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.
I wonder if the voting public are considered stakeholders.
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.
If the results are going to other people ("a range of stakeholders", which includes Congress) the information is there for Trump if he wants it. By having it delivered to him before he leaves office, that puts a timetable on it. Otherwise it's "Hey, go do this thing for me. Also, I'm out of here", which in my experience results in nothing happening.
Wood Shavings!
- Godai
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.