***AND*** our voting machines were HACKED

[LaydeeBug]

I am sick to death of enabling motherfuckers *pretending* that Russia stopped with the DNC.

I am sick to death of motherfuckers *pretending* that they weren't here on election day.

THESE MOTHERFUCKERS CHEATED, LIED HACKED (and I want to be CRYSTAL CLEAR they hacked the voting machines...yes...THOSE voting machines...like THAT...I am going THERE and saying THAT)

We need to inspect them...and not just for recounting, but for malicious HACKING.

Fuck these lying motherfuckers.

Piss on them

[we can do it]

1. Piss on all of them.

[Botany]

2. Trump himself brought "it" up after being told about the Russian's hacking the election

After Security Meeting, Trump Admits Possibility of Russian Hacking

Source: New York Times



By MICHAEL D. SHEARJAN. 6, 2017

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump acknowledged the possibility on Friday that Russia had hacked a variety of American targets, including the Democratic National Committee, after an almost two-hour meeting with the nation’s top intelligence officials.

Mr. Trump asserted the hacking had no effect on the outcome of the election.

In a statement issued after the president-elect was briefed by senior American intelligence and law enforcement officials, Mr. Trump said: “While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyberinfrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines.”

For months, Mr. Trump had publicly resisted any suggestion that Russia was involved in cyberattacks during the 2016 presidential election and had mocked the intelligence agencies behind assessments on Russian hacking. After Friday’s briefing, he said he has “tremendous respect” for the people who work for American spy agencies.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/donald-trump-wall-hack-russia.html?emc=edit_na_20170106&nlid=57435284&ref=headline&_r=0

[superpatriotman]

3. That statement sure doesn't sound like something he'd be able to compose

by himself

[cyclonefence]

4. I join you in your outrage

but I don't understand how voting machines could be hacked. They aren't online, right? I mean, I believe Trump's people perfectly capable of fiddling with machines, but I don't see how they could have hacked.

[LaydeeBug]

8. Yep. They can be hacked remotely AND

don't forget how few votes it took to swing the electoral college.

A few well placed KGOPBers

[Rene]

153. The servers the vote tally programs are running on

Can be switched without being obvious to officials. ServerA can be switched to ServerB in an entirely different location and vote counts programmed to flip. Then servers switched back. Officials wouldn't see a blip on their screens.

[Raster]

5. Trump: I will accept election results ... if I win

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/20/trump-i-will-accept-election-results-if-i-win-bts.cnn

[JaneQPublic]

6. ABC News: Russian Hackers Targeted Nearly Half of States' Voter Registration Systems...

...Successfully Infiltrated 4.

From Sept. 2016:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/russian-hackers-targeted-half-states-voter-registration-systems/story?id=42435822

If they can access voter registration databases, then they can assure that "certain" voters never even reach the voting machines!

[uponit7771]

20. +++++++++++ WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?+++++++++ This is the same thing I said

...About the electoral board systems !!!

[JaneQPublic]

90. Yep, if they can hack registration databases, then THEY decide who votes! (NT)

[Ligyron]

57. Precisely, and if the authorities claim it to be impossible then

they need to demonstrate how they came to this conclusion. Otherwise, the public has no reason to believe them or believe in the electoral process which we were taught was the entire basis of, and fundamental to - a "free" democracy".

[liberal from boston]

117. Trump

I believe the FBI Report stated that Russia also hacked state electoral systems.

[LaydeeBug]

7. HACKED MOTHERFUCKER. FUCK THESE FUCKING LIARS.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

9. The machines were NOT hacked.

Voting machines are NOT connected to the internet, so to hack them, one would have to be in FRONT of the machine, and open it up to get to the controls on the inside of the machine, then repeat on every other machine. Not such an easy feat.

However, Russia did hack the RNC, DNC, and 4 state voter rolls, among other targets.

[LaydeeBug]

10. Um...YES. They were. And it doesn't ONLY have to be remotely.

Remember, a few well placed KGOP operatives and shit can move.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/vote-machines-audit-function-disabled-and-worse/5556029

[uponit7771]

18. +1, and were best to place them but in rural areas

[Dr Hobbitstein]

22. Global Research is a conspiracy theory site.

The voting machines were NOT hacked. There is not a SINGLE report of that. However, many other things WERE hacked. Let's concentrate on what was actually hacked instead of spouting off baseless conspiracies.

[Amishman]

52. Thank you!

Way too much badly sourced nonsense being touted as fact.

[SlimJimmy]

103. +1

[longship]

51. Absolute rubbish!

In my state, Michigan, all votes are on mark sense paper ballots. They are scanned in plain sight at the thousands of precincts across the state. None of the mark sense scanners are connected except to a power plug. Where I vote there is no Internet connectivity. My township hall is in the midst of a national forest, as are many here.

We take voting seriously here. Unfortunately some loonies make shit up about the integrity of our voting system without any evidence whatsoever.

Look! I get it! I don't like losing either. But making shit up does not help, this especially.

Stop it! Just stop it!

[LaydeeBug]

53. No, it's not

and you certainly didn't watch every vote in Michigan happen, and they don't have to be connected to be hacked.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

54. Yes, it is.

You are spouting bullshit with no proof of anything, aside from a wonky nutter conspiracy theory site.

Try focusing on the ACTUAL THINGS THAT HAPPENED. There's enough outrage in those, why bother with useless conspiracy theories?

