Secret Service, DHS Scramble To Secure America's Election (yahoo.com) 360
Secret service agents rushed Donald Trump off a stage in Nevada Saturday night, CNN reports. "A scuffle could be seen breaking out in the audience, but it was not immediately clear what happened... Secret Service and police tactical units rushed in to detain a man [who] was then rushed by a throng of police officers, Secret Service agents and SWAT officers armed with assault rifles to a side room... A law enforcement official told CNN no weapon was discovered. The GOP nominee was apparently unharmed and returned to the stage minutes later to finish his speech." Meanwhile, an anonymous reader writes:
"All but two U.S. states have accepted help from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to probe and scan voter registration and election systems for vulnerabilities, a department official told Reuters." Ohio is relying on the National Guard's cyber protection unit, while Arizona says they've held discussions with the FBI, DHS and state-level agents on cyber security. But in addition, "U.S. military hackers have penetrated Russia's electric grid, telecommunications networks and the Kremlin's command systems, making them vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the U.S. deem it necessary, according to a senior intelligence official and top-secret documents reviewed by NBC News."
American officials believe Russian hacking efforts will continue through 2018, according to the Wall Street Journal. "By hacking and dumping emails, Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it...to make us look no better than the Russian electoral system,'" said one senior White House official. Russia is also expected to extend their efforts toward elections in Europe.
American officials believe Russian hacking efforts will continue through 2018, according to the Wall Street Journal. "By hacking and dumping emails, Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it...to make us look no better than the Russian electoral system,'" said one senior White House official. Russia is also expected to extend their efforts toward elections in Europe.
Obviously, a failed time travel mission (Score:5, Funny)
So close...
Re: (Score:2)
Cosmodrome (available here if you subscribe https://www.netflix.com/title/... [netflix.com] probably many other places if you don't) shows the Russians keeping pigs in their failed moon race rocket facility. Their leadership doesn't lose very gracefully.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Followed by FBI and AG announcing charges for treason, obstruction of justice, illegal firing of government employees of White House Travel Office, conflict of interest and using public office to direct White House Travel Office contract to friends who performed the same function when they were in Governor's Mansion, theft of government property, and pay-to-play with Clinton "Charity"
Oh, and since she supported enabling private US citizens to sue a foreign Government for 9/11, the Osama Bin Laden family is
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
not likely, she is currently losing.
Not according to the electoral college. Trump has to win Florida (could go either way), Ohio (went to Obama twice) and Pennsylvania (haven't gone Republican since 1988). If he doesn't win all three states, the election is over. Trump is on the way to becoming America's Biggest Looser.
Re: Obviously, a failed time travel mission (Score:5, Informative)
That's not the most direct path to victory for Trump.
Most polls show Trump with a small lead in Ohio, though still within the margin of error. It's more likely than not that Trump will win Ohio.
Georgia, Iowa, and Arizona are also considered toss-ups, but most polls show Trump with small leads in those states. For each of those states, it's more likely than not that Trump wins. They're within the margin of error, but Trump seems to be the likely winner in each.
Let's assume that Trump wins Ohio, Arizona, Georgia, and Iowa. If he also carries Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada, he would have 269 electoral votes. This assumes, of course, that nothing crazy happens in Utah. In this instance, the election would go to the House of Representatives, with Trump being the likely winner.
Maine has four electoral votes, two going to the statewide winner, and one for the winner of each congressional district. There's a larger margin of error in predicting individual districts, but there are indications that Trump is slightly ahead in the second congressional district of Maine. If he carries that along with each of the aforementioned states, that would give him 270 electoral votes.
Recent polls show Trump with a small lead in Nevada, though early voting there probably favors Clinton. Nonetheless, RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight show Trump as having a small edge in Nevada.
RCP shows Trump as having a small edge in recent polls in New Hampshire. However, 538 projects Clinton as being slightly more likely to win there than Trump.
RCP shows Trump with a tiny edge in North Carolina, though well within the margin of error. He is also given justly slightly better than a 50-50 chance of winning there by 538.
