Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the soros'-programmers-screwed-up dept.

CNN Wire reports via KTLA TV in Los Angeles

Hillary Clinton's campaign is being urged by a number of top computer scientists to call for a recount of vote totals in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

[...] The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked and presented their findings to top Clinton aides [on November 17].

The scientists, among them J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners.

[...] [It was noted that] Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic voting machines, which the group said could have been hacked.

Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs to be looked at by an independent review.

[...] A former Clinton aide declined to respond to questions about whether they will request an audit based on the findings.

Additionally, at least three electors have pledged to not vote for Trump and to seek a "reasonable Republican alternative for president through Electoral College" according to a [November 16 statement] from a group called the Hamilton Electors, which represents them.

"The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as the last line of defense", one elector, Michael Baca, said in a statement, "and I think we must do all that we can to ensure that we have a reasonable Republican candidate who shares our American values."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @12:34AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @12:34AM (#432664)

    Shhh! If the left were so demoralized to lose the election AND the popular vote, we might to install suicide nets outside of the Huffington Post.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday November 25 2016, @01:33AM

    by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday November 25 2016, @01:33AM (#432680)

    If the left were so demoralized to lose the election...

    What left? All I saw was far right and (to quote someone on the internet) "Holy Crap! I didn't know the scale went that far!"

    --
    It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @01:54AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @01:54AM (#432692)

      Yeah yeah yeah, it's like how libertarians try to distance themselves from the republicans, even though quite a few of them end up voting GOP, and several GOPers describe themselves as libertarian-lite.

      So if we go off of votes for greens, socialist party, etc.; "the left" is such a minuscule portion of the population that there shouldn't be any concern about... what do you even stand for today? Anti-war? Nope. Gay rights? Legislatively, nope. Anti-capitalism? Except for the few Marxist diehards, you sure do love your Apple products, so nope.

      Anyway, there should be witch burnings and like since everyone who dislikes your politics is a fundy, alt-right, member of the Klan.

      As the whining after the election has exceeded 150db, there are obviously a fair amount of you BernieBros and the like out there who voted for Hilary, even though she is merely lesser Hitler. Possibly Goebbels.

      Of course you could have made a triumphant blitz to elect Stein, but that would require effort and organization, but man get to working the progressive stack on a national level would just be horrible.

      So no disowning it now. You voted for her.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @02:11AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @02:11AM (#432700)

        it's like how libertarians try to distance themselves from the republicans, even though quite a few of them end up voting GOP

        You realize that since we have a corrupt two-party system, a vote for any particular candidate doesn't mean you're expressing heartfelt support for said candidate, right? Many people just vote for the 'lesser evil'. There is no contradiction in voting GOP and saying that libertarians are in general quite different from republicans. It's the same with people who are genuinely on the left and vote democrat.

        So no disowning it now. You voted for her.

        I don't understand talking to individuals and blaming them for the actions of groups they may or may not be a part of. Why not just speak to them as individuals?

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @02:47AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @02:47AM (#432712)

          Remember, this is the same election where "the left" castigated everyone who voted for Trump as being in league with the KKK.

          Sorry son, you don't get to play both sides.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @02:51AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @02:51AM (#432713)

            Guilt by association fallacies aren't my thing. People shouldn't blame specific individuals you're speaking to for the actions some other people in their group took, especially if they have zero control over those other people and it's just a label anyone can put on. Where's the nuance?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @07:30AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @07:30AM (#432777)

              When a least a sizable chunk of the left denounces affirmative action policies, third-wave feminism, or even the BLM; you can tell me about judging each person individually, otherwise it just rings hollow.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:45AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:45AM (#433054) Journal

          How do you think it works in other countries? Parliaments look a lot cooler than our two party system, but think about it. Where would an asshole like me, or an asshole like you, fit into a multi-party system? We'd bitch and whine about all fifteen choices offered to us, now wouldn't we? We'd accuse all the parties of colluding against us, because none of them had a platform we liked. And, you know what? Our parnoia may very well be justified!

          Remember, the elites run this world, and all of us commoners are just tolerated - for the time being.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @03:02AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @03:02AM (#432718)

        Until 2016, the Greens didn't have anything remotely "Left" in their platform.
        ...and then it was just the tiniest amount of window dressing. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [gp.org]

        This guy tells it like it is:

        The Green Party platform: Reformist politics in the service of imperialism [wsws.org]

        In the aftermath of Sanders' groveling embrace of Hillary Clinton, a right-wing symbol of the status quo who is despised for her corrupt relations with Wall Street and her support for US wars of aggression in the Middle East and American warmongering against Russia and China, these organizations are touting the Greens, a bourgeois party, as a genuine "left" alternative to the Democrats and Republicans.

        [...]the party is a pro-capitalist formation that rejects the class struggle and represents the social interests of well-off layers of the upper-middle class.

        Steeped in a narrow nationalist outlook, it aims for nothing more than to serve as an external pressure group on the existing capitalist parties, particularly the Democrats.

        [...]There is not a hint of a class analysis [in the Green's platform].

