical scanners is the result of tampering and not a difference in the types of municipalities that choose electronic voting machines vs the types of municipalities that choose optical scanners.
In particular, electronic voting machines are more expensive, so you'd think they represent wealthier tax bases than the area that went for the cheaper options. The fact wealthy areas are slightly more republican leaning isn't exactly a huge shock.
I keep hearing this matra of how rare vote fraud is. Yet I have personally witnessed fraud occurring twice in my life, without looking for it. If I have stumbled over vote fraud twice, which makes me think that it happens rather frequently.
The first instance of fraud I observed was in Durham, NC in the early 1990s. A woman in line to vote in front of me had moved house but voted in her former district. This was apparent because she initially gave an incorrect address, but then amended her answer to her old address when the new one didn't work. From her reactions and mannerisms, it was plainly apparent to all that she we lying about where she currently lived.
In the second instance occurred 10 years later, shortly after I myself had moved to a new city. A local politician in my former town mailed me an absentee ballot and told me to fill it out and send it back in. (I declined).
The first fraud would probably not impact national elections since it merely shifted votes from one district to another. But the second case presented the opportunity to vote twice.
I have no hard data on how often vote fraud actually occurs. But if I've personally seen it twice myself, that strongly suggests that it is happening more than 31 times in 14 years.
Listen carefully, for I shall say this only once!
It was the Russians.
They're certain he won fair and square and keep on saying there's a mandate for him, right?
If they're smart, they'll insist on a recount so that they can remove any doubt about the legitimacy of this election.
If they're actually interested in democracy, they'll want to make sure that everything is above board.
I actually don't know why we don't automatically recount after an election, period, if only to make sure we got something this important correct.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
1. An 8 year old kid should be covered by CHIP and SCHIP. If they couldn't afford insulin, they can't afford the copays before insurance in ACA starts paying out. There is 0% chance you are telling the truth here. Lying does not help your debate points.
His diabetic friend is 8 years older now, not 8 years old. Calling someone a liar doesn't help your point either.
Here’s my top ten list of things that are racist because they require an ID:
#10 Buying alcohol – You can’t legally purchase alcohol anywhere in the United States unless you are at least 21-years old. You also can’t purchase alcohol without showing proper ID, even if you look old enough. Not only is this practice racist because many minorities don’t have identification, but it also promotes ageism and profiling. We can help heal the racial wounds of the past by taking everyone at their word that they are old enough to buy a 40 of malt liquor.
#9 Buying cigarettes – Same deal as with alcohol, only the age requirement varies from state to state. As you know, many smokers are poor and many poor people are minorities so this is doubly racist. In any case, letting 8-year olds buy a pack of Kools is a great way to take a stand against racism.
#8 Renting a car – Can you believe those racist assholes that rent cars actually want to know who you are before they hand over the keys to $40,000 automobile? Rental cars are already covered by insurance; what’s the big deal?
#7 Seeing a movie – Even though the MPAA ratings are not bound by law, movie theater employees will card younger looking patrons before selling them tickets to rated R films. How are minorities supposed to see Tyler Perry and Robert Rodriguez movies when they don’t have the ID to prove they are old enough? It’s like Jim Crow all over again.
#6 Buying a video game – No Game Stop in the country is going to let a teenager walk out of the store with an M rated game without them proving they are at least 17 years old. Denying access to violent video games is something the Nazis did, not a post-racial society.
#5 Bowling – For some racist reason a bowling alley won’t let people bowl in their street shoes. You either have to buy a pair of bowling shoes or rent them from the alley. If you opt for renting, those jerks are going to ask to hold your ID until you return the shoes. This is clearly an example of a de facto tax on the fundamental right to use a large black ball to knock over skinny white pins.
#4 Banking – You can’t open a bank account, write a check, or cash a check without ID. This racist practice of ensuring people are who they say they are and thus should have access to their money is a financial burden on the minority community. If we could eliminate the ID requirement, redistribution of wealth would be easy to attain as the poor would have unrestricted access to much richer folks bank accounts.
#3 Accessing national parks – A few years ago I had to show a valid ID to get on the ferry to see the Statue of Liberty. Earlier this year I had to leave a valid ID to borrow the recorded tour device at Andrew Jackson’s estate. Why can’t the federal government take my word that I’m not going to blow anything up or that I’ll return something that probably cost a couple hundred dollars?
#2 Flying – Restricting free movement is probably the most racist thing of all. You cannot board a plane without ID and that puts minorities at a distinct disadvantage. Instead, the TSA should simply ask flyers if they are a terrorist and if they have Ebola. If the answer is no to both; let ‘em on the plane. Who would lie about these things?
#1 Gun Ownership – Unlike the other things on this list, which are implied rights, gun ownership is a specific right protected by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. You can’t buy a gun without a valid ID, you can’t possess a gun without valid ID, and you can’t carry a gun without valid ID. If requiring people to show ID to vote is racist, then so is requiring ID to exercise the right to ke
so what purpose does it serve to send everyone to a convention where they cast ballots for president?