[LaydeeBug]

58. Again, no it's not

and I quote, because it really does apply bother ways:

You are spouting bullshit with no proof of anything, aside from a wonky nutter conspiracy theory site.

Try focusing on the ACTUAL THINGS THAT HAPPENED. There's enough outrage in those, why bother with useless conspiracy theories?

see post #13

[Dr Hobbitstein]

61. Seriously, quit lying.

There is no proof, you are making shit up. Which is detracting from the ACTUAL hacking that ACTUALLY occurred. Quit detracting from the ACTUAL issues with made up bullshit.

[LaydeeBug]

63. seriously, I'm not lying...maybe breathe deeply or something?

and read post #6.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

64. I read every bit of bullshit you posted.

And it's exactly that: bullshit.

[LaydeeBug]

66. project much?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

70. ALCOA!

[LaydeeBug]

71. nice pic of you

doesn't change it.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

75. I know.

You don't change your mind when presented with facts. You keep with baseless conjecture and lies, just like a certain Pee-OTUS. Admitting you are wrong would be defeat, and we can't have that, can we. So keep laying it on thicker and heavier, then attack those who tell you you're wrong. Just like a certain Pee-OTUS.

[LaydeeBug]

80. You don't. Really

and you certainly didn't present any.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

85. I did, actually. Posted a link previously. But here's some more that you won't read

because it interferes with your debilitating confirmation bias.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/12/how_russia_hacked_american_voters.html
http://www.dailywire.com/news/11702/homeland-security-chief-no-russians-didnt-hack-james-barrett
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/12/13919702/russian-hackers-donald-trump-2016
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/

[LaydeeBug]

91. Read your articles. and they didn't prove a thing

because "Why screw around with inefficient, resource-intensive brute force hacks on voting machines to flip ballots when you can simply convince voters to do it for you? In other words, by targeting voters’ decision-making processes instead of the machines that record their decisions, Russia could influence the election without breaking into a single electoral computer." is NOT proof they didn't do it.

So let's examine the machines and see.

Because it's about a bunch of bullshit to say *I* am the one clinging...

[Dr Hobbitstein]

96. Yup, I was right. Your confirmation bias is QUITE debilitating.

How do you make it through the day?

[LaydeeBug]

98. Me too. Your information bias is absolutely astounding.

I make it through my day recognizing...

[longship]

77. But there were bipartisan observers at every precinct.

They were my surrogates. And when the votes were counted, there were bipartisan surrogates there, too.

In the past, as a party officer I often participated in election observing, both at the precinct and the county level. We were all trained on what to look for and, most importantly, the security procedures in place to insure vote integrity.

This is what happens across the country. Therefore, the made up shit about hacking the votes is utter rubbish.

Here in Michigan, there is no practical way to do such a thing. I have no doubt of the November outcome, in spite of my utter revulsion of it.

The election is over. Let's get to work on resistance. It's what we have to do.

[LaydeeBug]

82. So? We aren't talking about many votes...when I asked the guy scanning how I would

know my vote was counted...he said, "You don't".

It doesn't have to be a PRACTICAL way.

Those ports can be replaced. Switched. And it wouldn't take many to do it either

[longship]

87. It is all observed!!!!!

Every step of the way there are bipartisan observers. That is why we have a reason to honor the results of our elections, even when they absolutely suck.

And how in the Sam Hell does any entity hack many of the thousands of precinct voting machines even in one state?

Face it! Such claims are just made up shit.

[LaydeeBug]

92. Not every second is observed!!!

holy hell..do you think it's "your Michigan district" everywhere?

[longship]

97. There are observers in almost all precincts.

You are going to have to a lot better than "coulda happened".

Election officials take their jobs very seriously. There are cross-checks throughout the system to insure integrity of the ballots. It is all observed by bipartisan observers. If you don't believe that, that might explain your opinion that it was all hacked.

That's grand conspiracy crapola.

[LaydeeBug]

99. Rubbish! Absolute rubbish!

is "almost" the same as "all"?

[longship]

100. You've got no fucking evidence!

Let's leave it there.

I'm done here.

[LaydeeBug]

101. You've got no fucking evidence either

and I am glad you are done here.

Because I'm not.

[longship]

104. For Christ sakes, one cannot prove a negative!!!!!

It is incumbent on the claimant to support the claim. That would be the ones who claim that the 2016 election was hacked. The absence of evidence of such hacking supports my position.

So... either put up, or... well I'll be polite.

Buh-bye, my friend.

[dumbcat]

111. That one has a problem

with the logic thing. Something way too common here. We're supposed to be the smart ones.

[longship]

114. Sadly, yes.

But I will defend their right to post here. Although I may very well challenge their opinion. (Respectfully. No need for personal attacks.)

My best.

[LaydeeBug]

120. Oh there's a problem allright

and they HACKED this motherfucker.

First they were saying "Oh, it wasn't *Russia*"

Then they were saying, "Oh, you'll never prove it"

Now they're saying, "Oh, but they stopped at the voting machines."

MMMM-kay suuuure

[cwydro]

157. Looks like fake news is not only allowed, but welcome here.

A shame, but if it makes people feel better...

[Dr Hobbitstein]

160. I'm not OK with it.

And I will call every poster out for it.

[cwydro]

163. I'm with you on that one.

It's disturbing.

[LaydeeBug]

170. I certainly think it is too...

People with ABSOLUTELY no proof INSISTING no machines were hacked in light of ALL this Russian hacking.

Just ignore Boris and Vlad over there. Nothing happened.

Disturbing indeed.

