Slashdot Mirror
President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com)
President Barack Obama has ordered a full review of hacking activities aimed at disrupting last month's presidential election, media outlets reported Friday citing a top White House official. The results are to be delivered to Obama before he leaves the office. From a report on Reuters: "The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
Hillary lost because of real news about how she was a terrible candidate, not because of fake news or hate speech or the Russians or any other conspiracy theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I wonder if the voting public are considered stakeholders.
He has not been ousted. His term is coming to an end.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
"The results are to be delivered to Obama before he leaves the [sic] office".
Why? It would make better sense if the results were turned over to Mr Trump, who will be in a position to learn from them and take any appropriate action.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
As a sitting President, Obama has every right to do this. And he wasn't "ousted", he's leaving office after completing his second and final term. It's sad that people like you continue to de-legitimize his presidency.
No, Trump won majority of Electoral College representatives, who probably will vote for him. Your millions voted for the losing candidate.
The only real discrepancies are from cities known for voting fraud and letting illegals vote; however even though Clinton had the majority in such places the Electoral College did its job and protected us from that particular criminal with no regard for rule of law.
We'll see how Trump regards law in federal office soon.
1. Not ousted, merely at the end of his second and final term (and one wonders if the 22nd Amendment didn't exist if the election might have been rather different).
2. He's still the lawful and constitutional POTUS until January, so he has ever right to order such a review.
3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you or any other politician cared about the potential for hacking, it would have started 16 years ago when bush won the vote based on hanging chad and an ominous declaration from evoting vendor Diebold.
the reason the 2016 vote was so unexpected is simple. Democrats ran a turd for a candidate with no policy other than 'i want to be a president.' Hillary ignored midwestern and rural voters at her peril, and in return they ignored her. Sure, benghazi wasnt her fault but one could scholastically argue that the benghazi trials werent about implicating her in a scandal but making sure the public understood she was willing to throw anyone and everyone under the bus during hearings. hillary rigged her own primary and in doing so significantly disenfranchised a number of Sanders voters, but republicans masterfully highlighted sanders curious inability to win delegates as evidence that Hillary was being rammed down constituents throats whether they enjoyed the candidate or not. She was implicated, and controversially exonerated, from a federal investigation into her handling of states secrets that despite her teams best efforts to spin, seemed hypocritical when compared to manning or snowden. Prosecutors even acquiesced that the reluctance to indict her on any charges would pose a nontrivial barrier in litigating future instances of such cases. hillary banked on Obamas strategy of youth votes while arrogantly assuming youth votes just meant do the harlem shake and mannequin challenge until people cast their fucking ballot.
but no, she lost because of a combination of fake news, 4chan meme magic and the infamous russian hackers. Keep it up DNC, because in 8 years if you havent figured out that running moderate republican plutocrats as "liberal" candidates doesnt work, im not sure Biden has much of a fucking chance...and god knows you're not about to let an underdog challenge the next "its time for me to win the presidency because i said so" candidate.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Don't pop a Republican's fantasy bubble. It's all they have.
They also have the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and a majority of State Governors and Legislatures. Not bad for a party living in la la land.
How is ordering a review the same as undermining democracy? A review, if conducted fairly and openly, bolsters faith in democracy by ensuring that processes are transparent and due diligence is done. The review may well put to rest rumours that the Russians rigged the election. The seeds of doubt are already there - sown deliberately by Mr. Trump among others. Reviews and recounts are the only way to properly address those concerns.
This isn't a Jill Stein or Hillary fanatic's fantasy scenario, where some "evil player" will be uncovered and the results could be overturned or changes.
This is just an honest review of what MAY have happened as a result of bad players trying to fiddle with the election. This is a really good idea to help ensure future presidential elections being trustworthy and valid.
Obama said voter fraud was mythical when he assumed that Clinton would win. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
So, which is it, mythical or real ?
Besides, the glaring deficiencies that have been found so far, have been in Clinton's favor. Facts are funny that way.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The Founders created Article 22 specifically to prevent a simple majority from electing a president in a representative democratic republic. They were well-aware for the potential of mob rule in a pure democracy. Read James Madison in the Federalist Papers to understand their brilliant idea called the electoral college.
Saying she won the popular vote (and only by a bit at that) misses the point. We have an electoral college just for situations like this. The majority of the country lives in a handful of states. The voters in those states should not be able to run roughshod over the country, hence why we have an electoral college that's based on the representatives each state gets. Otherwise, east and west coast states would dictate everything about this country.
