# DHS, FBI say election systems in all 50 states were targeted in 2016



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2019)

In previous reports, only 21 states had been confirmed targets of Russian hacking efforts.

https://arstechnica.com/information...n-systems-in-50-states-were-targeted-in-2016/

This definitely raises the level of concern for the upcoming 2020 election, especially because we know nothing is being done in an attempt to combat these efforts.


----------



## cots (Apr 11, 2019)

Xzi said:


> In previous reports, only 21 states had been confirmed targets of Russian hacking efforts.
> 
> https://arstechnica.com/information...n-systems-in-50-states-were-targeted-in-2016/
> 
> This definitely raises the level of concern for the upcoming 2020 election, especially because we know nothing is being done in an attempt to combat these efforts.



You have to love the attention given to Russia and not the entire rest of the world that also wants to destroy our way of life.It's not surprising and after reading articles on how RDP is actually implemented into the voting machines it only makes you wonder what sort of crack they were smoking when making them.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2019)

cots said:


> You have to love the attention given to Russia and not the entire rest of the world that also wants to destroy our way of life.It's not surprising and after reading articles on how RDP is actually implemented into the voting machines it only makes you wonder what sort of crack they were smoking when making them.


A lot of attention is often given to China, as well.  There was just recently that incident where a Chinese lady was apprehended while heading for Mar-a-Lago with malware on her person.


----------



## the_randomizer (Apr 12, 2019)

People are still going on about the Russian hacks three years later? What exactly will it solve? Not like we can go back in time and undo the election


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> People are still going on about the Russian hacks three years later? What exactly will it solve? Not like we can go back in time and undo the election


If by "people," you mean the DHS and FBI, as it's their job to protect the integrity of our elections, then yes.  Unfortunately I think you're right that it does no good at this moment, but that's only because of who's in office.  Any other administration would take such a threat from one of our biggest foreign adversaries seriously, and act accordingly.


----------



## smf (Apr 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This definitely raises the level of concern for the upcoming 2020 election, especially because we know nothing is being done in an attempt to combat these efforts.



It's fine, the attacks were obviously all trying to inflate Hilary's vote and Trump still won as he is a stable genius.



the_randomizer said:


> People are still going on about the Russian hacks three years later? What exactly will it solve? Not like we can go back in time and undo the election



Yeah, I don't know why they bother trying to improve reliability of votes. Just let the person who cares enough to rig the vote to win.


----------



## Viri (Apr 12, 2019)

I have video proof of Obama meddling in the French election!



Spoiler


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Apr 12, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> What exactly will it solve?


To set a precedent. 
I really hate being unoriginal, but, " Fool me once.." 
I sincerely wish Tronald Dump knows he's pure garbage in 2020 from the *fact*   no one likes him and he has no power. TG that "Presidential protection"-thing ended with Obammer  for that piece of orange trash.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2019)

Viri said:


> I have video proof of Obama meddling in the French election!
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler



I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're joking instead of making a poor attempt at gaslighting us all.


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 13, 2019)

cots said:


> You have to love the attention given to Russia and not the entire rest of the world that also wants to destroy our way of life.


Erm... Can I plead innocence on this, or is this a "I say it and therefore I don't have to prove anything" sort of statement?


----------



## Subtle Demise (Apr 13, 2019)

Not sure what happened there. My daughter slapped me in the face and it posted a partial post 5 times lol anyway what I was going to say was:

Between this and all the dead and undocumented people voting Democrat, it's no wonder so many people are starting to realize that voting doesn't change anything (except in maybe state and local elections). I wonder what would happen if literally nobody turned up to the polls? They'd probably just keep on with the show as if we had a record turnout lol. Really makes you wonder what actually happens behind the scenes and if the National elections are just for show. That's the case for North Korea and Isreal, the only difference there is they make it obvious because the same guy wins the election every time, and there is no drama or close calls.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> Between this and all the dead and undocumented people voting Democrat


There's no evidence to support either of these ridiculous claims.  Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a decent margin, so when Democrats get their people to show up to elections, plus enough to overcome gerrymandering and other underhanded tactics, they win.  It's really that simple.

