Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results

[TheOldSchool]

Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results - CNNPolitics.com

This isn't a crackpot story, multiple sources and the basis is science...

Considering the numerous hacking going on before hand this should be investigated.. Considering Comey practically tried to gift wrap the Election to Trump for Emails which Trump now admits aren't even worth investigating any more...

The current rules are what they are. We should have changed them while we had the chance, after having survived the disaster that was the Bush administration, but we didn't.

Now we need to play our cards right over the next 4 years, and abolish the electoral college when we get the chance. The overwhelming majority of the country is on our side. We mustn't forget that.

That's because the majority of Americans are idiots (the election of Obama twice is exhibit A). Using a majority popular vote to determine the POTUS is the worst thing we could do. Anyone who stayed awake in an Elementary government or politics class knows that.

It would have spared us the Dubya disaster and would have spared us the next 4 years and possibly the end of the republic

Thanks for volunteering yourself as an example of the stupidity I was talking about.

You think voting to save the nation is stupid? Well, you did vote to end it, so I guess there's no point in asking.

 

[longknife]

THREE WHACKO IT SPECIALISTS are the only ones calling for this. But you butthurt Libtards and others are trying to turn this into a big deal.

It's over. Get a life!

Three whacko IT specialist? Try a professor at Michigan University and two guys from Princeton University. They've been calling for the government to look into the voting machines for over a decade. This didn't just start this year with this election. Jesus Christ you Trump supporters are fucking numb nuts.

THREE COLLEGE PROFESSORS who have to teach because they can't actually make a living in the real world.

That's exactly the type you Libtards live and die by.

WTF are you talking about? You have to have college professors so people can learn how to do something... are you a freaking moron?

If you don;t understand what I wrote, you are a perfect example of what I wrote. Can't do - teach!

Yeah... if they can't do, they teach at prestigious schools. Makes perfect sense! You are the perfect example of a Trump supporter. Too ignorant to understand the world around you.

Typical Libtard reply. Attack and call names.

 

[Lewdog]

Three whacko IT specialist? Try a professor at Michigan University and two guys from Princeton University. They've been calling for the government to look into the voting machines for over a decade. This didn't just start this year with this election. Jesus Christ you Trump supporters are fucking numb nuts.

THREE COLLEGE PROFESSORS who have to teach because they can't actually make a living in the real world.

That's exactly the type you Libtards live and die by.

WTF are you talking about? You have to have college professors so people can learn how to do something... are you a freaking moron?

If you don;t understand what I wrote, you are a perfect example of what I wrote. Can't do - teach!

Yeah... if they can't do, they teach at prestigious schools. Makes perfect sense! You are the perfect example of a Trump supporter. Too ignorant to understand the world around you.

Typical Libtard reply. Attack and call names.

Yep, you caught me. Unlike all the Trump supporters that are polite and offer you a hot beverage.

 

[Pop23]

Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results - CNNPolitics.com

This isn't a crackpot story, multiple sources and the basis is science...

Considering the numerous hacking going on before hand this should be investigated.. Considering Comey practically tried to gift wrap the Election to Trump for Emails which Trump now admits aren't even worth investigating any more...

The current rules are what they are. We should have changed them while we had the chance, after having survived the disaster that was the Bush administration, but we didn't.

Now we need to play our cards right over the next 4 years, and abolish the electoral college when we get the chance. The overwhelming majority of the country is on our side. We mustn't forget that.

That's because the majority of Americans are idiots (the election of Obama twice is exhibit A). Using a majority popular vote to determine the POTUS is the worst thing we could do. Anyone who stayed awake in an Elementary government or politics class knows that.

It would have spared us the Dubya disaster and would have spared us the next 4 years and possibly the end of the republic

Thanks for volunteering yourself as an example of the stupidity I was talking about.

You think voting to save the nation is stupid? Well, you did vote to end it, so I guess there's no point in asking.

Gay illegal aliens are going to save the nation?

How?