A "power" then. Yes, a sitting President can order investigations on foreign powers attempting to influence domestic affairs.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Amendment, not Article. There is no Article 22 (not even an article 12 - the Constitution contains only seven articles). Amendment 22 sets a limit of two terms for the President. Amendment 12 specifies how the Electoral College works in selecting the President and Vice President and was added in reaction to the election of 1800 and was ratified in 1804, well after the original had been written.
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.
It's rigged! RIGGED I TELL YOU!!
Oh? We won? Uh, nevermind. Don't investigate anything. Don't question the results.
It's easy to do that when you tell the best lies.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
And the left sticking to the illusion that being right, but still being cunts, is what anyone wants.
Watch Kaine's VP debate performance to understand where you all went wrong. I kept telling my left friends to stop being dicks the last 2 years, but you just insist. And even when it fails, you just keep, twisting, the, knife.
The delusion is thinking the popular vote matters.
Before you state something as a fact, you might want to check to see if it is so.
If you really think that ordering this review is not within the President's authority, you are nine kinds of high.
Further this is 100% contrary to what Obama said here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Funny how something "mythical" became "real" simply because the Democrats lost an election.
Apparently your prejudices have overwhelmed your ability to reason.Your article refers to Trump's unfounded claims of voter fraud in order to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, while the President's review of the known hacking activities does no such thing.
Unfounded allegations of fraud != hacks supported by actual evidence. See how one of these things is not like the other? The fact that you draw an equivalence between the two indicates weak-minded thinking on your part.
Unless there is a retirement or death, the supreme court will be back where it started since the vacancy is from a conservative.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
Agreed, the more the keyboard warriors keep insulting conservatives, the more they'll dig in their heels. I think that has a lot to do with the climate change issue - keep telling people they're stupid, they'll keep giving you the finger.
Right. This whole "popular vote" bullshit is akin to the ass kissing student complaining that they didn't get the best score on the test because they wrote the longest essay. I'm sorry, the grading scale isn't based on popular votes, it's based on electoral ones. You gotta win the votes that count... The votes that don't count are kind of irrelevant to any discussion.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
It depends on how the DNC election turns out. Keith Ellison has the baggage about his Farrakhan ties and past statements about Judaism, but Bernie can still put up a less tainted Progressive candidate to head the party: it's not like the party is short of them.
It's no longer a Clinton dominated party: the real battle would be b/w the Bernie/Warren Progressives vs the Rust Belt Centrists like Tim Ryan. This will be an easy battle for the former to win, since the Dems are a bi-coastal party of New England (Bernie/Warren's turf), New York to DC corridor, and the Left Coast. They ain't people left to reward the states that abandoned them - states like MI, WI or PA. Martin O'Malley is not likely to win, Dean has dropped out, so the race remains right now b/w Ellison and Jamie Harrison - the head of the party in a deep red state that's not gonna flip - SC.
But GP is right. It was conventional wisdom that Bernie couldn't win if he was the nominee, being the socialist that he is. But it was also conventional wisdom that Trump couldn't win. In reality, it's been 25 years since the fall of the Soviet Union, so terms like socialist or communist do not have the negative connotations to people that they had even during the Gorby era. He shocked Clinton in battleground states like MI, and would have kept the blue wall intact. In fact, given how Trump had slipped vs Cruz in red states, had Bernie been the candidate, given how well he did against Clinton in many of them, he might even have flipped some states like UT
You are smoking something... The electoral college primarily exists to reduce the chances of mob rule. The power of State governments (which our country is founded upon) but for stupid "democracy" reasons got nerfed when the Senate became just another House of Representatives that was horribly not representative of the population. The states no longer have any power in government aside from the governors and state legislatures who attempt to not comply with federal law (which is proving pretty effective in the case of pot).
The popular vote is irrelevant. It's a fun statistic, but it has no bearing on the outcome. If the popular vote determined the president, the voting outcome would have been drastically different because people vote based on the rules of the system. You don't score football by net yardage gained, you score it by points. Stop trying to change the rules after the fact.
I am a libertarian and I don't like Trump any more than any liberal, but I sure as hell am not going to advocate for a worse system of first past the post, single vote, popular elections.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
It's horrifying to imagine a candidate not accepting the results of an election. Wait? We lost? The election was rigged I tell you!