RCP shows Clinton with a small lead in recent polls of North Carolina, though well within the margin of error. However, 538 projects Trump with slightly better than also 50-50 chance of winning there.
The most likely path to victory for Trump is to win Arizona, Iowa, Georgia, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, and the second district of Maine. None of these would be particularly crazy, considering the current polls and projections.
Beyond that, Colorado may be the next best chance for Trump. Next on the list would be Pennsylvania. However, Clinton is projected to have slightly larger leads in those states. Michigan, New Mexico, and the two statewide electoral votes from Maine are still within the margin of error, but seem still less likely to go to Trump. If Michigan were to go to Trump, it's very possible that Wisconsin might follow, too. If the polls were really off that much, Virginia might also be in play. But all of this is getting quite unlikely.
It's more likely than not that Clinton wins, but I think 538's projections of roughly 65%-35% are about right. I don't think Trump must get Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes to win, and I'm not sure that's the most likely scenario. That said, if Trump loses Florida, he'd probably have to win Pennsylvania and Colorado to have a chance. He'd need Pennsylvania if he loses North Carolina. And Colorado would suffice if he loses either New Hampshire or Nevada. If he lost New Hampshire and Nevada but carried Colorado and the second district of Maine, it would probably end up a tie.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it will really be settled next week. If Trump loses he will claim it was rigged, and the GOP will never stop trying to impeach Clinton. If he wins, the claims of voter fraud have already been fueled by confirmed cases.
Re: (Score:3)
The best thing about polls is that there are so many and they agree so rarely that you can pick any subset of them to prove anything you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Early mail-in ballot results are often not a good indicator of who is going to win a particular state.
Re: (Score:2)
The gambling sites still have her winning. As the stock market hasn't changed appreciably, I believe businesses believe that little change will occur, which also points to another President Clinton. I expect the Clinton sequel to be as successful as The Matrix sequel, and I wasn't all that excited about the original.
Or, I could be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong. His chances are very small, and never were that great. A lot of things have to go right for Trump for him to win, and I suspect all but his most fanatical supporters know that now.
Re:Obviously, a failed time travel mission (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The bad thing is that a lot of what they're saying is true. Provably true. It's gotten to the point that even if she wins she loses. She's going to start her presidency with a cloud of scandal. The majority of the people that are going to vote for her think she's a liar and corrupt....because she is. That's leaving out the 40 percent that just flat hate everything about her. It's going to start bad and then get worse. Once people start to dig into your history they don't stop and there's plenty of dir
Re: (Score:3)
Crash. Wham. I forgot how good that movie was. Too bad they didn't make any sequels. [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As the stock market hasn't changed appreciably,
I've been losing about 1 % in most of my shit ever day that more Hillary emails hit the media.
No Brexit style drop, but absolutely appreciable declines whenever the Donald shows signs of life.
Re: (Score:2)
I have had a drink or two too many to reasonably explain the correlation between stock prices and candidate success, but let me try, anyway, as I get another beverage. And, of course, this is all just my opinion.
Here goes. The Treasury bill is considered one of the safest investments. Money is incredibly safe in a treasury bill, and there will be some return on that investment. Investors will put money into other investments with higher risk, expecting higher return on that money. So, if an investor is
Re: (Score:2)
Next, let's assume that the economy improves, so that treasury bills are paying 2%.
That happened because the treasury bill dropped roughly 1% in value because they're moving money to some other investment, namely stocks.
That same stock with the same risk would now have to have an ROI of 5% for the investor to buy that stock.
Which is more likely to happen because the economy improved. You will see higher stock prices as a result.
Re:hardly losing (Score:5)
because come Wednesday morning, we'll have a woman in the white house.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I believe we won't have a woman in the White House (serving as President) until January 20, 2017.
It was a guy with a sign ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to that campaign to allow guns at the rallies?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Brought to you by people who enjoy #spiritcooking (Score:3)
You might want to check the Project Veritas video--we have people like Zulema Rodriguez to thank for those protests turning violent. And we can fact check that all the way back to her illegal actions at the AZ protest, lying to cops, and being on the Democratic payroll thanks to the FEC site. So you might be inclined to believe the people you don't like are violent, but we have videos that can be independently corroborated, as well as discussions in the Podesta email dump to tie it all together.
