Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results

[Freewill]

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...

As long as we are considering, lets consider how the left lost their damn minds when Trump refused to say he would accept the election results regardless of what went on. After all that crying and talk about how Trump was going to destroy the country by not accepting the results, I would have to imagine that the upstanding and patriotic left would never consider doing what they claimed would taint this nations elections for the rest of eternity.

So you are a vote to not investigate, stick your head in the sand and let any irregularities go unchecked...

This could be a possible crime which should be investigated independently, no matter if one accepts or rejects the result.. Clinton has accepted the results of the election as they stand...

Whats you problem with and investigation if there is evidence?

Ha, if there is an investigation Hillary will more than likely be the one being taken to the pokey. She isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer but she sure isn't going to start an investigation that would find her guilty.

 

[Freewill]

Well because right here it says he has been talking about the possibility of voting machines being hacked for over a decade.

That's exactly what I said. So did he ever write about this during DumBama's last two elections? If not, then it seems that bringing it up now is agenda driven.

Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.

Define significant margin. Why is it significant to you?

It isn't significant to me considering it is less than the 3 million she won ONE STATE, California, by. Do you really want ONE state deciding who is the president? Of course the answer this election would be yes, but me thinks that would change in others.

 

[imawhosure]

I haven't read this obvious, Alt EUROPEAN thread because they are snowflakes too, but all I can say is------->boo-hoo Euro phonies, lololol! New sheriff in town, and you are SOL-)

Wow, that was mature ... NOT.

What, calling Euro PEE ONS snowflakes? Why? Cowboy seems to be able to comment on our politics, even though he lives 1/2 way round the world. Guess if he can comment on our elections, I can comment on Euro-PEE-ONS.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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...

When Trump said it was rigged....the left went nuts showing that it wasn't.

But Hillary loses....and guess what ?????

 

[Freewill]

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...

When Trump said it was rigged....the left went nuts showing that it wasn't.

But Hillary loses....and guess what ?????

Soros controlled companies controlled a lot of the voting machines.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Agreed, as the results stand today Trump is President... But irregularities in elections should be investigated...

Irregularities could be found but not affect the result.. This should not be a left or right issue but an accuracy issue, put it to bed early. Trump doesn't need to have the legitimacy of his presidency questioned like Obama's was....

I agree lets checks all the states for irregularities. I really doubt the democrats want to.go.down.that path.

Agreed... No problem checking everything...

We don't want the right to worry about voter fraud and the left about computer hacking... Lets get everything correct....

It's over...she lost.

 

[PK1]

Well because right here it says he has been talking about the possibility of voting machines being hacked for over a decade.

That's exactly what I said. So did he ever write about this during DumBama's last two elections? If not, then it seems that bringing it up now is agenda driven.

Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.

Define significant margin. Why is it significant to you?
It isn't significant to me considering it is less than the 3 million she won ONE STATE, California.

Winning the pop vote by over 2 MILLION votes is significant, esp when the election results were a major upset (contrary to 90% of the polls) and the 3 states where E-voting machines showed significant irregularities were predicted to go to Clinton, which would have provided her the 270+ electoral votes.
Yeah, SIGNIFICANT.

 

[xyz]

If there are irregularities, I am all for investigation.

However, I don't see irregularities, just conspiracies by buthurt leftist who lost election.

Again, from your article: "important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation".

Edit: By the way... they are claiming that Michigan votes were remotely rigged by hackers, or Russians, or whoever. I guess no one told these protesters that Michigan uses paper ballots.

That might be sufficient to call for a recount. But don't bury the lead with this Russian Boogeyman hacker bullshit. Maybe these faggots should visit the 'flyover' states before they start diagnosing what the 'problem' is from San Francisco.

They are not claiming that that was done, they are saying it may have been done, and should be investigated.

There were several states which had their voter databases compromised. This was not "conspiracies by buthurt leftist", but actually reported before the election.

Russians hacked two U.S. voter databases, officials say

More state election databases hacked than previously thought

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If there are irregularities, I am all for investigation.

However, I don't see irregularities, just conspiracies by buthurt leftist who lost election.

Again, from your article: "important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation".

Edit: By the way... they are claiming that Michigan votes were remotely rigged by hackers, or Russians, or whoever. I guess no one told these protesters that Michigan uses paper ballots.