[LaydeeBug]

169. see post #136

[LaydeeBug]

167. I know, right? These people want to relate that the Russians hacked the voter files

hacked the DNC, the RNC but they did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to any voting machines.

Astounding turnovers in less populated counties, but don't believe the polls.

Oh, and don't even THINK they did anything to them.

[forthemiddle]

108. In my rural Wisconsin precint

Every minute of the machine balloting IS observed.
There are ALWAYS observers standing next to the scanning machine to make sure the ballot is entered correctly, and the ballot total is numerated.
There are also ALWAYS officials from each party present.

I don't know where you vote, but if this isn't the case, then you need to take it up with your personal locality.

[LaydeeBug]

121. and in my suburban Baltimore one, it wasn't.

[HoneyBadger]

154. This is exactly why paper ballots are the devil

At some moment the ballot is eyes off, and is instantly switched or altered. All it takes is for the observer to blink.

[Ford_Prefect]

88. Longship you live in a fantasy world where there are no experts on voting machines you haven't met.

The technology has existed for some time. It has been used elsewhere by the same parties who likely acted at the behest of the GOP in Michigan as well. They weren't Russians, they were local operators and it only took a few of them. Very old news in the electronic voting world.

The real scam was in Detroit and Wayne county where the machines broke down and more than 300,000 voters never got their ballots counted correctly, if at all.

This election was manipulated on every level and each just enough that they made it appear Trump won. When there was a possibility of hand counting the GOP threw in the kitchen sink to make sure it didn't happen. They played every dirty trick there is to make sure their faked win stayed un-recounted. Don't even start about Wisconsin where the same crooked machines recounted the votes as did on election night, to say nothing of what went on in Waukesha county. In North Carolina we have very good reason to believe that if McCrory had forced a manual recount it would have un-done the Presidential and US Senate races as well.

[longship]

93. Rubbish! Utter rubbish!

In Michigan we have paper ballots state wide.

And concerning the Stein funded recounts, none of the three states (WI, MI, PA) were close enough to reasonably expect that a recount would change the outcome. Somebody should have informed her of that undeniable fact. I supported the recounts, however I knew that they would come to no change, especially since HRC could win solely by turning all three states around. There was near zero chance for that, even in MI which had the closest margin.

Before one starts screeching "hacked votes" one had better have some fucking evidence. I have seen none beyond "it coulda happened." I do not buy "coulda". That's not evidence.

The election is over. It's time to organize and resist! There are zero ways to nullify a US presidential election except for those in the US Constitution, none of which include election do overs.

The hacked election argument is fucking useless.

[Ford_Prefect]

107. So you insist that it could not happen nor have any influence over the count anywhere?

The elections were sliced, diced, and hacked some too. There are so many ways it was cut up and re-arranged you need a spreadsheet to track them. Hacking was only one part of the whole scheme and didn't apply everywhere. We know about Crosscheck and the several million voter registrations removed via this criminal method. Others were simply tossed as in the Charlotte DMV. Many more voters were threatened and denied through illegal voter ID laws and programs in a number of GOP controlled states.

Let us not discuss the enabling of Trump by the MSM as a sideshow. Let us ignore the many streams of Faked news throughout the primary and general elections. No mention will we make of the activities of the FBI Director and several subordinates, or the irresponsible (if not treasonous) actions of McConnell.

Let us never remark on the documented divisive activities of the DNC and HRC leadership, or on their utter failure to field an effective ground game in the upper Midwest in the last weeks of the campaign. Of their hubris that it was all but won we will say nothing. Yes I have issues with how that all fell out. Even so there are still 3 million voters in Cal who had their votes effectively nullified by an archaic sop to the racist history of our country.

We campaigned damn hard here in NC to the last minute. We know the territory and the numbers and they DON"T add up. But we also know what the game needs to be within the party. The middle way is over. It failed, massively.

What we need is a party that works every day, not just every 4 years. That is one effective difference between them and us that really hurts. We need party leaders that are willing to fight for us, every damn day, who enunciate the truths Obama referred to in his speech in the face of the endless lies and bent liars in Congress.

[longship]

112. I made no such claim.

I am stating that the claim that HRC lost because the 2016 election was hacked is poo poo cah cah.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

140. Agree. Voting machines can easily be hacked into. The machines that we have in our area don't

even show you at the end who your recorded vote is for. Also no paper trail. They had someone show how someone hack into a machine with a hairpin.

[LaydeeBug]

142. Do you mind if I ask what state you are in?

Folk seem to be ADAMANT this could NEEEEEEEVER happen here.

[GregD]

128. Internet connectivity not necessarily needed.

There are a small handful of companies that provide the voting machines, at least a couple of which have demonstrable GOP ties. Look into the background of the Urosevich brothers who are involved at a very high level with Diebold and ESS.

The software running in all of these machines, to the best of my understanding, is proprietary - protected by copyright.

No member of the government, much less the PUBLIC, is allowed to examine the code. That is unforgivable and needs to be changed.

That being the case, a junior programmer could easily build logic that is IF this is prior to the election, at which time calibration testing could be performed, work precisely correctly. But IF this is ELECTION DAY, do whatever.

Given that nobody will see the code, it's just not that hard to imagine how this crap can be rigged.

Then look at how hard the GOP fought to resist the recounts. What were they trying to hide?

Look at Bev's site:
http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-video/

[putitinD]

151. then 75K votes were never counted from Detroit and Flint which were probably all Hillary votes.

