Slashdot Mirror
Russian Cyber Hacks On US Electoral System Far Wider Than Previously Known (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader shares a Bloomberg article: Russia's cyberattack on the U.S. electoral system before Donald Trump's election was far more widespread than has been publicly revealed, including incursions into voter databases and software systems in almost twice as many states as previously reported. In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter. In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said. The scope and sophistication so concerned Obama administration officials that they took an unprecedented step -- complaining directly to Moscow over a modern-day "red phone." In October, two of the people said, the White House contacted the Kremlin on the back channel to offer detailed documents of what it said was Russia's role in election meddling and to warn that the attacks risked setting off a broader conflict.
at least thats where the guys spoofing IPs made it look like all the hacks were coming from.
How can you tell either way without an investigation?
When at first you don't succeed, double down!
We've been hearing, non-stop for almost a year, about "Russians Hacked the Election!", without a single shred of evidence, except from "unnamed sources" and shit. When we have the source (WikiLeaks) telling us ... it wasn't the Russians or any state actor.
It was the Russians that caused Hillary's medical problems
It was the Russians that caused Hillary Campaign to ignore the Rust Belt
It was the Russians that caused Hillary and the DNC to conspire to rig the Primary
It was the Russians that caused Podesta to be a douchbag
It was the Russians that caused Hillary to lose. THAT is the ONLY explanation !
It was the Russians who caused the American people to be stupid and vote for Trump.
Keep it up guys, and you'll never get back in power.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
That's telling him! What was it Putin said about empty threats?
the banks won. the defense industry won. the rich people won. But those would have won either way.
You don't hack the ballot, you use propaganda to influence voters.
Nothing can forgive the horror she inflicted on the american people by running her own personal email server!!!
And this is only half of the story. Read this, this, and this...and you might begin to understand the breadth and the scope of what Russia is doing online. The Kremlin has built an entire industry manned by thousands, whose sole purpose is to get online and sew chaos, confusion, and doubt. They are why, when you discuss any issue that reflects poorly on Russia on any major website, you get marginalized and bombarded with talking points.
There are conservatives who mirror the Kremlin's message, but these buildings filled with thousands of paid trolls are the originals and the instigators. This is not a game, read the Times story above and you will see the real world consequences; Russia can create fake hysteria in America, made up disasters, and form political causes out of the ether which sway American policy in the direction they like. Russia, right this very second, and since 2014, and into the future--is at war with you, with me, with every Conservative and every Democrat and every Independent--and they don't care at all what you want. They care what 1 man wants, and what he wants is to say fuck you and your country.
And then he came out and said the elections were secure and no Russian involvement had affected the outcome!
You don't hack the ballot, you use propaganda to influence voters.
You mean just like politicians do?
To be fair, Clinton did have an unsecured Exchange server hanging on the public Internet, and her lieutenant John Podesta fell for the world's dumbest phishing scam... I mean, c'mon.
(note: I voted Libertarian and live in the People's Republic of Oregon, so I have no dog in this fight and could not have possibly affected the results. That said...)
As for the dreaded hax0rz TFA details, how come during the election season Obama said, flat-out and public, that there was no interference going on and that everything was fine? Further more, he never warned the alleged affected state election officials. I mean seriously, one would think that if he were concerned about it at the time, he (or rather, his administration) would have at least informed the IT folks over the affected systems so that they could at least try and remediate and harden things?
I'm not saying that the Russians never tried (though nobody is saying if they succeeded or not), but it's damned odd that it only became a concern for the Obama administration after Clinton ended up the loser.
If she had won, would we even be hearing about any of this, or would the response from the MSM be a demand that the complainers remove their tinfoil chapeaus?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
You should read up on classical conditioning, specifically learned helplessness. There's already enough 'bad' when it comes to voting. Electronic voting doesn't work. Hand counting is inaccurate. There's a disillusion about whether or not a person's vote really matters since elections are based on this screwed up electoral college system - where a chosen few (compared to the general public) can decide who leads.
There have been activists and those speaking up, sure... but until our elected officials actually listen and do something about it, we're just going to keep going on this downward sloping status quo. The anarchist in me thinks "good, get rid of these career politicians that only want to pad their own wallets and retire into C-level golden parachute jobs". Then I see things like the uprising in Egypt and worry that the U.S. could go to that extreme.
The Kremlin has built an entire industry manned by thousands, whose sole purpose is to get online and sew chaos, confusion, and doubt.
So what you are saying is Russia has built a Shadow 4-Chan.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And people keep berating me when I tell them that it doesn't matter which branch of The Party wins.
Seriously, the whole shit in the US smells more and more like the democracy theater they had in the Soviet states. Some countries there allowed you to actually vote for different candidates. Yes, really. They even had some parties to offer a puppet show of democracy (quite literally so). But in the end, they all stood for exactly the same. Maybe you could hear some sort of nuance on this or that topic, but in the end, the socialism had to win at the end, the fight towards communism continues and The Party is always right.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You don't hack the ballot, you use propaganda to influence voters.
You mean just like politicians do?
...and media corporations, and special interest groups, and political parties, and talk radio jocks, and co-workers, and advertisers (to an extent), and even private corporations (again, to an extent), and...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Does it really matter whether the wig or the plastic doll did it? Turd sandwich or giant douche (and you may even choose who is who), does it matter?
Be honest.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's worth remembering that the US has (or rather had) spies in the Russian FSB and wider Russia:
http://www.newsweek.com/has-putin-just-arrested-two-american-spies-548528
"News broke on January 24 that two Russians—Sergei Mikhailov, the second-highest-ranking officer in the cyber-intelligence unit of the Federal Security Service (FSB), and Ruslan Stoyanov, a private cybersecurity analyst specializing in antivirus programs [side note, he's EX FSB]—were arrested on charges of treason."
And that two of these were arrested a few days after Trump got into power and got hold of an unredacted piss memo naming a current and former FSB agent who had supplied intelligence on the Putin election interference plans.
The obvious implication is, that Trump got hold of the piss memos and passed the names of these spies to the Russians for revenge.
There was a misdirection, a claim that these two WERE BEHIND the US election hacking, but Putin has since suggested Russia might have been framed.... which indicates the bogus nature of that misdirection.
http://nypost.com/2017/02/01/russian-officials-charged-with-passing-secrets-to-us/
"Four Russian security officials were slapped Wednesday with formal charges of treason for passing secrets to the US government, according to published reports."
"Three of the defendants were identified as Federal Security Services (FSB) officials Sergei Mikhailov and Dmitry Dokuchayev, and Ruslan Stoyanov, a higher-up at the cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Labs, CBS News reported."
Uh huh...
I guess we're going to keep on hearing this 'birther' crap for the next four years at least.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
We are talking about a nation that had the choice between a buffoon and a slimy eel that made Nixon look like a honest person, decided for the buffoon who is now pretty much telling the whole world and everyone who wants to listen anything and everything he does outside of what time he sits on the can, the country is fighting wars it cannot win (and probably there also isn't anyone left who really wants to), you're on the brink of a civil war (and if you keep pushing more and more people into poverty, it's only a matter of time and numbers 'til you reach critical mass), the air in some parts of the country is close to poisonous (but we go back to coal as a power source), there are numerous economy bubbles about to pop any minute... ...and you want us to take THIS bullshit seriously? Of all the things that we could and should take seriously and tackle, this is somewhere around number 2245.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Let's also not forget that there was a major push by Homeland Security to nationalize the election process at this time too. This might still be going on.
how come during the election season Obama said, flat-out and public, that there was no interference going on and that everything was fine?
Two reasons. A) it would have created confusion and panic in our voting system as to whether votes were being correctly recorded (with electronic voting we don't know, but that's another issue) and B) it would have given another excuse for the con artist to claim the election was being rigged (though you'll note he never said which way it was being rigged).
but it's damned odd that it only became a concern for the Obama administration after Clinton ended up the loser.
No it's not. It was a concern since they called Moscow directly to let them know we knew what they were doing. Similar to above, had Obama said anything about Russia interfering with the election it would have been seen as an excuse and would have given more fire to the con artist's delusions about the election being rigged.
would we even be hearing about any of this, or would the response from the MSM be a demand that the complainers remove their tinfoil chapeaus?
Yes, we would have, because since Hillary would have been president, the same Republican-led House and Senate which are running interference for the con artist over the current Russia investigations, would have spared no expense to get to the bottom of what happened. They would have used it to claim her presidency wasn't legitimate or it was tainted, neither of which they are doing now. They would be digging as deep as possible to find every scrap of information regarding Russia's interference, the exact opposite of what they are doing now where many members are saying it's no big deal and the investigations should be dropped.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
How could this even be possible? By assuming that the option of a well-planned inside job can be dismissed, how could anyone have access to so delicate information from outside?! Through internet?! Why enabling internet access to something like this?
In any case, I guess that all these systems include a quite powerful logging sub-system recording each single modification; or even better: they don't allow modifications at all. So, even in the unrealistic scenario of anyone actually modifying voting information, I guess that reverting any change should be quite easy.
Clarification: I don't like Trump at all and might even be happy in case that he was proven to be somehow related to all this hacking theory. But I am also an honesty- and fairness-driven person who is completely against baseless accusations of any kind.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Tinfoil hat and crazy talk time
Well, they had a list of all employees with access to the vote tabulation equipment. they could have found a handful in each state that were both poor and hardcore trump supporters and offered them both money and a chance for their guy to win in exchange for plugging in this USB stick to some of the machines...
now do i think that actually happened? oh god no, the amount of time and planning that would take for something with a pretty high risk of failure would be totally insane, even for Putin (or Putey Put Put as W used to call him) but to offhandedly say "No way tampering was possible" seemed short sighted.
I mean, no offence to you, Trump and his folks were saying the vote was rigged leading up to the vote, some going so far as to say they would assassinate Clinton were she to be declared the winner as the election was bogus. I think saying "hey, maybe we should look into this a little more" is fairly tame by comparison.
Sounds like it's time for better security in the computerized part of the voting system. Even if the Russian government, as opposed to just individual hackers who might even be spoofing a Russian government IP address for reasons, really is behind this so what? It's not any kind of real attack. If you are advocating that we try to hack their own insecure internet-facing computer systems go for it. Would love to see someone other than Putin or a Putin clone get elected next time. I'm not even convinced this sort of thing should be a crime at all. More like relatively harmless play. Or we could move toward nuclear war with Russia if you want. Up to you.
I personally kind of like the Russkies. I have no problem with them. I think we should stick with staying on friendly and good diplomatic terms with them. I lived through the 80s and I find being friends with them a lot better than Duck and Cover drills. OTOH we all know how cool nuclear war would be. It would truly be 'interesting times'. Plus a lot of Beautiful People would die or at least suffer a reduced quality of life. So I'm cool with either option, but for most people I think the first option would be preferable.
I guess we do live in interesting times in a way. Democrats have become so much like Republicans now that they have become war mongers as long as it suits their agenda in other ways. Although I must admit I don't see how getting on a more cold war like footing with Russia again is going to hurt their arch-enemy Trump. Because Democratic presidents were known for chewing gum and kicking ass but running out of gum? I'm not seeing it. I'm just glad Trump himself is not taking the bait and transforming into Dr. Strangelove.
I can remember back in the 80s when most Democrats were supporters of the ACLU and even human rights. It used to be that Republicans wanted financial freedom (even for poor people in many cases) but government control of our personal lives and Democrats wanted personal freedoms (pro ACLU, pro drug etc) put wanted more government control of the economy (Robin Hood economics). Now both parties want government control of everything just in somewhat different ways, but this pro war stance on the part of the Democrats is something new.
But saber rattling over this is just dumb. You want to investigate Trump for being overly friendly with the Russians (not really a crime imo but whatever) fine, but escalating this into any sort of real conflict just because you want to demonize the Russians because Trump gets along with Putin is harmful to world peace and not really going to accomplish anything you want anyway.
Trump is president. I don't like it either but it doesn't really matter that much who is president. It's mostly business as usual no matter who is living in that big white building. So calm the fuck down people and wipe that drool and spittle from your rabid mouths. This could even be something positive if it helps to make our electronic voting systems more secure or if it starts to get people thinking about how stupid and antiquated our electoral college system is. Democracy is mostly about a wolf and some sheep deciding what's for dinner anyway. It's really individual/human rights that distinguishes us from totalitarian dictatorships. Or really the rights that the government doesn't have. Voting is mostly bread and circus to keep the common people believing they can make a difference.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No.