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
I didn't vote for Hillary or Trump, but yes, this is true. The popular vote is actually not even an official thing at all. It's a media invention. The states vote. They vote with electors. How they apportion their electors is up to them. Adding California voters to Florida voters as a big total is actually an apples to oranges mistake.
Speak for yourself.
The President nominates a Supreme Court justice but the Senate APPROVES that justice. In effect - you have to have approval from both parts of that equation. If the Senate doesn't want to approve a candidate or even hold a vote they're doing precisely their job. The approval of the Senate of a nominee isn't just some rubber stamp formality.
That's literally the whole point of "checks and balances". You might as well proclaim that every one of Obama's vetoes was impeding the duly elected legislature. At least you'd be consistent.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
He wasn't 'driven out' or 'expelled,' as he had no option of staying. He didn't run for a third term, he didn't declare himself President for Life. He'd have been leaving if Trump won, Clinton won, Sanders won, Stein won, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog won, whatever.
You can't be 'ousted' unless you'd otherwise still be in the position.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
While the count is still going on, she's already won the popular vote by more than anyone except Obama in 2008. It's more than 2,7000,000 people voted for Hillary over Trump.
I'm going to assume you mean by actual number of votes and not the percentage. Either way that's simply not true.
By the actual margin:
1972 Nixon won the popular vote by almost 18 million votes
1984 Reagan won popular vote by almost 17 million votes
1964 Johnson popular vote by almost 16 million
GWB is in 19th place, for the most popular votes, in the 2004 election by getting just over 3 million votes more than Kerry. .
If you want to look at the percentage, she's at 1.95%. Which is way down on the list. Harding, Coolidge, FDR, Nixon and LBJ all beat their opponents by over 20% of the popular vote. Grover Cleveland won election in 1892 with a 3% margin of the popular vote.
Trump won by electoral votes but lost the popular vote by 1.95%. Rutherford Hayes (-3%) and John Quincy Adams (-10.44%) both won the electoral votes but lost the popular vote by a larger percentage than Trump did.
Republicans don't like to be all lumped into the pile of anti-science Bible thumpers and we Dems don't like to be lumped in with those nutty people who interview a 9 year-old about her "transgender" choices like she was an adult.
I love my NPR (I know! Surprising!) but when I heard the interview a couple of weeks ago with this THIRD grader about her/his gender issues, I wanted call in and yell, "Get a fucking grip! She's 9 years old and we called them Tomboys when I was a kid!"
Oh, don't get me started. This whole LGBTNRBQABCD nonsense within the Left is just as annoying to some of us as to the Conservatives. I mean, I heard more about who can use which bathroom during the election cycle than issues affecting working class folks - the Democrats' base in the OLD days. And the Dems wonder why they didn't get the working class vote. It never fails, FATE gives them something on a silver platter - like this past election SHOULD have been - and they fucked it up.
And as far as the racist thing goes - we are ALL racists and bigots because it's hardwired into our fucking being - be afraid of those who are different than us. That is how we evolved - period. What we should do is work with it and show good character and not act on it.
'What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?'
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
"She didn't "win" a damned thing! Thanks to the wisdom of the founders, we have the electoral college so that the "more people" in California and New York don't get to rule the rest of the country."
Haha, yeah, because screw elections right? That's absolutely NOT why the founders created the EC. The EC was created so that a candidate who might be able to win on popularity contest (which is what elections essentially are), but are otherwise unfit to rule a nation not make it into the White House. This election is an entirely different situation where the "winner" was really a loser in all regards who only "won" because of a Constitutional Loophole. The EC should act more like a confirmation system where the POPULAR VOTE winner gets to be confirmed.
The major stakeholder in this process, which is the American voter, is the one who should receive a full report. Not just the government officials.
I agree with a lot of what you say but how would Hillary "rig her own primary"? People voted, she won the vote.
Just because she was favored by her party (a political party favoring a candidate!? *gasp!*) doesnt mean the election was rigged.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Do people vote strategically based on the rules of the election? If they do, then the results of the election cannot be interpreted on how they would play out under a different set of rules. If we DID elect based on the popular vote and re-ran under those rules, the results would likely be drastically different. Talking about what the popular vote results were in an electoral based race is just as stupid as discussing who got the most forward yardage in a football game. Interesting to statistics buffs, but in no way relevant to picking a winner.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Let's see, they forced me to buy ridiculously expensive health insurance I don't want. If I was a speaker on a college campus they don't agree with, yes. And certainly their fascism makes me second guess everything I say in public and at family gatherings. Yes, they restrict the sales of my product, and yes they like to tear down my campaign signs.