[longship]

156. That's not hacking.

And I saw your claim reported. But I'm not sure I believe it.

[jeanmarc]

94. Your entire topic is bullshit

We had a very usual and stupid election. A single source won't help you, and conspiracy theory needs to end when there's no evidence.

[moda253]

13. What?

The internet isn't required to hack a voting machine.

We know that some of these machines come equipped with wifi and/or bluetooth enabled cards in them. We know that some states require them and some states ask that they be removed. What we don't know for sure is if all of them that were supposed to be removed were in fact removed on election day or frankly any of the days leading up to election day.

Also any machine with a port of any sort on them is susceptible to hacking. All it takes is for someone to insert a device into that port and for the program to run which could possibly take very little time. This isn't something that would necessarily need to be done during the voting process it could be done before hand and the hack writes logic into the code that flips ever X vote from D to R and then removes itself from the code at X time. ]]There likely would be fingerprints left behind but we don't know because there is nothing being done to check.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

24. The machines don't have ports on the outside. All the ports are internal.

For what you are implying to have taken place, they would have needed MULTIPLE agents, disassembling machines and inserting devices into them, executing code, then removing the device and reassembling the machine. While the polls are open.

Didn't happen.

[uponit7771]

17. State and local electoral board systems were hacked... Per the report

[Dr Hobbitstein]

21. Yes, and I said that. But those are NOT voting machines. nt

[uponit7771]

23. Electoral is worse..They can purge votes ... The voter machines is distraction when there are better

... ways to hack us elections at a macro level that's pulled less people

[Dr Hobbitstein]

25. The voting machines weren't hacked.

All the proof is that DNC/RNC/state/local elections boards being hacked. Nothing about machines.

[uponit7771]

27. We have no proof they weren't and there should objectively be no benefit of ...

... doubt given to Benedict Donald and his crew on this

[Dr Hobbitstein]

40. We have no proof they were.

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2017, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Railing about something that might have happened but you have NO proof is dishonest.


There are plenty of ACTUAL things that did happen. Let's concentrate on those, lest we look like a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing nutters.

[LaydeeBug]

55. The Russian infilatration is certainly proof

and pretending these machines, can't be, or weren't, when every other metric showed her winning diminishes you.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

56. Making claims with no proof diminishes you.

THERE IS NO PROOF! Quit making shit up.

[LaydeeBug]

60. making claims with no proof diminshes YOU

mansplain much? SEE POST #6

[Dr Hobbitstein]

62. Wait, now I'm mansplaining?

What the fucking fuck is your malfunction?

[LaydeeBug]

65. My fucking malfunction is that the voting machines were hacked

see post #6.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

67. Bull. Fucking. Shit.

See post #67.

[LaydeeBug]

69. Bull. Fucking. Shit.

see post #6

[Dr Hobbitstein]

73. Your precious post #6 states that state election boards were hacked, which I've already acknowledge.

Not a thing about voting machines being hacked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028458577#post6

[LaydeeBug]

83. and yet, still...

HACKED.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

86. Not voting machines, though.

And that's what we're saying. NO ONE HACKED THE FUCKING MACHINES.

The DNC/RNC, and state and local election databases were hacked (4, to be exact), along with other entities.

[LaydeeBug]

122. I *get* that you're saying that, but you have no fucking proof

and there is a LOT of proof that something was afoot.

But you *need* the last word.

And I *like* entertainment.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

143. Try living in Florida and have 100% certainty that people are not screwing around with machines, etc

(my lead suspect would be the Repub party who did it before in this state). First, we have 80+year olds supervising everything at most of these polling places and there are many steps in the whole process. We had several counties that had BIG problems and they occurred in every step of the process. Some guy had tons of ballots in the trunk of his car that he forgot to turn in a few elections ago. Katherine Harris also had a hand in one of our elections in our state in case you forgot. What state do you live in?

[tritsofme]

139. LOL, this has to be an act...right?

...please? Restore some of my faith in humanity here!

[Glitterati]

28. Perhaps you should understand that is where they program the ballots

At the electoral boards.

How do you think they present you with a ballot ON the voting machine?

They use the voting machines themselves to prepare and create the ballots.

IF someone were going to hack the voting machines THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE AND HOW they would do it.

At that point every card inserted into a voting machine on election day has already been HACKED. There is simply no need to do it when everyone is voting.

[uponit7771]

31. EI my reply that the machines got hacked at a macro level

[MFM008]

33. See Ohio

2004.
They locked themselves in with the machines.
I'm sure some were tampered with.

[brooklynite]

50. The ODP Chair disagrees with you.

John Kerry disagrees with you.

All the losing candidates in Ohio disagree with you.

[TheFrenchRazor]

146. "democratic leaders" are clueless and toothless. that's why we keep doing this again and again. nt

[brooklynite]

164. Democratic Leaders (whom I know personally) vs anonymous bloggers...how to choose

[LaydeeBug]

168. Hold up! Now if you *KNOW THEM PERSONALLY* but are an anonymous blogger here

LOL! That is hilarious

[brooklynite]

171. My real name is in my profile...

...and you're welcome to look up my FEC filings. That's been known here for years.

[LaydeeBug]

177. And, again...so? Even if you were a celebrity, again...so?

Really. Seriously. Do you think that makes you the arbiter of something here?

anonymous internet bloggers vs. your PERSONAL internet blog post is still...anonymous.