It is however clear that the Plastic Doll didn't order Russia to hack herself. Not so clear about the Orange Wig. After all, the wig did state he would welcome criminal acts like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Washington elites were so sure, Hillary would win, they didn't want to publicize the hacking attempts for fear of delegitimizing her.
Now that she lost, they are sabotaging the actual winner with this unending allusions and unstated allegations and innuendo — to slow him down and prevent him from implementing, what the voters voted for.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Russian actions weren't able to modify votes cast.
You seem awfully confident of that. If there is one thing we know, its that e-voting machines are ridiculously insecure. And we've know it for over a decade.
What risk/reward ratio were they looking at?
Putin's singular goal is the elevation of the Russian state with him as its head. Because he's an autocrat that makes western liberalism an existential threat. Anything he can do to discredit western liberalism helps him - if he can convince enough people that american elections are rigged then he can say to his own citizens that real democracy doesn't exist, that the grass is not greener on the other side and so they should be content with his great leadership.
If there's something we need to know, publish it and stand behind it (with your names and titles) already.
Former FBI Director James Comey came out and testified in public under oath.
The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. It was an active measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There is no fuzz on that. It is a high confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community and the members of this committee have seen the intelligence. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get. It is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that.
You don't hack the ballot, you use propaganda to influence voters.
You mean just like politicians do?
No.
Politicians lie.
The Russians leaked the truth.
To be fair, Clinton did have an unsecured Exchange server hanging on the public Internet, and her lieutenant John Podesta fell for the world's dumbest phishing scam... I mean, c'mon.
To be fair, Podesta didn't fall for the phishing scam. He thought the email was suspicious so he asked a millennial on his staff who was supposedly his email expert about it. The young guy went into an immediate panic and insisted that the email was completely legit and Podesta needed to click on the link immediately. So he did. Nobody will name the staffer or say what happened to him. The guy who fell for the phishing scam was Podesta's trusted staffer who was supposed to know how to detect this kind of thing.
Most of the objections I've seen as to why Russian hacking couldn't work have been along the lines of "It would take a lot of effort" or "it would be too complicated". Given the available resources of Russia and the stakes in play I can't really say those objections hold any water. Without the ability to review the source code of all voting machines and randomized auditing of paper ballots there is simply too much potential for influence in a close race, which seems to be the de facto standard these days.
I don't necessarily agree with Obama's response (though, to be clear, it wasn't a non-response--he expelled 39 Russian diplomats and closed their compound, which he accused them of using as a base of operations for espionage), but the Obama administration has said publicly that their reasoning was, if they made statements about an ongoing attack which they were still trying to figure out, it would have been seen as an attempt to sway the outcome of the election. And they aren't wrong, it would have.
Since you seem like a reasonable person who's curious about the issue, I'd suggest reading my other post in this thread.
Seriously how blind is your love for a big serving of Trump that you can even pretend to believe such nonsense. The outside world looks in with complete disbelief at how deluded many Americans were during that whole campaign...
Totally agree. The only difference here is that Trump isn't a normal politician and may have some racist or at least anti-Muslim views and some more extreme ideas than usual. So far nothing has come of it and the rest of the system (house, senate, judicial) is all regular politicians. So it may end up like Obama wanting to close Gitmo but not being able to (assuming you believe he wanted to). Luckily a president is not quite a dictator. Not yet at least.
Note how the travel ban went nowhere and so far I haven't read about any Muslim internment camps or mass deportation of Muslim Americans. If Trump seriously tries to do any of that stuff then I'll start to seriously worry, but for now he's all bark and no bite. At least so far. It's kind of entertaining to see how the Dems are reacting. I've never seen this kind of rage or bile before. Not even the most Hilary hating conservative was ever this enraged. Nothing like hatred to unite people, eh?
In some ways the other side of the pond worries me more. Trump isn't advocating the end of encryption, human rights (except for Muslims of course), and uh the internet while she's at it. Hopefully the political system over there can prevent her from actually doing any of that extreme stuff. There's a lot of dangerous anti-Muslim talk over there too, but May is not nearly as much an islamophobe or xenophobe as Trump. Unfortunately they both tend to go in for overly simple solutions to complex problems, but then so do most politicians. The Philippines with their president's policy of Murder All Drug Dealers (and users) as a way to solve the drug problem there is my favorite illustration of this.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
As for the dreaded hax0rz TFA details, how come during the election season Obama said, flat-out and public, that there was no interference going on and that everything was fine?
I don't think that's true. I remember there being talk, even before the election, that the Russians were attempting to hack the election, and that it was very troubling. It was reported at the time that Obama had contacted Putin and had told him to "cut it out". It was so well known to be an issue that Clinton accused Trump, in one of the national debates, of being a Russian puppet. This was no secret.
What the Obama administration had said is that they didn't have evidence that votes were actually changed. That is, they knew there were various attempts to influence the election in different ways, but they didn't know for sure (or at least, weren't prepared to reveal) whether Russia had been able to actually change votes in the computerized voting systems. For that, you'd need to do an extensive recount. Unfortunately, in some of these locations, where isn't necessarily a paper trail to recount.
People in the Obama administration have indicated that Obama didn't want to come out too strongly/directly saying, "Hey everyone, Russia is trying to hack the election in favor of Trump!" because he was concerned that it would seem like a partisan attack, rather than an unbiased statement of fact. Along with everything else, Trump was saying that he wasn't going to accept the results of the election unless he won, so Obama didn't want to throw the validity of the election into doubt. Still, the administration did say that the Russians were trying to influence the election, and they seemed to be doing it in order to help Trump.
If you repeat it enough, it will become truth.
The plot thickens...
Not really... This was on Obama's watch.. What was HE doing about this? (hint.. He told the Russians to "stop it!") Was this effective? About as effective as the "red line" in Syria..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Any time I see the word "unprecendented" I tune it out.
There must be some part of the journalist brain that involuntarily peppers headlines and articles with that word.
The actual winner spends a far portion of each and every day sabotaging himself. No one needs to help Trump, and it's all the Republicans can do just to keep up with him and try to cover for him.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Take this shit seriously, you twats. Things like this can topple nations.
Most of the time it doesn't matter who gets elected. If I thought the election of one parties candidate over the other would somehow overthrow the government I'd definitely be in favor of that though. That would be awesome. Some chance at real change finally.
It's not the Russians you should worry about anyway. It's Libertarians like me. I don't give a fuck about democracy, but I do care about human rights a lot. If I could hack into the voting system and get a (sane/moderate) Libertarian elected would I do it? Fuck yes. Welcome back to 1776, motherfuckers.
Hell who wouldn't try to influence an election to get a shot at seeing their own particular utopian views put to the test? Socialist party? The Green Party? You really think it's just the Russians who care which candidate gets elected here? A more useful question would be who wouldn't want to hack the election results if they could? Hell the Green Party might could justify almost any action based on their belief that they would truly be saving the world from armageddon if they were in power.
It could even be argued that an easily hackable election system could be a good thing. A chance for real change. Maybe even for the better. The majority is usually wrong about most things because most people are very stupid, particularly in the US. So how about giving some minority views a chance?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I'm not going to berate you, but I think you're wrong.
Or actually, let me start with this: I think it's unfortunate that we have a two-party system. I think we should consider rethinking our elections in order to allow more parties to have more of a voice. I'd also agree that we should do something about campaign finance to restrict the undue influence held by the rich. So maybe we'd agree on that much.
However, we've certainly seen that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. If you look at the things Obama tried to do, and then you look a the things Trump has been trying to do, those are definitely different sets of things. What's more, I think a lot of the difficulty in promoting 3rd parties is actually the fault of the people. It's tribalism. Political parties are like sports teams, and which one you want to win isn't really about which one is best or which one is going to implement good policies. It's all identity politics, and part of the reason for that is it's what voters are choosing.
The voting machines are not internetworked. The attacks described here were not against voting equipment but against voter registration databases which have web interfaces.
I am an election official in Virginia. Every one of these scenarios I've looked at about how easy it is to modify voting equipment have thoroughly improbable -- and in some cases, physically impossible -- scenarios. America is physically a very big place. Virginia has thousands of individual voting precincts. To modify the source code, you'd have to launch a simultaneous, in-person sneak attack at thousands of locations, all without getting caught. That is just not a credible scenario. In some of these scenarios, they have people literally opening up a voting machine on election day, which is really preposterous. Every voting machine is under the constant gaze not only of multiple officers, but also all the voters waiting in line. That in-my-eyesight requirement is one of the reasons I am strongly in favor of in-person voting.
We have been running elections for hundreds of years, now. We do know a thing or two about how to secure them.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
How very partisan of you... Do a bit of critical thinking about this whole mess and you will realize that Obama is the one who gets the blame for this, it happened on HIS watch. As I recall, the Clinton Campaign and the Obama administration were acting all huffy about Trump refusing to accept the election results in advance (remember that?). Remember all the assurances that it would be a fair election then? Oh sure, Clinton was a shoe in right? All this was going on right up to the last debate... About the same time as the "Access Hollywood" tapes that should have done in Trump's campaign... He was going to lose, and lose badly, and everybody knew it so the election was going to be FAIR and the Russians where NOT an issue.
What changed?
Do some critical thinking and think about the history of this, don't just fall for the sound bite news coverage of all this... I know it's hard to ignore the shrill voices on both sides of this at times, but do try..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
and that is != hacking the election.
also you are crazy if you dont think we dont try and use propaganda to influence voters of other countries and vice versa.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
And then, it turns out, Trump isn't accepting the validity of the election EVEN THOUGH he won !
He just cannot accept the idea that 3 million more people voted for his opponent, so he keeps trying to claim that their votes were the results of massive and unprecedented fraud !
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
If you repeat it enough, it will become truth.
LOL.. The sum total of the efforts from the left since November 9, 2016... Keep repeating it... Keep the investigations going.. Because it's not the "nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charges" that matters when you play the political game well.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Two reasons. A) it would have created confusion and panic in our voting system as to whether votes were being correctly recorded (with electronic voting we don't know, but that's another issue) and B) it would have given another excuse for the con artist to claim the election was being rigged (though you'll note he never said which way it was being rigged).
First up, seriously, ditch the name-calling. I get that you hate the guy (thanks to that), but let's keep it objective.
Trump did say that the election may be rigged, yes... but Obama's response was to totally refute it. I understand the argument of not wanting to cause panic or uncertainty, but Obama's administration specifically said nothing to the state election commissions - that part is the most troubling. Did he think it would be rigged in Clinton's favor and so didn't bother, or (Occam's argument) did he fail to do so out of ...? It's not a case of avoiding panic if you have an underling send word to various elections commissioners - that is, assuming something actually happened (or happened successfully) to imperil said voting machine infrastructures.
No it's not. It was a concern since they called Moscow directly to let them know we knew what they were doing. Similar to above, had Obama said anything about Russia interfering with the election it would have been seen as an excuse and would have given more fire to the con artist's delusions about the election being rigged.
I'm pretty certain that a simple admonition wouldn't deter any spy agency, let alone as old, subtle or as skilled as the Russian ones. And Trump was the only one complaining publicly about it (Clinton joined Obama in telling everyone that he was simply complaining for no reason).
Perhaps they (Obama and Clinton) pooh-poohed the charge due to a misguided notion that the election, if rigged, would put Clinton in the White House (or worse, that perhaps they were assured that the real hacking attempts were occurring via some Russian VPN connection from DNC-paid operatives)? I don't hypothesize that last bit without basis, mind - after all, the Democrat National Committee literally (both publicly and privately) rigged the primaries to prevent Sanders from winning the nomination, so the possibility is certainly there.
I also have a very hard time believing that there was any success in the alleged effort (if it were via Russian attempts), else we would have heard about it loudly, publicly, and with mountains of concrete evidence made public - by every elected Democrat and media source to lay eyes on said evidence.
Yes, we would have, because since Hillary would have been president, the same Republican-led House and Senate which are running interference for the con artist over the current Russia investigations, would have spared no expense to get to the bottom of what happened. They would have used it to claim her presidency wasn't legitimate or it was tainted, neither of which they are doing now. They would be digging as deep as possible to find every scrap of information regarding Russia's interference, the exact opposite of what they are doing now where many members are saying it's no big deal and the investigations should be dropped.