 

[longknife]

This thread has become too ridiculous to continue following.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The current rules are what they are. We should have changed them while we had the chance, after having survived the disaster that was the Bush administration, but we didn't.

Now we need to play our cards right over the next 4 years, and abolish the electoral college when we get the chance. The overwhelming majority of the country is on our side. We mustn't forget that.

That's because the majority of Americans are idiots (the election of Obama twice is exhibit A). Using a majority popular vote to determine the POTUS is the worst thing we could do. Anyone who stayed awake in an Elementary government or politics class knows that.

It would have spared us the Dubya disaster and would have spared us the next 4 years and possibly the end of the republic

Thanks for volunteering yourself as an example of the stupidity I was talking about.

You think voting to save the nation is stupid? Well, you did vote to end it, so I guess there's no point in asking.

Gay illegal aliens are going to save the nation?

How?

People who believe in the promise of this nation are going to save it. Not the ones who want to take us down the road of 1930's Germany.

 

[Ame®icano]

Wait, you just said that you have all these credentials, and that you went to the university of Michigan... but won't take this opportunity to challenge him? You hate that place so much, then why don't you prove him wrong???

Here let me draft an email you can send him:

"Dear Professor Halderman,

I am a fellow Wolverine Alum, class of (Insert Year) and I saw you wrote an article that said that Hillary Clinton should challenge the election results in WI, MI, and PA. You wrote a detailed report on problems could have arisen to cause the machines to give incorrect results. One of your explanations is that malware could have been attached to voting ballot files downloaded from computers attached to the internet and then transferred to the voting machines via an external memory card. Once in the machine you said that the malrware can do its work then erase and delete itself, leaving no trace it was ever there. I think you are full of shit and know more than you do. There is ALWAYS a trace unless someone runs another specific program afterwards to erase it. Please explain to me why someone teaching college Computer Science can make a statement like your's when I know you are wrong.

Sincerely,
(Insert Name Here)"

You leftists sure like to tell people what to do. You see, I don't have to prove him wrong, because he knows for sure that he's wrong. He said it himself that is "important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation", and that tells me that he's another leftist political hack and with people like that there is really no conversation. You are, in fact, the very same people, and I've been patiently trying to explain to you from one post to another where you're wrong and why, but you reject all of it regardless of credentials, just because it's coming from opposite side, and without even thinking, your position is as it is because it's coming from professor who is saying what you want to hear. In addition, you're defending his positions without knowing if he's right or wrong, and use it as a base to discredit everyone else by throwing in occasional insult...

You see, that attitude is very same reason why you leftist turn the people against you and lost the elections.

P.S. Nowhere I said that I know more then he does, so stop putting words in my mouth. What I did say is that, on that subject he's wrong, and he's using people who knows nothing on the subject (such as yourself) to manipulate them into believing in his words just because he's a professor.

I'm pretty much done explaining, so this is probably my last post on this thread, unless you dare to put the words in my mouth again or provoke me in some other way.

 

[Lewdog]

Wait, you just said that you have all these credentials, and that you went to the university of Michigan... but won't take this opportunity to challenge him? You hate that place so much, then why don't you prove him wrong???

Here let me draft an email you can send him:

"Dear Professor Halderman,

I am a fellow Wolverine Alum, class of (Insert Year) and I saw you wrote an article that said that Hillary Clinton should challenge the election results in WI, MI, and PA. You wrote a detailed report on problems could have arisen to cause the machines to give incorrect results. One of your explanations is that malware could have been attached to voting ballot files downloaded from computers attached to the internet and then transferred to the voting machines via an external memory card. Once in the machine you said that the malrware can do its work then erase and delete itself, leaving no trace it was ever there. I think you are full of shit and know more than you do. There is ALWAYS a trace unless someone runs another specific program afterwards to erase it. Please explain to me why someone teaching college Computer Science can make a statement like your's when I know you are wrong.