I mean, unless you know ALL OF US personally...which you don't

[brooklynite]

179. My point is that I know people who's job is to know politics...

...and their assessment is far more accurate than that of the average blogger. You can choose to believe that I DON'T know these people (again, check my FEC reports for an idea of the kind of access my contributions make possible). You can choose not to believe me; I could care less.

[LaydeeBug]

181. I know people too...that is still a fallacy

They can't say for sure those machines weren't hacked.

[KittyWampus]

35. Doesn't have to be voting machines. Just purge several thousand Democratic registrations.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

36. I acknowledged that in the state hacks.

The OP claimed the VOTING MACHINES were hacked. I said they were NOT hacked, but the other things were. Jeez. Reading comprehension, people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028458577#post9

However, Russia did hack the RNC, DNC, and 4 state voter rolls, among other targets.

[longship]

43. Yup! And MI has statewide paper mark sense ballots.

And where I live and vote, as in many counties, there is no Internet connectivity. Shit! There's not even cable tv.

This vote hacking conspiracy theory is utter rubbish.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

46. Indeed.

We have actual proof that Russia hacked other things, but hey, let's rail about this conspiracy theory based in technology that I don't understand because tinfoil.

[TheFrenchRazor]

147. was there a statewide hand/eye recount of this paper? oh yeah, NO. nt

[Turn CO Blue]

102. The specific ballot format and details have to be installed on each machine

The machines arrive BLANK - no software and some with no firmware.

How is the ballot information installed on the machines and in the machines?

There is where the vulnerability is.

The clerk gets on a VPN on the INTERNET and logs into a software hosted by the machine VENDOR and designs the ballot for each precinct (sometimes hundreds of precincts, each with a unique ballot)
Then the completed ballot (with all the candidates, questions, bond issues, etc) is then installed on each machine.

How is it installed?

-Online connectivity - In some precincts it is done over wi-fi connectivity (probably 30% this way)
-Hard wired connectivity - In some precincts is is done with ethernet cable connectivity
-Firmware or Microchip installation - In some districts (60%) it is done by OPENING THE MACHINES (so machines are unsealed, remember that) and installing four microchips which were PROGRAMMED by the VENDOR and burned onto chips and then SHIPPED to the clerk.

WHO AUDITS AND VETS THE ENTIRE CHAIN OF CUSTODY? WHO CHECKS THE BACKGROUND OF THE VENDOR EMPLOYEES? WHO AUDITS THE SECURITY OF THEIR NETWORK?

It does not take a conspiracy of many people - it only takes a single person at the vendor or the clerk's office or the shipping company. Or it only takes a single hack to install one obscure, hidden single line of base code that get installed on the microchips (to either strip&flip or to change the mode setting back and forth every few votes or change the calibration on the touchscreen.)

Any single employee in the installation process, on their network or involved in the chain of custody of the microchips or in the shipping or receiving process could rewrite the software, change a line of code in the software, change out the firmware, change out the chips or rewrite the chips and the entire election is rigged instantly. Any single employee at the shipping company could change the chips.

- - - - - - -

The machines have different modes of operation-
training
testing
election

Who sets the mode? where is the button or setting to set the mode?
Who audits that the mode is correct for every single vote?

We call it blackbox voting because we there is no audit history log that can be made available to the clerk or to the public, and because neither clerks or secretaries of state nor citizen can audit the software code or the microchip code or the chips themselves. We call it blackbox voting because the entire process is completely and utterly vulnerable to tampering from software to firmware to mode-settings and to online and physical tampering.

The whole process depends on the security and integrity of a vendor, one of which we know for a fact was hacked by Russians last year.

Remember, the machines arrive blank.

[Turn CO Blue]

115. Prove the chain of custody of the Eproms was inviolate.The govt already disclosed vendor was hacked.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

116. You're the one making the claims, you need to provide the proof.

That's how this works. You can't jump to a conclusion with zero evidence and ask someone to disprove it. Evidence is important. Wild claims are for whacko conspiracy theorist nutters, not sane individuals wishing to have a rational conversation.

[Turn CO Blue]

118. My argument is that the machines are wide open to tampering, and that is a FACT

So I've proved my case. I only have to show flaws in the process, and means and opportunity. Then it's up to the clerks and the vendors to prove that all the numbers line up.

Done, done and done (see MIT, Princeton, Wired magazine, UK intelligence reports)

The standard for scientific theory is utterly misapplied here.

The standard that applies in this situation is regulatory process and power of the audit.

If the government or FDIC suspects a bank is covering up for embezzled or mishandled funds, then the bank auditors and officers have to prove all the funds are there, not the other way around.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

119. You, like the OP have proved NOTHING aside from you both particpate

in baseless conjecture.

[LaydeeBug]

125. Nope, your confirmation bias precludes you from seeing the facts

and I am sorry for that.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

131. What fucking facts?

You haven't presented a SINGLE fact. Just pulled bullshit out of your ass and straight up rebuked any attempt to SHOW YOU ACTUAL FUCKING FACTS!!! You are DEVOID of facts.

[LaydeeBug]

133. So *astounding* this bias of yours.

post #42, #115, #118

and the FACT that you *just* *can't* leave this alone.

But thanks for the kick.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

136. You're right, I'll stop feeding you.

Back under your bridge now.

[LaydeeBug]

138. I am not under a bridge, not am I hungry for your tripe

But I *am* relieved you've promised to stop.

I don't *really* believe you will, but here's to hoping!