I disagree with part of this, and here's why: Certainly, there would be shouting from certain quarters of the Republican Party, but it would be as effective as the whole 'birther' outcry... in that it would be just a few "nutjobs" speaking about it, and I daresay that the MSM (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, et al) would have quickly relegated it to the realm of Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
No, he was joking, based on the assumption that the Russians had previously hacked the DNC and several others associated with the Democratic party leadership and thus most likely Hillary's server as well (years before back when she was Sec state and running the unsecure server), and thus they would likely have hoovered up the 30,000 missing emails she had deleted after her term as Sec State ended. Thus he made a Joke (a non-serious statement designed to elicit laughter) about asking the Russians if they had the missing emails. It was a joke, in the context it was clearly a joke, and only an idiot bound an determined to make it something else would consider that off the cuff statement anything but a joke.
but keep trying to claim it was a serious statement.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
You know, we DO know about digital signing. And defense in depth. And chain of custody. And to top it all off, you can't just attack some of the machines, they are spread out in thousands of locations across each state. You have to win a majority of ALL the precincts.
So no, your scenario of just popping a USB drive into a couple of voting machines is not going to work. It's a lot, lot harder than you think.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Like I said, it would be too hard to pull off and I don't think it happened. But should we not at least investigate?
I mean, isn't it odd in NC that enough people split the ballot to elect a Democratic Governor but not Clinton? I mean in a normal election I wouldn't find that very odd, but to vote Dem on one side and Trump on the other? That's a big swing. But hey, who knows? ... a lot of Bernie's Socialists suddenly became Libertarians which is the complete opposite of socialism...
Translation: I've stuck my finger in my ear, refused to even understand what is alleged to have happened, and want anyone who challenges Trump to be sent to prison.
If members of Trump's team were coordinating with the Russians for timed releases of information against Clinton, then that's treason. Whether Trump was directly involved or not may not be known, but may not even be that important.
So how about you first eliminate that strawman you've created of the allegations to start with, because it just makes you look like either a complete idiot or a liar.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Comey sat right in a Congressional committee meeting and said out loud "The Russians interfered with the election".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
How can you tell either way without an investigation?
You do realize that the biggest net gain for the Russians is the PR here right? They may not have changed even one vote cast, but all this consternation about how they "hacked" the election undermines the electorate's confidence in the process.
Putin is sitting back chuckling about how a little bit of hacking has placed his name and image in front of the world and inflated his image which increases his ability to stay in office.... Then, the gift that keeps on giving, pits Americans vrs Americans which only makes the USA weaker. Apart from achieving some military victory of the USA there is nothing better for him...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So you think we should just ignore all of the massive amount of evidence from a dizzying array of sources, many of them independent and professional with no stake in the political world, just because you think it's all a gigantic sour grapes excuse argument?
The person you responded to stated very clearly the same thing most of us who are not leftists/progressives have been saying. SHOW US SOME EVIDENCE! What we have is a report based on 3rd party paid for by the DNC claiming "Russia" hacked the DNC. The FBI requested access to the servers to run a Federal investigation and were REFUSED!
Anonymously source claims are not evidence! For all we know there could be one person responsible for every single anonymous source. Read the statements on the record by Comey, Clapper, Obama, etc.. etc.. who all stated that the Election was not tampered with. Not 1 vote was changed, and according to them not one vote was cast illegally. (and we just had 12 Democrats indited for voter fraud, link so we know that issues exist, but no evidence that a R or Trump did anything illegal). We were promised an investigation into fraud, and I'm hoping it's either underway or will still be completed.
The sources in TFA are all biased sources. I don't see anything new here, just the same old Stalinist tactics we have seen since last July from the Democratic party and MSM. If you want to sway my opinion, start producing facts.
Like many others, I don't fall for appeals to emotion, appeals to authority, or ad hominem. I study facts!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"Hand counting is inaccurate"
What draws you to that conclusion?
How many people vote in your precinct? A thousand? Five thousand tops?
With a team of people, how long would it take for them to go through a few thousand pieces of paper?
A few hours? With the teams (from a number of parties -- no cheating!) checking each other's work, accuracy can be ensured.
Sure, we won't have 'instant' results, but fuck the media: this is our governance we're talking about here, not some game show. CNN can wait, dammit!
Once everyone agrees on the precinct totals, they can be uploaded to the mothership along with the chain of custody. QED
The only difference here is that Trump isn't a normal politician and may have some racist or at least anti-Muslim views
According to this CNN link , the six countries on the travel ban were Sudan, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria. All of them have either extremely poor security situations with rampant domestic terrorism and active insurgencies, or in Iran's case an extremely antagonistic relationship with the US government and Israel (which has major lobbying power in the US). These countries are 10% of the world Muslim population. They are also some of the most dangerous and active conflict zones in the world today, and possess training environments for the radicalization of second-generation immigrants in Europe to turn into terrorists.
You know what countries AREN'T on Trump's travel ban? Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nigeria, Turkey, and Egypt. Combined they are home to 56.7% of the world's Muslims, and while some of them have security problems and active jihadi insurgencies, they also have more robust security apparatuses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So is Trump really anti-Muslim, or simply enacting pre-emptive security measures and risk avoidance?
In comparison, his erstwhile opponent in the Presidential race voted in favor of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The collapse of security in Iraq in 2003 is STILL costing Muslim lives to this day due to ISIS, which even a conservative estimate would place in the high hundreds of thousands of fatalities 2003-2017. This is also the same woman who **LAUGHED** about the overthrow and extra-judicial lynching of a Muslim head of state (Qaddafi). https://youtu.be/UtH7iv4ip1U
So I'm just curious if you also consider Hillary Clinton to be a racist anti-Muslim? Or is it just Trump?
as the Orange Clown didn't order it, it's all FINE right?
Not in the least, of course it matters.. However... WHY have we been accusing Trump of organizing this for literally MONTHS? He didn't have anything to do with this if you take what Comey says to be true. Seriously, why all the sputtering and spitting about collusion we've been hearing since before Trump took office?
However, I'd like to point out that we still haven't seen any evidence that "The Russians" managed to change the count of votes cast, only that they where trying to disrupt what they could.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
how come during the election season Obama said, flat-out and public, that there was no interference going on and that everything was fine? Two reasons. A) it would have created confusion and panic in our voting system as to whether votes were being correctly recorded (with electronic voting we don't know, but that's another issue)
It's worth pointing out that when the election is very close, it's far more important for democracy that people have confidence in the accuracy of the election result than that it actually be accurate. That may seem like a bizarre thing to say, but think about it. If the election is very close, it's because the electorate does not have a clear preference. This isn't to say that individual voters don't have clear preferences, but the electorate as a whole, under the system we use for determining the will of the people, doesn't have a clear preference.
Since the people don't have a clear will the election can go either way without going against the will of the people. In fact, in very close elections the result can go either way based on various random factors which in an ideal world shouldn't have any effect. Stuff like the weather. This means that the actual result of a close election cannot undermine the legitimacy of the democracy.
What can, and does, undermine democracy is when people say "Not my president", and in a very close race it takes very little to create enough doubt to enable people to say that. Of course, even in a landslide victory it's always possible for the supporters of the loser to take this tack, but in doing so they're demonstrating contempt for the very notion of democratic process. When it's very close, though, it's easy for people to make the argument that their guy/gal lost only because of X, Y or Z inaccuracies in the electoral process, and so the elected officeholder is illegitimate, not because democracy isn't the proper way to choose government.
To be clear, I despise Donald Trump with a purple passion, but he is my president and I will absolutely continue to honor the office and respect his legal and proper actions within that office (while retaining the right to criticize vociferously any I disagree with, and to encourage investigation, impeachment and possibly prosecution in the event of any illegal and/or improper actions). This attitude with regard to the office (and every other elected office) is, IMNSHO, exactly what all Americans need to hold if we're to avoid undermining our nation.
So, IMO, Obama did exactly the right thing in trying to fight Russian interference on the one hand, and keeping it quiet on the other, because fear about the legitimacy of the electoral process would have severely undermined the legitimacy of whoever won... and in a close election legitimacy is distinct from and more important than accuracy. That said, we absolutely do need to investigate any identified weaknesses in the electoral processes, and fix them lest we find ourselves in a situation where the electorate does have a clear preference and the processes deliver a contrary result.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
If you are referring to declaring current voting systems "critical infrastructure" I hardly see that as a major push to nationalize. If you are referring to something else, please be so kind as to provide infor,mation and links.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
We're at the point where the government is so involved in everything that elections are nearly pointless. A lot of us will never find a candidate that truly represents us, or even comes close. There are huge divides within the existing two parties for that reason. Bringing more parties in the fold just makes it more challenging to find the least repugnant choice. We need to decrease the amount of federal government and return to the union of states that we're supposed to have. Government works best when it's local.
Why? Because Hillary couldn't handle losing to Trump.
Its one of the largest temper tantrums in history, from a woman who should any longer be respected by anyone at all....
My state has paper ballots that are machine scanned, but we retain the paper ballots in case of funny business. Any states not doing the same should reconsider their methods.
Note that any voting system that uses networked registration has vulnerabilities, but the most resilient are those with paper ballots, automatic voter registration starting at 16, a DSS copy facing the Net, and optical scanners that are not networked.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Similar to above, had Obama said anything about Russia interfering with the election it would have been seen as an excuse and would have given more fire to the con artist's delusions about the election being rigged.
So, how does that jive with your alternate reality where Trump is a Russian puppet? I mean, wouldn't Russian puppet Trump already know about the rigging and all that since it's rigged in his favor?
Watching you people devolve into the basic equivalent of 9/11 troofers has been fascinating.
Do you have ESP?
What the presumably Russian crackers were after was altering things like voting roles, resulting in voter suppression.
You know, *exactly* like the GOP has been doing with gerrymandering, and having people at the polls challenging voters' registration, and the mass dropping of folks from the voting roles.
One that sticks in my mind was a guy not allowed to vote because he was registered in another state. Note, he was whatisname, jr, and it was his *father* who was registered in another state.
And there is *no* national system to move registrations when you relocate. Who here has ever relocated, and written to their old state or commonwealth to let them know to remove them from the old voter roles?
Although we've never been in a shooting war with Russia/USSR (exception of early skirmish of US troops on Russian soil in parts of WWI, dogfights with Mig15s and F86s, shootdown of recon planes in 1950s plus U2 in 1960) I wonder as they say tensions are increasing even though Trump and his cronies are buddy buddies with Putin and his cronies. We scream about hacks and cyberwar, can we say things will get serious if Trump pulls ABM missiles and F22s out of Poland?
mfwright@batnet.com
While those are run by local parties in the US, there is still opportunity for an outside player to influence or interfere with them. When I went to the caucus this year I left knowing the result of my own precinct but nothing beyond that, and many people left without waiting to find out the result of their own precinct. Certainly the Russians knew early in the nomination process that Trump was by far the candidate most favorable to them; why would they not want to interfere at that point?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
That always seemed like a bizarrely stupid argument to make. He claims that there were literally millions of fraudulent votes across the country. Meanwhile, he won some states by a few thousand votes. If we assume that he's correct, that there was massive voter fraud, but we have no evidence who who received the fraudulent votes, then we have every reason to enterain the possibility that Clinton actually won the election.
He's presenting an argument, the natural conclusion of which is that his legitimacy as president is uncertain. Either he's lying and making things up, or he should be prepared to step aside after a thorough investigation and recount.
We're at the point where the government is so involved in everything that elections are nearly pointless.
I think it really depends on what you mean by "pointless". From the rest of your post, it really sounds like anything that doesn't give you exactly what you want is "pointless". I don't think that's a very fair assessment.
If you want the federal government to disband and form a confederacy instead, then you're right to think that neither Republicans or Democrats will bring you closer to that goal. However, if you think that the election won't have an impact on your life, or on the lives of your friends and family members, you're probably wrong.
I'm tired of the exaggerated propaganda that summaries like the one here uses to categorize Podesta's email breach as Russia's hacking the "electoral system".
Podesta's emails do not comprise the electoral system. It's perhaps a half-truth if given if a much broader, vague definition of "electoral system", but half-truths are often more devious than outright lies.
I'd love to see a solid reliable poll of how many people in the street are actually under the impression that election servers and machines were hacked by Russians to give Trump the edge.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
If you discredit our democracy and generally cause an uproar then you undermine our country as a whole. Keep at it for a while and our country collapses or devolves into some sort of regional / political civil war.
Keeping votes secret while counting them in voting machines has been compared to providing secure DRM to publishers. Given any kind of determined attack it's almost impossible to secure. I don't think block-chain is going to help much with that.
Of course all of this is in a theoretical framework where machine manufacturers are probably open source, competent and actually care if their machines are secure. Realistically most of these guys would just put the block-chain in to look secure and then back door everything.
Can you define "fine job" for me? He hasn't done much, and much of the little he's done is either trapped by the courts or by Congress.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So I'm just curious if you also consider Hillary Clinton to be a racist anti-Muslim? Or is it just Trump?
