Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
This is from the second article I linked to: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.
"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.
But what really pisses you guys off is that people are saying "let's look at it, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but let's check the facts".
You are scared of facts.
If Trump had lost, there would be thousands of rabid dogs, posting fake articles, screaming "fraud" and "rigged elections". "lock her up" and so on.
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.Define significant margin. Why is it significant to you?Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.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.Well because right here it says he has been talking about the possibility of voting machines being hacked for over a decade.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.
It isn't significant to me considering it is less than the 3 million she won ONE STATE, California.
Yeah, SIGNIFICANT.
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.Define significant margin. Why is it significant to you?Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.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.Well because right here it says he has been talking about the possibility of voting machines being hacked for over a decade.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.
It isn't significant to me considering it is less than the 3 million she won ONE STATE, California.
Yeah, SIGNIFICANT.
But what really pisses you guys off is that people are saying "let's look at it, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but let's check the facts".
You are scared of facts.
If Trump had lost, there would be thousands of rabid dogs, posting fake articles, screaming "fraud" and "rigged elections". "lock her up" and so on.
YES! Regardless of who really won the POTUS election, we should investigate the validity of electronic voting machines AND the databases they link to. Our democracy depends on it.Why, only because Hillary lost? What if she won, would you still be wanting a recount?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.
YES! Regardless of who really won the POTUS election, we should investigate the validity of electronic voting machines AND the databases they link to. Our democracy depends on it.Why, only because Hillary lost? What if she won, would you still be wanting a recount?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.
In this modern era of Internet hacking supported by nation states (USA/NSA, Russia, China, North Korea, etc), it is vital that we scrutinize the cleanliness of our IT systems to preserve our national integrity & democratic freedoms.
What "cheating" facts are you referring to? Or, are you pulling that out of your ass?I believe there were 130 million votes or there about, 2 million would be about 1 percent that certainly could account for Hillary's cheating, not Trump's. Trump didn't have the organization nor the establishments support to be able to rig the election on such a scale, very unlike the democrats.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.Define significant margin. Why is it significant to you?Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.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.Well because right here it says he has been talking about the possibility of voting machines being hacked for over a decade.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.
It isn't significant to me considering it is less than the 3 million she won ONE STATE, California.
Yeah, SIGNIFICANT.
Unless the "Cal-exit" initiative is successful, ALL votes from USA citizens count. Trump himself believes in that "America first" democracy.Again, not significant because that difference is ONE state. Trump won the popular vote in 49 states combined. Hillary won 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.Define significant margin. Why is it significant to you?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.
It isn't significant to me considering it is less than the 3 million she won ONE STATE, California.
Yeah, SIGNIFICANT.
???Then why have them at all?YES! Regardless of who really won the POTUS election, we should investigate the validity of electronic voting machines AND the databases they link to. Our democracy depends on it.Why, only because Hillary lost? What if she won, would you still be wanting a recount?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.
In this modern era of Internet hacking supported by nation states (USA/NSA, Russia, China, North Korea, etc), it is vital that we scrutinize the cleanliness of our IT systems to preserve our national integrity & democratic freedoms.
HAAAAA HAAAAAAA!!!!!!!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...
You KNOW you're reading a post from a fucking LIB idiot when you read the words: "people are saying".But what really pisses you guys off is that people are saying "let's look at it, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but let's check the facts".
You are scared of facts.
If Trump had lost, there would be thousands of rabid dogs, posting fake articles, screaming "fraud" and "rigged elections". "lock her up" and so on.
???Then why have them at all?YES! Regardless of who really won the POTUS election, we should investigate the validity of electronic voting machines AND the databases they link to. Our democracy depends on it.Why, only because Hillary lost? What if she won, would you still be wanting a recount?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.
In this modern era of Internet hacking supported by nation states (USA/NSA, Russia, China, North Korea, etc), it is vital that we scrutinize the cleanliness of our IT systems to preserve our national integrity & democratic freedoms.
The Dems counted the gubernatorial race here three times until the numbers came up right.???Then why have them at all?YES! Regardless of who really won the POTUS election, we should investigate the validity of electronic voting machines AND the databases they link to. Our democracy depends on it.Why, only because Hillary lost? What if she won, would you still be wanting a recount?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.
In this modern era of Internet hacking supported by nation states (USA/NSA, Russia, China, North Korea, etc), it is vital that we scrutinize the cleanliness of our IT systems to preserve our national integrity & democratic freedoms.
What's the question marks for? If we don't trust these machines and have to do a manual recount every time a Democrat loses, then don't use the machines at all. Hand count all ballots. It will take us a few months to find out who won, but what the hell, as long as leftists are happy, right?
What "cheating" facts are you referring to? Or, are you pulling that out of your ass?I believe there were 130 million votes or there about, 2 million would be about 1 percent that certainly could account for Hillary's cheating, not Trump's. Trump didn't have the organization nor the establishments support to be able to rig the election on such a scale, very unlike the democrats.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.Define significant margin. Why is it significant to you?Perhaps it is agenda driven, but it still an important issue going forward to future electronic voting elections.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.
Since Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin, this is a good time to validate these e-machines.
It isn't significant to me considering it is less than the 3 million she won ONE STATE, California.
Yeah, SIGNIFICANT.
Trump does not need the technical know how to cheat; he has the Russians to thank for that.
Cyber security experts and US intelligence agencies pointed to Russian actors for DNC hacking as well as other breaches.
Why are you biased on this election integrity issue? No want fairness?What's the question marks for? If we don't trust these machines and have to do a manual recount every time a Democrat loses, then don't use the machines at all. Hand count all ballots. It will take us a few months to find out who won, but what the hell, as long as leftists are happy, right????Then why have them at all?YES! Regardless of who really won the POTUS election, we should investigate the validity of electronic voting machines AND the databases they link to. Our democracy depends on it.Why, only because Hillary lost? What if she won, would you still be wanting a recount?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.
In this modern era of Internet hacking supported by nation states (USA/NSA, Russia, China, North Korea, etc), it is vital that we scrutinize the cleanliness of our IT systems to preserve our national integrity & democratic freedoms.
Why are you biased on this election integrity issue? No want fairness?
Since we already used these electronic voting machines, we need to validate their integrity.
If they cannot be secured, then you are right; we should not use them in the future.
You'd think if these Michigan scientist were legit... and since they are in... MICHIGAN, they would know if Michigan used any electronic voting.