[TheFrenchRazor]

148. you (and everybody else) can't prove they WEREN'T hacked. that you don't think is a problem is scary

[Dr Hobbitstein]

159. And you (or the OP) can't prove they WERE.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. No one has produced a shred of evidence. They weren't hacked.

[LaydeeBug]

126. Thank you for this. nt

[Initech]

127. This is 100,000,000,000 times worse than the hanging fucking chads.

The republicans can't win without lying, cheating, and stealing and this is proof of that. The sad thing is none of these motherfucking assholes will be prosecuted. McConnell will keep his job, as will Comey, as will Trump and Pence. This is an absolute travesty.

[GregD]

129. How are you so certain they were not hacked?

Internet connectivity is not necessarily required. See my post 128.

If for no other reason than to be realistically informed about the subject, you should research this a bit.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

130. How are you so sure they were?

Hint: No one of ANY credibility is talking about the machines being hacked. Only whacko conspiracy theorists.

If there was a SHRED of evidence, don't you think that CREDIBLE voices would be screaming about this?

It seems reason has left the building.

[GregD]

182. you are spending an awful lot of energy defending your position

and I did not say they were hacked.

My point is that for the machines to be attacked, the is not an assumed need for access to the machines at the polling place, as it is possible under the current structure to attack the very software that runs both the touch screen machines, the precinct-level tabulators, and the county-level tabulators.

At the county level, there would very likely be an Internet connection.

But the big problem that you don't seem to acknowledge or respond to is that there is proprietary/secret software running our election machines, and I consider that intolerable. Don't you?

The (lack of) integrity of those machines must certainly been part of what Stein sought to expose through their recount efforts. Can you at least agree with that much?

[Matt_R]

183. This is the best example of a Conspiracy Theory.

The machines are NOT connected to the internet. There is a card that is used to activate the machine. The races are pre-loaded into the voting machines and card, and the count is recorded in the machines and card. The only internet connection that is used is to verify that you are a registered voter in the precinct you are voting in.

There is very little secrecy about the voting machines this day and age, just ask. Or volunteer to be a poll worker or observer. You would then see how many people are involved at the precinct and county levels, and understand how absurd these conspiracies are.

Edit to add:
The only hacking that was done was to discredit the Democrats. Also there were millions purged from the voter rolls, that is what we need to fight. We need to have everyone registered to vote and ALLOW all US Residents the ability to vote unobstructed.

[LaydeeBug]

189. Your cogent point flies in the face of his notion

that these machines can't be hacked.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

132. How do you know there was no hacking? It's impossible to know that.

To say it with such authority is also ridiculous.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

134. To say that there was (like the OP) with no evidence is even more ridiculous.

Last edited Thu Jan 12, 2017, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Whatever happened to reason? When did we start making baseless accusations with zero proof? And why are those who call that out taken to task?

[lindysalsagal]

188. Agreed. A bank/computer expert I know agreed that hacks are either impossible

or require massive human collusion, just to turn one prescinct, at least they are these days.

There would be an enormous human trail leaving everyone accountable and prosecutable.

However, they absolutely did effect voter turnout and the fake news drove voters away from HRC.

[Dreamer3]

11. Not only hacked...

but the election fraud and corruption is why the republicans got so many seats. ONE THOUSAND SEATS!

It is a long list, to include, purging voter rolls and gerrymandering.

[LaydeeBug]

12. One thousand seats?

[Dreamer3]

19. Yes, 1,000 republican seats nationwide.

Governors & state and federal legislators.

[uponit7771]

16. Yeap.... There's no turnover like that unless something's really fucked up

[mopinko]

14. i knew that when we went down.

methinks they werent even that sneaky, that they knew if someone was watching, county by county, that someone would pick up on something. we would pick up on it, w our eyes everywhere, and all on the counting.

3 surprise states by just enough to avoid a recount? never swallowed it.

[uponit7771]

15. Yes!!! The report says they gained access to state and local level machines!!!!

[bowens43]

26. any evidence to support your claim that the voting machines were hacked?

[marybourg]

32. More evidence than tRump had for claiming

that Pres. Obama wasn't born in the U.S. And that lie propelled him into the White House. More evidence than the GOPers had for claiming that Sec. Clinton was responsible for Benghazi or that she broke the law by using a private e-mail server or that she mis-handled classified mail. And those lies got them control of both Houses of Congress.

So, I say keep stirring up the shit. We've got to stop going to the gunfight with a letter opener.

[KittyWampus]

39. Possibly not voting machines. Registrations could have been purged. And then there're the tabulators

And since the recounts didn't happen and in some instance could NEVER happen due to a paper trail... there is no logical reason to accept any count.

And that is the issue. The lack of transparency, accountability means our election process is extremely vulnerable to manipulation.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

41. None. Just baseless conjecture. nt

[longship]

47. Do you mean other than the fact that voting machines are not connected to the INet?

How does one hack a machine not connected?

What does one do? Send agents into the thousands of precincts in a state to tweak the outcome in front of election officers and bipartisan observers? How does this work, especially statewide?

This vote hacking conspiracy theory is utter rubbish. There is no evidence to support it. It's just made up shit.

[Dem2]

29. They hacked the voters

The polling error was too wide ranging and was concentrated in areas with higher blue collar white suburban voters ( I live here I witnessed the brainwashing.) This was a mind attack (assisted by Russian internet spamming and Comey), not a physical voting machine attack.

It's possible that some places had machines that were attacked, but that's not possible where I live and yet the results here were in line with the other places that have machines that could possibly be attacked, so it wasn't enough to swing the election in my opinion.