Those aren't very compelling examples. Neither was at all directly related to religion. Hillary is probably as islamophobic as most Americans are, but not as much as Trump. Trump advocated blocking all Muslims from entering the US during his campaign. I guess it could be worse. He could have advocated putting the ones already in the US into camps or deporting them, but it's a pretty extreme measure that is presumably based on some pretty extreme view along the lines of Muslim = Terrorist.
the six countries on the travel ban were Sudan, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria. All of them have either extremely poor security situations with rampant domestic terrorism and active insurgencies, or in Iran's case an extremely antagonistic relationship with the US government and Israel (which has major lobbying power in the US).
Blocking entire countries because of a tiny tiny tiny minority of people living there is in itself tribalist and the sort of simplistic over-generalized thinking that racism is all about. The sheer magnitude of innocent people caught in that ginormous net is extremely unjust by any measure. That some Americans are terrified of a tiny minority of people from those countries wearing towels on their heads does not make it any more rational or just.
Is Trump the man really a racist and islamophobe as he is painted by the left? I don't really know because I don't personally know the guy, but some of the things he has said have justifiably scared people about what he might be capable of. When it comes to that he at least gives me pause. His policies certainly do tend at least toward xenophobia and isolationism. The actual 6 country version of the travel ban is just a small taste of what he might be capable of. After all he did originally advocate blocking everyone who believes in a particular religion from entering the country.
What some people find confusing I think is that while terrorists are usually Muslims or at least Arabs, Muslims are not usually terrorists and actually neither are Arabs. Actual terrorists are almost as rare as aliens. They may as well not exist at all and we should really treat them as if they don't because attention is what they are looking for. All of this fear just encourages them and shows them what cowards we really are.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Yes, we would have, because since Hillary would have been president, the same Republican-led House and Senate which are running interference for the con artist over the current Russia investigations, would have spared no expense to get to the bottom of what happened. They would have used it to claim her presidency wasn't legitimate or it was tainted, neither of which they are doing now. They would be digging as deep as possible to find every scrap of information regarding Russia's interference, the exact opposite of what they are doing now where many members are saying it's no big deal and the investigations should be dropped.
It was tainted, given the genuine corruption of the DNC in shafting Sanders (that lawsuit is still pending), the immediate resignation of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and the proven collusion with CNN's Donna Brazile.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
In case you missed it, Trump is the man who said he wanted, a, "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". I'll point out that he didn't say, "I want a total and complete shutdown of citizens from the following countries with poor security situations entering the United States...." Had he said that, it wouldn't have been blatantly anti-Muslim. And this is also a man who said he wanted to shut down mosques.
FFS, the courts are using his own anti-Muslim tweets and speech snippets to kill his Muslim ban.
How in the world do you manage to hate Hillary so much and love Trump so much that you conflate the two on their attitudes towards Muslims? As soon as Hillary makes some anti-Muslim tweets and suggests policies to ban them and shut down mosques, they'll be equal. I'm somewhat skeptical that that will happen.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
I don't need blind love for Trump. I just need to know a few people in the rust belt and be willing to listen to them.
If the best you've got is insults, your argument is pants.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Argumentation by symlink simply isn't good enough. Try posting the relevant part of the transcript. Preferably a small direct part of it rather than forcing everyone to wade through the whole thing.
"It's illegal. Here's a login for Westlaw. Go see for yourself."
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Or actually, let me start with this: I think it's unfortunate that we have a two-party system. I think we should consider rethinking our elections in order to allow more parties to have more of a voice.
It won't matter. The government is going to be a reflection of the populace. As long as the populace is focused on stupidities instead of real issues, then no system of elections or campaign finance reform will fix that.
IF you want to improve government, focus on educating the populace. It's hard, but at least it will have an effect.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You're using too much logic analyzing his words. It's BS, and he knows it's BS, and that is exactly why he said it. Like many salesmen, Trump is a bullshitter, and the bullshit is a distraction technique as much as anything. Don't be distracted by it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I think B) hit the nail on the head. Obama, in his typically naive manner, probably thought the American people weren't a bunch of racist asshats. So he assumed Hillary would win, and saw no reason to cast aspersions on her win by sounding a public alarm that the hax0rz are trying to infiltrate state databases.
Ugh. Can you imagine? Think about how bad his whining is now. He wins, but still he claims the election was rigged by busloads of fake voters. Why?! Does he really believe that crap, or is he fucking with us? But if he had lost.... oh my god. The breitbart foxosphere would have been assploding with stupid.
We accept the election results, as the inevitable incarnation of American narcissism, incompetence, and discourtesy. I've said all along that Trump was going to win because he's the president America deserves. We just want to make sure Russia knows to GTFO and let us elect our own idiots in peace.
To clarify something: This is not about whether an election tampering happened, it's about the federal government securing the rights to control all aspects of future elections by ramping up the scare tactics of an "insecure vote". I see in this thread they have succeeded in getting you all off topic.
Voting systems are constitutionally defined as being under the control of the states who then submit their representatives for voting for legislation and for the electing the President.
Homeland Security wanted to regulate state election systems under the guise of "critical infrastructure." That's a power grab and it starts with them just mandating certain security requirements. Then they need to "inspect" the systems and "check" the records to make sure they're secure. Then you end up with a standardized election system and, of course, Homeland Security can peek at the results at any time they want.
There was a similar call after the 2000 elections as well - part of how we ended up with all these "electronic voting systems" that Diebold made and were all easily hackable. The feds were well on their way to enforcing a standardized election system at the time too until the states balked.
I don't think "con artist" is name calling; it is just shorthand to describe his business habits to date. He convinces people to do things not in their best interest by lying to them. He puts on a good show and gets people to have confidence in him, and then produces zilch. Just look at Trump University, the Taj Mahal debacle, or the Trump Network (vitamins). None of has proven to be illegal (yet), but none of it was ethical. Hopefully he'll do better for we the people than he did for his previous clients and investors.
To some extent, the assumption that Clinton would win drove some of the effects that caused her to lose.
Comey pretty much up and said he factored that assumption into his decision to notify Congress about emails on the Wiener laptop. I still don't get the logic behind this, but it goes something like "if this comes out after the election, I'll be accused of having covered for her". Which leaves out the flip side of "if these 'new' emails turn up nothing new, I'll have damaged her for no good reason".
Likewise, Obama didn't want to be seen as politicizing info on Russian hacking prior to an election that he thought was pretty much in the bag anyway.
Yes, to some extent, this is a media story because an American presidential election might actually have been turned by this stuff. Which is not to say we shouldn't have heard about it had Clinton won. But that's more a function of media shallowness than of media bias. After all, most of us here would argue that the media should've been paying attention to insecurities in the voting system all along...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I liked your post until you stated this: "After all most hackers with the skill to pull off something like this are very unlikely to be Trump supporters." But I get your point.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
Didn't Trump actually lose the election in terms of the popular vote?
There is no popular vote for US President, so no, Trump didn't lose "the popular vote".
There are two kinds of people who fall back into "popular vote" mode when referring to the US Presidential elections. The first are those who see a huge mandate for some some specific political agenda that may or may not have been a major issue to the voters. The others are those who are unhappy that their candidate lost according to the rules in place and well known to all participants (at least those who didn't skip civics class the day the Electoral College was covered, and we don't care what ignorant people think). Neither group provides a significant reason to change the outcome.
If I were investigating the first thing I would do is look into the finances of the electors who voted for trump even though the popular vote was against him.
I see you skipped civics class. Electors who voted for Trump did so because they were selected by their States to cast their votes for Trump. What you just admitted is that you would waste the taxpayer's money investigating why someone did what they were expected and selected to do.
The second thing I would do would be to try to figure out how many popular votes were changed and which direction they were changed in.
You didn't get the memo. There is no vote fraud. Nothing to see here, move along.
I don't agree with your analysis. I think that all of Trump's actions can be adequately explained by applying Hanlon's Razor.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Also not on the Travel ban: Saudi Arabia. You, know, the country from which most of the 9/11 attackers came.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
But with our first-past-the-post, winner takes all, electoral college system, you wouldn't have to alter very many individual precinct or county vote tallies to help sway a close election, if you chose the right ones.
I'm all for voter IDs, assuming the following:
- they are 100% free to the voter, which also means that none of the dependencies may cost money either
- they are available in a way that doesn't require taking time off of work or time away from family or require traveling anywhere
- there are people provided who will help individuals who don't understand how or want assistance in obtaining the ID obtain the ID
- they do not require a fixed address so that the homeless are not disenfranchised
Not everyone is able to take time off of work or travel easily, nor can everyone afford even a nominal amount to pay for the necessary documentation, nor do they understand how to work through a potentially confusing bureaucracy, nor do they have an address, etc. Those people still deserve to have their vote counted.
Anyone who thinks we MUST have voter ID but isn't in favor of doing everything we can to ensure that NO ONE who is eligible to vote is unable to is just a supporter of voter suppression.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
You know, we DO know about digital signing. And defense in depth. And chain of custody.
I'm interested in your ideas. Please tell me how I can digitally sign my ballot, and how we manage the chain of custody as it either sits overnight in the ballot drop-box or passes through the USPS system.
You have to win a majority of ALL the precincts.
In our local Senate district, it is quite common for the Republican candidate to win in a majority of the counties, yet a Democrat goes to Washington because he won the county with the big city in it. Of all the elections I know, none except the US Presidential election does anything more than summing all the votes for all the political subdivisions and the plurality takes all.
I believe the word you seek is 'sedition.' Treason is rather specific and Russia is not, at least officially, our enemy.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If, by sabotage, you mean they report what he says and does, then I concede the point, but then again, that's their job, so if Trump doesn't want them sabotaging him, he should stop giving them so much fodder.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
At least the politicians in the U.S. are part of the U.S... Foreign interference is quite different.
Yes, thankyou for pointing that out. I should have included a blurb about Saudi Arabia, which, like Israel, has HUGE lobbying power in DC even though the Saudis deserve to be front and center on our shitlist.
Pot, meet kettle.
Did you type this with a straight face?
Trump is sabotaging himself. Also, maybe he should have been a bit more careful with his birther talk and crooked Hillary talk.
The biggest issue with Trump not getting his way is that in reality, not that many voting age Americans actually cast their vote for him. He clearly lost the popular vote (I know it doesn't matter and I'm not complaining about it) but he only received 26% of the registered voter votes. That means nearly 75% of registered voters did not vote for him.
So let's not pretend the guy swept into the Oval Office on a wave of public support and is only flailing around because Democrats are repeatedly bringing up Russia.. it has about as much impact as the birther movement during Obama's entire 8 year tenure. Please remember Republican's only goal was to oppose everything from Obama.. and they said it publicly.
We basically have a bunch of spoiled, entitled brats in Washington.. and most will get reelected.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
And yet Trump touts that his travel ban IS a ban on muslims. That greatly increases his chances of losing in court, which, I think he realizes, would be helpful to him with his base, since he could then claim loudly and repeatedly how the unfair, "liberal" courts are preventing him from keeping America safe.
I don't give a fuck about democracy, but I do care about human rights a lot.
Good fucking luck getting the latter without some form of the former.
What? No, that's not what I said. I have nothing against six packs!
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I think you missed my point.
The omission of Saudi Arabia shows that the ban is unconnected to security issues, which refutes your main point.
What remains is a ban on Muslims who don't come from countries where Trump has current or hopes for future business interests.
Trump openly expressed his desire for a Muslim ban. We should take him at his word.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The people who died in Bengazi are not laughing.
But the people who killed them are. And they are ISIS - the terrorist crew whom Colonel Qadafi's column was on the way to deal with when the West decided to blow them away and send Libya back to the Stone Age.
Now they are busy killing, torturing and destroying in Syria.
Yay Yay USA! We came, we saw, millions died.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
I don't think "con artist" is name calling; it is just shorthand to describe his business habits to date.
That's an accurate description of virtually all American politicians. Trump, the Clintons, the Bushes, Obama... go back as far as you like. (Lincoln may have been honest).
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Congrats, you've identified how business is done everywhere and by every successful person Now take the next step and stop blaming it all on the first example you saw
And let's not forget that the first version of the ban wasn't a ban on citizens of those countries travelling to the USA: it was a ban on Muslims from those countries travelling to the USA.
Also, Trump wants the Justice department to defend the original, explicit, Muslim ban in court.
So, yeah, anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together can see that it's a Muslim ban.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Trump's actions can only be adequately explained by a trained psychiatrist.
