US Now Offers $10 Million Reward For Election Interference Tips (zdnet.com) 163
The US Department of State announced today rewards of up to $10 million for any information leading to the identification of any person who works with or for a foreign government for the purpose of interfering with US elections through "illegal cyber activities." From a report: This includes attacks against US election officials, US election infrastructure, voting machines, but also candidates and their staff. The announcement was made today, less than 100 days until the 2020 US Presidential Election that will have incumbent Donald Trump face off against Democrat candidate Joe Biden. Nevertheless, the Department of State said the reward is valid for any form of election hacking, at any level, such as elections held at the federal, state, or local level as well.
I like it (Score:4, Interesting)
For example somebody or other will try turning in facebook for running an ad bought by a subsidiary of a foreign company (just to make up an example in a gray area), and somebody will have to adjudicate that.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's a stunt. Also, if you look at the history of any type of witch hunt and/or repressive regime, you get people stitching each other up over small grievances. For the promise $10 million you could get people outright framing each other.
Re:I like it (Score:4, Insightful)
Jesus CHrist you are dumb. Absentee ballots and mail in ballots are the same thing. Five states have done pure mail in ballots for years now. There is no fraud.
Funny how you Trump cultists follow his idiotic decrees, even when they contradict each other. He was all against any mail in ballots until Ron DeSantis called him up and told him Florida was going to do it, and he would lose all the old-person votes in Florida if he didn't stop his bullshit.
So then he had to invent an imaginary difference between "mail in ballots" and "absentee ballots" which are, of course, the same fucking thing. He's basically trying to say "It's okay when red states do it but blue states should be prevented from doing it." Because Trump and his cultists hate democracy with a burning passion.
This, despite the fact that as I said, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah have been doing nothing BUT mail in voting for years now with no problems. https://www.ncsl.org/research/... [ncsl.org]
And many other states have a "no excuse needed" mail in system, where anyone can, for any reason, get a mail in ballot instead of using a polling place. There has been absolutely no problem with any of this.
Of course, Trump has a back up plan: he put a rich donor in charge of the post office, and said rich asshole is slowing down service to blue states, so the mail in ballots will hopefully not get counted. Fucking fascist assholes.
You will lose despite the dirty tricks. And then will come the LEGAL reckoning. Not the violence you assholes are so obviously hoping to perpetrate on your fellow citizens. No, the law will be Trump's undoing the end.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope,. THey are all riled up because they know their clown prince is going to lose, badly, and take a lot of senators with him. They are praying for some kind of hail mary, October surprise sort of thing. Voter suppression is all they have left.
Re:I like it (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus CHrist you are dumb. Absentee ballots and mail in ballots are the same thing.
As a general statement, this is not true, at least as it applies to this political discussion. Yes, voting absentee, is the same as mail in ballots, but this is NOT the issue that the Republicans are discussing here. The problem here is about the process, and the desire to CHANGE how and why ballots get mailed to who.
The change that Republicans have issues with is the switch from a "You have to request an Absentee ballot" to "Let's just send everybody a ballot" process changes in some jurisdictions. Nobody I know has issues with the "You have to request the Ballot in advance" process, so voting absentee isn't a problem if that's what you want to do. As justification of this, Republicans point to the fact that, in the cases we have of voter fraud, the vast majority come from the ballots sent and received in the mail. Plus, the sad truth is the US Mail is not nearly as reliable as voting in person. A significant amount of mail is late, misdirected and/or lost, and this includes handling of mail in ballots, going both ways. IF you deeply care about your vote counting, the most reliable way happens to be the most fraud resistant, voting in person.
Also, I find it kind of funny that out of one side of their mouths they are trying to get everybody to vote by mail, but on the other side they claim that Trump is setting up a massive bit of fraud by manipulating the Post Office with a political appointee.. I have a good friend who is a mail carrier, he's very amused by this whole line of reasoning. Yea, the Post Office is in decline, but he doesn't see some organized attempt to disrupt the service that is somehow new. Oh no, the Post Office's problems run deeper than this administration's management of it, but has been a growing issue for many administrations before this one.
So let's be fair here. Republicans (at least the ones I know and what I've heard Trump actually say about this) are not objecting to absentee voting using the EXISTING processes, but we ARE opposed to just mailing ballots to everybody on the voter rolls in the blind where that's not the current process. Voter roles are notoriously out of date and just mailing ballots in the blind puts a LOT of ballots out there, and that just makes fraud easier. Then, because all this happens through the Post Office, which is rife with inconsistent delivery of mail (and thus ballots), the whole idea is just begging for problems.