Go to any Ford or Chevy High Performance Automotive website and you will find clocks showing the countdown to Obama leaving and sheep there that will defend Trump no matter if he killed live babies on TV. The brainwashing is real. The ridiculous partisan hate is real. The bigotry is real.

[ecstatic]

30. Yep. Trump's approval is currently 37% and dropping; he lost by

nearly 3 million votes. Something really stinks! I still don't think Americans are that stupid.

[ElementaryPenguin]

34. That's where this is leading. Putin has more to compromise Trump with than intelligence is yet

Revealing. Count on it. Exit polls... There is NOTHING Putin wouldn't have done to accomplish this (nor Trump). And they DO have the means. Our election system is a joke - and our democracy will cease to exist altogether if this isn't addressed (the GOP will not willingly address - this have to be shamed into it by an active movement by the public DEMANDING this be remedied!)

[MoonRiver]

37. They thought they had gotten away with it in 2012.

That's why KKK Rove was just so amazed when he learned Obama won reelection.

[mythology]

38. You have exactly no evidence to support your claim

No matter how much you stomp your feet and sling insults, you aren't any better than Ken Ham claiming nothing could change his mind about evolution, based on nothing but his own unsupported assumptions.

You can use all caps, throw in as many uses of the word fuck, insult everybody who has the temerity to question you, and none of it makes you right.

As I have pointed out in other threads you've posted in, there was virtually no difference between Wisconsin counties that did hand recounts and those that used machines. You don't have an answer to the gigantic hole that blows in your theory.

[KittyWampus]

42. Except if a large enough number of people were prevented from voting by being purged beforehand.

But I do agree, the OP'er is making an error in fact.

It wasn't our voting machines that were hacked.

[Lint Head]

44. The election was Russian rigged.

[KGBot001]

45. We need a system where you can see

If your vote actually counted. I feel like my vote might have been thrown out on a technicality. That's BS.

[hamsterjill]

48. I don't know WTF happened on election day, but I know that SOMETHING did.

There is no way in hell that the polls were THAT wrong. No way. Even the Republican white men that I work around on a daily basis were insisting that Hillary was going to win in a landslide.

I don't know if machines were hacked, or results were somehow changed or what, but the very fact that there could be a possibility of ANYTHING happening should be reason enough to do a thorough and complete investigation of each and every vote cast. How can we trust the system if it is not open and transparent?

[wordpix]

161. my first thought on Nov. 9 early am, too

[brooklynite]

49. Prove it

I'm sick to death of people throwing out "we all know" conspiracy theories with no evidence.

Hillary Clinton doesn't say voting machines were hacked.

Barack Obama doesn't say voting machines were hacked.

Bernie Sanders doesn't say voting machines were hacked.

NO LOSING CANDIDATE says voting machines were hacked.

NO PARTY OFFICIAL says voting machines were hacked.


But maybe anonymous bloggers are savvier than they are.

[LaydeeBug]

68. PROVE THEY WEREN'T.

[brooklynite]

74. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

[LaydeeBug]

78. which is why you should get on it

[brooklynite]

89. Sorry, but I have to first "prove" god doesn't exist.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

76. sigh...

One does not prove a negative. Do you understand how the process works? You make a claim, you provide evidence.

[LaydeeBug]

79. ***YAWN***

[TheFrenchRazor]

149. sigh. you're ok with invisible votes; some of us aren't. nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

158. PROVE IT. Nt

[Ace Rothstein]

81. Good grief.

When you claim that machines were hacked, you need to provide evidence of that. Telling others to provide evidence that they weren't isn't how it works.

[LaydeeBug]

84. Good grief indeed.

I can prove every bit as much as they can.

You're welcome.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

144. Neither side can prove it was or wasn't hacked or there was some cheating somewhere along the

line.

[linuxman]

174. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.

You claimed the voting machines were hacked in your OP. Can you prove that?

[LaydeeBug]

176. Back up your claim with proof or stop pretending.

The "burden of proof"? LOL Is this a court and you're the judge? This is a fucking *discussion* board, where I am discussing.

And your claim that nothing happened is absolutely helping them.

[linuxman]

180. So no then.

[libtodeath]

59. Way too much shit has happened that makes no sense

and no matter what we are left with repukes all the way through every impeachment secession.
I have never felt so hopeless.

[anarch]

72. just my hypothetical 2 cents' worth

- code could have been inserted in the machines in advance (without any "hacking" on election day) to do something like changing a small percentage of Clinton votes to Johnson or Stein votes, and likely in a way that would be untraceable

- the tabulation of votes would have required the transmission of the raw data from the voting machines to a central point, and the data could have been interfered with somehow during that process...without an actual paper trail, you could likely never prove any malfeasance, especially with the total margin needed to win the electoral vote being so small...just a very small percentage of flipped votes (and again, not even to the Republican side--just swapping some votes to the other candidates would have been enough)

This is not based on any evidence or special knowledge, but it certainly seemed extremely odd that the election results varied from the exit polls as they did.

Of course, with the voter suppression efforts, nothing like these scenarios may have even been needed to get the result that we got out of this ridiculous election. Frankly I had a feeling throughout the whole election cycle that nothing good could come of any of this, no matter the results. Our country is just all kinds of fucked up.

[jmg257]

95. Were the exit polls hacked too? They sure seemed that they were pretty nuts on.

[triron]

105. Good point

I am again citing this analysis by Ron Baiman, Ph. D.

http://www.cpegonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Unexplained-Patterns-in-2016-and-Earlier-U.S.-Elections.pdf

24 out of 28 states favored Trump in 'actual' vote count relative to exit poll results. Chances of this happening is less than 1 in 13000!