And there
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to check the Project Veritas video
James O'Keefe's is famous precisely for making videos dishonestly edited and presented to create fake scandals.
I'll watch his video on a scandal after I finish reviewing Bernie Madoff's report on my mutual funds.
And there was also this guy who attempted to steal a gun: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/19/ [cnn.com]...
And a mentally ill guy from Britain has to do with what?
There were also fake pedophile smears against Julian (Todd & Claire) as well as Trump (Epstein has way more ties to Bill, and Podesta has a ton of pedo friends apparently, including the former Republican speaker/convicted child molester so one really wonders what *they* have in common...) with that lawsuit now being voluntarily dismissed after being debunked even by Jezebel, Popehat and many other sources.
Well we don't actually know the accusations against Trump were fake, they were damn sketchy but that doesn't mean they were fake.
Re: (Score:2)
> James O'Keefe's is famous precisely for making videos dishonestly edited and presented to create fake scandals.
The video can be corroborated by a wealth of independent evidence as I discussed here: https://slashdot.org/firehose.... [slashdot.org]
A few more bits of corroboration came out after that, but so much came out that I never got it linked up. I would also like to mention that the emails can be validated by DKIM, so nobody has been altering them.
> And a mentally ill guy from Britain has to do with what?
He
Re: (Score:2)
You'd get better odds on a Royal Flush. An anonymous victim with anonymous witnesses for something that allegedly happened decades ago and involving a well-known pedophile (Epstein) where Bill Clinton took 20+ trips on his "Lolita Express"
If you had confidence that Trump didn't fuck a child you wouldn't be mentioning Bill Clinton at all. That's handwaving bullshit. Pay no attention to the man we're actually talking about right now!
If you want an agreement that Bill Clinton is a squashed shit, here it is. But try to stay on topic, son.
Not just a troll, but a lie (Score:3)
Funny that you don't mention Bob Creamer in your comment, or any of the dozen or so people seeding provocateurs into not just Trump gatherings but Sanders gatherings. You don't mention the people on campuses shutting down speeches, visits, and gatherings for people who are conservative leaning. Being "alt-Right" is not an excuse to deny someone's first amendment rights. These are not one time gigs, but on Campuses have been going for years and for the election over a year.
Also consider that the only cand
The summary forgot to mention something... (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't help that someone shouted "gun" when the protester stood up with a sign.
A Secret Service spokesperson said in a statement that an "unidentified individual" shouted "gun" in the audience, though no weapon was found after a "thorough search."
I wonder how they will target europe (Score:4, Interesting)
not in N.C. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:not in N.C. (Score:5, Informative)
In N.C. the feds struck down our law to require ID because it discriminated against those wanting to commit voter fraud.
It was a bit more complicated than that. NC Republicans hired consultants and statisticians to analyse voting patterns, and then legislated restrictions on early voting, closed polling places in minority neighborhoods, and yes, instituted voter ID requirements. All of this was carefully planned and scientifically designed to suppress minority voting. Basically, NC Republicans Moneyballed racism.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is there a Republican conspiracy to prevent minorities from voting, but no Republican conspiracy to keep minorities off airplanes or any other location that requires positive ID?
Frankly I'm more worried about the every day constraints on free movement than the periodic and de minimis reduction in voting.
Re: not in N.C. (Score:4, Informative)
Lots of people are saying black people lack the ability to get identification. It's one of the glaring instances of racism perpetrated by Democrats.
Re:not in N.C. (Score:5, Informative)
Voter fraud is extremely rare, and the courts are enforcing federal law that makes sure people like you can't use it for cover to disenfranchise minorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Voter fraud is extremely rare, and the courts are enforcing federal law that makes sure people like you can't use it for cover to disenfranchise minorities.
Not entirely.
It's beyond doubt that a lot of mail-in votes, if they're not actually filled in by a spouse, are done with the spouse's supervision (probably the man) to make sure the right candidate is being chosen.