Re: (Score:2)
As justification of this, Republicans point to the fact that, in the cases we have of voter fraud, the vast majority come from the ballots sent and received in the mail.
Yep. That's why Republicans will helpfully collect and deliver your absentee ballots for you [npr.org].
Re: (Score:2)
As justification of this, Republicans point to the fact that, in the cases we have of voter fraud, the vast majority come from the ballots sent and received in the mail.
Yep. That's why Republicans will helpfully collect and deliver your absentee ballots for you [npr.org].
You see what I mean? There IS an opportunity for fraud here...
There IS fraud all over the place and on both sides of the isle, you won't get much push back from me on that. We can debate who does it more, but it doesn't really matter to this discussion.
So, do you agree that changing the process and just having everybody vote by mail might not be in the best interests of a free and fair election? Can we agree that the Republican's who are opposed to making such sweeping changes to how abstentee ballots are
Re: I like it (Score:3)
Except they're talking about more than just that. In many cases States have a very restrictive rules on who may request an absentee ballot and for what reason. Making changes to broaden the reasons had been challenges in court by Republicans.
This is by no means just about automatically mailing absentee ballots to everybody on the voter rolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, cite specific examples and make sure that there exists no other valid reason for the request that would suffice for COVID avoidance.
I'm almost certain that "medical reasons" would suffice and I doubt that the changes you say are being opposed are indeed necessary. So, I'll allow you to research this and prove to me that what's being opposed is indeed a necessary and reasonable change because I don't think that assertion is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I'll go with the easy one -- Tennessee. Covid avoidance isn't sufficient unless you fall into the definition of "...only those who are considered vulnerable to suffering serious health impacts if they contract coronavirus and their caretakers should be allowed to vote from home."
Before the Supreme Court decision, Tennessee had refused to let anyone physically capable of traveling to the polls cast their ballots by mail.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tennessee-supreme-court-allows-mail-in-ballots-e2 [msn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Then you owe me two more things...
1. A case where someone has attempted to change the rules using the required process (i.e. using the prescribed legal means..)
2. A specific instance for #1 where a Republican has opposed said change, legally submitted...
Remember, my contention here is that nobody is being unreasonable here but we are insisting that we follow the prescribed processes in all cases, including for how we issue Absentee ballots and how we change the rules. AND, I have committed to help you
Re: (Score:2)
The use of the Courts to clarify the executive branch interpretation of existing laws, and to ensure that said laws and interpretation do not violate Constitutional rights -- State or Federal -- is a prescribed legal means and qualifies as a required process.
Texas' election code defines "disability" as "a sickness or physical condition that prevents the voter from appearing at the polling place on election day without a likelihood of needing personal assistance or of injuring the voter's health."
The Secreta
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you saying we should violate the law as interpreted by the courts because YOU don't think it's fair? The Secretary of State in Texas is bound by the law, he cannot unilaterally change it, even if he wanted too. We are a nation of laws and laws just don't change because you got your panties in a wad over some perceived problem with the law. IF you don't like this law, GET IT CHANGED.
So far, I've not seen where the democrats have tried to change the state's election laws in Texas.. I could be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
And in NY, 25% of all their mail in ballots have been rejected...
Re: (Score:3)
Fortunately, we make that illegal here in North Carolina. Unlike California. I'm sure we'll eliminate that law if the Democrats ever get to be in control again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just a slight bit more color to this. It doesn't appear that the opposition is solely limited to cases like Nevada, where they automatically mail a ballot to everyone. (Which, for the record, I oppose as well.) But it seems as though ANY expansion of mail-in voting, the "no reason" absentee ballot measures, is being opposed. Obviously this feedback is limited to the people I have contact with.
Can you cite the case in question? IF there isn't an acceptable reason for COVID avoidance already, I'll be happy to denounce such opposition.. However.
I cannot imaging that "medical reasons" wouldn't already be in the acceptable reasons, and COVID would certainly be under the "medical" reason bucket. I can also see that providing a valid reason is a good idea and not some way to suppress votes from those who need to vote absentee.
Re: (Score:2)
I was more referencing various statements from politicians, pundits, and my dumb-ass friends/relatives/acquaintances on Facebook citing "fraud" as one of the reasons that we should not be supporting/expanding mail in voting at all. The "it has to be done in-person to be valid" crowd.