Personally - looking at the markedly obvious deterioration in his speech patterns and ability to form coherent sentences between videos of himself in the 1990s and now - I have my money on either dementia or final stage neurosyphilis.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I have close friends here who are Iranian Shia expats, been here for decades. Ya know what's funny? The wife of the family often talks politics with me and says "Why is everyone so mad at Trump? Of course you should ban those people from your country. They're dangerous!" Middle-aged Muslim woman says its not smart to allow Muslim refugees into America. That's a headline you'll never see on CNN. Now besides the obvious irony of someone who fled the Iranian Revolution* complaining about present-day refugees, this married couple is upper class and extremely well-educated (usually a requirement for long-term residence in Japan). Do we have any easy, reliable means for verifying the education, background, or criminal history of refugees from the 6 Travel Ban countries? Highly unlikely. They are practically failed states.
*Some of her uncles were Generals in the Shah's Army....all "disappeared".
The sheer magnitude of innocent people caught in that ginormous net is extremely unjust by any measure. That some Americans are terrified of a tiny minority of people from those countries wearing towels on their heads does not make it any more rational or just.
The United States is not under any international or domestic legal obligation to allow travelers or immigrants from elsewhere. We have that right as a sovereign nation to control our borders. As for "innocent people" and "unjust"......How's that White Man's Burden working out for you? Do we elect our public officials to do what is in the best interests of American citizens, or the best interests of foreigners? The two are often not overlapping on a Venn diagram.
That some Americans are terrified of a tiny minority of people from those countries wearing towels on their heads does not make it any more rational or just.
How tiny is the tiny minority? Is it 1% of Muslims? That's 18 million jihadis. Even if it were 1% of the 6 Travel Ban countries, that's 1.8 million jihadis. If we add those 1.8 million to the US population of ~326 million, they would be about 0.5% of Americans. Would you still shop at Wal-Mart if 1 out of every 200 customers was just waiting for the best time to blow himself up at the checkout line? Are you willing to accept that risk? For what purpose? What do we really lose by saying "You know what, I think we're just NOT going to let you guys come here until you get your shit straight." What are the second- and third-order effects of increasingly frequent terror attacks attributable to radical Islam? Effects on the economy? Effects on overall quality of life from the inevitable security theater?
Thing is, it's NOT a "tiny minority". Check out the data from the Pew Research Center: 2014 study. Look how many are at least kinda-sorta ok with the idea of using suicide bombings against CIVILIANS. Bangladesh? 47%. Turkey? 18%. Egypt? 24%. That means those 3 countries alone have 100 MILLION Muslims who think it's okay to blow up women and children in defense of Islam. Is that your idea of a "tiny minority"? Let's also throw in the 25% of American Muslims who agree with them: http://www.reuters.com/article...
Ya know if we were really smart....we would filter a Muslim ban by allowing women 16-30 a fast track to immigration. Women are usually politically radicalized by th
That's an accurate description of virtually all American politicians. Trump, the Clintons, the Bushes, Obama... go back as far as you like. (Lincoln may have been honest).
False equivalency fallacy. Trump is of a different breed altogether than prior politicians - just look at politifact (or any fact-checking organization you choose) and you'll see that he is far and away less honest than any other modern politician, regardless of party.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . .
All this hooplah isn't about Russians hacking the election - influencing the voters. The point being missed is that _if_ the Russians hacked and released facts about a candidate that the voters disliked enough to change their vote for another candidate, it means that that the "hacked" candidate was simply exposed for what they really are. If the accusers are right then Russia didn't "make up" the facts - just made them visible to all. Kinda like wikileaks. The deceit of hiding facts that voters would not support is the true "hacking the election". Now the lamestream media - they do make up the "facts". Where's that outrage?
Honestly the dude is his own worst enemy. He puts his foot in his mouth on a seemingly daily basis and I think his staff spends as much time putting out helmet fires that HE creates as they do fighting with the Deep State shadow government and actually attempting to run the country.
What remains is a ban on Muslims who don't come from countries where Trump has current or hopes for future business interests.
Ok, I can kinda agree with you on that one. I have a real problem with the US-Saudi Petrodollar relationship. The memes for this pic practically write themselves: ( http://media.philly.com/images... ). But a real-estate guy like Trump should see that KBR-style reconstruction contracts in Libya at least could be a big business opportunity. So maybe he's asleep at the wheel on security AND business?
And let's not forget that the first version of the ban wasn't a ban on citizens of those countries travelling to the USA: it was a ban on Muslims from those countries travelling to the USA.
If that's the case.....yeah it's kinda stupid. Anyone can claim that they've converted to some other religion and there isn't really any way to verify it with their home country one way or the other. A guy named Achmed the Not-Yet Dead Terrorist could carry a King James Bible and say he found Jesus on the flight and wanted to get baptized. "Oh ok, not a Muslim. Step right through." Security theater.
And that's why Russia launched the campaign in the first place. Undermine trust in the political system and cause internal instability. It's worked beautifully. That doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate and work to secure the election process. We should have started that 15 - 20 years ago, really, when we started bringing out electronic voting. We have been talking about it on Slashdot for well over a decade.
Nothing at all like arguing climate science. The majority of people agree that pollution is a problem, but disagree that taxing a populace (US) and redistributing their wealth will fix anything.
In the "Russia" investigation, it is well known that Russia hacks and attempts to hack the US. Just like China does to the US and Russia, the US does to Russia and China, etc... The specific allegation is that Russia "changed" the outcome of the election and stole it from Clinton. That allegation is where facts are lacking, and all we have are "anonymous" reports and innuendo/allegation. That is a very serious charge not to have facts.
Get off your high horse. I have worked in IT Security for 3 decades. I
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
A radio program interviewed one of the people who did the vetting, and guess what? They do have sufficient information to vet the people from Syria quite well, despite the lack of a functioning government. In fact, they can vet people from Syria better than many countries.
As for Pakistan: do you really think that we get truthful information from the Pakistani government? If you believe this, then I may have a bridge or some prime Florida real estate to sell you.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Sure, we need to protect ourselves from such efforts by the Russians (or any other group who wants to try this)....
But.. Do we need to compound the electorates' doubts by hoisting up unfounded accusations of criminal activity by one of the campaigns as if they where all true? Truly, all the trumped up (pun intended) charges about all this only serve to further the Russian's gains and multiply the results of their efforts.
Personally, I would have preferred that we concentrated in on the REAL issue (The Russians activities) and let all the rest of the political based accusations which have no basis just go away. It should NEVER had been blown up into what it's become over the last 9 months and letting it happen has only served to further aid the Russians in their gains.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
As I recall, the Clinton Campaign and the Obama administration were acting all huffy about Trump refusing to accept the election results in advance (remember that?). Remember all the assurances that it would be a fair election then?
You are equating 2 different issues.
The first is then-candidate Trump's claim that if he lost the election it was because it was rigged. He wasn't talking about foreign interference, but that the normal election process was corrupted somehow. He still claims this is the case, by the way. He honestly believes to this day that he won the popular vote.
The second issue is Russia at least attempting to interfere in the election. This has nothing to do with the results of the election. Clinton accepted the results with no issue. But just because the Russian's were unsuccessful doesn't mean we should all just shrug and pretend everything is OK.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
What Trump promised was a Muslim ban, which is exactly what his tribalist base wants. The text of the order was a (piss-poor) attempt to deliver on that in a (maybe) legal way, per the man's own words. Any other reading of the situation requires you to let someone pull the wool over your eyes.
Regarding the effect of the ban itself, it's even worse security theater than the TSA. It could be 6 countries, or 13 countries, or we could ban international travel altogether, and it wouldn't help. A bit of critical thinking while examining the backgrounds of those committing the attacks would tell you this. Or, you could take the word of the intelligence agencies (any, take your pick), who have concluded that nationality is not a reliable threat indicator. Unlike the TSA, however, the travel ban wastes more than money, time, and freedom. It wastes our country's standing and credibility.
What Hillary thinks isn't relevant to any of this.
In classic conspiracy theory fashion, those involved have to be simultaneously the smartest and stupidest people in the world.
The Democrats got 3 million illegal votes on the books, but none of them showed up in the states where 70,000 votes (IIRC) could have made the difference.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
I care about human rights a lot, but I would totally violate everyone else's to ensure I got what I wanted. Just like the Founding Father's intended.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Clinton accepted the results with no issue.
Really? I don't think she's accepted the results, even yet. She has blamed everybody and the kitchen sink for her loss INCLUDING the Russians and as I remember, she was very slow to accept the results and concede (took until after noon the next day). Her surrogates have fostered both the violent and riotous "resist" movement (which she has openly supported) and foisted this fictional Russian Collusion narrative that has dominated the press for the last 6 months. Certainly she's not denounced any of this stuff.
What Trump believes or maintains about the popular vote is immaterial, and I think if you actually listened to his statements on this, you will understand he's not exactly holding the position you think. He's claiming there was significant fraud that ran up his opponent's votes. Fraud did exist and there were reports that it was significant at the time, though perhaps not as much as Trump would like. However, his language is imprecise at times, so it's hard to know for sure, but I don't think he believes what you think. But he DOES believe (correctly) that HE is president by the rules of the contest, and that's really all that matters.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Found the politician!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You need to take a step back, man.
You're wearing some really fucked up shades.
I am so goddamn glad I didn't really give a shit about either candidate this round- I wonder if I sounded as ridiculous as you do when I used to.
Stark. Raving. Mad.
You need a vacation.
First up, seriously, ditch the name-calling.
I get what you're saying... But in this instance, as a point of fact, the man is a self-admitted con artist. That's not calling a name. Nobody cared. They thought that equated to smooth operator, or master executive.
Both of the private national party organizations are tainted as fuck. They're organizations to get their people elected, nothing more, nothing less, and at any cost.
That being said, you shouldn't paint all adherents of a party's overall ethos or platform with the brush that the organization charged with getting them elected rightfully deserves.
Coming up with excuses as to why you lost is not the same as not accepting the results. I'm not saying she "accepted" the results in an emotional way (who cares?), but in a legal and political way: she did not contest the results of the election and conceded defeat to Trump.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
You do not have to speculate. Look at Australia. All properly scrutineered. And with a more complex multi vote system as well.
Cost is about US$4/vote to run the entire election, including the count. Much less than the computerized systems.
There is a reason that the US loves voting machines. And it is not cost. It is the fact that they CAN be hacked.
Or, you could take the word of the intelligence agencies (any, take your pick), who have concluded that nationality is not a reliable threat indicator.
Citation needed. DuckDuckGo is only giving me an article about a draft internal report by the DHS: https://www.bostonglobe.com/ne...
It wastes our country's standing and credibility.
With whom, exactly? Three of the five BRICS have their own Muslim insurgency problems, and two of those three are ruthlessly pragmatic authoritarian regimes who don't really like us anyway. Of the remaining 2 BRICS, Brazil is too occupied with Presidential corruption woes of their own and a shaky economy. Out in Asia, our friends in Korea and Japan are xenophobic assholes, and down in the Philippines Duterte is struggling with his own Muslim insurgency that is flaring up. Duterte, who is busy moving into Russia and China's sphere and has been reducing ties with the US. Yeah, we're really gonna win him over by being nice to Muslims. The Israelis and Saudis have got us by the short hairs regardless. The most populous country in Africa, Nigeria, is....also trying to put down a brutal Muslim insurgency (seeing a trend here?) So who are we losing standing with? South Africa, and the Europeans? Those brilliant folks who have opened the floodgates to their own cultural instability and possible demise? The Turks might accomplish with starving civilians (interesting how they don't seem eager to shelter their fellow Muslims) what they couldn't accomplish over hundreds of years of invasions: https://counterjihadreport.com...
No, by "sabotage" I mean publication of falsehoods and innuendo, which, without stating an accusation, masterfully create a perception of the impeachment-worthy "high crimes and misdemeanors" having already been committed by the President.
What "fodder" did he give anybody to accuse him of treason? None — but for months we were talking about it... Indeed, Comey, of all people, knew perfectly well, the charges of "treason" are so baseless, there is not even an investigation about them — but still maneuvered to have a special prosecutor appointed to investigate something — even though no one can even state a coherent accusation, much less prove anything.
That is done to sabotage his agenda — there is no other plausible explanation — an undeniable and objective fact...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The stock market is doing great. Other NATO members are actually paying their share. We're out of the Paris accord which would cost us a fortune and had no enforcement mechanism for countries that would do nothing. He's pushing back on lawless sanctuary cities. We're out of the TPP. The pipelines were approved. And yes, he's trying to keep terrorists out, but the courts keep getting in the way.