[jmg257]

109. My questions with all this concerns "unadjusted exit polls"

"However it is important to understand that these “exit polls” are adjusted versions of actual
exit poll data"

What is it? And how useful is "raw exit poll data".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2658058


https://www.thenation.com/article/reminder-exit-poll-conspiracy-theories-are-totally-baseless/

When the polls close, pollsters don’t adjust the data to “match the official results.” They use the official results from the relatively small number of polling places where they conducted interviews to refine their sample. For example, if their model assumed that 30 percent of voters at a polling place would be black, and that number actually turns out to be 20 percent, or 40 percent, then they’ll weight the data accordingly. During this period, they’re also entering any surveys that were sent in late (again, this is all based on incomplete data).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit/

Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof. Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable telephone surveys.

2. Exit polls have consistently overstated the Democratic share of the vote. Many of you will recall this happening in 2004, when leaked exit polls suggested that John Kerry would have a much better day than he actually had. But this phenomenon was hardly unique to 2004. In 2000, for instance, exit polls had Al Gore winning states like Alabama and Georgia (!). If you go back and watch The War Room, you’ll find George Stephanopolous and James Carville gloating over exit polls showing Bill Clinton winning states like Indiana and Texas, which of course he did not win.

[Throd 2.0]

110. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.

But I can tell that nothing will make you believe otherwise.

[qanda]

113. I still think that is why DU went down

Information was starting to be filtered about voting irregularities. It was very interesting.

[ConnorMarc]

123. We Need To Stop With The Conspiracy Stories

That's how you get rightly labelled as kooks.

There's no evidence that the machines were hacked...period. End of story.

Snap out of it!!!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

137. The OP does not respond to reason.

The OP is better suited to dealing with billy goats crossing a bridge.

[LaydeeBug]

141. You promised to go away...

and not *EVEN* TWO MINUTES later...lol...

all to make an "Under the Bridge" joke. The *same* one?

[ananda]

124. Agree!

The narrative on this is so controlled.

[LaydeeBug]

135. Very controlled....

perfect.

[TheFrenchRazor]

145. we need all paper ballots, all hand-counted, all the time. it's not that hard. nt

[MaeScott]

150. Amen. nt

[madokie]

152. I think the ptb

have two reasons for the electronic voting and vote counting machines. One of course is to get results out faster. The main reason though is to change the vote to reflect what it is they want and what they want is to take us back before the new deal, before the labor unions, before any semblance of access to any kind of life saving health care. These mo'fo's would rather we die

[loyalsister]

155. Not helpful!

In fact it has potential to be very damaging by discouraging people from voting "why try, they'll be hacked anyway." Or, why shouldn't I vote 3rd party, "It'll be hacked anyway."

It is more productive to focus on not letting the legal barriers, like photo ID, get in our way in 2018. AND, fielding Democratic candidates who will stand up for our values and can get elected.

[LaydeeBug]

165. It's *NOT* helpful, and yet, it is still true.

These machines are STILL vulnerable.

It is more productive to tell the truth about this than to pretend "there's nothing to see" when there clearly is.

You're welcome

[loyalsister]

172. More productive if it supresses voter turnout?

As several have pointed out here, there is no proof to support your claim. Yet, spreading that gospel becomes a conspiracy then becomes conventional wisdom that implies voting is a waste of time. We have a responsibility at least to NOT discourage voting.

[LaydeeBug]

173. more productive than your suggestion, which is pretend NOTHING happened

and believe you/me, the voter turn out suppression will NOT be because we questioned the machines.

It will be because we did NOT question the results...when *EVERY* metric....every metric said otherwise.

We certainly DO have a responsibility to NOT discourage voting, which is why I am perplexed that you are pretending there is nothing to see here.

[loyalsister]

175. What you see as "pretending nothing happened"

I see as not making claims without evidence. You don't have evidence of hacking yet seem to want it to be true.

[wordpix]

162. Lindsay Graham says that Trump's confirming Russia hacked is a positive dev't

[LaydeeBug]

166. He did? When?

[Else You Are Mad]

178. There is no evidence that the voting machines were hacked.

That would mean that there had to be a coordinated effort in the thousands of voting districts. The only hacking that occurred was the 4 states's voting registry. The emails were not hacked, Podesta fell for a simple phishing attempt wherein he revealed his password to someone else -- that is not hacking.

We should stop focusing on the BS hacking claim and focus on WHY Hillary lost instead of thinking it couldn't be Hillary and it must have been an outside actor.

[LaydeeBug]

185. No..it wouldn't mean that...

It would only mean there had to be a coordinated effort in a couple hundred districts. I've worked elections since 1986. Please don't try and tell me it isn't possible. I wouldn't even be surpirsed if this wasn't the first time.

Honestly.

[Else You Are Mad]

186. Have you worked in espionage as well?

Because it would be a nearly impossible thing to do with even a few hundred districts. Even the experts are saying it would be impossible and did not happen.

[LaydeeBug]

187. Sure it would. *Impossible*. It *never* happened. It never *could* happen. O-kay

Whatever.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028482842

[Initech]

184. Nothing less than a full embargo against Russia is acceptable at this point.

What they did was inexcusable. They fucked up big time with this one.

[LaydeeBug]

190. absolute kick, because you called this... nt