The only recent documented case of large-scale election fraud was committed by the Republican candidate in North Carolina.  He literally hired people to stuff absentee ballot boxes with fake votes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There's no evidence to support either of these ridiculous claims.  Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a decent margin, so when Democrats get their people to show up to elections, plus enough to overcome gerrymandering and other underhanded tactics, they win.  It's really that simple.
> 
> The only recent documented case of large-scale election fraud was committed by the Republican candidate in North Carolina.  He literally hired people to stuff absentee ballot boxes with fake votes.


We both know that's not true, and we have Project Veritas to thank for video evidence.

As for voter fraud, you'll have to define what you mean by "large scale". Voter fraud is actually relatively common and not limited to presidential elections. The Heritage Foundation is quite diligent in tracking all instances of voter fraud that hit the news, I see a lot of criminal convictions on that list. The methods of choice seem to be voter impersonation _(that's your "dead voters")_ and absentee ballot abuse, but there's no shortage of _"voting by aliens"_, which is the legal term for ballots cast by noncitizens, punishable under 18 USC § 611.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

I have zero doubt that there are bad actors involved in the voting process, how widespread it is is for the law enforcement to determine.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> We both know that's not true, and we have Project Veritas to thank for video evidence.


Weren't those the guys widely known for editing/doctoring videos to fit their agenda?  Or am I thinking of another outlet?



Foxi4 said:


> I have zero doubt that there are bad actors involved in the voting process, how widespread it is is for law enforcement to determine.


Indeed, the numbers are publicly available.  After a review of the 2016 federal election, exactly four cases of voter fraud were found.  Not all in favor of Clinton, naturally.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...udulent/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a4c94dd21dc0


----------



## gene0915 (Apr 14, 2019)

And in spite of all the hacking, hillary STILL lost.  Not that the lying POS, orange clown, zionist puppet we have now is any better. After all, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE! AIR?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Weren't those the guys widely known for editing/doctoring videos to fit their agenda?  Or am I thinking of another outlet?


I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Snopes. 


> Indeed, the numbers are publicly available.  After a review of the 2016 federal election, exactly four cases of voter fraud were found.  Not all in favor of Clinton, naturally.


I'm not particularly worried about the few that were found, I'm worried about the ones that weren't, especially considering the fact that the anti-Trump bias is running strong in the F.B.I., as we found out in the Strzok case, among others. It's all a bit of a mess right now, we probably won't know the full extent of the vote manipulation that took place for many years.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 14, 2019)

smf said:


> It's fine, the attacks were obviously all trying to inflate Hilary's vote and Trump still won as he is a stable genius.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't know why they bother trying to improve reliability of votes. Just let the person who cares enough to rig the vote to win.


There was a conspiracy theory at the time that since people thought him running republican was a joke, since Trump donated to Hillary Clinton in the past they were accusing him of colluding with Clinton to make Republicans look bad.



Trump won because Hillary and the DNC propped him up. She is the reason he won.

In the Podesta Emails that Wikileaks released, one called "Muddying the Waters", the DNC before the 2016 elections wanted Hillary to be the Democratic nominee. But they had polling data that since people hated her so much a republican would win the election. So they wanted "Pied Piper" candidates. Some bumbling idiot that they can prop up and make them the representative and primary nominee of the Republican Party, so they can accuse all Republicans of being like this idiot. And make Hillary look good in comparison so she could win the election. Trump was there choice.

So they got the mainstream media to constantly talk about Trump, and attack Trump to make republicans look bad. But the plan back fired, time and time again it has been shown in studies that the person to get to most news coverage is the one that wins election. They are the reason Trump won.



They then lumped the Russia Conspiracy Theory on him to try to destroy him. They also launched the Russia Conspiracy Theory on Assange because he was releasing information on the corruption of the DNC. They were basically launching it on people they didn't like to discredit them, for propaganda.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Snopes.