I'm not proposing we disband the feds, I'm proposing that we restrict them to the powers granted by the Constitution and stop them from always doing an end-run around those limits by taxing us and only giving some of the money back to our states if they comply to demands that the feds have no authority to demand. The minimum drinking age being tied to highway funds is the first example that comes to mind. The feds have no authority to set a minimum drinking age, but they found a way. It's a perversion of the government we're supposed to have.
As for "exactly what I want", the problem is that the feds are into so much, you're going to have to prioritize your vote based on a small number of issues. That's not great representation.
The US election system cant be "hacked" to show different results by "computers" at a federal or final state level.
State workers and party officials would notice at a city and state level. Their counted numbers would not match.
Russia would have to fly in staff that the FBI would notice.
Russian staff would have to drive and fly out to many different US cities and get election jobs.
The new Russian staff would have to work next to all the existing US staff on site and try and alter "votes" before they are counted?
The FBI would notice the influx of new workers and quick staff changes would be reported.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Seriously - any competent sysadmin who reads Slashdot knows "These systems should not have any kind of networked access. None."
Yet... somehow it happens. Goddammit we suck.
I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...
undoing misclick...
Mod parent up
There are two kinds of people who fall back into "popular vote" mode when referring to the US Presidential elections.
You forgot the third kind who just think the electoral college system is stupid, antiquated, and unjust and think it is silly to call ourselves a democracy when the candidate with the minority of votes wins. It does underscore the pointlessness of voting though. What a waste of time.
I actually didn't care at all who won the last election. The only reason I might start to care is if Trump actually starts doing some crazy stuff he has talked about like banning all muslims from entering the country or building his crazy wall. So far he can't even get his limited travel ban. So I'm not bothered.
Personally though I think the popular vote should matter more than the electoral one. One man one vote I say. If you are going to make some citizens' vote count more at least base it on something meaningful like maybe IQ. Maybe the 'electors' should be required to have a formally tested IQ of at least 150 to qualify. Hell while we are at it maybe we should disqualify anyone with an IQ of less than 150 from voting at all. You'd have to qualify before you were allowed to vote. That would be fun.
Electors who voted for Trump did so because they were selected by their States to cast their votes for Trump.
I'm just familiar with the basic idea of the electoral college. I don't really know the details. My understanding was that the electors are generally supposed to vote along with the popular vote in their jurisdiction, but that they don't have to. You are saying 'the state' tells the electors who to vote for? If that's the case then the elector system is even more pointless than I thought. So who exactly is it that tells the electors who to vote for?
You didn't get the memo. There is no vote fraud. Nothing to see here, move along.
How can we be sure of that? I wasn't aware that it was so definitive. In fact I'm still waiting for the evidence of the tampering to actually be presented. Of course if votes had been changed I wouldn't necessarily expect our intelligence services to tell us that. Because reasons.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
The founding fathers were libertarians and terrorists by modern standards and they would go completely insane if they could see how badly we have fucked up their precious Republic. With hindsight they could probably write a constitution that would hold back tyranny for a bit longer, but ultimately people are cunts and will always try to seize power when they can.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Good fucking luck getting the latter without some form of the former.
Even if that's true it was certainly not the primary value of our Libertarian Republic. It was just an incidental detail. The real point was Lockean Natural Rights. They wanted people to be left alone to pursue their own goals as long as they didn't violate anyone else's basic human rights. This basic principle has been so twisted that people think the point of our special snowflake of a republic was majority rule.
Democracy was already a thing before gaining independence from England. If that's all our founders cared about America would have been nothing special. But in fact it was a country founded on more profound principles than that: on the philosophy of John Locke and to a lesser extent Rousseau and Voltaire.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
people are cunts and will always try to seize power when they can
You mean just like you said you would do given the chance?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Good one. You're a member of a group of 100k, tops. In a country of 330 million.
Not saying it would be easy, but it would be funny if the election results could be that badly distorted. No doubt people would suspect foul play. Anyway the plausibility of the results isn't the point. The point was that lots of people would love to change the outcome of our elections including many of our own citizens.
Come back when you understand how a democracy works.
It obviously doesn't work especially when all the choices are horrible and the candidate with fewer votes wins.
Democracy is how grown ups enforce and regulate human rights.
Did you really just use the verbs 'enforce' and 'regulate' with human rights? Seriously? You don't even understand what they are. Google "natural rights' and "john locke" Pathetic that any American should be so ignorant of the principles our country was founded on.
And given your posting, you'd brag about it
Where have I bragged about anything? And anyway what does going to prison have to do with anything? If I could get a Libertarian president elected I might consider prison a small price to pay.
But they'd be merciful in comparison to me. You're not even human to me.
Maybe I'm not human. Maybe I'm a sentient synthetic organism sent here to destroy your planet by getting a Libertarian elected. It would certainly mean armageddon, but maybe that is exactly what your species deserves.
We can never go back to 1776. Ever. Police have fully automatic weapons and tanks now, the Internet will always be here in one form or another, and you can never go back to the one off event of the American revolutionary war.
I was referring to our freshly post war republic-if-you-can-keep-it. Our little noble experiment. The American government of the 18th century. Not sure if a Libertarian president could do very much in resetting the clock, but he might be able to do some cool and interesting things regardless.
If it were up to me though I'd divide up the country into ideological territories so everyone would have a place to call home. A few states for Libertarians if only because that was the principle upon which the entire country was founded in the first place. Wyoming would seem like a good start there. At least one state for the die hard Marxists who don't care how many times the system has proven that it just cannot work. Something for the Greens. And of course the rest could be split up into the Democrats and Republicans who could then maybe even fight wars with each other. How entertaining that would be.
The world is not you
You can't know that.
No republican president has won the popular vote since George HW Bush, in 1992, and that trend shows no sign of slowing down. By 2050, minorities will outnumber whites. Give the US thirty years. It'll turn blue.
Well blue has already turned so red it may as well be purple. In thirty years both parties will be even more similar to each other. So similar in fact that it really will be increasingly difficult to argue that it is a two party system at all.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Humans get human rights regardless of where they were born. Even a sentient non-human would get them.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
The idea of a Libertarian seizing power is kind of funny. The power to set people free. The power to reduce the power of the government. The whole point of the Libertarian philosophy is to reduce the amount of power the government has over the individual: to minimize coercion and tyranny, I wouldn't really want to force people to be free, but I would like to offer freedom to all of those who want it.
What I meant was that special interest groups will always try to achieve their own selfish pragmatic goals at the expense of others. That is quite distinct from utopians or idealists like myself who are trying to achieve a philosophical principle rather than some form of narrow self interest. Actually in terms of self-interest I would probably be better off with a fully socialist government than a Libertarian one.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
You are forcing people to adhere to your definition of freedom. You assert that more government = less freedom in all cases, but not everyone agrees with that premise. You say you would "offer" freedom to those who want it, but what you are really offering is anarchy.
While a system of anarchy may start off with everyone "equal", that equality will quickly evaporate as control of resources is seized by those who have more power. These imbalances of power can't be prevented as they can occur naturally due to something as simple as geography. I can't be free if I can't access fresh water, all I am free to do is die of dehydration.
That is quite distinct from utopians or idealists like myself who are trying to achieve a philosophical principle rather than some form of narrow self interest.
Said every dictator ever. Are you the only person in the history of humankind who cannot be corrupted by power?
Actually in terms of self-interest I would probably be better off with a fully socialist government than a Libertarian one.
Not sure I understand. I thought the whole point of Libertarianism was that everyone acting in their own best interest achieves the best result overall? Now you're saying that in order to achieve what you consider to be the best result overall, you have to act against your own interests?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
1. I didn't vote for Trump, and would never do so.
2. Evidence of what?
Do you have ESP?
wouldn't Russian puppet Trump already know about the rigging and all that since it's rigged in his favor?
As a puppeteer: you do not tell the puppet what he is going to do. You just guide him in that direction and make it look as if he did it by him/her/itself. The ultimate goal is to let people believe there is no puppeteer.
The puppet has no say in it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
But the vote WHERE changed. It changed how people voted. They did not hack the voting system. They hacked the voters. I am old enough to know that the most important part of hacking is social engineering.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
So... In a country blessed with a first amendment.... How's this an issue we can fix?
You may not like it, but freedom of speech is a given around these parts. Granted it's got good and bad parts, but over all it's not something we want to try and abridge... Right?
So how do you propose we keep the Russians from doing this kind of thing? I'm not sure we have much leverage on that. We can secure our voting systems, tighten our controls on who gets to vote where and keep the results untainted, but I don't think we can control the media or the internet. Perhaps we could tighten up the libel protections for public figures, but I don't think even that wouldn't run crosswise to the 1st amendment.
Personally, I think an educated and well informed electorate is your best defense from such outside influences.... However, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
OK, so why is she providing tacit support to the "resist" movement which in general does NOT accept the election's results and why is she blaming the fake Russian collusion narrative, even partially? She did say "it's hard not to believe" Trump colluded with the Russians, when there was little evidence...
I think she is using all this to her political advantage. Sure she realized that there was zero chance at a legal challenge succeeding, but that was only after all the recount foolishness we went though and the effort to sway electoral college electors to change their votes. (You do recall all that right?)
So sure, she conceded nearly a day late, then has been stirring the pot of discontent since. Shame on her for helping the Russians sow discontent and doubt in the minds of the electorate, mostly on her side of the spectrum. This is something the Republicans DON'T generally do, but Democrats often engage in that damages the country.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I think the problem is they're not eating their own dog food. When Clinton was thought to be winning, Obama's administration was even saying we should accept the election results. Then when the DNC lost, turns out they only meant that if they won.
I agree they're both tainted and set up to get people elected, they're basically a financial platform. They both want their party members to toe the line and agree with exactly every tenet they officially profess, it's far too rigid a system.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
In the looney left version of reality, Trump and his team have been meeting with the Russian puppetmasters repeatedly starting long before the election. So your explanation makes no sense. Of course, the entire point I was making was that it's impossible to reconcile both looney left positions so throwing in your third position wouldn't actually cause more issues.
Do you have ESP?
Nothing can forgive the horror she inflicted on the american people by running her own personal email server!!!
Trump is much more efficient. He hands out classified data directly to the people he is working for. That's called the personal touch.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
how come during the election season Obama said, flat-out and public, that there was no interference going on and that everything was fine?
Because O'Blama said it, therefore as the Kenyan in chief, he was lying. Amiright?
Looks like the whole thing has just been solved, tovarisch!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Ooo poor baby. Here let me share my birth certificate conspiracy theory...
That was originally introduced by the Clinton campaign? What about the "Russian" conspiracy? Who pushed that narrative first? Right... It was the Clinton campaign again... Are we starting to sense a pattern?
I'm glad someone else thinks like I do, but It's a fallacy that if you don't win the popular vote that somehow you don't "have the support of the American people"... Yes, you do, just not *all* of them. You'll never have the support of *all* of the people. It doesn't work that way. I'm so sick and tired of people saying "not that it matters, I'm not complaining, but Trump didn't win the popular vote"... My response to them is always: SFW!!!! If it doesn't matter, WHY ARE YOU BRINGING IT UP?!? Do you even CONSTITUTION?!? It's a dishonest debate trick. Period.
Here's something that doesn't click with a lot of people: The electoral system is 50 separate State (plus 1 for DC) elections, with the weight of the individual elections given more "points" by merit of their populations when it comes time to tally up the winner. So in effect, the popular vote is only a statistic in the end, but not a deciding factor other than the popular votes only matter *within each state*, to show who won each *state*. Now, after that, you tally up your points. This is an equitable and fair way to involve each state without disenfranchising the lower-populated states, otherwise it would be California, Texas, Florida, New York deciding the elections with their "winner take all" point assignment to electoral votes. If I were to make a change to shut the "popular vote" idiots up, I'd make every state apportion points via the amounts voted for each candidate, and the winner is the one who reaches the appropriate electoral vote goal or 51% of the electoral votes. People have no problem with frickin March Madness or Baseball or Superbowl Playoffs, but can't seem to get on board with the Electoral College... It boggles my mind.
If anything, the greater crime is the "faithless electors" and primary vote rigging. Everybody bitches about how not having elections via the popular vote is somehow the "greatest threat" to democracy, when in reality it's the people within the process voting against their electorate's wishes and the Party procedural hijinks that the Dems used to lock Bernie out (while "legal" in implementation but quite honestly unfair to Bernie if you really objectively look at the whole thing). That, and this idea that if you're not a career politician that somehow you're "unfit" to govern... I'm sorry but that's just elitist hogwash. You can't open a newspaper today without seeing examples of how corrupt "career" politicians truly are.
I think the problem is they're not eating their own dog food. When Clinton was thought to be winning, Obama's administration was even saying we should accept the election results. Then when the DNC lost, turns out they only meant that if they won.