I didn't spend a ton of time looking, but this [vote.org] seems like a good reference. Most of the states that I checked are either mailing a ballot to everyone or allowing COVID fear as a valid excuse for requesting a ballot. Why should
Re: (Score:2)
Them's the rules..
IF you feel the rules are improper, then I suggest you get them changed using the prescribed process.
And don't be so quick to dismiss the fraud claim. The VAST majority of known voter fraud involves mail in ballots, hands down. This is a known fact and you cannot knowingly just dismiss this... So those folks you disagree with have a valid point... You know, a primary in New York that happened recently and leaned heavily on absentee voting just disclosed that nearly 1 in 4 mail in bal
Re: (Score:2)
And don't be so quick to dismiss the fraud claim. The VAST majority of known voter fraud involves mail in ballots, hands down. This is a known fact and you cannot knowingly just dismiss this.
Yeah I CAN knowingly dismiss it. What's asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. Where's YOUR proof that "The VAST majority of known voter fraud involves mail in ballots, hands down"? Does it come from here [heritage.org] perhaps?
Heritage shows 208 cases of "Fraudulent Use of Absentee Ballots" out of 1,290 total. Heritage also shows that "Ineligible Voting" fraud accounted for 268 cases.
You got a better source than Heritage? I hope so, because right now your claim appears to be complete horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, I find it kind of funny that out of one side of their mouths they are trying to get everybody to vote by mail, but on the other side they claim that Trump is setting up a massive bit of fraud by manipulating the Post Office with a political appointee..
Why is this "funny"?
I would think that mail in ballots would be the easiest thing for the post offices around the country to handle. Every ballot should look the same, they are all pretty much 'local mail' if it is not a true absentee ballot, and they all go to the same place.
However the Trump cronies certainly could manipulate the post office in that most ballots need to be delivered on or before election day. All someone at the post office would need to do is collect and delay a given set of ballots so
Re: (Score:3)
However the Trump cronies certainly could manipulate the post office in that most ballots need to be delivered on or before election day. All someone at the post office would need to do is collect and delay a given set of ballots so that they do not get delivered. Sure, Democratic operatives might arrange that in some post offices, but it is also easy to detect assuming the postal system finally does deliver them (an influx of late ballots would certainly be something to pay attention to).
You can't do that. Specifically selecting out ballots for delay would be illegal. Now, if you were to appoint someone as Postmaster General who decided to implement policies that creates an unworkable backlog in all types of mail, combined with a complete moratorium on overtime that would prevent that backlog from being worked through and delivered on time, all in the name of "efficiency" and "cost saving" and a bunch of absentee ballots got caught up in that backlog, well, sometimes things are just outsi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when has something being illegal been an impediment to Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"It's not illegal if the president does it."
Re: (Score:2)
Please educate yourself: https://www.vote.org/absentee-... [vote.org]
The change Republicans are opposed to (Score:3)
There is no doubt whatsoever that sending out absentee ballots will increase voting. There is equally zero risk of voter fraud having a measurable impact on the election. This is very well researched, John Oliver has a nice long video on it you should watch.
Republicans are very clearly trying to stop the "wrong" people from voting. Trump only started drawing a distinction between "Absentee Voting" and "Mail In Voting" when his advisers pointed out that a lot of
Re: (Score:2)
Nice theory, zero actual proof this is the truth. You are reacting to partisans who have fed you a line.
Take this case: https://www.foxnews.com/politi... [foxnews.com]
This isn't about what you think, it's about having free and fair elections where all the votes cast actually count. We are not ready to vote by mail in mass numbers and if you are concerned about disenfranchising voters, TRY to vote by mail where it's not done that way now. In one NY primary, they dumped 1 in 4 mail in ballots... That's 25%. And you
You're trying to set an impossible bar (Score:2)
It's a good strategy. You've won a lot of elections with it. But are you ha
Re: (Score:2)
LOL.. Now you are just spinning deep into partisan rhetoric.. Now it's a crime to follow the law? What have you leftists come to because just making general accusations really doesn't do your cause any favors...
Oh and I'm touched by your concern.. I've been gainfully employed at this job for years and given we are deemed essential I've been in the office working though this whole thing. Nothing for me changed, except that my commute was cut in half while the rest of you where sitting on your hands stream
Re: (Score:3)
Nice theory, zero actual proof this is the truth. You are reacting to partisans who have fed you a line.