Nah I found what I was thinking about: Veritas tried to pitch a false story with doctored video evidence to multiple outlets, and were caught red-handed.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm not particularly worried about the few that were found, I'm worried about the ones that weren't, especially considering the fact that the anti-Trump bias is running strong in the F.B.I., as we found out in the Strzok case, among others. It's all a bit of a mess right now, we probably won't know the full extent of the vote manipulation that took place for many years.


Uh-huh.  Yet the FBI is a traditionally conservative organization, and I specifically remember reporting of the FBI being 'Trumplandia' close to the election.  Not to mention Comey wittingly or unwittingly helping Trump out.

There is no cover-up here, and I'm not sure how you think anybody could "easily" commit voter fraud.  The easiest method is through the use of absentee ballots, as was the case for Mark Harris in North Carolina, but even then you're likely to be detected because the county knows exactly how many voters are registered to vote by absentee ballot.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nah I found what I was thinking about: Veritas tried to pitch a false story with doctored video evidence to multiple outlets, and were caught red-handed.


O'Keefe's explanation seems perfectly reasonable to me - using deception to extract comments is and always has been their modus operandi. According to him, there was never any intention to "plant a fake story", rather to bait reporters with a fake rape victim. He assumed they would jump on the case, given the revelations regarding Moore. I'll have to look into it a bit further.


> Uh-huh.  Yet the FBI is a traditionally conservative organization, and I specifically remember reporting of the FBI being 'Trumplandia' close to the election.  Not to mention Comey wittingly or unwittingly helping Trump out.
> 
> There is no cover-up here, and I'm not sure how you think anybody could "easily" commit voter fraud.  The easiest method is through the use of absentee ballots, as was the case for Mark Harris in North Carolina, but even then you're likely to be detected because the county knows exactly how many voters are registered to vote by absentee ballot.


Is that why the Attorney General is currently reviewing the pre-election F.B.I. probe into Trump? From the evidence I've seen it was biased from the start, but I guess that's open to more or less generous interpretation.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> using deception to extract comments is and always has been their modus operandi.


Which is not how any news organization or reputable organization operates.  If they're willing to lie about one thing, they're willing to lie about everything.



Foxi4 said:


> Is that why the Attorney General is currently reviewing the pre-election F.B.I. probe into Trump? From the evidence I've seen it was biased from the start, but I guess that's open to more or less generous interpretation.


Any AG worth a damn doesn't make claims like those without evidence.  Barr has lost all legitimate claim to impartiality in the eyes of the public as a result.  And he has the nerve to make those comments before he's willing to release any part of the Mueller report to Congress or the public.  Tsk tsk.


----------



## Smoker1 (Apr 14, 2019)

I just love how there was a Report of Russia indeed being involved with the Hacking.........but they did not do anything. So they just Hacked in for what?????? Shits and giggles????????? To see if they could do it????????


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2019)

Smoker1 said:


> I just love how there was a Report of Russia indeed being involved with the Hacking.........but they did not do anything. So they just Hacked in for what?????? Shits and giggles????????? To see if they could do it????????


The reports are that they were successful with their attempts to some extent in certain states, where in others they couldn't get past security measures.  But yes, a lot of this is far more vague than I would prefer, likely because no federal organization wants to start a panic by stating outright, "yes, the Russians hacked our election, and yes, it was effective enough to change the result."  That is my continued suspicion, however.


----------



## Smoker1 (Apr 14, 2019)

Like I said, if they Hacked in, they more that likely changed things. There are other things that have me wondering:
A former Russian General quoted as saying that we will Vote for Trump, or there will be War?????? Seriously????? So Russia decides who we Vote for?????

Slightly off Topic, but Trump and Hillary should have been Disqualified from running. Both had Investigations going on, and one of Hillary's People apparently rigged the System so Bernie Sanders would get the shaft during the Election. Hillary should have been held Responsible, and as punishment, her Votes should have went to Sanders. Even Trump said the System got Rigged against him.


----------



## bodefuceta (Apr 14, 2019)

Can't you post where they said it directly rather than some terrible nonsense website linking to a paywall for lunatics?


