Hacking?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2016, 03:47 PM
RE: Hacked results?
(26-11-2016 02:32 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(26-11-2016 02:17 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  They said they'd do this if Clinton won on Election Day.

I do believe it should be investigated. If someone on either side tampered with results it's just wrong. To say it's ok just because "your side won" is myopic.

It might come back that some county officials did change or alter results, perhaps not enough to change the overall election results, but don't the people have the right to know their votes were tampered with?

If Clinton had won, in some oddball state like Arizona or Utah, wouldn't you be calling foul and want to know what happened? Even if it's not enough to change the overall result?

I am fine with recounts. The fear is what has happened to the ballots and machines in the last two weeks? Were they under lock and key with multiple security guards watching? Or were they moved to a warehouse where election officials have unwatched access to them?

Recounts and verification should have started IMMEDIATELY after the initial call. Not after two weeks after poll watchers have gone home.

If a radically different result comes from a recount, no Trump supporter would believe something wasn't tampered with in the last two weeks. They will think the election was stolen. That democracy is dead.

And there is only one way to fix a dead democracy.

Half the country already is afraid democracy is dead.

You're right the states would have to show there wasn't unfettered access to voting machines after the election. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania both seem to think they can prove there isn't.

Like I said before 2016 has been a very stange year and it's not finished.

I believe it's likely that the votes won't change by enough, but it would ease the minds of voters next time.

How can you be satisfied with a system that could be allowed to change a vote by anyone? I guess as long as someone you "like" does the changing it's fine? I wouldn't stand for it in my state.

What does it say about our democracy if some elected official can just change votes?

Trump's win was hardly a landslide victory -- same would be said Clinton had won as well. If the same states had contested a Clinton victory even weeks later, I'd support them.

Sometimes time is needed to carefully look at results.

Even if it doesn't change the overall outcome.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
26-11-2016, 03:49 PM
RE: Hacked results?
(26-11-2016 02:43 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  
(26-11-2016 02:32 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  And there is only one way to fix a dead democracy.
Your tendency towards violent rhetoric is frightening.

(26-11-2016 02:09 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  2016 is a very strange year, Jill Stein is raising money for recount of Wisconsin, Michigan and somewhere else. Florida?

What if the recount (provided it does happen) does yeild a different result?

According to the popular vote Clinton is ahead by 2 million votes -- usually when a popular candidtiate doesn't get the electoral votes the margin is far closer.

And WI has already admitted to at least 4900 imaginary Trump votes, before the recount has begun (and about 200 for Clinton). I doubt it will change the state's electoral standing by the time all is said and done, but it's quite disheartening.

It's weird isn't it? I'm telling you 2016 as a year is getting a very low score from me.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
26-11-2016, 03:54 PM
RE: Hacked results?
(26-11-2016 03:49 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(26-11-2016 02:43 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Your tendency towards violent rhetoric is frightening.


And WI has already admitted to at least 4900 imaginary Trump votes, before the recount has begun (and about 200 for Clinton). I doubt it will change the state's electoral standing by the time all is said and done, but it's quite disheartening.

It's weird isn't it? I'm telling you 2016 as a year is getting a very low score from me.

It's the year that keeps on taking. Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like pablo's post
26-11-2016, 04:37 PM
RE: Hacked results?
(26-11-2016 10:23 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  The irony comes from the fact that Hillary trusted the system, condemned him for whining about it for 18 months and now she might benefit from it being rigged. Though she isn't the one pushing the recount, she could benefit from a flawed system she supported.

Right I see what you're saying, but you're not using the word irony correctly. It's one of the most misused words in the English language. It means an outcome that defies expectations - it doesn't mean an outcome where the expectations have been redistributed among the stakeholders of the situation which is what you're using it to mean.

There's actually no question that people expect the US electoral system can be hacked - there are papers written about it, and it's used as a justification by Australia and other nations not to move to large-scale electronic voting.

I can give more examples - let's say you're babysitting your nephews and it's a hot summer's day, and you buy them all ice creams, and then they all say to you they hate ice cream! That would be ironic.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2016, 05:00 PM
RE: Hacked results?
(26-11-2016 04:37 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
(26-11-2016 10:23 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  The irony comes from the fact that Hillary trusted the system, condemned him for whining about it for 18 months and now she might benefit from it being rigged. Though she isn't the one pushing the recount, she could benefit from a flawed system she supported.

Right I see what you're saying, but you're not using the word irony correctly. It's one of the most misused words in the English language. It means an outcome that defies expectations - it doesn't mean an outcome where the expectations have been redistributed among the stakeholders of the situation which is what you're using it to mean.