No. It's the PA GOP chairman admitting voter ID is for Democratic vote suppression [msnbc.com]. It's one of President Donald Trump’s top reelection advisers telling donors at a private event that "Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places." [apnews.com]
I could go on. But these guys have either been caught on tape, or straight up admitting in interviews, that this is the plan for over a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
... you know vote-by-mail doesn't actually require using the postal system, right? You can return the ballot to the elections office or a ballot box (non-vote-by-mail states presumably wouldn't have ballot boxes set up). And if you do use the postal system, you can check online if it arrived. (Apparently some states will even let you sign up for text/email notifications on your ballot status, but WA doesn't do that as far as I can tell.) If your ballot fails to arrive in the mail, WA lets you print one out at home; I don't see why other states couldn't do the same.
Any of those things, and your vote is not anonymous. Think about that.
Pretty sure I'd get audited by the IRS if I voted for the candidate that lost.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, Over 80,000 mail-in ballots disqualified in NYC primary mess [nypost.com]. So that's not exactly an shining example of Mail in Voting.
Also, in the European Union, 63% have put a ban on mailing in ballots except for citizens living overseas. Another 22% have imposed a ban even for those overseas. And most of those that allow mail-in ballots require some form of photo ID to get one [washingtonexaminer.com]
As for your assertion that mail in voting is the same an absentee ballots, you are correctly only to the extent that the ballot travels t
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.vote.org/absentee-... [vote.org]
Educate yourself before appearing the fool in public.
Re: (Score:2)
You presume that some random website refutes facts of rejected ballots in NYC?
Re: (Score:2)
I've not seen any proof that those ballots were disqualified with good reason. As far as I'm concerned, this is more proof of voter suppression.
Some choice quotes, "The mess included votes not being counted because the pre-paid ballot envelopes were not postmarked."
“A 26 percent invalidation rate is astounding. It’s very troubling,” said Arthur Schwartz, who represented several candidates in a federal lawsuit claiming voters were disenfranchised over the BOE and Postal Service’s hand
Spousal coercion (Score:2)
Jesus CHrist you are dumb. Absentee ballots and mail in ballots are the same thing.
Mail-in balloting has come up every few decades, and the last time was more then 20 years ago.
At that time it was pointed out that with mail-in ballots an abusive husband can force his wife to vote the same way he does. They sit at the dinner table and both fill out the form - with the wife under the watchful eye of the husband.
It's not so much of a problem with troops stationed overseas, since in that case the spouse generally lives at home in the US.
This was thought to be a big problem the last time it wa
Re: (Score:2)
No, it won't. Like I said, five states don't even have polling places. Mail in ballots only. And no one has been complaining.
Spouses already almost always vote the same way. You don't honestly think any of this, you are crafting a bogus argument based on what you think might sway a liberal. It's pure fuckery.
Re: (Score:2)
Mail-in balloting has come up every few decades, and the last time was more then 20 years ago.
At that time it was pointed out that with mail-in ballots an abusive husband can force his wife to vote the same way he does. They sit at the dinner table and both fill out the form - with the wife under the watchful eye of the husband.
Bingo! Yes, the secret ballot was put in place for a reason, and mail-in voting makes voting no longer secret.
Not just abusive spouses. What do you do if your boss wants to see that your ballot is filled out "correctly" before you drop it in the mail? Or other cases? "Kid, if you vote against XX, I'm kicking you out of the house. Show me your ballot."
Re: (Score:2)
There is "no fraud" because we've made any method you could use to detect that fraud illegal. A couple reporters have shown how the lack of safeguards and identity/residence verification makes it almost trivial to commit vote fraud (by registering to vote in multiple precincts). Despite being members of the press and acting as white hat hackers, t
Re: (Score:2)
What absolute nuttery is this? We've made what illegal, exactly? You don't even know, you're just spouting bullshit.
GP isn't dumb, they're using a talking point (Score:2)
The current talking point is that mail in voting is Good in FL & TX (states where Trump will benefit from it) and bad in other places (e.g. states where Trump will be hurt by it). Expect GP (or one of hi
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. You are being ridiculous here and providing no proof of anything you write, which is all made up bullshit. Educate yourself here before spouting off more lies, please: https://www.vote.org/absentee-... [vote.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Absentee ballots and mail-in voting is completely different. For an absentee ballot, you will need a notary of the public to sign your statement that you are absentee....