Sincerely,
(Insert Name Here)"

You leftists sure like to tell people what to do. You see, I don't have to prove him wrong, because he knows for sure that he's wrong. He said it himself that is "important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation", and that tells me that he's another leftist political hack and with people like that there is really no conversation. You are, in fact, the very same people, and I've been patiently trying to explain to you from one post to another where you're wrong and why, but you reject all of it regardless of credentials, just because it's coming from opposite side, and without even thinking, your position is as it is because it's coming from professor who is saying what you want to hear. In addition, you're defending his positions without knowing if he's right or wrong, and use it as a base to discredit everyone else by throwing in occasional insult...

You see, that attitude is very same reason why you leftist turn the people against you and lost the elections.

P.S. Nowhere I said that I know more then he does, so stop putting words in my mouth. What I did say is that, on that subject he's wrong, and he's using people who knows nothing on the subject (such as yourself) to manipulate them into believing in his words just because he's a professor.

I'm pretty much done explaining, so this is probably my last post on this thread, unless you dare to put the words in my mouth again or provoke me in some other way.

You said he was wrong. So for you to say he is wrong... then you obviously mean you know more than he does. Period. Write him and find out why he says something can happen that you say CAN'T happen.

The only thing you have pointed out in this thread is that HE is wrong. Prove it. You just saying it proves nothing. Pretty funny that this article and his letter has been out for a few days now... and not a single article has popped up saying that malware can't erase itself without leaving a trace, but you continue to say that can't happen. PROVE IT.

As the old people say..."Put up, or shut up."

 

[Ame®icano]

Wait, you just said that you have all these credentials, and that you went to the university of Michigan... but won't take this opportunity to challenge him? You hate that place so much, then why don't you prove him wrong???

Here let me draft an email you can send him:

"Dear Professor Halderman,

I am a fellow Wolverine Alum, class of (Insert Year) and I saw you wrote an article that said that Hillary Clinton should challenge the election results in WI, MI, and PA. You wrote a detailed report on problems could have arisen to cause the machines to give incorrect results. One of your explanations is that malware could have been attached to voting ballot files downloaded from computers attached to the internet and then transferred to the voting machines via an external memory card. Once in the machine you said that the malrware can do its work then erase and delete itself, leaving no trace it was ever there. I think you are full of shit and know more than you do. There is ALWAYS a trace unless someone runs another specific program afterwards to erase it. Please explain to me why someone teaching college Computer Science can make a statement like your's when I know you are wrong.

Sincerely,
(Insert Name Here)"

You leftists sure like to tell people what to do. You see, I don't have to prove him wrong, because he knows for sure that he's wrong. He said it himself that is "important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation", and that tells me that he's another leftist political hack and with people like that there is really no conversation. You are, in fact, the very same people, and I've been patiently trying to explain to you from one post to another where you're wrong and why, but you reject all of it regardless of credentials, just because it's coming from opposite side, and without even thinking, your position is as it is because it's coming from professor who is saying what you want to hear. In addition, you're defending his positions without knowing if he's right or wrong, and use it as a base to discredit everyone else by throwing in occasional insult...

You see, that attitude is very same reason why you leftist turn the people against you and lost the elections.

P.S. Nowhere I said that I know more then he does, so stop putting words in my mouth. What I did say is that, on that subject he's wrong, and he's using people who knows nothing on the subject (such as yourself) to manipulate them into believing in his words just because he's a professor.

I'm pretty much done explaining, so this is probably my last post on this thread, unless you dare to put the words in my mouth again or provoke me in some other way.

You said he was wrong. So for you to say he is wrong... then you obviously mean you know more than he does. Period. Write him and find out why he says something can happen that you say CAN'T happen.

The only thing you have pointed out in this thread is that HE is wrong. Prove it. You just saying it proves nothing. Pretty funny that this article and his letter has been out for a few days now... and not a single article has popped up saying that malware can't erase itself without leaving a trace, but you continue to say that can't happen. PROVE IT.

As the old people say..."Put up, or shut up."

Give me your IP and we'll talk.

 

[Lewdog]

Wait, you just said that you have all these credentials, and that you went to the university of Michigan... but won't take this opportunity to challenge him? You hate that place so much, then why don't you prove him wrong???

