I'd bet when all is said and done, less than half of those accused actually cast an illegal vote.

#12 | Posted by Danforth

I would not be surprised if none of them did. They make a huge deal out of mistakes on voter rolls, because conservatives are ignorant and don't know how voting actually works, assume that if ineligible people are on the rolls that means they could be voting and there is no way for anyone to know. (for you ignorant conservatives, every vote is tracked, you can see look back and see every election that each person has ever voted in)

When it is actually looked at properly, there turns out to be almost no cases of ineligible voters actually voting. And when it does happen it almost always is someone who is confused and thought they were eligible. Or a Republican who thinks they should do it, and that they won't get caught, because they are ignorant and think it cannot be traced, or believe the people profiting off their outrage who lie to them saying Democrats are doing it and getting away with it.

That's exactly what needs to happen.
The best available hackers working for the good guys need to be given the task of breaking into any online technology that could alter election results.
#24 | Posted by BillJohnson

So are the "good guys" the ones who are doing it in secret, and also banned from disclosing it to the manufacturer (disclosing it to the manufacturer so they can fix it is the widely accepted correct course if action for a white hat hacker)?

Because they are acting A LOT (or even exactly) how "bad guys" are expected to and generally act.

Can any of you raetards use the attached article to prove Trump had a conspiracy, between multiple people, to use this voting machine to cheat in the upcoming election?
Anyone? Or is it the usual hair-on-fire, retarded -------- we see daily?

#12 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Why would he need to acquire it in secret? It is not like they can do over the air updates to patch any holes before they are found. Why not have a big event... "We got a voting machine and we are going to have a team check for any security flaws." Good publicity.

The only reason I could see why they would want to keep it secret was if they were not trying to find the flaws to fix them and SECURE the election, but instead wanted to USE them to try to steal the election.

But I am happy to entertain your explanation of any reasons why they would feel the need to do this in secret that are not to try to use any exploits they find for their own personal gain.

I want say there's no way the world lets Iran overturn the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea... but I don't really believe it anymore.

#23 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Before Trump they would not have. But they do not want to get forced into Trump's war of choice.

They could either let Trump manipulate them into getting sucked into the quagmire in Iran, letting him force the rest of the world to do his dirty work, or they could let go of the Law of the Sea.

So the Law of the Sea is now no more.

Good job Republicans. You built that.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of... elementary school children.

It is really hard not to say "I told you so" when we literally told them so.

Trump might pull a Nixon and resign before he gets impeached. Then we'll be stuck with Peter Thiel's boy toy, J.D. Vance. Not good but at least manageable with a Democrat controlled Congress.

#12 | Posted by Twinpac

Trump won't resign. If Trump resigns he would get called before Congress to testify about the Epstein files within a week. Republicans made it clear that former presidents are fair game (Bill Clinton was called to testify about Epstein in front of Congress).

Trump will stay in office as long as he possibly can, because him being a sitting President is the only thing keeping him from being compelled to testify about his relationship with Epstein.

Remember when MAGA loved to insult people by calling them pedophiles?
Now they elevate them to public office.
#5 | Posted by Zed

They accuse others of pedophilia because they can relate to it. They would do it if they could (or are already and haven't gotten caught), so they assume other people must be as well.

Just like voter fraud.

If you want to know what terrible things Conservatives are doing, just look at what they accuse others of. They are telling you what they are doing themselves.

The Libertarian party was taken over by MAGA Republicans (they called themselves the Mises caucus). And they have basically destroyed it.

Last election cycle they had Trump speak at their national convention, if that gives you an idea of how complete it was.

So this is basically a MAGA Republican puppet calling for assassinating Democrats. Actual Libertarians calling for the assassination of public officials would surprise me. I don't think MAGA Republicans calling for the assassination of Democrats would surprise anyone.

It is much more terrifying that pedophiles and rapists run our executive branch.

Since the biggest indicator a government is Marxist/communist is the government owning the means of production, does this mean that Trump is going to reverse his policy of the US government taking ownership stakes in US companies (Intel, US Steel, IBM, Lithium Americas, etc)?

Also, why do you assume that all illegal votes end up being discovered especially on states where those in power don't want illegal votes to be discovered?
#10 | Posted by BellRinger

Where do you think the votes are coming from? Voter history rolls are public record. They have a history of every vote that was cast in the election.

Every ballot cast has to have a corresponding person on the voter rolls that now shows as having voted. Otherwise the number of cast ballots would be more than the number of people shown as having voted. If that were the case, it would be pretty easy for you to show evidence of it. So show me the evidence.

There are other possibilities as well. Ineligible voters being on the rolls... and THEN CASTING A VOTE. But that is also easy to prove. Find a person on the rolls who was ineligible, and then show that they voted from their history.

The last I can think of is an ineligible person impersonating someone who did not vote. But you should be able to find people on the rolls who show as having voted, but did not actually vote. Again, that should be pretty easy to find. And you would likely have a bunch of people who got flagged for trying to vote twice, because how would the fraudsters know who to impersonate?