----------



## Smoker1 (Apr 14, 2019)

Also love all this "Fake News" crap. The Legit Media can not just spout whatever they want without the Facts and Documentation to back it up, or they would be subject to Lawsuits for Slander, Defamation of Character, would have to issue out Retractions, you name it.


----------



## cots (Apr 14, 2019)

Smoker1 said:


> Also love all this "Fake News" crap. The Legit Media can not just spout whatever they want without the Facts and Documentation to back it up, or they would be subject to Lawsuits for Slander, Defamation of Character, would have to issue out Retractions, you name it.



You mean those gossip sites masquerading as legitimate news organizations?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2019)

Smoker1 said:


> Slightly off Topic, but Trump and Hillary should have been Disqualified from running. Both had Investigations going on, and one of Hillary's People apparently rigged the System so Bernie Sanders would get the shaft during the Election. Hillary should have been held Responsible, and as punishment, her Votes should have went to Sanders. Even Trump said the System got Rigged against him.


Actually that would've been the smart and cautious thing to do, make the runners-up the candidate for each party.  Of course, that would've meant Bernie Sanders vs Ted Cruz (yikes), but I can't be held responsible for how Rs voted in the 2016 primary.


----------



## smf (Apr 14, 2019)

SG854 said:


> But the plan back fired, time and time again it has been shown in studies that the person to get to most news coverage is the one that wins election.



Care to provide those studies? Are you saying the voters are dumb as shit?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Which is not how any news organization or reputable organization operates.  If they're willing to lie about one thing, they're willing to lie about everything.
> 
> Any AG worth a damn doesn't make claims like those without evidence.  Barr has lost all legitimate claim to impartiality in the eyes of the public as a result.  And he has the nerve to make those comments before he's willing to release any part of the Mueller report to Congress or the public.  Tsk tsk.


Oh, come off it. Deceptive practices have been a staple of investigative journalism for as long as the press existed, some of the best stories were written by journalists using false identities, setting up stings or straight-up going undercover. There are times when that's the only way to get the evidence you need, and the scoop often justifies the means. Journalists on both sides get people to bite their hooks by pretending to be somebody they're not, you're not seriously going to use that as an argument, are you?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, come off it. Deceptive practices have been a staple of investigative journalism for as long as the press existed, some of the best stories were written by journalists using false identities, setting up stings or straight-up going undercover. There are times when that's the only way to get the evidence you need, and the scoop often justifies the means. Journalists on both sides get people to bite their hooks by pretending to be somebody they're not, you're not seriously going to use that as an argument, are you?


Journalists don't go to other news organizations with fake stories in an attempt to discredit them.  They either corroborate or dispute others' reporting with their own reporting, in a non-sensationalist manner.  Veritas are nothing but clickbait jockeys for the right-wing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Journalists don't go to other news organizations with fake stories in an attempt to discredit them.  They either corroborate or dispute others' reporting with their own reporting, in a non-sensationalist manner.  Veritas are nothing but clickbait jockeys for the right-wing.


It's actually a fairly simple test - you set the bait and check if your subject will bite or not. Is there a double-standard in reporting on republicans versus democrats? You won't know until you check. Seems like a sound strategy to me. I don't understand why you'd think that different news outlets wouldn't/shouldn't be antagonistic towards each other, they compete for readership on the market. You have a huge problem with this, but no problem at all with the fight between Fox and other outlet. AA day doesn't go by without someone criticising Fox, and vice versa - they constantly try to discredit the other side, are we talking about the same press? Not that any of this matters to Veritas, popularity is not exactly their end goal. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Is there a double-standard in reporting on republicans versus democrats? You won't know until you check.


And pray tell, what good does it do to have a clearly biased, clearly partisan organization being the ones to "check" this?



Foxi4 said:


> Seems like a sound strategy to me. I don't understand why you'd think that different news outlets wouldn't/shouldn't be antagonistic towards each other, they compete for readership on the market. You have a huge problem with this, but no problem at all with the fight between Fox and other outlet. AA day doesn't go by without someone criticising Fox, and vice versa - they constantly try to discredit the other side, are we talking about the same press?


Of course I have a problem with Fox's attempt to smear other outlets while consistently running false stories that they don't issue retractions for.  However, at least Fox is out in the open about their antagonism toward other outlets.  They aren't trying to undermine their competition through indirect interference or other completely unethical, back-alley tactics.  They're just playing up the network wars on-air for more ratings.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> And pray tell, what good does it do to have a clearly biased, clearly partisan organization being the ones to "check" this?
> 
> Of course I have a problem with Fox's attempt to smear other outlets while consistently running false stories that they don't issue retractions for.  However, at least Fox is out in the open about their antagonism toward other outlets.  They aren't trying to undermine their competition through indirect interference or other completely unethical, back-alley tactics.  They're just playing up the network wars on-air for more ratings.


I see that you live under the mistaken impression that other outlets are unbiased. That's fine, I suppose.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 14, 2019)

smf said:


> Care to provide those studies? Are you saying the voters are dumb as shit?


It backfired because News Media cares about ratings. They Normalized bad behavior because of the constant negative coverage on Trump and Hillary. They were both seen as bad candidates. So Trump doing bad was just another day and it was whatever. Its the News fault for constantly focusing on the negative.


Hillary got slightly more negative coverage then Trump. But both mostly got negative coverage overall. Even Fox News that is supposedly pro Trump had 73% negative coverage of Trump. There has been less focus on positivity and policy over the years. Which leaves people clueless on what they stand for, creates false equivalencies. Its all just scandals because that gets ratings. When you constantly negatively cover politics, it leaves less trust in the government which then reinforces the conservative talking points that Gov is bad for you, and helps them win votes. Trump also got 15% more coverage then Hillary. If you also just focus on negatives of Trump without embraces any positives even believe in crazy Conspiracy Theories like Russia Collusion even though evidence shows there is none, it makes you look like you have TDS, and that leaves with with as much credibility as the boy who cried wolf.


https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/



People around the world saw the Russia Collusion as a joke and are laughing at the U.S. for even believing this as Noam Chomsky says.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> Oh, come off it. Deceptive practices have been a staple of investigative journalism for as long as the press existed, some of the best stories were written by journalists using false identities, setting up stings or straight-up going undercover. There are times when that's the only way to get the evidence you need, and the scoop often justifies the means. Journalists on both sides get people to bite their hooks by pretending to be somebody they're not, you're not seriously going to use that as an argument, are you?


Investigative Journalism died a while ago. It's all just churnalism now. They just get stories on Twitter and report what other News outlets say for quick money, and say without actually fact checking because thats the cheaper route. Sending someone to cover a story that can take months and in the end might not have anything news worthy to report is costly money wise. They say "what can I get out of this investigation if I do this, How would I benefit?"


It'll generate more revenue just to report a bunch of stories and make clickbait headlines on stuff they find on Twitter, then one story that takes months to investigate. This is why they get stories wrong a lot. Especially the Mueller Investigation. They are now in competition with independent journalists which is why this big shift happened and real journalism is taking a hit. They do put out good articles at times and its not all bad, but journalism is taking a hit with churnalism.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Smoker1 said:


> Also love all this "Fake News" crap. The Legit Media can not just spout whatever they want without the Facts and Documentation to back it up, or they would be subject to Lawsuits for Slander, Defamation of Character, would have to issue out Retractions, you name it.


CNN is getting sued for the covington case.

A lot of times they play it safe to avoid lawsuit. They say Anonymous Sources say, without actually have direct quotes or evidence. So that when a story turns out wrong they can say, well I didn't make any direct claims so you can't sue me, don't blame us because an anonymous source got it wrong. Its them trying to avoid any repercussions for putting out fake stories that haven't been verified. There's no point in putting out stories that haven't been verified, using anonymous sources without any direct source, that hearsay and bad journalism.


----------



## smf (Apr 14, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They Normalized bad behavior because of the constant negative coverage on Trump and Hillary.



You're over thinking it, Trumps populist message was lapped up by people who think "hey you know what, those mexicans are all rapists and drug mules & I'm glad somebody is saying it."

The problem with free speech is that it assumes that people will listen and think logically, but Trumps entire message is like crystal meth.