I have voted absentee several times when I have know or expected I would be away from home on election day, and never once have I had to get a notary public to sign anything.
Your statement is false.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I like it (Score:4, Informative)
As I recall studies on mail-in ballots (which are functionally identical to absentee ballots) show them to be considerably *less* vulnerable to fraud and other forms of interference than even in-person voting.
Even Trump agrees that mail-in ballots are a good idea - in states like Florida where they will probably push the outcome in his favor.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As I recall studies on mail-in ballots (which are functionally identical to absentee ballots) show them to be considerably *less* vulnerable to fraud and other forms of interference than even in-person voting.
Even Trump agrees that mail-in ballots are a good idea - in states like Florida where they will probably push the outcome in his favor.
They are not always "functionally identical" because in some cases the proposed changes are to blindly mail ballots to ALL voters on the rolls, without the voter having to request them. Given the sad state of our voter rolls in most jurisdictions this just breeds fraud by having a statistically significant number of ballots being sent to ineligible voters floating around the world. Ballots floating around, just makes them easer to obtain by those who would whish to do fraudulent things with them... And I a
Re: (Score:3)
In person voting does not suffer from this issue. Ballots are issued to those who show up, are on the rolls and ask to vote.
And are allowed to vote. That's the important part you left out. That's why a certain political party likes to keep pushing for laws like Voter ID laws while also doing such things as limiting what qualifies as identification/to get identification, limiting the hours and locations where people can get the required ID, etc. That's also assuming they don't close down polling places in certain districts that may lean in a certain political direction.
Is all of this legal? Yep. Is all of it antithetical to
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, can you offer any concrete examples of that?
Because generally speaking the difference is that *anyone* can request a mail-in ballot, while you can only request an absentee ballot if you're going to be absent from your district and thus incapable of voting in person.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, can you offer any concrete examples of that?
Because generally speaking the difference is that *anyone* can request a mail-in ballot, while you can only request an absentee ballot if you're going to be absent from your district and thus incapable of voting in person.
In my county, you are not required to explain why you are requesting an absentee ballot, unless you are requesting to vote absentee for ALL elections in a year. Just check the box and send in the from. So, I ask you again to cite exact circumstances where a Republican is opposing changing the process, when it is indeed necessary.
Just so you know, I'm expecting THREE things from you... 1. A place where the election authorities are refusing to accept any of the allowed reasons for COVID concerns..2. A change
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one accusing rule changes of being for the purpose of election fraud, the onus is on you to provide evidence. I asked for a concrete example first, I don't have time to waste looking up details for someone who's just going to move the goal posts rather than defend their position.
Meanwhile, anywhere that absentee ballots have restrictions, fear of pandemic infection is almost certainly NOT on the list of allowable reasons. It's not exactly a common occurrence, is it?
Besides, when have political
Re: (Score:2)
No, no no.. I'm asking for justification for changing the rules.. I'm asking for a case where a Republican opposed a properly purposed rule change that you think is necessary.. I'm asking you to justify your side's complaints that the only reason the Republicans oppose your suggestions is because they want to suppress votes in their favor.
You see, YOUR side is the one moving the goal posts. We've had election laws on the books for decades and only NOW you start complaining. This isn't about COVID avoidan
Re: (Score:2)
My side doesn't have a party. But when it comes to elections, it's generally the Republicans doing everything they can to engage in targetted voter suppression.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Florida the same state that gave us "hanging chads"?
The Republicans sure seem to have a lot of issues.
Re:I like it (Score:4, Insightful)
Groups doing Election Interference has a measurable and identified impact.
There is little to no evidence against mail in ballots. Or are you just afraid that your political position is so much in a minority, that people given more options to vote will vote their opinion.
If Trump wins a Majority of the Vote with a High Voter turnout then I would know that my values that I think is correct for an American is not inline with modern America, and then I am faced with options.
1. Change my stance to match public opinion
2. Move to a different country that better aligns with my values.
3. Work harder to try to change peoples minds so more people will be inline with my opinion.
Although I wouldn't like it, I would know the Truth about America. If there is a low voter turnout or Trump wins on a technicality then there isn't good evidence on how my stance aligns with everyone else.
The point of a Democratic Republic, is for the the People to collectively give their opinion on who can represent them. These people should be representing their constituency. So If I feel the culture I grew up is so far removed from my values, I have important decisions to make.
