Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • The Doctor
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Irrational Lefties think the the vote count was hacked, irrational rightist think that millions of illegals voted and that is why they lost the popular vote count. Which of those irrational beliefs will have a bed in the White House?
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    IBD opinion/editorial. Enough said.


    Penalty declined...
    Electoral Studies
    Volume 36, December 2014, Pages 149–157


    Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?

    Jesse T. Richmana, , , , Gulshan A. Chatthab, c, 1, , David C. Earnestb,

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2014.09.001

    Highlights
    • First use of representative sample to measure non-citizen voting in USA.
    • Some non-citizens cast votes in U.S. elections despite legal bans.
    • Non-citizens favor Democratic candidates over Republican candidates.
    • Non-citizen voting likely changed 2008 outcomes including Electoral College votes and the composition of Congress.
    • Voter photo-identification rules have limited effect on non-citizen participation.


    Abstract

    In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...61379414000973

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    IBD opinion/editorial. Enough said.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Sorry Doc, the President and others based their beliefs on the opinions of experts in the field. You don't think they are correct. Sounds fine to me.
    Then cite an actual scientific publication that says this...

    "97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous."

    99.99999% of scientists would agree that climate chage is real. A majority of atmospheric scientists (52-67%) think that humans are the cause of at least half of the warming that has occurred since 1850 (52%) and 1950 (67%). However, they are quite divided on how beneficial or detrimental future climate change may become. So, Obama's delusional Tweet has some anchors in reality.

    Originally posted by Combat Engineer
    PE Trump basis his claim on nothing but irrational belief.
    That is 100% wrong. Trump's numbers, like Obama's, may not be right or even verifiable; however, there is ample evidence that quite a few, maybe millions, of illegal votes have been cast in the last several elections...
    Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016

    Media Bias: Not surprisingly, the media take seriously and support Jill Stein's and Hillary Clinton's excellent vote-recount adventure, despite there being no indication a recount is needed. Heck, even President Obama agrees — Donald Trump won, period. But when Trump dares to suggest in a Sunday tweet that illegal aliens voted in the election, the media respond with massive denial.

    [...]

    [I]n fact, it's almost certain that illegals did vote — and in significant numbers. Whether it was three million or not is another question.

    While states control the voter registration process, some states are so notoriously slipshod in their controls (California, Virginia and New York — all of which have political movements to legalize voting by noncitizens — come to mind) that it would be shocking if many illegals didn't vote. Remember, a low-ball estimate says there are at least 11 million to 12 million illegals in the U.S., but that's based on faulty Census data. More likely estimates put the number at 20 million to 30 million.

    [...]

    [T]here is evidence to back Trump's claims. A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.

    "We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

    More specifically, they write, "Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress."

    Specifically, the authors say that illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010. That's a lot of votes. And when you consider the population of illegal inhabitants has only grown since then, it's not unreasonable to suppose that their vote has, too.

    [...]

    What's appalling, as we said, is not the media's skepticism, but its denial. But why? Illegal votes shouldn't be allowed to sway U.S. elections. So why tolerate them?

    When the far left began insinuating that the Russians had hacked the election, the media treated the nonsupported claims with the utmost of respect. They still do. But not Trump's suggestion that illegals voted, and in large numbers, mainly for Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton.

    And, yes, Trump is right: Illegal votes may in part explain why Hillary now has a nearly two-million-vote lead in the popular vote, even though she lost convincingly in the Electoral College. A Rasmussen Reports poll earlier this year found that 53% of the Democratic Party supports letting illegals vote, even though it's against the law. It's pretty clear why.

    Yes, there is room for skepticism of any claim that's made. But every vote cast by someone who isn't by law permitted to vote disenfranchises American citizens. The charge should at least be taken seriously.

    [...]

    http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...-vote-in-2016/

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    There are no "experts" that put forward the "theory" that "97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous."
    Sorry Doc, the President and others based their beliefs on the opinions of experts in the field. You don't think they are correct. Sounds fine to me.

    PE Trump basis his claim on nothing but irrational belief.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Not at all. as a laymen there are experts that but forward that theory. There are no experts that support the PE belief in millions of illegal aliens voting.

    Not the same at all.
    There are no "experts" that put forward the "theory" that "97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous."

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    It's every bit as irrational as saying that 2 million illegal aliens voted for Clinton. Both assertions are unsupported.

    "97%" is wrong and irrational. It's actually a bald-face lie.

    "Climate change is real"... No schist, Sherlock. It always has been and always will be real. Stating the obvious as if it's novel, is irrational.

    "Man-made"... Some of it is. This number is un-quantifiable. The inference that all climate change is man-made, is, at best, ignorant.

    "Dangerous" is wrong and irrational. Climate change can be beneficial, detrimental or neither.
    Not at all. as a laymen there are experts that but forward that theory. There are no experts that support the PE belief in millions of illegal aliens voting.

    Not the same at all.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X