Of course this kind of fraud is very hard to prove. And since mail-in voters are predominantly Republican no one is trying to suppress it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I applaud you sir! You have, in your mind, defined the problem so narrowly that you are only willing to see evidence that cannot possibly exist. You must've been paying attention in Gaslighting 101 [infogalactic.com].
I assure you that only diehard fanatics like yourself obsess over whatever activity you specifically define as "voter fraud". Most of us humans, however, are gravely concerned about honest and fair elections, and the threats are many, including voter fraud, election fraud, and whatever other forms of fraud cou
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone that cares to spend a little time searching can probably find similar stories from nearly any state. Oh, and of course the Project Veritas Action videos show people discussing the mechanics of successful fraud, clearly from a position of personal knowledge.
Keep in mind that a lot of this fraud is very hard to prove. In nearly every story, the people involved protest their innocence. Bank robbers caught in the act tend to do that too, of course, as do innocent people. A year from now, we'll know the extent of the fraud that was caught and prosecuted, and maybe have an idea of the fraud that was caught, but not prosecuted, and absolutely no idea how much fraud was not caught.
This happens every election cycle. Republicans claim they've found absolute proof of countless cases of voter fraud and the right wing media starts freaking out that the election was stolen!
Then authorities investigate, and they find a bunch of administrative errors and no actual cases of ineligible people voting or voter impersonation, although sometimes a permanent resident will get confused while filling out paper work and end up registering to vote as well.
Of course the right wing media doesn't actually
Re:not in N.C. (Score:5, Insightful)
You links are all innuendo and speculation. Not one links to an actual investigation showing proof that fraud took place. That's because...
Voter fraud really isn't a big problem. [youtu.be] 31 probable cases out of over 1 billion votes cast.
The precision with which they target African American voters is pretty shocking. [youtu.be] For example, they researched various types of ID and then banned the ones most common with African Americans, only allowing the types that white people are more likely to have. They blocked early voting because African Americans were often motivated to vote by their church on a Sunday.
These laws are not about stopping largely imaginary and totally insignificant fraud. Stop believing Trump, he doesn't have any evidence that its rigged against him or he would have requested a formal investigation. They are about stopping Democrats voting, by targeting certain groups, often by race.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
> Voter fraud is extremely rare
Exactly how do we know that when we've made it nearly impossible to find unless the person doing it is a moron?
Re: (Score:2)
First, I'm trying to understand why people think ANY level of fraud is ok.
Second, The President of the United States is on YouTube telling ILLEGAL aliens not to be scared to vote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCLO0WBvhF8
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you have actual citations for these claims (and no, some alt-right blog is not a reference). Provide actual citations, preferably actual electoral records. Otherwise, I call bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And you have actual citations for these claims
Of course not, because they are nonsense. These bullet points are copied verbatim from a viral image [politifact.com] that has been circulating among alt-right kooks, including my idiot brother-in-law. All of these claims have been thoroughly debunked.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, had to do my duty and call my mother today. So much politics, about how the country is over if hillary wins, about the websites I should visit that have *proof* she's guilty of something or other, about how Obama loves muslims and hates christians, Hillary's advisor is a muslim (oh ya, she thinks that's enough to make her a traitor). All the while she's on the verge of crying because those frauds on the internet have convinced her of these conspiracy theories. There's so much bullshit out there, any
Re: (Score:3)
But thanks for outing yourself as yet another person who lacks critical thinking skills.
Re: (Score:2)
You are either a worthless piece of shit liar, or a complete fucking idiot.... or both. When you wonder what is wrong with this country... look in the mirror. Worthless piece of shit with no integrity.
Re: (Score:2)
Rare would mean statistically insignificant, which is what voter fraud is. Unfortunately, other kinds of rigging, like targeting certain groups of minority voters and trying to prevent them from voting, is a bit more common, but I don't see any tears being cried over that by the alt-right delicate snowflakes who are so infantile that they have to spin tales of conspiracy because they're too emotionally unstable to accept that Trump was possibly the worst choice the Republicans could have made in a president
Re: (Score:2)
Rare would mean statistically insignificant, which is what voter fraud is.