There's actually no question that people expect the US electoral system can be hacked - there are papers written about it, and it's used as a justification by Australia and other nations not to move to large-scale electronic voting.

I can give more examples - let's say you're babysitting your nephews and it's a hot summer's day, and you buy them all ice creams, and then they all say to you they hate ice cream! That would be ironic.

Trust me, I understand irony and have spouted off the same line you have hundreds of times. I've removed its reference from dozens of stories over the years.

Clinton expected the system to be fair and democratic and ran on that principle. Now, an unfair, rigged system could be the reason she has a second chance. I understand what you're saying, it's not the purest example of irony.

Let's put it this way: She expected this event to go one way because of her belief in the system, but that system could now be tainted and be the reason she has a second chance, and that is quite amusing. That fulfills situational irony for me.

Otherwise, her purely losing would be ironic according to your definition. She expected to win and lost. Nothing ironic there, yet the defeat defied her expectation, which fulfills your definition. If the system turns out to be tampered or rigged, it's the opposite of what she expected and could help her, something she didn't foresee, and it's amusing. Ironic for her. What else would you call that situation? It's not a paradox.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
26-11-2016, 05:08 PM
RE: Hacked results?
Anyone who denies there is a remarkable anomaly in the results isn't being honest. No American election ever has resulted in such a disparity in popular vote and the electoral outcome. And when you read about the anomalies being reported, your only conclusion is a recount. I don't think anyone believes the recount would result in a change in winner, but to try to dissuade it would be wrong. Trump is whining about it, but we all know Dear Leader would have been the first to cry foul had he lost, which was expected. He would have contested every state and anyone denying THAT is delusional.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like WillHopp's post
26-11-2016, 05:14 PM
RE: Hacked results?
(26-11-2016 05:08 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Anyone who denies there is a remarkable anomaly in the results isn't being honest. No American election ever has resulted in such a disparity in popular vote and the electoral outcome. And when you read about the anomalies being reported, your only conclusion is a recount. I don't think anyone believes the recount would result in a change in winner, but to try to dissuade it would be wrong. Trump is whining about it, but we all know Dear Leader would have been the first to cry foul had he lost, which was expected. He would have contested every state and anyone denying THAT is delusional.

Clinton leads Trump by 4 million votes in California alone.
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/

That's a huge part of her popular vote lead.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2016, 05:16 PM
RE: Hacked results?
(26-11-2016 05:14 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(26-11-2016 05:08 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Anyone who denies there is a remarkable anomaly in the results isn't being honest. No American election ever has resulted in such a disparity in popular vote and the electoral outcome. And when you read about the anomalies being reported, your only conclusion is a recount. I don't think anyone believes the recount would result in a change in winner, but to try to dissuade it would be wrong. Trump is whining about it, but we all know Dear Leader would have been the first to cry foul had he lost, which was expected. He would have contested every state and anyone denying THAT is delusional.

Clinton leads Trump by 4 million votes in California alone.
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/

That's a huge part of her popular vote lead.

But she still has it.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2016, 05:20 PM
RE: Hacked results?
(26-11-2016 05:16 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(26-11-2016 05:14 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Clinton leads Trump by 4 million votes in California alone.
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/

That's a huge part of her popular vote lead.

But she still has it.

I understand that. I'm pointing out why she leads in the popular vote. A lot of states are close to 50/50 in vote count. California is like 65/35. When you only need to win by 1 vote to win California's entire 55 electoral votes, that's a lot of "wasted votes" added to her tally compared to other states.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2016, 05:20 PM
RE: Hacked results?
(26-11-2016 05:08 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Anyone who denies there is a remarkable anomaly in the results isn't being honest. No American election ever has resulted in such a disparity in popular vote and the electoral outcome. And when you read about the anomalies being reported, your only conclusion is a recount. I don't think anyone believes the recount would result in a change in winner, but to try to dissuade it would be wrong. Trump is whining about it, but we all know Dear Leader would have been the first to cry foul had he lost, which was expected. He would have contested every state and anyone denying THAT is delusional.

Trump/supporters filed a lawsuit in Nevada before their polls even closed, because the state said if people were already waiting at their polling place when the polls closed they would allow those people to vote.

The lawsuit was laughed out of court with the judge issuing a strong rebuke for not following procedure. It wasn't a problem yet.

It also turned out to be a non-issue in the end. Most polling places in the state closed on time or within a few minutes. So it wasn't like 11pm with people still showing up to vote.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: