Recount?

[4est_4est_Gump]

You participate in "conversations?"

Don't you simply ask pointed questions?

I've asked you some questions; does that mean we're having a conversation?

Why haven't you answered any of my questions?

Are you afraid to answer them?

*chuckle*

He's asking the questions here.

NOW ANSWER THEM DAMMIT!!!

 

[Conager]

Wrong.
Access to the software would make it possible to hack electronic voting. To the best of my knowledge no state uses open source software in their voting machines or make it available for anyone to examine.

I suppose that's possible if you got to it before it's loaded onto the machines. But it'd be kind of hard to have software that somehow erased all evidence of itself but stayed resident long enough to infect each machine as each was loaded with the software.

It might not be open source, but I'm pretty certain someone in the federal government has access and has a copy of it. The Obama Administration says they looked and are confident of the election results from a cybersecurity standpoint. Why don't you trust the Obama Administration?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You participate in "conversations?"

Don't you simply ask pointed questions?

I've asked you some questions; does that mean we're having a conversation?

Why haven't you answered any of my questions?

Are you afraid to answer them?

When Quenager doesn't like the way the conversation is going he makes up his own.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

*chuckle*

He's asking the questions here.

NOW ANSWER THEM DAMMIT!!!

When Quenager doesn't like the way the conversation is going he makes up his own, and then the BroCode bunch runs in to embarrass themselves.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

When Quenager doesn't like the way the conversation is going he makes up his own.

When Quenager doesn't like the way the conversation is going he makes up his own, and then the BroCode bunch runs in to embarrass themselves.

lol

Redneck translation: I sure as fucking hell resent Conager using my own tactics on ME!

ME!!!​

 

[about_average]

I suppose that's possible if you got to it before it's loaded onto the machines.But it'd be kind of hard to have software that somehow erased all evidence of itself[ but stayed resident long enough to infect each machine as each was loaded with the software.

Not in the least.
Also, it doesn't have to erase itself. Given the very limited number of people with access to the code there's not way every line of code can be examined in the amount of time they have.

It might not be open source, but I'm pretty certain someone in the federal government has access and has a copy of it. The Obama Administration says they looked and are confident of the election results from a cybersecurity standpoint. Why don't you trust the Obama Administration?

Where did they say they examined the voting machines' code?
You have a link to such a statement, or are you still making things up?

 

[phrodeau]

Not in the least.
Also, it doesn't have to erase itself. Given the very limited number of people with access to the code there's not way every line of code can be examined in the amount of time they have.

Where did they say they examined the voting machines' code?
You have a link to such a statement, or are you still making things up?

And there's no possible way for the FBI to check out 600,000 e-mails over the course of a weekend.

That is, unless they used a computer of some sort. You know, I'm nearly positive there is a computer that can compare current code with archived code really fast.

 

[Beco]

You're certainly entitled to that opinion. Perhaps Stein doesn't trust the government as much as you do.

Yeah, she likes Castro better.....go figure

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Because someone has to have physical access to each and every individual machine that they want to hack.

Far easier to do it was the Democrats always do it- they pick a district where there are no Republicans and they just simply add a couple extra boxes of paper ballots.

the exact same people who have screamed for years that we don't need voter ID laws, that we don't need better oversight at polling places that demand the justice department watch the poll watchers to keep the poll watchers from keeping the ballot stuffers from stuffing the ballot boxes, claim that there is zero evidence of any of this occurring are speculating on something highly unlikely that no one has any evidence occurred.

It is surreal.

What evidence do you have to support that allegation?

 

[Ms_Ann]

The Winners Count Their Money, and the Losers Cry Deal.

 

[Ms_Ann]

The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts

 

[about_average]

And there's no possible way for the FBI to check out 600,000 e-mails over the course of a weekend.

Of course they could.

That is, unless they used a computer of some sort. You know, I'm nearly positive there is a computer that can compare current code with archived code really fast.

Of course they could, assuming the software vendors have given the feds access to all the code and they are comparing a limited number of versions. Or that the feds admit they have reverse engineered the code.
And then taken the time to inspect each of the changes in code to make sure it wasn't anything nefarious.
I do code comparison all the time, but I still have to look at the deltas to see what they actually do.

It also assumes they have access to all the possible intrusion paths.
https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/evt07/tech/full_papers/feldman/feldman_html/index.html

If the feds have done such check for deltas, what would be the purpose of not saying they had?

 

[about_average]

What evidence do you have to support that allegation?

You do realize he rarely provides any evidence of his claims, right? And the few times he does present evidence it rarely, if ever, actually backs up his claims.

 

[Conager]

When Quenager doesn't like the way the conversation is going he makes up his own.

Does this mean you don't like the way the conversation is going so you're making up one of your own?

 

[phrodeau]

Of course they could.

Of course they could, assuming the software vendors have given the feds access to all the code and they are comparing a limited number of versions. Or that the feds admit they have reverse engineered the code.
And then taken the time to inspect each of the changes in code to make sure it wasn't anything nefarious.
I do code comparison all the time, but I still have to look at the deltas to see what they actually do.

It also assumes they have access to all the possible intrusion paths.
https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/evt07/tech/full_papers/feldman/feldman_html/index.html

If the feds have done such check for deltas, what would be the purpose of not saying they had?

For a start, the feds have nothing to do with it. Election methods are decided at the state level or lower.

And I can hardly imagine an election commission that doesn't have complete access to the software code. Who in their right mind would allow that?

 

[Conager]

For a start, the feds have nothing to do with it. Election methods are decided at the state level or lower.

And I can hardly imagine an election commission that doesn't have complete access to the software code. Who in their right mind would allow that?

Are you asserting that a formal, official statement, issued for attribution from the Obama Adminstration that the election results were secure from a cyber-security standpoint is not credible?

Why your different stance on secure election results?

You and others have long asserted the lack of FEDERAL prosecutions as indicative of no evidence and that no evidence means it does not happen in meaningful amounts. Even in races decided by under 1000 votes.

Now that you fantasize that the Rooskies suddenly got involved, no evidence just means no one caught them.

Why do you suppose the Roooskies picked this one and ignored all opportunities to meddle in previous elections, for instance against pinko-commie hating conservatives and for commie luvin' unilateral disarmament preaching liberals?

You know who is known to meddle in free elections? The US. Specifically read Hillary's emailed suggestions on an insecure server about the subject.

 

[about_average]

For a start, the feds have nothing to do with it. Election methods are decided at the state level or lower.

I realize that, but Que was arguing that the feds say it was secure.

And I can hardly imagine an election commission that doesn't have complete access to the software code. Who in their right mind would allow that?

I could also ask, who in their right minds would allow electronic voting machines with no paper audit trail. But at least 13 states have that, including PA.
Without such an audit trail a "recount" is meaningless.

Regardless, voting machine hacks have been demonstrated.

 

[Ishmael]

Apparently I'm not the only one that has concluded that the real strategy here is to de-legitimize Trump's election.

What's Real


It will certainly work with their base, but their base already thinks Trump's election is illegitimate. I can't wait to see how pissing everyone else off just to energize a base that's already energized is going to work out for them.

Ishmael

 

[about_average]

Some self-styled expert and partisan hack speculates that it might be possible to hack machine and goes on to give a really unlikely series of events on how that might happen.

He has no particular knowledge of the machines, their programming, or their software. He has not examined them in any way, he just says he's computer expert and that if he wanted to he could hack them.

Is this the "partisan hack" you're referring to, who has no knowledge of electronic voting?
https://jhalderm.com/home/halderman-cv.pdf
https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/ch7-evoting-attacks-2016.pdf

 

[Beco]

Apparently I'm not the only one that has concluded that the real strategy here is to de-legitimize Trump's election.

What's Real


It will certainly work with their base, but their base already thinks Trump's election is illegitimate. I can't wait to see how pissing everyone else off just to energize a base that's already energized is going to work out for them.

Ishmael

deligitimze and distract....and to add some money for Jill Stein.

The democratic base is a bunch of Stepford wives, believing EVERYTHING they see and hear on CNN....you simply cannot have any kind of a discussion with those that reside in a blue state, they won't have it....

Its kind of sad really......and a bit scary

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Trump Claims, With No Evidence, That 'Millions of People' Voted Illegally
New York Times‎ - 9 mins ago

President-elect Donald J. Trump called out to the news media as Mitt Romney left the Trump ...
Trump falsely claims 'millions of people who voted illegally' cost him popular vote
CNN‎ - 1 hour ago

Donald Trump's new explanation for losing the popular vote? A Twitter-born conspiracy theory.
Washington Post‎ - 3 hours ago

 

[Christobal]

Could it be that Jill Stein is doing this to set up her next political ambition? A goal that will be reveled after "fighting the noble fight"?

Hey, it politics.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts

*chuckle*

I just read that.

I think that it is a valid point...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Could it be that Jill Stein is doing this to set up her next political ambition? A goal that will be reveled after "fighting the noble fight"?

Hey, it politics.

Yes.

She has the same ambitions as Hillary "Trump and His Followers Must Accept the Results of the Election" and Lizzy "Cherokee" Warren, to be the head of a Socialist State...

Fidel may be dead, but his spirit fights on.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Apparently I'm not the only one that has concluded that the real strategy here is to de-legitimize Trump's election.

What's Real


It will certainly work with their base, but their base already thinks Trump's election is illegitimate. I can't wait to see how pissing everyone else off just to energize a base that's already energized is going to work out for them.

Ishmael

This blog seems to be going viral...