You're fucking retarded if you don't see why such a statement is absurd.
Hint: Successful voter fraud isn't detected and thus doesn't show up on statistics reporting about voter fraud (actually, it shows up on the other side, as legitimate votes, helping downplay the scale of voter fraud).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Successful voter fraud is done in the open, on camera with voting sticks [gifs.com].
Re: (Score:2)
In N.C. the feds struck down our law to require ID because it discriminated against those wanting to commit voter fraud.
So far, it looks like the only ones committing voter fraud are Republicans. From: Republicans and the Myth of Election Fraud [nytimes.com]
Many of these voter-suppression measures have become law despite clear evidence that voter fraud is practically nonexistent.
Recently, though, a fraud case did arise — though it wasn’t exactly the kind that Republicans have so loudly warned about.
Last week, around the time when Donald J. Trump was in Iowa, the Des Moines police arrested a resident named Terri Lynn Rote on suspicion of voter fraud, a Class D felony in Iowa. Apparently persuaded by Mr. Trump’s rhetoric that the “system is rigged,” Ms. Rote, the police said, cast ballots for Mr. Trump at two early voting sites.
In Florida, another crucial swing state where Mr. Trump has fumed about a vast conspiracy to rig the election against him, a poll worker in Miami, Gladys Coego, was accused of illegally marking ballots on behalf of a Republican mayoral candidate. She has also been arrested.
Apparently, NC has been trying especially hard to suppress Democratic voters:
Unfortunately, early voting in North Carolina has already demonstrated the need for greater voter-protection efforts. When the Fourth Circuit’s ruling late last summer required restoration of early voting hours, the chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, Dallas Woodhouse, sent a memo instructing Republican members of local election boards to make “party line” decisions in early voting plans. These orders were sent — and to a large degree carried out — despite the court’s statement that using race as a proxy for party “constitutes discriminatory purpose.”
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
See anything strange there?
Nope. The Democrats used to be the party of the racists, which is why they controlled the deep south. Then LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed, and enforced it, which caused the racists in the deep south to switch to the Republican party... but the racists remained in control.
So, nothing strange at all. The racists gerrymandered districts on a racial basis, regardless of which party they claimed to be in.
Note that I'm not saying the Democratic party used to be racist, or that the Republican party is now
Re: (Score:3)
Scroll up. There are far more instances of voter fraud in favor of Democratic candidates.
Using a puffed-up New York Times deflection piece (written and published in response to the revelations of the Democrats cheating, as referenced above) doesn't help your non-argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, it didn't make any difference because neither Donald nor Hillary were registered to vote in NC.
Re: (Score:2)
There are places with electronic voting in the EU - Estonia was one of the first one to introduce it.
And that's how it is done (Score:4, Insightful)
All but two U.S. states have accepted help from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
I would much rather have someone that I trust helping than the D.H.S.
Re: (Score:2)
All but two U.S. states have accepted help from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
I would much rather have someone that I trust helping than the D.H.S.
Just be thankful we're not getting the help from the TSA.
Re: (Score:3)
Does anyone else think this is insane? (Score:3, Insightful)
But in addition, "U.S. military hackers have penetrated Russia's electric grid, telecommunications networks and the Kremlin's command systems, making them vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the U.S. deem it necessary, according to a senior intelligence official and top-secret documents reviewed by NBC News."
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this is insane?
Assange never gives out details about who his leakers are, but even he took the time to state categorically that the Podesta leakers are did not come from the Russian government [rt.com].
Clearly he feels that there is some danger here for him to take this extraordinary step.
Instead of setting up a hair-trigger response shouldn't we first have an investigation, and then approach this through diplomatic channels?
Ye gods, Putin has to keep the appearance of strength in his country. What do you think he'll do if we start messing with their electrical grid?
And in other news, we have Obama encouraging illegals to vote [redstatewatcher.com], which would appear at first glance to be Obama committing a felony on camera.