Re:I like it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the people shouting the loudest in the US at the moment are those who are most opposed to US ideals. They're happy to support the election being delayed in the hope it will buy time to rig the polling their favour, they support the killing of protesters exercising their 1st amendment rights to prevent them doing so, they're happy to support federal forces being used to suppress states rights, and they view liberalism, the political ideology of liberty, you know, that thing the US has a big famous statu
Re: (Score:3)
They were still 3 million more voters who voted for Clinton.
Also a lot of voters seemed to have not voted because there was a hissy fit about Sanders.
Yes Trump won the Electoral Vote, I understand that. However this isn't a representation of the average nation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the first tip (Score:4, Insightful)
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Old, senile white male wearing orange makeup. Has repeatedly threatened states who want the most amount of people to vote. Claims voting by mail is ripe with fraud while he and his family vote by mail.
Re:Here's the first tip (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Election fraud would actually involve doing something like sending ballots to every man and his dog then sending out your operatives to find them fill them and return the
Re: (Score:2)
In a way this is all about China, they will replace the US as the world super power if Biden wins. Actually they already own Biden I suspect, however totally off topic.
Counterpoint is that Russia owns Trump, and Trumps poor leadership (and dementia/Alzheimers/whatever) has led to the US steadily declining in superpower status, to such a state that it is inevitable China fills that gap.
Re: (Score:2)
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Old, senile white male wearing orange makeup. Has repeatedly threatened states who want the most amount of people to vote. Claims voting by mail is ripe with fraud while he and his family vote by mail.
Close. Trump now says mail-in voting is okay -- in Florida. From Twitter [twitter.com]:
Whether you call it Vote by Mail or Absentee Voting, in Florida the election system is Safe and Secure, Tried and True. Florida’s Voting system has been cleaned up (we defeated Democrats attempts at change), so in Florida I encourage all to request a Ballot & Vote by Mail! #MAGA
Hmm... Wonder why he's suddenly okay with mail-in voting in Florida. Could it be because of this, reported in Trump shifts, encourages vote by mail - in Florida [thehill.com] (and other places):
Republicans also have grown worried that Trump’s attacks on mail-in voting could actually suppress the GOP vote in the upcoming election.
Hmm... Apparently, he's fine with the most people voting, as long as they're the "right" people, and probably voting for him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
That's not where Hillary or Biden live - nor will it be...
So if you're looking for rampant election fraud you have the wrong address.
Maybe try somewhere around Broward county [sun-sentinel.com]. Or basically anywhere in Chicago [heritage.org].
After all, Trump is the one offering $10 million to catch election fraud - note no Democrats ever offered any money at all.
True, if Trump wins the 2020 election it will be through massive voter suppression using the courts along with federal/local police and the military.
Re: (Score:3)
Voter suppression? Without voter suppression we'd have Trump vs Sanders, twice already.
I never said the Democrats don't fix their presidential primaries, they do. Democratic heavyweights are paying for that fact and the fact the don't really represent their voters by getting hosed in congressional primaries [npr.org]. You can try to Conway this discussion onto all kinds of tangents that you feel more comfortable discussing. However, that still does not change the fact that gerrymandering and voter suppression are the only reason the Republicans are still competitive in US elections. Trump lost the pop
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we reached the tipping point (Score:3, Insightful)
Free $10 million dollars (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But Trump did say exactly that. How is The Guardian responsible for that? Reporting legitimate news from another country?
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
No money if the Republican Party interferes?
Personality differences (Score:2)
Republicans tend to score higher on conscientiousness [simplypsychology.org] compared to Democrats, and Democrats tend to score higher in openness than Republicans (and a little higher on neuroticism).
The differences are small on average - if you took an average D and R and then made some claim about conscientiousness or openness you'd be right 55%/45% of the time.
Where the differences matter is out on the extremes: since a normal distribution is non-linear, the extreme tail ends tend to amplify the average differences. Someone w
Easy! (Score:3, Insightful)
https://www.vox.com/2017/3/9/1... [vox.com]
That's a good place to start.
$10 million for ... (Score:2)
$10 million for ... the identification of any person who works with or for a foreign government ...
That's nice. I hope your bereaved spouse will enjoy the money. No, wait, that's wrong. I hope you're bereaved spouses' long-lost friend will enjoy the money.
Actually, I doubt anyone named in the original will will enjoy much of anything for long. Or anyone in their phones' contact list, for that matter.
Re: $10 million for ... (Score:2)
That's 100 times more than what Russian "hackers" (more like trolls) spent on Facebook ads.
Easy enough. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook, send me my money
Where do I collect my $10 million? (Score:2)
Here is the evidences [wikipedia.org].
It's New McCarthyism / Red Scare all over again. it's Iraq WMD FUD all over again. History has repeated.
Why not just ask the Russians? (Score:2)
Just ask the Russians, they're experts in this kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Just ask the Russians
They'll turn themselves in for the money.
And ... profit. (Score:2)
So... the Russians turn themselves in over and over again for different things and make a cool $10M each time? Wonder how much they could make? But how would that work? Will they use Venmo or have to take a check? Maybe a rewards credit card so the US can get miles? Then again, like the old MasterCard goes, ... interfering in an election -- priceless.
In any event, I wouldn't hold your breath, from what his contractors have said over the years, Trump doesn't pay anyone. :-)
I will be collecting the money now (Score:2, Funny)
Dear Department of State.
Trump has been working with foreign nationals to steal the election.
Let me know when I can collect my money.
State responds (Score:3)
Dear Department of State.
Trump has been working with foreign nationals to steal the election.
Let me know when I can collect my money.
Dear jriding.
Do you have any evidence? Because we sure-as-hell couldn't find any.
Sincerely,
Department of State
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Department of State,
I know you didn't find any because it's not you job to search but I do have some evidence. It's here in this file I downloaded from the Department of Justice. Compiled by some guy named Mueller.
Money please.
Facebook (Score:2)
Facebook. Can I have my $10M now?
'New Knowledge' (Score:2)
.. you know - the liars who hired that Russian advertising agency to run ads then used those ads to prove that Russia was trying to interfere with the election - the sole source the media was using on reporting it?
More grandstanding.
Should be rewarding people like Bev Harris who showed who were ACTUALLY screwing with election results. Hint - they weren't foreigners.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is Bev Harris, what do you think they showed, and where is any documentation?
Re:Is it too late to report Hillary Clinton + DNC (Score:4)
The only thing I can say about your steaming pile of post was that at least you didn't post it as an AC.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What dumb ass lies you spout. Funny how, even with control of the Justice department, you can't make any of this shit stick. Becaue, just like Benghazi and the email server, it's a big fat nothingburger.
Of course, if Trump wins, then all bets are off. He will be rounding up innocents and having them executed and y'all will cheer him on. Alex Jones has already said to go out and start killing people. Violence is all you assholes have.
Re: (Score:2)
Those folks are true patriots who took their oath to protect the constitution seriously. The only crime here was firing them for partisan reasons.
For God's Sake, Comey was a republican and a Bush appointee. You idiots are mentally disturbed.
Re: (Score:2)
Just go away, troll. No one here wants you around. No one is buying your wild theories. Everyone can plainly see what you are.
Re:Is it too late to report Hillary Clinton + DNC (Score:4, Informative)
If you had stopped with the first sentence, I might have moderated this insightful, but on reading to the end, it's clearly -1 troll.
In the last presidential election, the Democrats paid foreigners to dig up fake dirt on Trump which was then laundered through legitimate sounding DOJ and FISA processes.
A bit of spin, but not completely false. To correct it to be a little more accurate: The Democrats actually paid a firm based in Washington DC ("Fusion GPS") for a dossier on Trump; the firm subcontracted to Steele.
But the thing to note is that it wasn't the Democrats, but actually the conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon that hired GPS them to provide opposition research on Trump (back when conservatives had a "Never Trump!: motto, this was before he became the candidate). The DNC only purchased what the Washington Free Beacon had paid them to dig up.
As the Wikipedia article points out, some of the allegations in the dossier proved to be true, but the most lurid details remain unconfirmed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Is it too late to report Hillary Clinton + DNC (Score:2)
Some details got confirmed? Give me fucking break? Any dossier contains banal inconsequential details, suck as day is bright and night is dark. Those you can certainly confirm. Despite of that, Steele's hit piece belongs on the fiction or fantasy shelf, along Jason Bourne or Lord of the Rings. That was clear from day one, and yet corporate journos run with the story making claims , like but bit, some details have been confirmed!! Disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just dial 988 now.
Re:Let the Games Begin (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
a crazy guy in DC who can’t pronounce "Yosemite" and posts constant nonsense on Twitter.
Fake news. He was clearly just making a shout-out to all his Jewish friends back home in New York and Florida.