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @03:06AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @03:06AM (#432720)

          Gee, remind me what party Sanders ran under again?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @03:34AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @03:34AM (#432731)

            You appear to be one of those[1] who has swallowed Bernie's "democratic socialist" bullshit.
            [1] Heh. I almost said "nitwits".

            First, that term is redundant.
            Socialism is DEMOCRACY EVERYWHERE.

            If you can find a transcript[2] of something where Bernie has said that he has a plan to seed a whole bunch of worker-owned cooperatives as has been done in Italy via their Marcora law, [google.com] that would interest me greatly (because I haven't seen anything like that).
            [2] I don't do video.

            Additionally, Bernie has said **specifically** that he isn't into gov't ownership of the means of production.
            So, isn't even one of those faux "socialists".

            What Bernie is is a kinda-sorta FDR New Dealer.
            That comes under the heading of "Liberal Democrat" or "Social Democrat".
            (He's just fine with Oligarchy.)

            .
            On top of that, Bernie is a Chickenhawk.
            He doesn't have any particular qualms about USA's permanent state of war.
            (He also fought like hell to get a squadron of F-35s stationed in his home state.)
            So, even on the Authoritarian/Civil Libertarian axis, Bernie isn't especially Progressive.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday November 25 2016, @05:42AM

        by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday November 25 2016, @05:42AM (#432757)

        So no disowning it now. You voted for her.

        No, since I can't vote in your elections.

        But if I could have voted I would almost certainly have gone for ONE OF THE OTHER THREE OF YOUR CHOICES since that's the only way of breaking the two party cartel.

        --
        It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @07:27AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @07:27AM (#432776)

          Oh, well then you must not be aware of the 50 some odd other parties that were running, including Socialist Equality and Socialist Workers Party

          http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/candidates.phtml [thegreenpapers.com]

          Obviously you must be posting from the People's Republic of Korea, or terribly ignorant.

          • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday November 25 2016, @08:51AM

            by MostCynical (2589) on Friday November 25 2016, @08:51AM (#432791) Journal

            On the other side of the planet to you in the U.S., we didn't hear about much more than Trump, HRC, Stein, Johnson and Sanders.
            Ignorant? How many parties or candidates stood in the last election in England, or Australia, or Canada?
            Even politically aware, motivate people don't know about their own country, let alone any other.
            And barely 50% of elegible people in the US even bother to vote!

            --
            "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @09:13AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @09:13AM (#432797)

              You're right! Not being fully aware of the politics in England, it would be incredibly ignorant of me to comment on the general tenor of the politics there.

              Now only if the rest of you internet-experts could return the favor.

              • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday November 25 2016, @09:37AM

                by MostCynical (2589) on Friday November 25 2016, @09:37AM (#432800) Journal

                Maybe the person posting the accusation of ignorance could have said "hey, there were 50 parties, not just three"

                Alas, the politics of the US seems to have repercussions for the entire planet, so it is quite reasonable for anyone to comment, even if they don't have detailed knowledge of every specific aspect of US electoral law or processes.

                --
                "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
          • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday November 25 2016, @09:30AM

            by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday November 25 2016, @09:30AM (#432799)

            ...you must not be aware of the 50 some odd other parties that were running...

            I was, in fact, under the impression that there were five (not counting "none of the above") candidates for POTUS. Thank you for the correction.

            To let a five way election degenerate into a two horse race (between the same two horses again) is a misuse of votes. To do the same with "50 some odd" candidates is... breathtaking.

            Obviously you must be posting from the People's Republic of Korea

            Fortunately, the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea does not need to go through your charade, having an Eternal President of the Republic [wikipedia.org]. I feel quietly confident that you imperialistic running dog capitalists will soon (within the next four years) see the wisdom of adopting a similarly enlightened constitution.

             

            [/sarcasm] Note: "quietly confident" is a euphemism for "bloody worried".

            --
            It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @09:52AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @09:52AM (#432806)

              The People's Republic of Korea

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_Korea [wikipedia.org]

              was actually what I was referring to.

              The program of the PRK was presented in its September 14 twenty-seven point program. The program included: "the confiscation without compensation of lands held by the Japanese and collaborators; free distribution of that land to the peasants; rent limits on the nonredistributed land; nationalization of such major industries as mining, transportation, banking, and communication; state supervision of small and mid-sized companies; …guaranteed basic human rights and freedoms, including those of speech, press, assembly, and faith; universal suffrage to adults over the age of eighteen; equality for women; labor law reforms including an eight-hour day, a minimum wage, and prohibition of child labor; and "establishment of close relations with the United States, USSR, England [sic], and China, and positive opposition to any foreign influences interfering with the domestic affairs of the state."

              Not doing so hot on this ignorance thing, ain't 'cha?

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:40AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:40AM (#433052) Journal

    "install suicide nets outside of the Huffington Post."

    There's no need to take an authoritatian, democratic approach to this. Those who wish to throw themselves from HP's upper floors should be free to do so, unimpeded by any government mandated nets.