It's horrifying to imagine a candidate not accepting the results of an election. Wait? We lost? The election was rigged I tell you!
To be fair, Hillary isn't the one questioning them.
If you're referring to her supporters, yes hypocrisy is on both sides of the aisle, and it's dumb either way.
You can't vote without a voter registration card or some other proof of who you are (e.g. an electric bill), and you can't vote unless you have at some point properly registered to vote, which you can't do without a SSN. So for illegals to vote, they would have to either commit outright identity theft to register fraudulently (which they screen for and actively remove when found) or steal somebody else's mail and vote in his/her name (which would likely be discovered when that other person went to vote).
In short, the absence of strong evidence supporting such a claim is, in this case, strong evidence of the absence of such fraud.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
so no, no chance there. He's pushing 80 for God's sake.
.com bust, housing bust. Over and over and over again.
And you're forgetting how many 'Blue Dog' and social liberals there are. The Republicans have a much stronger position because they have two basic issues: Low taxes and no regulation for the wealthy and right wing evangelicalism for the bible thumpers (with all the guns, none of the Gays or Abortions). It's real easy to keep those groups together.
Dems have to balance our economic regressive/social liberals with socialists, environmentalists and civil rights activists. We're a much, much looser coalition. That's why Hilary couldn't get the vote out. She was walking too fine a line and tripped over it.
The sad thing is things are probably going to have to go to shit for 80% of the population before we start seeing progress again. It's been like this since I was a kid. Republicans deregulation and wreck the economy, Dems move in and fix it up, folks get complacent and want the Republicans back because instead of slow steady growth they promise the world. Lather, rinse, repeat. Savings and Loan,
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's in the constitution. Which was created before republicans. There never was a 'national' vote. It was ALWAYS the states picking. Of course, you can change it by passing a constitutional amendment. At the time it was designed it was meant to prevent people in one state from having an influence on how another state voted, which as we see, is pretty much what it does.
Speak for yourself.
He didn't have any policies OR experience to attack, to be fair.
Pretty clever at that honestly, to just spout two different things depending on whether you're on twitter or in a debate. Nobody had any solid idea what they guy actually wanted to DO policy wise.
When everyone thought Trump was going to lose Trump said the election was rigged. After he won the election but didn't win the popular vote Trump said the election was rigged. HRC never said the election was rigged, but the fake news people are saying she said the election was rigged. Who here has less faith in American democracy?
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
The popular vote in the United States Presidential Election is irrelevant. The popular vote however is used in other elections such as US Legislature and most state/city/county level positions.
I RTFA and didn't catch whether this supposed review is going to include a formal forensics analysis of voting machines, at least in swing states where something of this nature would have been beneficial and anomalies in exit polls vs. actual numbers on machines happened. There were states that flat out denied Stein's request of forensics on the machines, which I think is completely ridiculous. If you're gonna punch the same commands into possibly pwned machines, of COURSE you're gonna get the same numbers (both on memory card and internal "redundant" memory). That is *not* a "recount".
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
The President nominates a Supreme Court justice but the Senate APPROVES that justice. In effect - you have to have approval from both parts of that equation. If the Senate doesn't want to approve a candidate or even hold a vote they're doing precisely their job. The approval of the Senate of a nominee isn't just some rubber stamp formality.
That's literally the whole point of "checks and balances". You might as well proclaim that every one of Obama's vetoes was impeding the duly elected legislature. At least you'd be consistent.
The Senate was making a mockery of their role.
This had nothing to do with whether they approved of the justice, rather they were claiming that the President didn't have the mandate to carry out his role in nominating one.
I stole this Sig
That's fine, then someone should write up an amendment, get it passed and ratified by 2/3 of the States. Nobody is really a 'proponent' of it, as far as I know, it just hasn't had any real congressional Opponents who weren't only griping about losing elections. It's just not been changed because that's the way it has been, and changing it is hard.
Well, the small or less populated states that would lose their influence (or, as they see it, representation) are proponents of it. Getting 2/3 of the states to ratify such an amendment wouldn't be easy, when it would mean that most of those states would have to accept the presidential choice of California and a few northeastern states every election.
You'd be asking them to ratify an amendment that formalizes their insignificant role of "flyover country".
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.