What the fuck is happening to this country?
Re:Does anyone else think this is insane? (Score:4, Insightful)
Assange never gives out details about who his leakers are, but even he took the time to state categorically that the Podesta leakers are did not come from the Russian government [rt.com].
Clearly he feels that there is some danger here for him to take this extraordinary step.
Or his source has never clearly identified itself as the Russia government and he's trying to maintain plausible deniability as to not destroy Wikileaks' credibility.
And in other news, we have Obama encouraging illegals to vote, which would appear at first glance to be Obama committing a felony on camera.
Which is why you should take a second glance. Did you notice how her question doesn't actually make sense? That's because someone cut off the first part of it and I'm very suspicious of what they left out. What seems to be the general question and answer is the following:
Interviewer: American citizens who are the children of illegal immigrants are scared to vote because they they'll draw scrutiny and cause their families to be deported.
Obama: That will not happen.
What the fuck is happening to this country?
People are lying to you about the state of the world, and you believe them.
Re: (Score:2)
Or his source has never clearly identified itself as the Russia government and he's trying to maintain plausible deniability as to not destroy Wikileaks' credibility.
The funny thing is that it shouldn't matter who the source is as long as the information disclosed is true.
It appears to be true, as not even those who should face jail time over it deny it. If you can't attack the message, attack the messager. And the american public is stupid enough to get so easily distracted. Look, a three-headed monkey !
Re: (Score:2)
Or his source has never clearly identified itself as the Russia government and he's trying to maintain plausible deniability as to not destroy Wikileaks' credibility.
The funny thing is that it shouldn't matter who the source is as long as the information disclosed is true.
The purpose of this disclosure isn't to expose corruption or educate the public, it's to swing an election.
That is not supposed to be Wikileaks' purpose, and it is why Assange is rightly being criticized.
It appears to be true, as not even those who should face jail time over it deny it. If you can't attack the message, attack the messager. And the american public is stupid enough to get so easily distracted. Look, a three-headed monkey !
The fact that something was leaked doesn't actually mean it exposed wrongdoing.
Re: (Score:2)
"Accidentally" shoot down a few US planes over Syria.
Re: (Score:2)
> Assange never gives out details about who his leakers are, but even he took the time to state categorically that the Podesta leakers are did not come from the Russian government.
From looking into the leaked Podesta emails, they cut off shortly after a phishing email arrived. It was a completely bogus email from "Google" with a fake bit.ly reset link [wikileaks.org] claiming that his account had been accessed from the Ukraine.
You'd think the real hackers wouldn't want to point people back at themselves. If anything,
Got any reality to go with your hallucinations? (Score:4, Informative)
Massage is done. After this election stunt, even if Ecuador let's him stay, he's brought Wikileaks disrepute that the press will ignore him. Snowden had taken his mantle.
Everything you've said is completely and totally bogus.
1) "Ecuador lets him stay": Ecuador has repeatedly reaffirmed their intention to let him stay, even after cutting his internet access.
2) "Disrepute": Wikileaks recently published the DKIM proofs for the Podesta E-mails, putting the lie to any claims of tampering. For example, Donna Brazile claimed that E-mails showing her giving debate questions to Clinton were tampered, but they were vetted using Google's gmail.com DKIM signature.
3) "Massage": Learn Engrish.
4) "Stunt": He's been publishing pretty-much continuously for 10 years, and you think "stunt" describes his actions?
5) "Press will ignore": Uh... yeah. Right. You think this is what will happen?
6) "Snowden": Snowden took his mantle... without being in the news or having done anything of recent significance?
In general, everything you said is simple sock-puppetry intended to sway uninformed people. It's intellectually dishonest, and it doesn't even promote the mainstream view.
I mean, really. Absolutely *no one* in the media is making any of your claims.
I'd ask for links, but in this case I don't think that's possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Isis was created by our actions as an excuse to start more wars and take over in that area.
Do you really want a war with Russia over Syria to be next on the menu? Because that's what they appear to have in store for us.