Here let me draft an email you can send him:

"Dear Professor Halderman,

I am a fellow Wolverine Alum, class of (Insert Year) and I saw you wrote an article that said that Hillary Clinton should challenge the election results in WI, MI, and PA. You wrote a detailed report on problems could have arisen to cause the machines to give incorrect results. One of your explanations is that malware could have been attached to voting ballot files downloaded from computers attached to the internet and then transferred to the voting machines via an external memory card. Once in the machine you said that the malrware can do its work then erase and delete itself, leaving no trace it was ever there. I think you are full of shit and know more than you do. There is ALWAYS a trace unless someone runs another specific program afterwards to erase it. Please explain to me why someone teaching college Computer Science can make a statement like your's when I know you are wrong.

Sincerely,
(Insert Name Here)"

You leftists sure like to tell people what to do. You see, I don't have to prove him wrong, because he knows for sure that he's wrong. He said it himself that is "important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation", and that tells me that he's another leftist political hack and with people like that there is really no conversation. You are, in fact, the very same people, and I've been patiently trying to explain to you from one post to another where you're wrong and why, but you reject all of it regardless of credentials, just because it's coming from opposite side, and without even thinking, your position is as it is because it's coming from professor who is saying what you want to hear. In addition, you're defending his positions without knowing if he's right or wrong, and use it as a base to discredit everyone else by throwing in occasional insult...

You see, that attitude is very same reason why you leftist turn the people against you and lost the elections.

P.S. Nowhere I said that I know more then he does, so stop putting words in my mouth. What I did say is that, on that subject he's wrong, and he's using people who knows nothing on the subject (such as yourself) to manipulate them into believing in his words just because he's a professor.

I'm pretty much done explaining, so this is probably my last post on this thread, unless you dare to put the words in my mouth again or provoke me in some other way.

You said he was wrong. So for you to say he is wrong... then you obviously mean you know more than he does. Period. Write him and find out why he says something can happen that you say CAN'T happen.

The only thing you have pointed out in this thread is that HE is wrong. Prove it. You just saying it proves nothing. Pretty funny that this article and his letter has been out for a few days now... and not a single article has popped up saying that malware can't erase itself without leaving a trace, but you continue to say that can't happen. PROVE IT.

As the old people say..."Put up, or shut up."

Give me your IP and we'll talk.

Threatening to hack me... good job.

 

[Ame®icano]

Wait, you just said that you have all these credentials, and that you went to the university of Michigan... but won't take this opportunity to challenge him? You hate that place so much, then why don't you prove him wrong???

Here let me draft an email you can send him:

"Dear Professor Halderman,

I am a fellow Wolverine Alum, class of (Insert Year) and I saw you wrote an article that said that Hillary Clinton should challenge the election results in WI, MI, and PA. You wrote a detailed report on problems could have arisen to cause the machines to give incorrect results. One of your explanations is that malware could have been attached to voting ballot files downloaded from computers attached to the internet and then transferred to the voting machines via an external memory card. Once in the machine you said that the malrware can do its work then erase and delete itself, leaving no trace it was ever there. I think you are full of shit and know more than you do. There is ALWAYS a trace unless someone runs another specific program afterwards to erase it. Please explain to me why someone teaching college Computer Science can make a statement like your's when I know you are wrong.

Sincerely,
(Insert Name Here)"

You leftists sure like to tell people what to do. You see, I don't have to prove him wrong, because he knows for sure that he's wrong. He said it himself that is "important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation", and that tells me that he's another leftist political hack and with people like that there is really no conversation. You are, in fact, the very same people, and I've been patiently trying to explain to you from one post to another where you're wrong and why, but you reject all of it regardless of credentials, just because it's coming from opposite side, and without even thinking, your position is as it is because it's coming from professor who is saying what you want to hear. In addition, you're defending his positions without knowing if he's right or wrong, and use it as a base to discredit everyone else by throwing in occasional insult...

You see, that attitude is very same reason why you leftist turn the people against you and lost the elections.