So please share your evidence of fraud or your theories (based upon how voting, voter rolls, and public information work) of how the fraud could be committed without it being pretty easily uncovered by citizen journalists, much less the political party that has a vested interest in uncovering fraud.

Like accidentally bombing civilians instead of military facilities.

#13 | Posted by horstngraben

Does bombing an elementary school count?

Does that make the US responsible to the Iran war in MAGA world, or do they just pretend it did not happen?

Play stupid games... win stupid prizes.

Congress has not approved more funding for the Iran war. They have not approved initial funding for the Iran war. These "supplies" are very expensive.

I don't think it is a stretch to assume that a big reason for the shortage of these "supplies" is that there is not money allocated for them to be replaced. And no money allocated for ramping up production.

Republicans are a big fan of the "starve the beast" strategy. Just don't collect taxes and the government "has to" get smaller. (Which seems to have just resulted in a big government deeply in debt, but I digress.) This seems to be the Democrat version of it. They cannot stop Trump from going to war. But if they do not allocate money to the military, then eventually he will have no more weapons to go to war WITH.

Which, as I have been pointing out, makes the weapons stockpiles a political and policy question, much more than a national security one.

And, I say again, that if Republicans are concerned about the national security aspects of it all they gave to do is declare war, and allocate money to fight it. That handles the political/policy questions and maintaining national security can be the priority.

Honestly, you seem to be arguing that Republicans should be allowed to force the political/policy questions in their favor by claiming national security concerns. Which I am completely opposed to. I do not like the president bring able to unilaterally start a war. I definitely believe that there should continue to be checks on him being able to fight it, that there should continue to be enforced transparency (a probably even more checks and transparency) IF he is fighting it unilaterally.

#32 | Posted by eberly

I also want to point out that this report was mandated by law... BECAUSE Trump did not get a declaration of war.

The law only applies to military operations that go longer than 60 days without a formal declaration.

I agree with this law. If Trump does not want to be held accountable to the public, to be required to provide transparency about the operation, all he had to do was convince Congress to support his war.

But if he wants to go it alone without Congressional approval, I have no problem with him being "hamstrung". In that case, with Trump acting like a dictator (not getting Congressional approval as intended by the Constitution) I think public accountability is much more important than any defense considerations. Because if the defense consideration were actually valid, Congress would declare war and he would no longer be hamstrung.

To be clear, I believe the president should NOT be allowed to lie to the public if we are not in a declared war.

During World War II I would imagine we were running low on munitions, weapons, etc........did we announce to Germany and Japan we were running low?
We ramped up production of a lot of stuff during that short time and it wasn't likely a secret.
But specifically, what were low on.....did we announce that to our enemies?
Is it possible we may have deliberately misinformed our enemies of our supplies?

#8 | Posted by eberly

During WWII Congress declared war. Which grants the president emergency powers. During a declared state of war, I believe the public would expect, or at least be understanding of, the president manufacturing or withholding information in order to mislead the enemies we have declared war on.

But we have not declared war.

So, as far as I am concerned, your comparison is apples to oranges.

I have answered your question, so I think you owe me the same courtesy.

It seems like you believe the president should be allowed to lie during war, which I feel I also agree with somewhat (though, if you do not, please correct me). But, do you ALSO believe that the president should be allowed to lie to Congress and the American people if we have not declared war against anyone?

California has rejoined the first world. Welcome, don't get cocky.

#15 | Posted by visitor_

Has Texas rejoined the first world as well?

There are sometimes I click on a link and say to myself "this has to be an onion article".

And then I realize that these are MAGA Republicans and that they actually said and believe this ridiculous thing. And other Republicans just don't care.

Republicans... You Built That. All on your own.

who wants criminals to stay in US? Lumpers

#4 | Posted by oneironaut

I would be fine with all convicted criminals being deported. I just have a problem targeting only immigrants. Especially since immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than US citizens.

It is very clear that you have no problem with criminals in this country. In fact, you support and defend criminals. You just have a problem with immigrants. Bringing "criminals" into it is just a strawman for you.

Consider the fact that many Americans do not view this as Trump giving them anything. But rather letting them keep more of their own money.
If I'm paying $60,000 a year in federal income taxes and you let me keep $5000 of it ... ... . I never viewed that $5000 as being someone else's in the first place. It was mine.

#3 | Posted by eberly

That may be true, except for the fact that this would only apply to a MINORITY of individuals in the US. According to our AI overlords, less than 38% of adults in the US pay more than $5000 in federal income taxes per year.

So while they may feel like they are just reducing their own tax bill, they would also realize that the rest of their taxes that they do pay are being used to pay the 62%+ that DO NOT pay more than $5k per year.

Fuggun' clown's got no fuggun' clue what goes on at the tens of thousands independent auto service providers servicing millions of customers...and charging accordingly.

#3 | Posted by Angrydad

I also thought his comment was pretty naive. No one is going to be unable to find any motor oil for their car. But if Costco is rationing, that is a pretty strong sign that prices are going to be increasing.

He got us out of Afghanistan. Which was more than Republicans were capable of.