Someone isn't very tech savvy (Score:5, Insightful)
"By hacking and dumping emails, Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it...to make us look no better than the Russian electoral system,'" said one senior White House official.
"Hacking and dumping" emails is not the same as changing vote counts or forcing people to vote a certain way. The exposure of the content of emails was likely embarrassing to the Democratic Party and HRC, but it isn't election tampering.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the American electoral system looks chaotic enough on its own. It's the people running who make it look bad, not foreign hackers.
Re: (Score:2)
Your words echo Trumpsky's denials but US Intelligence service says otherwise: http://www.theverge.com/2016/1... [theverge.com]
Yeah, you know how US Intel has been known to lie, both on purpose and also on accident? I have absolutely no reason to believe them when they say 'trust us', especially when they are talking about starting a cyberwar.
Re: (Score:2)
Not "trust us", US intelligence has enumerate exactly how it was done, by whom, where and when. The current hacker going by Guccifer 2.0 was pretending to be Romanian, but when faced with a translator, was found to be Russian.
That's not much.
Re: (Score:2)
US intelligence has enumerate exactly how it was done, by whom, where and when.
So did Germany when a radio station on the border of Poland was attacked [wikipedia.org] in 1939. It turned out to be staged by the Germans themselves, but the lie was good enough to justify the invasion of Poland.
Re: (Score:2)
Your words echo Trumpsky's denials but US Intelligence service says otherwise:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1... [theverge.com]
Wow, what a trustworthy source!
Remember when they kept trying to get people to believe that North Korea hacked Sony over a shitty movie? Remember when there was zero evidence of that happening or even being remotely possible? Remember when they quietly dropped it when the truth started coming out?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Russia is behind this, shame on them. However, there is no proof that this is the case. The Hillary campaign declares this, to distract from...
Re: (Score:2)
Yet they wouldn't hack election machines, counting machines or vote counters emails?
If the voting machines or vote-counting computers are connected to the internet, there is an incredibly big security issue that needs to be addressed. Who cares about emails regarding vote counts, provided the votes are tallied correctly, and reported as required by law, which would involve a method removed from the internet.
That hacking DNC email, and using the intelligence in the email to get their puppet into power *ISN"T* election tampering???
No, it is not. No votes have been changed post vote, nor purchased or influenced with threat to my knowledge.
If Russia was trying to put Clinton in power, you'd be screaming for the CIA to protect the election from Putin's tampering,
You don't know me. If Trump's emails were leaked, I'd still feel that it w
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of these losers screaming about their own mistakes how about they fix them?
Re: (Score:2)
"Hacking and dumping" emails is not the same as changing vote counts or forcing people to vote a certain way. The exposure of the content of emails was likely embarrassing to the Democratic Party and HRC, but it isn't election tampering.
This was considered very illegal back in 1972 when the DNC was burglarized and files stolen from their offices in the Watergate hotel. How does doing the same thing, only by computer, somehow make it legal?.
I don't remember saying it was legal. I said that it wasn't election tampering.
Paper Ballots Counted At The Precinct Level (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to prevent all hacking? Just use paper ballots counted at the precinct level. India has a billion people and it works just fine. Our election is important enough that it's foolish to trust it to unauditable, easily hacked voting machines when the alternative of hand counting is not that hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Our election is important enough that it's foolish to trust it to unauditable, easily hacked voting machines when the alternative of hand counting is not that hard.
To them, our election is important enough that it's foolish to trust it to voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just India. Germany is using the same system and it works wonderfully. As I hear, most of Europe uses such a system or variations of it.
I wish (Score:2)
Douglas Adams Predicted This (Score:2)
Douglas Adams predicted this election, and probably most others, in his HHGTG series with this: It is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. [bookriot.com] It is number 23 on the list. I don't know that number 42 on that particular list applies to this election, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Just gotta get people to vote for 'em.
Um.........
Re: (Score:2)
I always wonder (Score:3)
How many of these 'crises' are either enormously exaggerated, or manufactured out of whole cloth? After all, they are so very useful for creating jobs, justifying power and autonomy grabs by various TLA's, and distracting the masses from noticing that their basic rights are being systematically torn down and burned.