P.S. Nowhere I said that I know more then he does, so stop putting words in my mouth. What I did say is that, on that subject he's wrong, and he's using people who knows nothing on the subject (such as yourself) to manipulate them into believing in his words just because he's a professor.

I'm pretty much done explaining, so this is probably my last post on this thread, unless you dare to put the words in my mouth again or provoke me in some other way.

You said he was wrong. So for you to say he is wrong... then you obviously mean you know more than he does. Period. Write him and find out why he says something can happen that you say CAN'T happen.

The only thing you have pointed out in this thread is that HE is wrong. Prove it. You just saying it proves nothing. Pretty funny that this article and his letter has been out for a few days now... and not a single article has popped up saying that malware can't erase itself without leaving a trace, but you continue to say that can't happen. PROVE IT.

As the old people say..."Put up, or shut up."

Give me your IP and we'll talk.

Threatening to hack me... good job.

Threat? Nope, I just asked for your IP. I'll attempt to leave something on it and ask you to find it. Up for a challenge?

 

[Lewdog]

Wait, you just said that you have all these credentials, and that you went to the university of Michigan... but won't take this opportunity to challenge him? You hate that place so much, then why don't you prove him wrong???

Here let me draft an email you can send him:

"Dear Professor Halderman,

I am a fellow Wolverine Alum, class of (Insert Year) and I saw you wrote an article that said that Hillary Clinton should challenge the election results in WI, MI, and PA. You wrote a detailed report on problems could have arisen to cause the machines to give incorrect results. One of your explanations is that malware could have been attached to voting ballot files downloaded from computers attached to the internet and then transferred to the voting machines via an external memory card. Once in the machine you said that the malrware can do its work then erase and delete itself, leaving no trace it was ever there. I think you are full of shit and know more than you do. There is ALWAYS a trace unless someone runs another specific program afterwards to erase it. Please explain to me why someone teaching college Computer Science can make a statement like your's when I know you are wrong.

Sincerely,
(Insert Name Here)"

You leftists sure like to tell people what to do. You see, I don't have to prove him wrong, because he knows for sure that he's wrong. He said it himself that is "important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation", and that tells me that he's another leftist political hack and with people like that there is really no conversation. You are, in fact, the very same people, and I've been patiently trying to explain to you from one post to another where you're wrong and why, but you reject all of it regardless of credentials, just because it's coming from opposite side, and without even thinking, your position is as it is because it's coming from professor who is saying what you want to hear. In addition, you're defending his positions without knowing if he's right or wrong, and use it as a base to discredit everyone else by throwing in occasional insult...

You see, that attitude is very same reason why you leftist turn the people against you and lost the elections.

P.S. Nowhere I said that I know more then he does, so stop putting words in my mouth. What I did say is that, on that subject he's wrong, and he's using people who knows nothing on the subject (such as yourself) to manipulate them into believing in his words just because he's a professor.

I'm pretty much done explaining, so this is probably my last post on this thread, unless you dare to put the words in my mouth again or provoke me in some other way.

You said he was wrong. So for you to say he is wrong... then you obviously mean you know more than he does. Period. Write him and find out why he says something can happen that you say CAN'T happen.

The only thing you have pointed out in this thread is that HE is wrong. Prove it. You just saying it proves nothing. Pretty funny that this article and his letter has been out for a few days now... and not a single article has popped up saying that malware can't erase itself without leaving a trace, but you continue to say that can't happen. PROVE IT.

As the old people say..."Put up, or shut up."

Give me your IP and we'll talk.

Threatening to hack me... good job.

Threat? Nope, I just asked for your IP.

Looks like I struck a nerve. You claim to know more about malware than a professor at Michigan and two professors at Princeton. You use your opinion as your "proof." You graduated from Michigan so you have an "in" to send the professor an email to get his explanation to something you say he can't do. Instead you get mad and threaten to hack me. Good job.