That might be sufficient to call for a recount. But don't bury the lead with this Russian Boogeyman hacker bullshit. Maybe these faggots should visit the 'flyover' states before they start diagnosing what the 'problem' is from San Francisco.

They are not claiming that that was done, they are saying it may have been done, and should be investigated.

There were several states which had their voter databases compromised. This was not "conspiracies by buthurt leftist", but actually reported before the election.

Russians hacked two U.S. voter databases, officials say

More state election databases hacked than previously thought

These are databases and not machines.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.

Why, only because Hillary lost? What if she won, would you still be wanting a recount?

We go through this every damn time a Democrat loses; never when a Republican loses, only when the Democrat does.

 

[xyz]

If there are irregularities, I am all for investigation.

However, I don't see irregularities, just conspiracies by buthurt leftist who lost election.

Again, from your article: "important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation".

Edit: By the way... they are claiming that Michigan votes were remotely rigged by hackers, or Russians, or whoever. I guess no one told these protesters that Michigan uses paper ballots.

That might be sufficient to call for a recount. But don't bury the lead with this Russian Boogeyman hacker bullshit. Maybe these faggots should visit the 'flyover' states before they start diagnosing what the 'problem' is from San Francisco.

They are not claiming that that was done, they are saying it may have been done, and should be investigated.

There were several states which had their voter databases compromised. This was not "conspiracies by buthurt leftist", but actually reported before the election.

Russians hacked two U.S. voter databases, officials say

More state election databases hacked than previously thought

These are databases and not machines.

You also did not read the second article.

 

[Fueri]

One of the guys that actually started all of this said this

Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots

"Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don’t believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other"



I've been saying since this started that, seeing as they have no actual evidence and we're basing suppositions on statistical anomalies, that this was more a job for statisticians than computer scientists, as the whole basis was this seeming statistical anomaly.



He also says:

"You may have read at NYMag that I’ve been in discussions with the Clinton campaign about whether it might wish to seek recounts in critical states. Thatarticle, which includes somebody else’s description of my views, incorrectly describes the reasons manually checking ballots is an essential security safeguard (and includes some incorrect numbers, to boot). Let me set the record straight about what I and other leading election security experts have actually been saying to the campaign and everyone else who’s willing to listen."

So, people have also apparently been misrepresenting what he is saying. Given that we are dealing with politicians, this should come as no surprise.




Well, Nate Silver looked at it.

Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Results

In summary, when implementing other variables, this supposed margin vanishes. read the article for further info.



This is nonsense. no proof, no statistically based anything, no evidence of hacking, nothing, ZERO.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You also did not read the second article.

I read it, pretty much the same as the first. They are both talking about voter databases. Now if there were voters removed off the list or some strange ones added, then yes, that would have an effect on the election. But to my knowledge, that wasn't the problem or complaint here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

One of the guys that actually started all of this said this

Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots

"Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don’t believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other"



I've been saying since this started that, seeing as they have no actual evidence and we're basing suppositions on statistical anomalies, that this was more a job for statisticians than computer scientists, as the whole basis was this seeming statistical anomaly.



He also says:

"You may have read at NYMag that I’ve been in discussions with the Clinton campaign about whether it might wish to seek recounts in critical states. Thatarticle, which includes somebody else’s description of my views, incorrectly describes the reasons manually checking ballots is an essential security safeguard (and includes some incorrect numbers, to boot). Let me set the record straight about what I and other leading election security experts have actually been saying to the campaign and everyone else who’s willing to listen."

So, people have also apparently been misrepresenting what he is saying. Given that we are dealing with politicians, this should come as no surprise.




Well, Nate Silver looked at it.

Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Results

In summary, when implementing other variables, this supposed margin vanishes. read the article for further info.



This is nonsense. no proof, no statistically based anything, no evidence of hacking, nothing, ZERO.

Exactly, and we have to go through this every time a Democrat loses the presidency.

 

[xyz]

You also did not read the second article.

I read it, pretty much the same as the first. They are both talking about voter databases. Now if there were voters removed off the list or some strange ones added, then yes, that would have an effect on the election. But to my knowledge, that wasn't the problem or complaint here.

This is from the second article I linked to:

"Theoretically, another type of advanced attack, experts said, would be to target and modify software for voting machines so that it could affect what names are displayed or how votes are counted, though experts believe this would be too tricky to execute.