Russia also ran a successful facebook campaign to destabilise the election, we know that for sure. The US is a laughing stock around the world, but not for the reason that americans think.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 14, 2019)

Smoker1 said:


> Also love all this "Fake News" crap. The Legit Media can not just spout whatever they want without the Facts and Documentation to back it up, or they would be subject to Lawsuits for Slander, Defamation of Character, would have to issue out Retractions, you name it.


Defamation law is exceedingly complicated and it's extremely hard to win a case against a news organisation, more often than not it's decided that they "made a mistake", all you you get is a correction on page 20, in small print, under the McDonald's ad. It's also very hard to prove defamation, it has several requirements - you need to prove that the lie was spread with malicious intent, it was done knowingly and, most importantly, caused damage. The worst thing regarding defamation by the press is the fact that defamation law does not treat a public figure the same way as a private individual, and since you're fighting with the press, they have effectively made you a public figure. Long story short, you have to prove that the reporters knew they were printing a falsehood, they did it maliciously and they caused some form of financial damage to you - good luck with that. Cases of defamation of public figures you read about in the papers are usually settled outside of court in exchange for some set amount of damages plus a retraction, that's the best you can get in most states, although it does differ from state to state. Since Donald Trump is from New York, his chances for winning a defamation case are exceedingly low. In fact, he successfully defended himself against Stormy Daniels' defamation suit recently and received his well-deserved attorney's fees, not to mention the sanctions. I suggest you look into it.



smf said:


> You're over thinking it, Trumps populist message was lapped up by people who think "hey you know what, those mexicans are all rapists and drug mules & I'm glad somebody is saying it."
> 
> The problem with free speech is that it assumes that people will listen and think logically, but Trumps entire message is like crystal meth.
> 
> Russia also ran a successful facebook campaign to destabilise the election, we know that for sure. The US is a laughing stock around the world, but not for the reason that americans think.


There are no problems with Free Speech. If you hear a bunch of bullshit, use your speech to correct it. Speech is, by definition, self-regulated. As for the Russian campaign, they spent all of $100,000 on Facebook ads according to Facebook's accountants as far as I remember, most corporations spend more for the average ad campaign.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I see that you live under the mistaken impression that other outlets are unbiased. That's fine, I suppose.


Well, there are obviously differing degrees of bias, and Veritas is on that "riding the Koch brothers' nuts" level.  I literally can't even think of an equivalent to Veritas on the left.  Fox and other right-wing media do a great job of embroiling themselves in their own scandals without anybody else's help.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Apr 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There's no evidence to support either of these ridiculous claims.  Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a decent margin, so when Democrats get their people to show up to elections, plus enough to overcome gerrymandering and other underhanded tactics, they win.  It's really that simple.
> 
> The only recent documented case of large-scale election fraud was committed by the Republican candidate in North Carolina.  He literally hired people to stuff absentee ballot boxes with fake votes.


Hey it was just a thing I saw floating around. It was meant to come off a little more sarcastically, but that's aspergers for you. I'm with @Foxi4  in saying that voter fraud happens all the time. Did dead people vote for Hilary? Probably (they probably also voted for Trump). Did Russia attempt to access the election systems? Probably, but you can bet China and many others have done the same thing too. Our government meddles in elections all the time. You have to expect that others would do the same to us. To quote an old movie: "They follow us, we follow them. It's a sort of understanding we have." Either way, the Electoral College mitigates those statistical anomalies.

I still think the presidential elections are just a big show. Doesn't matter who gets elected, everything either stays the same or gets more authoritarian.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> Did Russia attempt to access the election systems? Probably, but you can bet China and many others have done the same thing too.


Firstly, no, we've never had a foreign country attack our election on this scale before, individual hackers aren't the same thing.  Secondly, whataboutism is not an excuse to do nothing about it.  If people can't have faith in our elections systems any more, then for all intents and purposes we're a third-world Banana Republic.  Or a "shithole country," as Trump refers to them.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Apr 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Firstly, no, we've never had a foreign country attack our election on this scale before, individual hackers aren't the same thing.  Secondly, whataboutism is not an excuse to do nothing about it.  If people can't have faith in our elections systems any more, then for all intents and purposes we're a third-world Banana Republic.