 

[Ame®icano]

Looks like I struck a nerve. You claim to know more about malware than a professor at Michigan and two professors at Princeton. You use your opinion as your "proof." You graduated from Michigan so you have an "in" to send the professor an email to get his explanation to something you say he can't do. Instead you get mad and threaten to hack me. Good job.

There you go, you're lying again. That's only think that bothers me. In just one post, you did what typical leftist does on normal bases. Lies.

Lie one: I haven't say I know more about malware, or in fact about anything than those guys. I don't even know what they know, except that professor is teaching about system security.
Lie two: I don't use opinion as a proof. I was being polite when I said he's wrong, I should have said he is lying to the public, since everything that is written to the hard drives always leave the trace. No exception.
Lie three: Did not threatened to hack you. I asked you for IP, it's completely up to you if you're going to do it or not.

There is no point talking to liars. I'm done here.

 

[Lewdog]

Looks like I struck a nerve. You claim to know more about malware than a professor at Michigan and two professors at Princeton. You use your opinion as your "proof." You graduated from Michigan so you have an "in" to send the professor an email to get his explanation to something you say he can't do. Instead you get mad and threaten to hack me. Good job.

There you go, you're lying again. That's only think that bothers me. In just one post, you did what typical leftist does on normal bases. Lies.

Lie one: I haven't say I know more about malware, or in fact about anything than those guys. I don't even know what they know, except that professor is teaching about system security.
Lie two: I don't use opinion as a proof. I was being polite when I said he's wrong, I should have said he is lying to the public, since everything that is written to the hard drives always leave the trace. No exception.
Lie three: Did not threatened to hack you. I asked you for IP, it's completely up to you if you're going to do it or not.

1. He posted an article stating how they successfully hacked a voting machine, and how it can be done remotely even though the voting machines are not connected to the internet. So you do know what he is saying.

2. You are saying that you know he is wrong, despite the fact he says it can be done. Thus, you are saying you know something he doesn't.

3. You don't ask for someone's IP unless you plan to hack them. Why don't you ask for my Skype ID to make a call? Then you can scan my computer and get the IP for yourself and then hack me? Seriously. I reported you for threatening to hack me. You don't like what I have to say, you could either not answer, or you could put me on ignore. threatening to hack me? Yeah that makes you worse than anything you can say about a Liberal.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Results
Libs go to source for Clinton landslide calls bs

 

[Pop23]

That's because the majority of Americans are idiots (the election of Obama twice is exhibit A). Using a majority popular vote to determine the POTUS is the worst thing we could do. Anyone who stayed awake in an Elementary government or politics class knows that.

It would have spared us the Dubya disaster and would have spared us the next 4 years and possibly the end of the republic

Thanks for volunteering yourself as an example of the stupidity I was talking about.

You think voting to save the nation is stupid? Well, you did vote to end it, so I guess there's no point in asking.

Gay illegal aliens are going to save the nation?

How?

People who believe in the promise of this nation are going to save it. Not the ones who want to take us down the road of 1930's Germany.

And those be gay illegal aliens?

Do tell

 

[Lewdog]

I got Professor Halderman's email off of the University of Michigan's website and sent him a message. I doubt he'll answer because I'm not a student there and I'm sure he is busy... but if he does I'll share the answer.

 

[Pop23]

Looks like I struck a nerve. You claim to know more about malware than a professor at Michigan and two professors at Princeton. You use your opinion as your "proof." You graduated from Michigan so you have an "in" to send the professor an email to get his explanation to something you say he can't do. Instead you get mad and threaten to hack me. Good job.

There you go, you're lying again. That's only think that bothers me. In just one post, you did what typical leftist does on normal bases. Lies.

Lie one: I haven't say I know more about malware, or in fact about anything than those guys. I don't even know what they know, except that professor is teaching about system security.
Lie two: I don't use opinion as a proof. I was being polite when I said he's wrong, I should have said he is lying to the public, since everything that is written to the hard drives always leave the trace. No exception.
Lie three: Did not threatened to hack you. I asked you for IP, it's completely up to you if you're going to do it or not.