Yes, by all means, protect this election. Protect it from becoming a third-rate reality show - a freaky, depraved, but strangely irrelevant spectacle that proudly and defiantly puts the 'circus' in 'bread and circuses'. Oh, wait... it's way too late for that.
I'm starting to see the attractions of the Libertarian point of view. It's delusional and naive, to be sure - but would it produce a hell any worse that what we're currently experiencing?
Reaping what you sow (Score:2, Troll)
I forget who said it but somebody said whoever can keep the spotlight off is gonna win
Re: (Score:2)
It's those damn spurs on his feet that kept him out of 'Nam (but not off the track team).
How the fuck did this trust fund baby that sums up just about everything wrong with America end up getting so far?
Not russians as they would use for blackmail (Score:3)
.
Re: (Score:2)
For blackmail there has to be something close to murder or having sex with thirteen year olds (I hope you behaved yourself on those trips to Russia Donald) to have an impact afterwards.
Our Government in the US (Score:2, Interesting)
Some things I find disturbing:
"By hacking and dumping emails, Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it...to make us look no better than the Russian electoral system,'" said one senior White House official. Russia is also expected to extend their efforts toward elections in Europe..."
Let me get this straight.
Even IF Russia was dumping Emails, and let me be c
incompetence (Score:4, Insightful)
Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it...
No need to do anything on that front. All of Europe has been laughing about the US voting process for decades. You've got the most complicated, error-prone, untrustworthy election system I personally have ever seen or heard about. The fact that you're incapable of fixing it is the best proof that the whole system is broken beyond repair.
I'm not just talking voting machines, I also mean Gerrymandering, the fact that you vote on a working day (seriously?) or that there are hour-long queues. You are holding elections the way 3rd world countries hold their first election in history, and it's just absolutely pathetic.
What could Russia possibly do to discredit this abomination? If I were the russian general in charge, I'd tell my hackers to stay out of this, lest they accidentally fix something and make it better.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, we laugh here in Australia too, at the absolute circus that is the US electoral system.
Any government whose leader is not assured a majority in at least the lower house (Congress) is designed to be dysfunctional.
Its scary that such lunacy affects the rest of us.
Wouldn't that impression reflect reality? (Score:3)
By hacking and dumping emails, Russia is trying 'to denigrate the American electoral system, to make it look chaotic, make it look manipulable, make it look subject to intrusion, cheating and vulnerable so you can't trust it...to make us look no better than the Russian electoral system.
I'm going out on a limb here, but wouldn't that impression be the actual truth? How the democrats rigged against Sanders, that apparently the Democrats and their candidat got hacked, we know for ages that voting machines are not trustworthy, there is the concept of gerrymandering, and how on earth became Trump even a candidate, not speaking about that the charges against Hillary were dropped.
Not sure whom to attribute those hacks, but isn't it actually a good thing, that this knowledge is now spread between the voters so they can make a more informed decision? Isn't it better to know what is going on than to life in fluffy unicorn land?
All the governments are always saying: No need to fear, if you have nothing to hide. Well...
U.S. military penetrated Russia's electric grid? (Score:2)
Only if the Russians are dumb enough to connect their SCADA systems directly to the Internet and run them on Microsoft Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you're staying home.
You're overlooking the fact that the OP has already voted by mail-in ballot and doesn't need to go in person to vote.
I'd like to think (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Learn what exactly, that fit the alt-right, black lives don't matter?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Bought media? You mean like Correct the Record and the other media we can see being in the bag thanks to Podesta's emails? Or are you going to repeat the lie that they're "altered" even though we have DKIM authentication from Google's servers (among others) for the relevant emails? Or like the Washington Post which held an illicit fundraiser with the DNC that their lawyers would "never" allow? I've linked to all of these previously many times.
And if you want to talk about terrorists, you might want to s
Re: (Score:2)
I should also mention that someone was going on about assassinating Trump in the chat for that event just before this.
So, honestly, it looks like another setup to me.
Need to find whoever it was that started shouting about the gun.