I'm not saying do nothing about it. One has to wonder how the hell these systems are even accessible from outside a very small network of trusted machines in the first place. Beef up the security, find out who's responsible and don't let it happen again. Do you really think large scale attacks haven't been attempted in every major election? The Russians may have been the first to succeed, but still even if they did I don't think they did as much damage as it would seem.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> I'm not saying do nothing about it.


I suppose it's not really up to us regardless.  Since the Russians were in favor of Trump last time, he's surely not going to put any roadblocks in their way for the next election.



Subtle Demise said:


> One has to wonder how the hell these systems are even accessible from outside a very small network of trusted machines in the first place.


Indeed, we should definitely take a closer look at the companies providing these voting machines and make the rules stricter about who is allowed to provide them from now on.



Subtle Demise said:


> Do you really think large scale attacks haven't been attempted in every major election?


I don't think our elections cybersecurity has ever been allowed to fall this far behind the rest of the world before, and every year it's just getting progressively worse.  I think it's obvious that we're in need of some younger candidates/presidents, people who aren't completely tech illiterate.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Apr 14, 2019)

thing i find most funny i how it was trump saying "ooooh people could rig the election" and he was laughed at and mocked for being stupid and how it was IMPOSSIBLE and the sign of a sad pathetic whiney sore looser........as soon as he wins "AAAARGGHHH IT WAS RIGGED!!"

who was right? the democrats when they said it was impossible and trump was stupid or the democrats who say it happened and trump was the evil genius mastermind exposing his evil plan in advance

im sorry but its pretty obvious there is certain levels of meddling on both sides, the role has massive global consequences, you can bet pretty much everyone had their toes dipped into meddling in some way


----------



## Steena (Apr 14, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> thing i find most funny i how it was trump saying "ooooh people could rig the election" and he was laughed at and mocked for being stupid and how it was IMPOSSIBLE and the sign of a sore pathetic whiney sore looser........as soon as he wins "AAAARGGHHH IT WAS RIGGED!!"
> 
> who was right? the democrats when they said it was impossible and trump was stupid or the democrats who say it happened and trump was the evil genius mastermind exposing his evil plan in advance


the side you cheer for was right and the side you are against was wrong.
obviously.


----------



## tatripp (Apr 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Which is not how any news organization or reputable organization operates.  If they're willing to lie about one thing, they're willing to lie about everything.



Are you serious? Police do sting operations which involve deception. Does that make them unreputable? Plenty of news organizations do shady things to get info they need. I don't think all of what Project Veritas is good, and I think they often stretch the facts to fit the narrative. Anyways, that doesn't matter that much.

I'm sure that a bunch of countries have manipulated (slightly) and attempted to manipulate US elections in the past. The US has done it frequently to other countries also. Everyone who is pretending to be interested in it right now is suffering from Trump derangement syndrome and will refuse to see the Russian hoax for the Fake News that it is. Take off the blinders and try to be sincere. Trump has a lot of faults, but he clearly is not a Russian agent like leftists want him to be. He also probably didn't obstruct justice. Blind outrage of the Russian "nothing burger" will only give credence to Trump. People who won't drop the Russian nonsense are Trump's biggest allies for his reelection. I didn't vote for Trump in the last election, but I'm going to next election because the other side has completely gone off the deep end.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 14, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> thing i find most funny i how it was trump saying "ooooh people could rig the election" and he was laughed at and mocked for being stupid


Err...no?  I think you're referring to when Trump said that he wouldn't accept the election results, but only if he lost.

People were mostly just concerned/worried when he was directly petitioning Russia for help on live TV, nobody took that as a joke.



tatripp said:


> Are you serious? Police do sting operations which involve deception. Does that make them unreputable?


That's not a good analogy.  Veritas was trying to get other outlets to bite on a fake story, so this is more like the police planting cocaine on a suspect.  And yes, that would cause that specific police department to be labeled as unreputable.


----------

