Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Fed. Judge: PA hacking suspicion 'borders on the irrational'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    One journal. Got it. How many journals publish on man made global warming? Do I have to believe them also because they are a journal?
    Over the past 20 years, there's been a lot more money in publishing alarming papers about climate change than alarming papers about voter fraud...

    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
      There is a big difference between expressing a belief and filing a lawsuit.


      Anyway, the Washington Post seemed to think Illegals could sway an election too. (per a 2014 article)

      How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.519c6a13f787

      That said, Trump's statement is not the equivalent of Stein's demands for a recount. And Trump's statement doesn't make Stein's statement any less irrational.
      Correct, which is why I clearly stated irrational lefties. Ms Stein was a candidate on the ballot, she filed the necessary paper work to challenge it, as it her right to do. Immaterial if it was rational.
      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
      “To talk of many things:
      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
      Of cabbages—and kings—
      And why the sea is boiling hot—
      And whether pigs have wings.”
      ― Lewis Carroll

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        Over the past 20 years, there's been a lot more money in publishing alarming papers about climate change than alarming papers about voter fraud...
        Over the years there has been lots of groups that have pushed BS on immigration and voting.
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
          Over the years there has been lots of groups that have pushed BS on immigration and voting.
          And lots of groups who have pushed BS about climate change.

          Largely because there is a basis for both forms of BS.

          Most BS has some basis in reality.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #20
            It's far easier for an illegal to register to vote in many states than it would be for anyone to hack into the election process from a remote server / terminal.

            For example, in California an illegal getting a driver's license gets registered to vote automatically unless he / she tells the DMV they're not a citizen. It is incumbent on the person getting the license to say they don't want to be registered to vote in California. That's the state's default setting on voter registration.
            So, you can take it to the bank there are lots of illegals registered to vote in California.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              It's far easier for an illegal to register to vote in many states than it would be for anyone to hack into the election process from a remote server / terminal.

              For example, in California an illegal getting a driver's license gets registered to vote automatically unless he / she tells the DMV they're not a citizen. It is incumbent on the person getting the license to say they don't want to be registered to vote in California. That's the state's default setting on voter registration.
              So, you can take it to the bank there are lots of illegals registered to vote in California.
              No one here is saying Russia did that. Neither is anyone in President Obama's administration.
              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
              “To talk of many things:
              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
              Of cabbages—and kings—
              And why the sea is boiling hot—
              And whether pigs have wings.”
              ― Lewis Carroll

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                No one here is saying Russia did that. Neither is anyone in President Obama's administration.
                That's right the ostensibly Russian hackers, hacked into negligently unsecure email servers and stole emails which told the truth about the DNC and Clinton Foundation. Wikileaks published these emails after not receiving them from the Russians. The emails revealed the bleeding obvious facts that the DNC rigged the primaries against Sanders and that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-for-play operation.
                What do we know about foreign hacking into the U.S. election?

                Quite a lot, actually, even if we don’t have a parking pass at CIA headquarters. But there is also a lot of confusion. Call it the “fog of cyberwar.”

                The fog comes from several sources:
                • Only snippets of information have been disclosed.
                • No public investigations have been held, though some certainly will be.
                • The CIA and FBI seem to have reached different conclusions, and the director of national intelligence has not adjudicated them.
                • Donald Trump has rejected the idea that Russia was trying to help him get elected. And
                • Democrats, seeking to blame anyone but themselves for their losses, have stressed Russia’s role. Some dead-enders have even said Russian interference invalidates the election results.


                [...]

                [T]he heart of Russia's campaign was collecting secret information, such as private communication among political operatives, and then disclosing that material selectively. They may also have tried to hack election databases in several states. It is unclear if they actually sought to manipulate votes, but, if they did, they had little success. There is zero evidence they changed any vote counts.

                The impact of cyber espionage on the 2016 election came through information, not direct manipulation of the results. The information, dribbled out through WikiLeaks, was apparently accurate. The targets never contested any major disclosures as false or fraudulent, though that is certainly a danger in future elections. So far, U.S. spy agencies have not established that the WikiLeaks material came from Russia—or, if they have, they have not shared that nugget.

                Third, the disclosures all hurt Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump. That favoritism does not seem accidental, although it may have been aided by weaker cybersecurity on Clinton's side.

                [...]

                Fourth, although the U.S. intelligence community has determined Russia did the hacking and that it was aimed at Clinton, invesitgators have not reached a consensus on the Kremlin's ultimate motivation.

                [...]

                A serious investigation should not be an excuse for denying the outcome of the 2016 election or for saying it was rigged by a foreign power. The election is over, and Hillary’s loss cannot be attributed to Russian interference.

                If the investigation is to be serious and non-partisan, if it is to develop recommendations for future elections, then it cannot be left to Congress. Lawmakers will surely hold hearings, but, if previous hearings are any guide, they will be shallow, backward-looking, and filled with partisan grandstanding. They produce sound bites, not sound conclusions. In any case, the new Congress has a full agenda dealing with health care, tax reform, regulatory changes, executive appointments, a Supreme Court nominee, and more.

                The best solution is a bipartisan commission. The model is the 9/11 commission, with a lower profile. It should have subpoena power and cooperate closely with intelligence agencies in the U.S. and abroad. Its mission should be more than pinning the tail on the Russian bear. It should be highlighting areas of vulnerability at the heart of our democracy: the right to free, fair elections.

                http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...on_132556.html
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X