“You could, in theory, hack into that software and change it so that it would tally something differently. But again, those types of things are really hard to do just in terms of actually doing it, and doing it in an undetected way is much, much more difficult,” said Daniel Castro, vice president at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

Some experts are concerned about states that use touch-screen voting machines that leave no paper trail. Five states are completely paperless: Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey and South Carolina. Nine other states have some counties that use paperless systems: Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. "

More state election databases hacked than previously thoughtMore state election databases hacked than previously thought

dated September 28, 2016, by the way.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

One of the guys that actually started all of this said this

Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots

"Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don’t believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other"



I've been saying since this started that, seeing as they have no actual evidence and we're basing suppositions on statistical anomalies, that this was more a job for statisticians than computer scientists, as the whole basis was this seeming statistical anomaly.



He also says:

"You may have read at NYMag that I’ve been in discussions with the Clinton campaign about whether it might wish to seek recounts in critical states. Thatarticle, which includes somebody else’s description of my views, incorrectly describes the reasons manually checking ballots is an essential security safeguard (and includes some incorrect numbers, to boot). Let me set the record straight about what I and other leading election security experts have actually been saying to the campaign and everyone else who’s willing to listen."

So, people have also apparently been misrepresenting what he is saying. Given that we are dealing with politicians, this should come as no surprise.




Well, Nate Silver looked at it.

Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Results

In summary, when implementing other variables, this supposed margin vanishes. read the article for further info.



This is nonsense. no proof, no statistically based anything, no evidence of hacking, nothing, ZERO.

Exactly, and we have to go through this every time a Democrat loses the presidency.

You'd think the left would be use to losing by now...given the situation with the House, Senate, POTUS, governorships, state legislatures ....

 

[Fueri]

One of the guys that actually started all of this said this

Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots

"Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don’t believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other"



I've been saying since this started that, seeing as they have no actual evidence and we're basing suppositions on statistical anomalies, that this was more a job for statisticians than computer scientists, as the whole basis was this seeming statistical anomaly.



He also says:

"You may have read at NYMag that I’ve been in discussions with the Clinton campaign about whether it might wish to seek recounts in critical states. Thatarticle, which includes somebody else’s description of my views, incorrectly describes the reasons manually checking ballots is an essential security safeguard (and includes some incorrect numbers, to boot). Let me set the record straight about what I and other leading election security experts have actually been saying to the campaign and everyone else who’s willing to listen."

So, people have also apparently been misrepresenting what he is saying. Given that we are dealing with politicians, this should come as no surprise.




Well, Nate Silver looked at it.

Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Results

In summary, when implementing other variables, this supposed margin vanishes. read the article for further info.



This is nonsense. no proof, no statistically based anything, no evidence of hacking, nothing, ZERO.

Exactly, and we have to go through this every time a Democrat loses the presidency.

Yep, the left grabbed this, distorted what the guy said, spun that story out and is now trying to force a recount.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You'd think the left would be use to losing by now...given the situation with the House, Senate, POTUS, governorships, state legislatures ....

They are living on the river of Denial. Yes, the country has been turning more conservative, or at the very least, more Republican. And now that the Republican won the presidency, something must be wrong?

It's been going on for quite some time now. Yes, many people loved DumBama and still do. But it's his personality and not his policies that people loved. Take his policies and put them into a person like Hillary, people hate them.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You'd think the left would be use to losing by now...given the situation with the House, Senate, POTUS, governorships, state legislatures ....

They are living on the river of Denial. Yes, the country has been turning more conservative, or at the very least, more Republican. And now that the Republican won the presidency, something must be wrong?

It's been going on for quite some time now. Yes, many people loved DumBama and still do. But it's his personality and not his policies that people loved. Take his policies and put them into a person like Hillary, people hate them.

Well leftists live in their own little bubble with their head up their asses so it's not a surprise they didn't realize America is sick of their shit

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, the left grabbed this, distorted what the guy said, spun that story out and is now trying to force a recount.

They are trying anything they can to make this election illegitimate.

Liberals live in their own little world. In their world, most people are liberal too. Their friends are liberal, everybody at Starbucks is liberal, most of their family are liberal, everybody at college is liberal, therefore, most of the country must be liberal as well.

Sure there are Republicans, those rich people on their yachts, those in flyover country in the flat red paint pickup truck and gun rack in the back, but those people are anomalies. The US is a liberal country.

So if a Republican wins the presidency, something must be terribly wrong, because most of the country thinks like me.........liberal!