I don't see any calls by the Democratic party, or Obama, or Clinton, or anyone else, to set aside the election results. There is concern that maybe Trump's campaign illegally colluded with the Russians. If that's the case, the lawbreakers should be identified and prosecuted, but I don't think anyone serious would actually call for setting aside the election results. There's nothing in the constitution that allows that or says what to do about it if it's done. In the event that evidence were found to prove that Trump, personally, was involved, then he should be impeached and tried for it, and Pence would step into the presidency. If Pence were also found to be guilty, then Orrin Hatch would be president, and so on down the line until we found a member of the line of succession that wasn't involved in this hypothetical massive conspiracy.
And if it turns out that no one in Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians, but the Russians changed the outcome of the election all on their own, then the obvious response is diplomatic sanctions against the Russians and an overhaul of our election infrastructure to make sure it can't be done again. But the election is done, the results are final, Trump is president until Jan 2021, barring death, resignation or impeachment and subsequent removal by the Senate.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
OK, so why is she providing tacit support to the "resist" movement which in general does NOT accept the election's results and why is she blaming the fake Russian collusion narrative, even partially?
Because this is America, and despite your fondest wishes Vlad, she is fucking allowed to do what she pleases, and if it butthurts people like you, I'm all for it.
I suspect you are doing your best to make that sort of thing illegal..
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Lost the argument I see.... Need your safe space?
I'm just pointing out that Clinton has unclean hands here. I get that she's playing political games with all this and I don't begrudge her that. However, I do take exception to those who willingly ignore just how complicit she is in all this "the election was unfair" foolishness. She's a Clinton, she's got dirty hands and you should admit that to yourself...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The concern grew out of the aversion to accept the election results. Not out of any evidence of the collusion
The concern grew out of the aversion to accept the election results. Not out of any evidence of the collusion
You have any evidence for that claim?
What I see is that we do have evidence of multiple instances of Russian attempts to influence the election, both via influencing public opinion (e.g. DNC email hacks) and directly (e.g. hacking election machines), and we also evidence of multiple meetings between Trump campaign representatives, Trump associates and Trump political appointees with Russian officials, including several that Trump's team appears to have attempted to conceal. That's clearly enough to motivate a serious investigation.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"convinces people to do things not in their best interest by lying to them. He puts on a good show and gets people to have confidence in him, and then produces zilch."
You do realize that portion of your statement thoroughly applies to Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama as well, don't you? Both have proven to lie to the populace for self serving reasons over and over. In the case of Hilary Clinton, it is a 30+ year track record of questionable ethics and lies.
NRRPT/RCT
Lost the argument I see.... Need your safe space?
Oh child, you had to go there, seriously? Using those words is like calling people snowflakes or Social Justice warriors. Sorry sir, my point is that as an American, she, and we are still allowed our opinion, you are even allowed yours. Your "safe space" comment doesn't even make any sense.
But hey - I get it. That's the limits of your argument.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The biggest issue with Trump not getting his way is that in reality, not that many voting age Americans actually cast their vote for him. He clearly lost the popular vote (I know it doesn't matter and I'm not complaining about it) but he only received 26% of the registered voter votes. That means nearly 75% of registered voters did not vote for him.
Wow you've drank the coolaid I see. I seriously doubt that any president has ever won a majority (>50% of all voters). I wouldn't be surprised if voter turnout was a little low in 2016 since we were all forced to choose between the veritable turd sandwich or giant douche once again and the voters are growing more and more frustrated as their parties abandon them. Unfortunately weak minded individuals like yourself don't realize that they're being played by the state by parroting their propaganda and further reducing the chance we'll ever restore sanity to our government. So thanks a lot for your contributions in digging a hole we'll probably never get out of. Anyway, most of the time the winner of plurality gets the most electoral college votes, but there have been many times (such as 2016) that the plurality winner lost in the electoral college. This was a typical election, the deep state and state-run propaganda outlets are creating hysteria in order to incite the butthurt Democrats and create chaos to distract Americans and the administration. Trump is completely falling for the bait instead of focusing on the agenda that got him elected. You're right that he's had almost no success in implementing his agenda, but you must realize that the deep state, the deep state-run media, and the global elites want it that way, and they don't care about you at all. They'd have preferred Hillary since she would have been easier to bend to their will, but having Trump mired in hysteria is a close second. This outrage is not for your benefit, it's for their benefit. You're just a pawn.
You are forcing people to adhere to your definition of freedom. You assert that more government = less freedom in all cases, but not everyone agrees with that premise. You say you would "offer" freedom to those who want it, but what you are really offering is anarchy./quote
I never said less government is equivalent to more freedom. That is in oversimplification. Less coercion is equivalent to more freedom. If you had a large government that allowed people to do what they wanted then it would still be a free society.
Yes I would force people to not coerce others. That is the only coercion I and many other Libertarians believe in. If you or anyone else wants to hurt or injure or enslave another human being we believe we have the right to use force against you. Even to injure or kill you. The idea that a person has the right to kill or hurt others but others do not have the right to do the same to them is absurd. If you object to the word 'freedom' then lets use another: non-coercion or voluntarism: the egalitarian idea that no human has more rights than any other, that no one has the right to force another person to do anything against their will. The core of Libertarianism is voluntarism. We don't believe in the Devine Right of Kings or of anyone else to physically interfere with another human being. That no one of our species is 'higher' than anyone else and so in no position to order anyone else around.
I wouldn't force people to do anything except be tolerant of how other people may want to live. What I would be offering if I could would be the opportunity for some people to live in a society where neither the government nor anyone else can give them orders that they must follow like a slave. Yes I know most people don't mind following orders and being slaves as long as they get paid, but not everyone feels that way.
If you want a socialist or green environmental utopia where everyone works for the government and everyone gets paid the same either in money or goods and burning fossil fuels is illegal I would be totally fine with that. I believe that every human should have a society that they are comfortable living in. What I don't want is to be forced to participate in that society.
What I would like is the choice of living in a place like the US used to be in the 18th century. That kind of small minimalist government with almost no taxes or regulations. Yes not everyone wants that. That is why our species should have different kinds of societies. It's a big enough planet. There is enough room for societies founded on different principles.
The only thing I would not allow if I were King of the Planet would be the sort of society that North Korea represents where people are literally imprisoned and not allowed to leave or societies where slavery or murder or rape were permissible. No human has any right to deprive others of their life or physically coerce them in any way. So those sort so societies are inherently unjust and immoral and invalid.
There should always be mobility between human societies. Maybe I want to live a few years in a Libertarian limited government utopia and then relax for a few years by moving to a Socialist utopia where I can just go on the dole or receive a Minimum Basic salary or where I am guaranteed to always be able to find work. Then live in a Pragmatic Republic with a mixture of both principles as most countries are today. For me the point is for humans to be happy and content with the society in which they are living. Right now there are lots of Pragmatic Republics not based on any ideals or principles at all and there are a handful of Marxist Utopias of varying degrees of success depending on how you define success, but there is not a single government that resembles the US of the 18th century or France just after their revolution. That is the situation that Libertarians like me would like to remedy. Although realistically the only way that's going to happen is in a new territory. Antarctica maybe in defiance of the idi
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
It isn't about takiing care of anyone, AC. It's about treating everyone as if they are the same species, which they are. It's just logic. And fairness.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Different places have different voting systems. I'm happy that Virginia's voting is pretty secure (so is ours in Minnesota), but some places still use easily hackable machines.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We know a lot more about security than some voting machines use, yes. However, given that the precinct totals are summed, it isn't necessary to hack all the voting machines to change the results of a close election.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In 2003, lots of people were convinced that Iraq had nuclear and chemical weapons, and was on the verge of using them, because that was the bulk of the information available, and one reason for that was that the Bush administration was controlling much of the information to set up an attack. Some intelligent and informed people I know thought that the invasion was necessary. Given the bad information going around, I'm not blaming any member of Congress for voting for the invasion of Iraq. I blame the Bush administration for setting up the misleading information and for botching the occupation.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Uhhh... what's wrong with a standardized voting system? I get that managing elections is delegated to each state under the Constitution, and I agree with that, but how is that mutually exclusive from having a comprehensive, standardized set of voting systems that are verifiably secure? If this election has taught us anything, it's that we seriously need to get up off our asses and modernize how we vote, or others will do it for us (not modernize, but VOTE)
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Yup, they have no opportunity to laugh at the Republican Congress that denied Clinton's request for adequate funding for security.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Of course not. Need to know applies. The only thing President Trump needs to know is that the FSB has tapes of him pissing on prostitutes or details of some shady deal with some Russian mobster or another or whatever it is they have on him.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
If the "resist" movement didn't accept Trump's win, they'd all go home. They're still against Trump, which is still legal in this country, and they're trying to stop some of the things he and other Republicans are doing. There is absolutely nothing sinister about this. It's part of political influence and lobbying.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The DNC is not a government organization. It is a private organization, and one of its jobs is to nominate a good candidate for President. They decided, and I still agree, that Clinton was more electable than Sanders (I supported Sanders to try to move the party to the left, not because I thought he'd be the stronger candidate).
Sanders is not a Democrat. He is a self-described socialist. You may have noticed that various people on Slashdot equate anything described as socialism* with Stalin's or Mao's rule. The Republican mud-slinging brigade would have had a field day with that. The DNC was correct to take this into account.
*"Socialism" really doesn't have much of a defined meaning any more. It used to be the direct or indirect ownership and/or control of the means of production by the people, which, as it turns out, is not a very good idea. It then started to be used to describe people interested in social welfare, which is what Sanders means by it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In other words, you know some marks in the con game Trump runs. The people in the rust belt have legitimate complaints. I don't think many of them have addressed their problems well, but that's really none of my business. Believing that Trump would was a very serious mistake. Heck, believing anything Trump says on the basis that he says it is a serious mistake.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If Trump wants to look innocent of impeachable crimes, he needs to either divest himself of his business holdings, or become a lot more transparent. Any money he accepts from a foreign government without consent of Congress is unconstitutional, as is any money he accepts from any government in the US aside from the compensation specified by law. I don't have proof that he has violated an emoluments clause, but it seems awfully likely.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The eternal cry of the Trump supporter: "He was just joking!" whenever he says something embarrassing. Apparently, there's no way to tell whether he was serious or not when he said something.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There IS something illegal about inciting riots, destruction of property and generally breaking laws during your protesting. Not all "resist" participants are involved in such stuff, but I don't hear very many of them calling for the people who are doing these things to stop. In fact, I hear exactly the oppsit when you hear the rhetoric from the democratic leadership.
This includes Clinton. I've not heard her say anything other than unqualified support of the "resist" movement. She's not called for non-violent protesting, she's not denounced the violence. Silence is compliance in this case. Both Clinton and high ranking Democrats have not denounced any of this. But this is par for the left's course. Remember Obama's "If you bring a knife we will bring a gun" speech? I do. Is the imagery lost on you? I hope not.
But really, it's clear why they do this... As in all unethical and immoral behavior involving politicians, follow the money.... Clinton is protecting her donations by giving at least lip service to the causes they want her to. Clinton may not approve of this stuff, but apparently her principles don't hold enough sway to actually cause her to clearly denounce it, so I figure she's complicit.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The US Constitution places few limits on electors, saying that they will be selected as the state decides. Most states choose them according to which Presidential candidate gets the plurality of votes in that state. I think two subdivide it further.
Many states have laws prescribing who the electors have to vote for. I don't think any of these laws have been tested in court, and I think them of at best questionable constitutionality.
And, yes, it's pointless. It was originally set up to give slave states more influence in who became President, and in the hope that the electors would actually use some judgment. Neither is applicable nowadays.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You forgot the third kind who just think the electoral college system is stupid, antiquated, and unjust
No, the "third kind" are really either just upset that their candidate lost and want the system changed under the assumption that their preferred candidate will win the next time under a different system. At which time, they will probably find fault with the new system when their candidate loses again, and the cycle will repeat. Or they are ignorant of the system and don't understand why it is the way it is.
and think it is silly to call ourselves a democracy
The United States is a confederation of states, as should be evident from the name of the country. The one election that selects a federal leader is conducted under a system that represents that political organization. All the other elections are simple plurality of the popular vote wins. Since I understand the difference between a state of the US being composed of counties, and the US being composed of individual states, I have no problem with the Electoral College system. It is a rather intelligent means of factoring in both citizen and state interests in the federal leadership. And I have said that even when my candidate lost.
Personally, I find the argument that we should elect a President the same way we elect the local dog catcher because that's how we elect the dog catcher to be particularly unconvincing.