1. He posted an article stating how they successfully hacked a voting machine, and how it can be done remotely even though the voting machines are not connected to the internet. So you do know what he is saying.

2. You are saying that you know he is wrong, despite the fact he says it can be done. Thus, you are saying you know something he doesn't.

3. You don't ask for someone's IP unless you plan to hack them. Why don't you ask for my Skype ID to make a call? Then you can scan my computer and get the IP for yourself and then hack me? Seriously. I reported you for threatening to hack me. You don't like what I have to say, you could either not answer, or you could put me on ignore. threatening to hack me? Yeah that makes you worse than anything you can say about a Liberal.

Then you check the machine for evidence of the hack. You don't recount.

You're recounting what? Votes? How? If it's hacked it can't be trusted in the first place.

 

[Lewdog]

Looks like I struck a nerve. You claim to know more about malware than a professor at Michigan and two professors at Princeton. You use your opinion as your "proof." You graduated from Michigan so you have an "in" to send the professor an email to get his explanation to something you say he can't do. Instead you get mad and threaten to hack me. Good job.

There you go, you're lying again. That's only think that bothers me. In just one post, you did what typical leftist does on normal bases. Lies.

Lie one: I haven't say I know more about malware, or in fact about anything than those guys. I don't even know what they know, except that professor is teaching about system security.
Lie two: I don't use opinion as a proof. I was being polite when I said he's wrong, I should have said he is lying to the public, since everything that is written to the hard drives always leave the trace. No exception.
Lie three: Did not threatened to hack you. I asked you for IP, it's completely up to you if you're going to do it or not.

1. He posted an article stating how they successfully hacked a voting machine, and how it can be done remotely even though the voting machines are not connected to the internet. So you do know what he is saying.

2. You are saying that you know he is wrong, despite the fact he says it can be done. Thus, you are saying you know something he doesn't.

3. You don't ask for someone's IP unless you plan to hack them. Why don't you ask for my Skype ID to make a call? Then you can scan my computer and get the IP for yourself and then hack me? Seriously. I reported you for threatening to hack me. You don't like what I have to say, you could either not answer, or you could put me on ignore. threatening to hack me? Yeah that makes you worse than anything you can say about a Liberal.

Then you check the machine for evidence of the hack. You don't recount.

You're recounting what? Votes? How? If it's hacked it can't be trusted in the first place.

That's not how the hack works. It prints out the votes as they are cast correctly, and only adjust the vote totals at the end. The article says that the malware that performs this deletes itself and doesn't leave a trace. Americano says that is impossible. That's one of the questions I asked in the email, along with how hackers could know how a machine works and what programs run on the machine to know beforehand how to write the malware to work with it.

 

[Ame®icano]

1. He posted an article stating how they successfully hacked a voting machine, and how it can be done remotely even though the voting machines are not connected to the internet. So you do know what he is saying.

2. You are saying that you know he is wrong, despite the fact he says it can be done. Thus, you are saying you know something he doesn't.

3. You don't ask for someone's IP unless you plan to hack them. Why don't you ask for my Skype ID to make a call? Then you can scan my computer and get the IP for yourself and then hack me? Seriously. I reported you for threatening to hack me. You don't like what I have to say, you could either not answer, or you could put me on ignore. threatening to hack me? Yeah that makes you worse than anything you can say about a Liberal.

Sure, he hacked voting machine. He had access to machine and it's software, I have no doubt he had plenty time to prepare the hack. Wait, but Russians...

Yes, I am saying that he's wrong, but not about possibility of hacking. You're still lying. If you had longer attention span than a gold fish, you would notice that I was referring to his claim the hack wouldn't leave the trace and that is false. Given that for removing every trace specialty tools/programs have to be used and for that you have to have full access to the hardware and software, which I don't think can happen.

You don't? You are making assumptions that my intent is to "hack" you. You're also making an assumption that I can't do the same thru the Skype. You're imagining things. Scratch that... you're lying, again. Pathetic prick.

Now, quote exactly the post where I "threatened" to hack you. A quote, not your interpretation of the post.