A system could easily be designed to do the exact same thing without specific people voting for something already voted on a month earlier by the entire population. the "wiggle room" you talk about makes it undemocratic, the rest is simply unrepresentative.
You may just wind up with a civil war that your side cannot possibly win.
Nobody wants a war like that, but if you keep pushing and pushing and pushing, that exactly what you'll get.
Just remember, our side is better armed than your side.
And yet, the reasoning portion of your post seems to be missing, replaced by a personal opinion asserted as if fact from authority, flavored with a hint of ad hominem.
Here you go
1. She set up an email server with the intent to avoid document retention and freedom of information laws.
2. She used the server to store and transmit material with above top secret clearance. In violation of federal law and agreements she signed.
3. When legally subpoenaed for the email she destroyed the information. In violation of laws regarding obstruction of justice
4. She lied under oath about what she did and the circumstances around what she did. That's perjury.
That help ?
Did this 'analysis' consider the underwhelming support the septuagenarian white woman (HRC) enjoyed from the black community and whether those majority-minority districts had paper or electronic voting machines? I strongly suspect that the large, Democrat-controlled major cities in MI, WI, and PA have the crucial combination of electronic voting machines and indifferent/unenthusiastic minority voters...
The claim is that the "DNC was caught red handed doing things that are blatantly illegal". That is a statement of fact, it is either true or false. There's nothing subjective there. My question is, WHAT LAWS WERE BROKEN?
You've yet to produce a cite which says that any laws were broken, therefore I claim that you are full of shit. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Wonderful, you actually linked to a James O'Keefe video... and the great "proof" you've got is a blurry out-of-focus closeup of someone claiming to be a Democratic operative...
O'Keefe is famous for making shit up and faking his video "evidence". As Bob Garfield from NPR (see the wikipedia page on O'Keefe):
So your source literally has no credibility, and the thing you're claiming to prove is a near impossibility: to get people to vote as someone else on a "mass scale", you need names on the voter roles that you know no one else is going to try to use.
The reason the various electronic vote-rigging scenarios are so scary is if you could get them to work they'd be easy to scale up just as far as you like, with minimal risk of detection.
By the way, snopes doesn't think much of James O'Keefe, either. But that just means they're working for the other side, and not to be trusted, right? Just like everyone else who tells you something you don't want to hear.
Apparently you don't know what a "recount" is.
Once a vote is recorded, the information on who cast that vote is not retained. "Recount" won't tell you which votes were made by which people.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Contested results? Sounds like Bernie Sanders still has a chance then?
they are already being labelled "sore losers" despite conceding the election and explicitly instructing their supporters to accept the results
They're not being "labeled" as "sore losers". They are if fact being sore losers. Challenging the results of an election is not "conceding".
The whole point of TFA is that the Democrats are not challenging the result of the election, but the writer thinks that they should.
Learn to read.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Maybe, but an incompetent buffoon vs. a competent corrupt politician is still an easy choice. On one hand we can watch Trump fail to build a wall on the Mexican border, or we can watch Clinton succeed in selling influence and political favor for the better part of a decade. For the record I voted for neither. Voting is too important not to vote for someone you actually want.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Tough guy on the Internet! Hey everybody! Tough guy on the Internet!
Watch out! Duck!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The first point is not a fact. Once you assign motivations you are engaging in supposition and are no longer dealing with facts.
that's what put Trump in the Whitehouse. Voter suppression + Shenanigans got us Trump. More, nothing less. Blacks are 6 times more likely to wait more than an hour to vote than whites (look it up). That's not an accident. It's also no accident that folks convicted of a crime can't vote even after paying their debt to society or that registering to Vote gets you Jury duty (a death sentence to 66% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
wahhh
Only proof of voting fraud that has come out has been against the democrat's to start with. There has been undercover videos on youtube of people that work for DNC talking about how they would do it and have been doing it for very long time. So reality is ones crying foul atm are ones that have evidence against them that they have been committing it.
Other thing is she has conceded the election which means trump is president no matter what happens if they contest it.
I really don't understand this us/them mentality that people keep spewing. We all work together, we are family members, coworkers and fellow human beings with the same exact needs.
It's easy to look at them as humans until you're faced with someone who believes that the founder of Planned Parenthood has intended all along for minorities to be aborted out of existence, and that contraceptives encourage perverted behavior and ultimately cause more unwanted pregnancies than abstinence. I can see the slippery slope from his point of view, but it's not like he is advocating for harsher laws to force wayward fathers into raising their unplanned offspring.
That said, I'm entirely sick of hearing this endless rant about how everyone who voted Trump is a racist, misogynist, bigoted xenophobe. People voted for him because they felt he would better represent them. And guess what, if half of the population really is just a bunch of xenophobes, you aren't going to change it with rampant name calling.
Right. You would have risked an extremely massive fine and jail time for something that could have been readily proven fraudulent, in order to cast a single vote?
The risk just doesn't correspond with the reward.
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
No, you can't say that for sure at all.
Sure I can, because I did, with factual backing.
plenty of people didn't vote because they disliked both candidates AND their states (like NY and Cali) were never, ever, ever going to go for Trump.
I voted even though my vote wasn't going to count, and hasn't for years. Primarily because the broken election system that favors at best 2 party candidates consistently offered up 0 candidates I would actually want to cast a vote for, so I vote my conscience for those I feel should receive a vote. The lesser evil vote only occurred in this election.
Regarding the popular vote, when nearly 1.4M (over 1%) more people cast a vote for the losing candidate, it may be time to examine the mechanisms of determining the winner of the election.
Either way, unless Clinton defies both the white house and the DNC, or someone ponies up enough cash to force challenges in the most likely affected states, we're likely going to be stuck with an impeached or should be impeached president within 4 years. I hope I'm wrong on that, because it doesn't do the country any good, but I won't be shocked if it goes far worse than Nixon and Reagan combined (yes, Reagan, the guy that gave us the largest recession until Bush, and who set in motion the regulatory conditions to allow the recession/depression that occurred under Bush).
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Bush vs Gore 200? wasn't a case of individuals though. Gore didn't challenge that even when that looked like a case of fraud, albeit at an administrative level IIRC.
Maybe this was some sort of calibration problem undetected due to the volume of participants. Even if it was, Gore had clearer impetus to challenge and didn't so I doubt this will go anywhere. The lack of a challenge to the result is a wasted opportunity to use investigation to improve the voting system by forcing the government into introspection.
A challenge doesn't have to be about who wins or looses, it could be about a nation taking a moment to fix structural issues.
They could easily allow people to register to vote for free and, since it is a participatory democracy, it's not mandatory. Still it says a lot about the state of the US if people cannot afford a license, I didn't realise that. Last time I looked it was only 17% of their population voting, maybe that is part of the reason. How sad for democracies, no wonder we're in such poor shape.
I think people have it in there minds how associated with fascism it is. You can't be seen to be associated with fascism no matter how right you are.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
What's "pants on head" stupid is that the only time "fraud" is ever a serious concern is when Democrats lose.
It's not a serious concern now either. If you RTFA it even says " they had not found any evidence of hacking".
Don't be such a sucker for clickbait headlines...
You have a very poor memory. Of course conservatives went batshit insane for all eight years of the Obama presidency. It drove them crazy that there wasn't a single scandal or evidence of corruption they could pin on him. They said he wasn't "their president". They said he wasn't born in the United States and therefore wasn't eligible. They disrupted townhalls and meetings all across the country. They took over federal facilities with armed militias. They shot up a Sikh temple thinking they were muslims. I'm talking about they went crap-your-pants crazy.
It does mean one thing though: Donald Trump can never, ever claim that he has a "mandate" to enact his policies. There is no mandate when the other candidate got 2 million more votes than you.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And anyone who has followed politics in the last 2 decades knows that Clinton is in the back pocket of the corporations and wall street, same as her hubby was. You want the kleptocracy to continue?
They're both bad choices, but the pros of Clinton is she knows how to keep the show together for four years while the GOP regroup. The cons are she makes her friends rich which is standard fare.
Trump's pros are that he ends the Clinton line for the throne, and causes the Dems to sort their problems out, his cons are too long to list, but ultimately does risk the entire nation with some potential diplomatic fuckup or economic lunacy. He also makes his friends rich, because this is what people in power do.
So yeah, both bad, and only time will tell. If we make it through the next four years without a major international event or economic meltdown, I'll consider it Trump's win a net gain. But I'm not confident of that.
..that Clinton who is already proven to be corrupt could only rig the paper ballot states.
Polling: If the voter had said T had his/her vote, he/she was forced to defend him/her-self against the legions of Americans who had been trained by our media to label voter a RACIST, WOMAN HATING, LOW EDUCATION, UN-AMERICAN NAZI MF.
I'n reality=
Voter had just lost his/her job to the foreigner he/she had been forced to train, and just spent the last few months scraping by, while at the same time, listening to his/her peers say "that's fucked up", and "WOW, how is that legal?"
-OR-
Voter had been working the same job for decades, and lost it due to off-shoring on account of developing countries doing what developing countries do.
Voter knew the loss of his/her company health insurance was going to cost him/her(it?) another $700 bucks come tax season.
Voter saw the big-round-orange face saying things that would make his/her life suck less. Voter made an informed decision, based on what the "T" said; VS what the the "H" said.
Voter was angry. Voter was tired of defending himself, and sure as hell not about to face off against a journalist with a mic outside of the voting booth, or on the phone, or in front of his/her school, gym, etc.
Voter also happened to live in a state less populated than CA and NY.
It's a complicated situation. HRC will be listening to her faithful ape this kind of thinking for the rest of her life. Changes nothing.
Voter still knows better than to talk about the choice he/she made.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
No, but a review of voting rolls might indicate that there are voting precincts where a massive number of ineligible voters voted. If it's in a precinct where Hilliary got almost all the votes, it could be time for some sort of statistical adjustment to be made.
I know people who never vote but this time they went and voted for Trump because they're disgusted by the impact of Obamacare on their wallet. You can't opt out of the health insurance if your employer is forced by Obama to have one.
Obamacare is not about healthcare. It's about forcing small businesses and their employees to become customers of the insurance companies who fund the Democrats. No wonder people are rejecting it.
lucm, indeed.
Except it doesn't work that way once you are the POTUS.
https://news.clearancejobs.com...
The polls are totally indicative of foul play. It's indicative of how media attempted to skew public opinion in favor of a specific candidate. It's also hilarious that it didn't work.
the whole "fake news" hysteria is a pathetic attempt from the liberal media to try and defend their collapsing monopoly on information. But given the results of this election, even the Democrats will have to leave them behind.
For every single biased story they published in decades, and for every pro-conservative news they buried, I hereby invite the New York Times and other big time liberal media to go fuck themselves. I hope someone will buy their head office when they go bankrupt and transform them into dildo factories.
lucm, indeed.
So what you're saying is if there's a hint of voting fraud we should as a nation just say 'fuck it' and not take a look?
Cause that's pants on head stupid.
Somehow I suspect that if Trump had lost and was the one hinting at voting fraud, your stance on this matter would be different.
lucm, indeed.
Cats aren't that dumb; they're not going to attack each other mercilessly just because they find themselves getting thrown in a bag together.
The "cat out of the bag" adage comes from the middle ages. People used to buy live pigs from merchants, so they could take them home and keep them for a while before slaughtering them. It became customary to keep them in bags for convenience (so they couldn't get away on city streets, and didn't need to be penned up). Some unethical merchants put stray cats in the bags instead of pigs, with the idea that the customers wouldn't find out until they got the bag home and opened it. But sometimes the bag came open or the customers insisted on opening it to check, and when that happened the cat would jump out and run away. It means one-way change because a trapped feral cat waiting for its chance to escape isn't going to stick around once the bag opens, and cats can run a lot faster than humans.
would not accept the results of the election. Of course, as usual, the Dims were just projecting....
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Which is the real election fraud. Almost all the causes the voter ID fraudsters point to are actually cases of voter registration fraud, which is impossible to prevent with ID's. And almost all of the rest of the cases they can point to are cases of felons trying to vote, or someone voting in person as well as by absentee ballot - also not preventable by voter ID.
Mickey Mouse trying to vote in person is on the order of 30 votes out a billion cast, or functionally non-existent. Contrast that to 70,000 voters purged from the rolls in Florida, just in one state, in just one election in 2000.
1) The hell the have 2) there goes your right to remain anonymous, genius.
You misspelled Republicans,, moran.
The only reason I can come up with is that it is in the best interest for those in power to keep the voting base divided. So all these "problems" are weaponized and sold to us as the bogey man coming to take our children.
Spot on. For instance:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other top Democrats have made vilifying the Kochs part of a deliberate political strategy to rile up the party’s base and drive the party’s small-dollar fundraising efforts. Last week, Reid blasted the two brothers in a blistering Senate floor speech, accusing them of trying to hijack the political process with their donations and of meddling in the country’s foreign policy to protect their own interests.
But Reid’s fellow Democrats collected KochPAC money as recently as 2012.
And this is not a unique situation. Here's a quick rundown of companies who contribute to both parties:
- Goldman Sachs: 25 millions each
- Citigroup: 17 millions each
- JP Morgan: 17 millions each
- Microsoft: 16 millions each
- GE: 14 millions each
Companies like Wal-mart or Time Warner who split their donation 75/25 could be hedging their bet. But companies who go 50/50 don't make donations to tilt the balance; they are actively investing money to maintain the statu quo. Divide and conquer.
lucm, indeed.
And that's the great part about mail-in ballots in Washington, I can sit at home and read up on each and every one of them while I fill it out.
Sorry ignorance is not an argument.
She asked Collin Powell about avoiding state regulations.
Went through all of the visible comments moderated insightful or funny, and I think yours may have been the best of the lot. However, still lots of room for improvement.
With regards to your closing question about turnout, I think you should consider it more broadly. Why did roughly 45% of ALL the voters not bother to vote? I think it's because they are right to believe that their votes don't matter. I think the main reason is because their districts are gerrymandered, and the politicians pick their voters first, so the voters know they have no chance to affect the outcome. Also significant is that the ONLY thing that the two parties can actually work together on is making sure that incumbents are favored as much as possible, which is why so many of the politicians in the weaker party may still support the gerrymandering. They wind up in sacrificial districts that are saturated with the excess voters.
Overall disappointment with the discussion was lack of consideration of the potential of hackers. Or maybe those topics simply got dragged into invisibility by the professional trolls? I certainly can imagine Putin ordering the attempt as long as he was certain it couldn't be traced. I don't think he could be convinced it was certain, however, and it would be an act of war if he'd gotten caught.
However, I still think the decisive factor that tilted the enthusiasm and the election in Trump's favor was Comey's letter--and that it may have been instigated by a Russian mole. Trump was getting battered on 20 fronts, but after that letter was publicized, suddenly all the focus was on Hillary's email again.
Then Comey sends the never-mind letter, and now Trump also says he was just kidding the mob while they chanted "Lock her up!" More fun than a barrel of monkeys. On fire.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Russians hack the DNC email server AFTER Clinton moved the emails to the correct server?
The DNC computers and emails have been hacked a few times now, and I wouldn't be shocked and surprised who did it. I think Hillary used a private server to PREVENT man-in-the-middle manipulations like creating an email that said; "Tell ISIS that we need to kill all the witnesses..." Also, it probably performed much better than the DNC server.
I doubt even 5% of the emails were even interesting so I doubt that Hillary wanted to prevent emails being released under FOI act.
I'm not sure if the emails she destroyed were personal or not -- I'm sure if it were a big deal, the FBI would have said so.
There's no proof that Hillary under oath -- she just gave an answer you don't like.
Not a big time Hillary fan, but after 30 years of lawsuits and legal hassles, I'm fairly sure if she were in the least bit dirty, something would have stuck by now.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
According to various reports, the Stein initiative is now asking for at least $4.5m for the recount to proceed in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The Verge is reporting that the total sum necessary for a recount including attorney fees will likely be greater than $6m. My personal opinion is that this is money well spent simply to ensure the integrity of the electoral system in the United States.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
Hillary Clinton never moved her emails to a correct server. Also, we know that her lawyers deleted emails from her server that should have been retained as official government records: the FBI recovered copies from third parties.
Is Clinton dumb enough to fall for the CEO scam? The only way to strongly deter email impersonation attacks is to use a server inside the organization where you work -- i.e. a State Dept server -- that clearly tags emails from untrusted sources.
Contrary to opinion of many, intent or lack thereof does not matter. Yes, I am aware FBI said they won't prosecute because they can't prove intent. Yes, it's utter bullshit excuse on FBI's part. You should tell this "news" that intent matters to all the people currently in prison for breaking the exact same laws. That intend does NOT matter is one of the things constantly drilled into your head when you are going through the process of obtaining clearance.
It would be a horrible idea to try to statistically "correct" for illegally cast votes after they go into the pool of accepted ballots. There are too many ways to abuse that kind of process on a partisan basis, and it will almost always be seen as biased even if the people doing the correction are trying their hardest to only discount illegally cast votes.
On the other hand, it would be a very good idea to use a history of illegal votes (or illegal suppression of votes) to help decide where and how to focus resources on preventing illegal votes or suppression in future elections.
If she is so concerned about all the votes that may have been "hacked in" and "stolen" from Hillary - why did she run against her and steal votes from Hillary. The increase in votes SHE got was due to people dissatisfied with Hillary. She should just sit down and STFU! She has nothing to talk about. She stole votes from Hillary herself! Nothing here move along......
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Right. You would have risked an extremely massive fine and jail time for something that could have been readily proven fraudulent, in order to cast a single vote?
I'd have risked a vanishingly small probability of a massive fine and jail time. I expect that it happens quite a bit. But as I said, it shouldn't have significant systematic effects. The bigger risk with mail-in ballots is coercion.
Heh. I had another opportunity for an extra vote this year. My disabled brother-in-law moved to my house a couple of months ago when his dad passed away. When we all got our ballots he came to me and said "So, how are we voting this year?". Apparently my dad in law had always just told him how to vote. My wife and I told him he was on his own to figure it out this year. His disability is due to a head injury and he has some specific mental deficits associates with the regions of his brain that were damaged, but outside of those specific deficits he's quite intelligent. He's perfectly capable of making his own decisions on who and what to vote for, but hasn't had to until this year. I could probably have convinced my 23 year-old son to let me fill out his ballot, too.
I could have had four votes!
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Correct, She used her own server because she used a Blackberry which you had to use their email system back then.
"But in April of that year, the Supreme Court, in a case called McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, struck down aggregate limits on total giving to federal campaigns, allowing maximum donations to as many different committees as a donor wanted."
This was all completely legal.
Words have meaning, laws are laws, facts are facts. Something doesn't become "blatantly illegal" just because a bunch of whiny internet morons think it's unfair. You can't change facts by chanting a lie in unison.
As Entrope points out, "statistical" adjustments are a very bad idea. Since the actual votes are not paired to the voters, that would mean "adjusting" (i.e., throwing out votes) based on how (some authority) decides to guess the illegal voters voted.
Analyzing voter rolls to identify illegal voters would be a good idea--- if nothing else, as a way to try to kill that idiotic statement repeated over and over again by right-wing nuts with no evidence whatsoever that the election is invalid because so many illegal people vote.
Although the problem with trying to kill conspiracy theories with data is that the people who believe the conspiracy theories just dismiss the data as more evidence for how widespread the conspiracy actually is.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Hillary Clinton got 16.8 million primary votes to Bernie's 13.2 million. She won handily in both the popular vote and delegate total. She would have won by a huge margin even if there was no such thing as a superdelegate.
If the truth doesn't matter at all anymore, then why do we even both talking to each other?
It's worth noting that if you actually read the article, he doesn't say that the ballots actually were hacked: in fact, what he says is "Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked."
If you were talking about one or a few polls I would agree with your premise that we should not investigate these allegations. However, it is valid to notice that every single poll agency in the United States, including the agency hired by Trump, they all failed to even come closed to their statistical predictions.
Nope. The analysis by 538 published before the election was that Clinton was ahead by a number that was equal to the polling margin of error. "it shouldn’t be hard to see how Clinton could lose. She’s up by about 3 percentage points nationally, and 3-point polling errors happen fairly often, including in the last two federal elections." (November 6: http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea... )
Another one worth reading: http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I highly doubt the Democrat party would want to risk verifying accuracy since it is more likely that Democrats commit voter fraud then Republicans.
No evidence whatsoever for that statement.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
If that's not the best measure of popularity then it is poorly named.
Most of those still supporting Clinton will not look at anything contradicting their established views. For me, the fact that many still stand by the Clintons after the wikileaks and Project Veritas revelations is just confirmation that God's judgment on America is imminent, and deserved.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Undeniably true from a philosophical standpoint. However, motivations are judged and duly taken into account in legal proceedings all the time. For example, intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm is a prime consideration in a murder conviction, but not for homicide per se. Motivation often spells the difference between wrongful death and murder.
You cannot construct honestly another motivation for bypassing the use of the PROPER email server, save to hide information and sidestep accountability.
And it was a damn well written and well presented speech, too. Far better than anything she presented during the campaign. There was no trace of her trademark shrill screeching, and gave her a completely new tone and impression. I was impressed, and I am about as strongly anti-Hillary as it is possible to be.
Are you just putting out deliberate lies and hoping nobody knows better ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Russians hack the DNC email server AFTER Clinton moved the emails to the correct server?
So much wrong so little space .I am sorry this is beyond my ability to correct You can try and correct yourself. A good start would by trying to come up with reasoning on how the DNC problems have anything to do with Hillary's email.
I doubt even 5% of the emails were even interesting so I doubt that Hillary wanted to prevent emails being released under FOI act.
You may doubt all you like, other people find the work email of the Secretary of State immensely interesting.
I'm not sure if the emails she destroyed were personal or not -- I'm sure if it were a big deal, the FBI would have said so.
They did say so. Comey recommended against prosecution on the basis of intent, which funny enough isn't part of the law and wasn't enough to protect this sailor from doing far less http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...
There's no proof that Hillary under oath -- she just gave an answer you don't like.
When you give different answers that contradict each other to the same question, that's called lying.
So when you say you had nothing to do with wiping a server and then say well I only wiped personal information that's lying.
Not a big time Hillary fan, but after 30 years of lawsuits and legal hassles, I'm fairly sure if she were in the least bit dirty, something would have stuck by now.
Sure guilty people never avoid justice, I mean just ask the bankers responsible for the 2008 meltdown.
If the Electoral College is in doubt and misses its date, the House may decide.
"The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. " - a quote from Article II, Section 1.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
If the truth doesn't matter at all anymore, then why do we even both talking to each other?
Because "your" truth is only so from the perception that everything was on the up and up and not a collusion to let her win the primary.
My truth comes from going to a few events for Her and Bernie. Her events were literally devoid of anyone. A few hundred at events that should see thousands. His events? The crowds were like sporting events.
I am not sure what America you live, but "truth" is what I see, in the world.
The truth is, she won in a primary rigged for her to win, voted on by a block of people that would really only ever vote for her as Bernie wasnt even in their "party" -- as stupid as that is.
I've been on a jury for a trial where intent was necessary to be proven. And who is in jail for exactly the same thing? Generally this isn't prosecuted unless there are other factors to take into effect. Yes, breaking security regulations will get you fired. But the FBI doesn't go out of their way to prosecute everyone who screwed up. Petraeus was a different matter, he knowingly shared the info with someone he knew did not have clearance. Yes, she screwed it up but it wasn't a jail-time felony by itself.
I think we can all agree that they were both unpopular. The result can be argued 6 ways from Sunday, but the reason could be pretty simple.
Like Obama, Trump ran on a "change" platform while Clinton ran on a "more of the same" platform. The democrats have been in power for 8 years, just like the republicans the 8 years before that. Considering the margins we're all talking about it really could be that simple. Governments flip back and forth and politicians tend to blame everything on the previous politicians. You could have probably ran a soda can VS a paper clip and gotten the same result.
The further the pendulum swings in one direction, the more it will swing in the other direction when the trend reverses. Maybe at least one party will learn the lesson and start acting in the interest of all the citizens. So yes, it has to be done until people have learned their lesson. After all, if all people do is sit on their ass and complain about both parties, they are part of the problem, and will need an even bigger kick in the ass to do something.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
1) There was not sufficient evidence of intent.
2) We don't actually know who sent what exactly, because Comey's testimony is too vague.
3) She changed her email retention policy before any subpoenas, it's not her fault if the provider screwed up
4) The Gowdy video, seriously? You trust a document forger? No that's whole thing is a shell game trying to say Clinton said things she didn't by willfully misinterpreting her words.
Someone had to do it.
You do not know what a kleptocracy is, but you have elected to learn.
Not me. I didn't vote for anyone in the Trump vs Clinton vs Libertarian vs Green contest. My hands are clean.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Who gives a shit if he's any better? Really, the only way to change things is for the majority of citizens to insist on change from both parties. The worse it gets, the more pressure for change. Plus, you got the government you deserved. Allowing Clinton to be the nominee was the only way that Trump could have won, and polls said this months ago.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Let's see how bad things get before the masses get the guts to say "to hell with you both" and start pushing for alternatives. Obviously it hasn't gotten bad enough yet because the majority still believe that one of the two - Democrats or Republicans - give a shit about them. Only then will elections be more than picking the lesser of two evils.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
What am I thinking? That both parties need a good enema. You and everyone else who casts the problem as voting for the lesser of two evils is mentally lazy, unimaginative, and predictable. And that's what both parties are counting on. Unfortunately, the majority of the population hasn't been shit on enough to try to change things in ways that really matter.
I don't see you proposing a better way than "creative destruction" of both parties from the inside.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Anonymous Cowards who pontificate without owning their own words in public deserve every bit of shit I and anyone else can throw on them. No open your mouth and eat the turd stew like a bad little troll.
Don't worry - you won't be having anonymity on the Internet within the next decade ... then you'll go into hiding and leave the world a better place. :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Seriously? You believe that people should continue voting for someone based on "the lesser of two evils?" Go look at places where the voters have learned to punish parties that take them for granted by voting for their worst enemy. It works. It incentivizes the abandoned party to make real changes because they want to get back into power, and it also encourages the winner to make an attempt to appeal beyond their base so they can keep those swing voters for more than one term. Maybe one of these days the American voter will be sophisticated enough to understand how it works.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
So what? Sure he is, but now the other party realizes that they can no longer dictate to the masses who they should pick. The post-mortems on the Democratic party have been really harsh. Maybe they won't take people's votes for granted next time and try to do another coronation.
And the Republican party is also shitting its' pants. Do you really think that they have confidence in Trump even in the short term?
Of course, butt-hurt Clinton crybabies being exposed for the shallowness of their thinking is good for the Democrats - now they know who to purge.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Hey, at least Trump is creating jobs like he promised...
"Creative destruction." When both parties have dumped enough on the electorate, the electorate will force change. Trump is just one more step closer to that.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I never endorsed either candidate. I just think that this is the best way to get people mad enough to finally force change when they realize that neither party represents their interests.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Voting for Clinton would have just meant that they would continue the same old same old ... now they have to change if the want to get back into power - and you know that they want it. Power is more addictive than pretty much everything else.
This was the only way to make people see that you can't let things go on like this - in either party. Potentially worse? Hopefully way worse. Enough to cause both parties to revolt.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
1) There was not sufficient evidence of intent.
There was her written expression of intent
2. She used the server to store and transmit material with above top secret clearance. In violation of federal law and agreements she signed.
We have the emails recovered and released by the state dept.
3) She changed her email retention policy before any subpoenas, it's not her fault if the provider screwed up
LOL you mean her provider that went to reddit with his OH shit moment ? Or the orders to her provider post subpoenas
The Gowdy video, seriously? You trust a document forger? No that's whole thing is a shell game trying to say Clinton said things she didn't by willfully misinterpreting her words.
Wasn't aware Hillary was a document forger, but lying under oath is still lying under oath.
I think Mr. J. Alex Halderman, while respected in his field of computer security, should stay there. His expertise isn't on statistics, or statistical analysis, and coming to such conclusions on such flimsy analysis is just bad. Publishing before eliminating even the most rudimentary external factors is just poor form -- assuming he himself isn't biased.
That claim is false. Either you agree that the claim was false or you are a liar.
You are trying to change the subject--which is apparently what people do nowadays when they are caught in a lie, and that has contributed to this environment of fake news and information. Yes or no, did Hillary win the primary popular vote?
The only correct answer is YES--and thus the post by Hylandr was a LIE. Those are facts--absolutely irrefutable facts. I'm not going to debate them because they are not debatable.
Once we've established that incontrovertible fact--we can move on to discussing whether the primary was stacked against Bernie. IMO, yes--it was, just like it was stacked against Barack Obama in 2008. But Obama was a far better candidate with far broader appeal and he overcame the establishment bias. Bernie fought a valiant fight but fell short. In hindsight, I wish I had voted for him and I wish he had won. Not because I think he would have been a better president (I agreed more with Hillary's positions, I think she's smarter, more pragmatic, more experienced and harder working) but it really does look like Bernie would have had a better shot against Trump based on how the general election turned out.
Asshole.
In Michigan - where I live (.vs. what I read on the Internet) the voting machines are op-scan units that read your paper ballot. At the end of the day they print on paper a summary sheet. The machine has no connection to the Internet, or the telephone system, and are the same machines they have used for years and years. There are no "electronic voting machines" we are a paper ballot op-scan state. Optical Scanning is pretty darn reliable...
The person floating this theory is from the U of M. which is located in the town of Ann Arbor, who's motto is "7 square miles surrounded by Reality". Around here, it's known as "AA" or "A squared' which most folks outside of "The Biosphere" jokingly say is an abbreviation for "Arrogant Assholes". As the joke goes, the three things you can't find in Ann Arbor are 1) A parking Place 2) A good Steak 3) A Republican. It is the epicenter of Michigan Snow Flakery, where rich liberal kids attend an uber-left college. One should take anything coming from the U of M faculty with a very large grain of salt. It's a pretty little town, but it's no secret it's a progressive paradise.
Within hours of this accusation Michigan's elections director expressed skepticism....
Murphy was an optimist
Never answer a false dichotomy. People posting them are dishonest from the start and aren't worth your time.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Now, I have to wonder if the bus rental companies don't already have that data...even for school buses. If not now then soon.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Which is why, as I recall, this is one of the cases where it intent is irrelevant and you have to sign papers saying you understand why you are not supposed to have files on non-secured, unauthorized machines. Given she's a lawyer, she either is an impressively incompetent one or she read the papers carefully before signing. Really, the only good reason to have a private server there is if you are planning to do something like what Snowden did--and then you'd want it to be a silent man in the middle that simply retains copies of everything, not where the sole copies of anything resides, and likely very secure because it would be wise to be assured of sufficient forwarning to GTFO if it's discovered.
It's done, it's over....Trump is your President.
We had to survive Obama, you'll survive Trump.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
which is why he's alive. He's only able to get on Medicaid because the ACA expanded who could be on it by giving the states billions in subsidies.
There's a _lot_ more to the ACA then the exchanges and the Mandate. Those are the bad parts nobody (including Obama) wanted without other things to balance them. We didn't get those balancing items because Obama had to rush through to get it passed before the numskulls that voted for Trump gave him a Republican congress.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You don't get to make up your own facts.
AS neither do you? Fact: I attended rallies Fact: One person had more people at said rallies than the other You can not like it all you want.
My birth certificate and photo IDand everything else says female. Couldn't get a copy of the old one even if I wanted to, which I certainly don't. Obviously I use the women's bathroom - I have no legal reason to enter the men's room unless I'm the cleaner. Never had a problem (then again, when I ask for directions to the bathroom, they point me towards the women's, because I don't look like that man in a dress they have in TransParent. That just reinforces stereotypes, same as idiots who confuse transsexuals with drag queens, etc.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The problem wasn't the paper, it was the stupid idea of using a punch instead of just giving people a pencil and have them mark an X before the one they choose. Touch screens are even worse - they go out of adjustment with time. Should have kept it simple.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Of course he's not doing anything about it. He's not even president yet. And even if he doesn't do anything about it in the next 4 years, both parties now have been put on notice that they better get their acts together.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The debate was whether or not Bernie won the popular vote in the democratic primary. It is an incontrovertible fact that he did NOT. We don't elect people based on attendance at rallies.
I can't tell at this point whether you are trolling or just really believe that you can alter reality by stomping your feet and yelling.
So Clinton raised over a billion bucks, lots of it from special interests - people she told in private that she has a "public position and a private position" - and she's not in anyone's pocket? She wouldn't need two different positions if she were honest.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally," Trump wrote on Twitter. There is no evidence to support Trump's claim and PolitiFact ruled it false.
Well Trump won, and is hinting at voting fraud still. So there's that laughable moment from our Commander in Chief.
But your suspicion would be incorrect, I'm not a Democrat. If you really think there's problems with the election system due to fraud seems to me you should, you know, do an audit. It's common sense.
If you really think there's millions of illegal voters out there, you should probably audit that too.
I leave that up to the shrink but these are the kind of warning signs that if ignored lead to mass shootings/bombings and the like.