If you are going to make some citizens' vote count more
The system as it stands doesn't do that. Nobody sits down and says "we're going to make Joe Smith's vote count double Bill Brown's." It DOES include state interests when making the decision.
I would point out that ANY voting system makes some people's votes worthless. Anyone who votes for a losing candidate under ANY system has wasted their vote. The 49% of the people who voted for Joe Smith when Bill Brown wins with 51% might as well not have bothered voting. Does this disturb you? If you are disturbed by the losers having their vote count less in the Presidential election, then the entire voting system must drive you nuts. And before you talk about other voting systems, this applies to ANY system. Any system that has a winner and losers winds up with the people who voted for the losers having their votes made worthless. Even the system used in GB where districts elect MPs and the Prime Minister comes from the majority party (or coalition sans majority) results in every vote for losers counting for nothing.
You are saying 'the state' tells the electors who to vote for?
No, I didn't say that. Let me quote it again for you:
The electors are selected by the State, which is not "the state" telling them, it is the people of the state who have bothered to cast a ballot.
If that's the case then the elector system is even more pointless than I thought.
Since you don't understand how the electors of a state are selected and why they vote for the candidate they do, it is clear that your understanding of the Electoral College system is pretty minimal, and your arguments against it are based more in ignorance than in reason.
How can we be sure of that?
Whoosh. We don't look, that's how we can be sure of that. We don't look for vote fraud from ineligible voters, we don't look for it otherwise. Except now, because ineligible voters are likely to vote for the party that gives them free stuff (like the Daley machine in Chicago would hire people to vote multiple times, e.g.) and "otherwise" is the current excuse for why that same party's candidate lost this time. One kind of fraud preferentially helps one party, so anyone who wants to investigate and prevent it is "racist"; the other kind must be why they lost
I don't think any of these laws have been tested in court, and I think them of at best questionable constitutionality.
Since Article II, Section 1 is explicit in saying that the electors shall be selected in the manner determined by the Legislature of each state, it would be a difficult argument to make that the Constitution does NOT pass control of the electors to the states explicitly, with the limited exceptions remaining in Article II, Section 1. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the Legislatures from deciding that the voting choice of the electors cannot be used to decide who the electors are.
And, yes, it's pointless. It was originally set up to give slave states more influence in who became President,
It was originally set up to lessen the imbalance that more populous states had over less populated ones in the selection of the President and Vice President -- the only election that selects a leader of the entire US. Every state gets two electors just for being a state, not just the slave states.
and in the hope that the electors would actually use some judgment.
"in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". Where does it say the electors get to decide? Since it does not, then this is a state matter, and the states' Legislatures have been given sole authority here. If they say "you must vote the way the popular vote of the state tells you", the Constitution does not contradict that.
I think a close precedent would be the SCOTUS decision that stopped yet another recount in Florida, which was based on the same clause. The Florida legislature had determined the means of counting and recounting Florida votes and how the result would be certified, and SCOTUS ruled that it did not have authority to mandate yet another recount once those previously determined rules had been followed. The Florida legislature was responsible for the selection of the electors.
That said, I think there is a lack of imagination when it comes to these things. Why couldn't source code be modified long before the election, and then activated through updates or maintenance? How many precincts would need to be compromised to throw a close election? How many highly positioned people would need to be compromised at the Department of Elections to influence counts? What would it take to actually trigger a recount?
Yes, elections are hundreds of years old, but there have been fraudulent elections for just as long.
Whatever he wants, I want every and all suggestion of him being a "traitor" to be met with the proverbial: prove it, bitch.
I'll just leave this here.
There is no question of fact here — he really is getting money from abroad, because he ran an international business before becoming President. The remaining question is that of law — whether or not what he is doing is illegal. But even if it were, it would not have constituted treason.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Drank the coolaid? Hah.
I simply pointed out 3/4ths of registered Americans did not vote for him, so he didn't start out with huge support.. even many in his "own party" didn't outright support him.
Your entire post seems based on me being a HRC fan. I don't support Hillary. The two I would have liked see win the primaries were Sanders and Kasich because they seemed like the only two who act like adults.
Trump is full of shit, you don't need state-driven media to realize it. The guy is a salesman, that's it. Hillary had the most non-genuine personality.. completely scripted and fake. It's unfortunate the DNC forced such a flawed personality to the front.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Can we just charge her with violations of the espionage act just like anyone else would be and have a regular trial? Otherwise we'll be hearing about this crap forever. Just like anyone else, if she's guilty put her in jail. If not, then STFU. Just like anyone else.
The real story here is Obama used a "back channel" to talk to Russia and asked them to knock it off. So not even Obama trusted his own people. Even so, he knew about it and still failed to protect us, and he was in charge. Not Trump. So why blame trump? That should be what we are upset about. Not this bullshit narrative that Trump somehow colluded with them. We know he didn't. They knew it then and pushed that BS on us anyway.
And let's not forget that the first version of the ban wasn't a ban on citizens of those countries travelling to the USA: it was a ban on Muslims from those countries travelling to the USA.
If that's the case.....yeah it's kinda stupid.
But since that wasn't the case, it is irrelevant. The OP lied. The ban was on immigrants and non-immigrants from those countries, period. It's pretty easy to find a copy of the original order. For example, here it is in its entirety. Section 3(c) is the relevant part. If I could copy it out of the EO under evince I would paste it here. It says nothing about Islam, Muslim, or religion in any way. The ban is based on the country of origin.
Europeans who have a direct vote to elect "Presidents" (hand counted) consider the usefulness of an electorial college a slightly bad thing now travel and communication are so easy.
The USA electorial college is somewhat similar to the UK system where the majority party is allowed to nominate its leader for Prime Minister, which usually happens. However there is an overriding vote in that the Queen (of the Commonwealth [note 1] does not need to accept or offer to that noninated person). (Note 1) Once during her reign she had in conjunction with her appointed representative in one Commonwealth country, removed the 'in place Prime Minister" (but with stalemate budget/parliament problem) and replaced her/him with another, so that parliament could continue and government budget could work. This is the Sovereign's reserve power against the 'major party electorial college'. not working correctly.
Regards Eion MacDonald
Bottom Line is that there was NO evidence that any vote was changed. Good enough for me.
Not sure I understand. I thought the whole point of Libertarianism was that everyone acting in their own best interest achieves the best result overall?
No. The point of Libertarianism is non-coercion or voluntarism. Which system happens to produce the most widgets at the best price is precisely NOT the point of it.
now you're saying that in order to achieve what you consider to be the best result overall, you have to act against your own interests?
If you are very poor then yes. That's a possibility. It might be in my best interest at least financially to rob a bank, but that is clearly not in the best interest of the bank or of society overall. If you don't have a job and have no prospects of getting one or if you are just very very poor then obviously a more socialist system might be helpful. In my case I am just very very poor. So in terms of money I might be better off in a more Robin Hood-ish system, but I don't believe such systems are just or as efficient as something more laissez faire.
Something like one of those experimental Minimum Basic Income systems would be particularly great. Although I'm not sure it can be made to work especially since I think there is a tendency to choose a pretty high Minimum Basic possibly because the people designing the system are obscenely rich and can't imagine that it is possible to live on less money. Instead of erring on the high side as I am sure they are doing they should be erring on the low side and raising it only if it seems effective at that initial level.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
The Constitution says that the electors will be selected according to the individual state's decision. However, once selected, is it legal for a state to constrain the vote? It's certainly legal to have parties supply slates, which will be selected according to the popular vote in the state. That doesn't necessarily mean an elector pledged to a candidate has to vote for that candidate. I haven't heard of any "faithless elector" cases getting into the courts. You mention the 2000 Florida election, but that court case was about how electors are selected, not about what they can legally do (or illegally do - it's conceivable that a vote cast for another candidate would be illegal but binding).
With regard as to who the EC was for, you're thinking of the two votes from the Senators. In fact, slave states had more representation in the House per free citizen, with slaves and other unfree persons counting as 3/5 of a person despite not being able to vote. Basing the number of electors on the Senate and House representation means that slave states got more electors per voter than free states.
As far as my comment on the electors using judgment, I got that from the Federalist Papers, I believe number 68, and I think that can be taken to be part of the original intent. The idea was that the electors would correct some of the popular vote mistakes, that they would not vote for a creature of a foreign government or a popular but unqualified candidate. You can see how well that worked in December 2016.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't remember personally accusing him of treason. In peacetime, I doubt that it's possible to commit treason.
Trump is getting money from abroad, but as long as it's from strictly private sources that's constitutional. The question of illegality depends on whether he's getting money from foreign or domestic governments, as the law is pretty clear here. Obviously, that wouldn't be treason, which I don't remember ever accusing him of, but violating the Constitution in business dealings while President is certainly an impeachable offense.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In other words, since some people who act under the auspices of the "resist" movement break the law, the whole movement is despicable unless all the Democratic leaders denounce the violence somewhere you happen to notice? There are always lunatic fringes of movements, and as long as I've been following these things it's accepted that lunatic fringes will do bad things.
I said "act under the auspices" and meant it specifically. How many violent people are actually part of the resist movement, and how many are there to discredit the movement? Anyone can show up at a Pastafarian demonstration, mingle, and then commit violence.
The Obama quote, as reported (Snopes couldn't find video, but did find contemporaneous news reports) was not in the context of violence, but was rhetoric to call for a fight against the Republican campaign. In addition, it didn't call for violence, but a not entirely disproportionate response to some sort of attack. If I've got a gun and someone attacks me with a knife, I'm not going to abide by Barsoomian honor and refuse to use a more effective weapon, but it doesn't mean I'm going to shoot anyone who doesn't attack me. If you're going to wave away Trump's remarks about Second Amendment fans going after Clinton and offering to pay legal expenses to anyone attacking a protester at his rally, you're sounding awful picky about Obama, particularly since you have to reach back nine years to get a quote that more or less supports what you're saying.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The language you choose in your rhetoric is important. Obama's choice of words are thus important, and using images of violence in a political debate is what I'm decrying and asking to stop. Plus....
I'm merely showing the long history here. There are plenty of recent examples of main stream democratic supporters and leaders who have engaged in vitriolic rhetoric which was couched in violent terms. It is the democratic way to make people angry, oh not with the democrats, but with the republicans or groups that can be grouped with the republicans. We get this in your gun control rhetoric all the time. Oh yes, Republicans want people to die because they don't support Obamacare.... See what I mean yet or do I need to keep coming up with examples?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Khum, khum... Are there any credible proves we can SEE somewhere besides "we are confident that..."?
Then by all means, cherry pick some businesses he's been in that are completely above board. I welcome the information! It would be a blessing to know that the leader of the free world is NOT a vapid charlatan.
That is absolutely false. There are thousands of businesses in America run by ethical people who give a shit about their customers and don't try to con them out of money. If it were otherwise, why would so many companies try to keep their reputations on Google reviews as spotless as possible? True, there have always been successful cheaters, and there have always been ethical losers. But by-and-large most humans don't want to be an asshole. That's what makes Donald Trump such a stand out. He just cannot be shamed.
You do see the difference in persuading somebody to vote against there best interest versus conning them out of thousands of dollars, right? And last time I checked, Hillary isn't president, and I didn't ever claim she was ethical. So you can GTFO with that red herring.
That is absolutely false in the context of which I spoke. Those businesses that you refer to are not really successful, they are just waiting around to be consumed by Corporation.
Stop focusing on Donald Trump, exert your analytical energy elsewhere, you are falling for an extremely stupid trick. Stop trying to justify your obsession by saying things like "he stands out". He stands out because you are complacent enough to open your mouth under the funnel of the Media. If you sorted out your mind you would see he is a lesser emissary of great evils.
But no, you have studied so hard and know so much, you deserve the scapegoat you want! Grow up.
This russian collusion is all a bunch on nonsense. They are just trying to stall trumps agenda by having this garbage on the news every night
No, I suppose most of them were killed.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Repealing the ACA without an adequate substitute is going to kill quite a few people (or, if you prefer, leave them to die). Someone who wants to take away the ability of the non-rich to pay for treatment for pre-existing conditions, for example, is at least OK with people dying.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Are you SURE you want to make this an issue? I believe that the Pro Life folks would have a few choice things to say using the same logic...
Actually, it could be argued that the ACA will kill more people than it "saves" because it will remove a lot of the profit driven innovation in healthcare and force a lot of people to spend a lot of money on insurance that they'd otherwise use on food, clothing and housing expenses....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The ACA got tens of millions of people on decent health insurance that didn't have it before. It didn't cut the profit motive for innovation in health care.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes