40% Of Republicans Either Think Is OK For Russia To Help Them Win Elections, Or Say It Is Not A Big Deal
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
40% of Republicans either approve of Russian interference, or don’t strongly object to it.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/republicans-want-russia-influence-us-elections-202847050.html
American intelligence officials say Russia is still trying to interfere with U.S. elections, as the November midterms approach. And Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has said he prefers Donald Trump in the White House.
That’s okay with some Republicans, according to a Yahoo Finance/SurveyMonkey poll of 2,509 Americans conducted July 25-27. In the survey, 11% of people who identify as Republican or lean Republican say it’s “appropriate” for Russia to help Republicans keep control of Congress in the upcoming elections. Another 29% say it’s “not appropriate, but wouldn’t be a big deal” for the Russians to help. So combined, 40% of Republicans either approve of Russian interference, or don’t strongly object to it.
It’s illegal for foreign nationals to contribute money or offer any “thing of value ” in connection with a U.S. election, at any level of government. Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence (appointed by President Trump), has said consistently that Russia interfered in the 2016 election that put Trump in the White House. He has also said Russian efforts to disrupt U.S. elections are “ongoing.” Virtually nobody in the intelligence community disputes this.
It’s far less clear whether those Russian efforts, which involved aggressive social-media campaigning and other measures the FBI is still investigating, swung the election to Trump in 2016. But the mere prospect seems to unnerve Trump, who has repeatedly attacked the idea that Russian operatives played any meaningful role in his election. And Trump routinely mocks the inquiry by special counsel Robert Mueller , whose mission is to determine what Russia did, and who may have collaborated.
There’s intriguing evidence Russians are still up to their old tricks, and may be testing out some new ones. Facebook has reportedly told members of Congress it recently discovered and disabled at least 30 accounts that may have been operated by Russians posing as American political activists. That’s one tactic the Russians used in 2016, when they tried to instigate conflict among people interested in touchy political issues, such as gun rights and social justice.
In mid-July, the FBI arrested an alleged Russian operative, Maria Butina , who for several years worked to connect Russian officials with influential people in the American conservative movement, including the National Rifle Association. The FBI may be investigating whether Russian money made its way into political activities funded by the NRA , which would be illegal. The NRA spent heavily on Trump in 2016. In response to public questions on the matter from Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the NRA said the questions were “overbroad ” and couldn’t’ be answered. “The NRA’s responses to Wyden have been surprisingly cagey,” says Brendan Fischer of the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance watchdog. “It would have been fairly easy to deny any foreign funding, but their responses were very carefully worded.”
Yahoo Finance ran the SurveyMonkey poll to see how much Americans care about Russian interference. ( Read the methodology here .) When we asked for people’s views about Russian interference in 2016, 57% of all respondents said it’s not appropriate and it’s a big deal, while 22% said they didn’t think Russia tried to interfere. Thirteen percent said Russian interference in 2016 was inappropriate, but not a big deal, while just 3% of all respondents said Russian interference was appropriate. Among Republicans, 4% thought Russian interference was appropriate. Here are the full results, including the breakdowns by party:
The questions were different when we asked about the upcoming 2018 elections. We asked Republicans and Democrats separately how they would feel if the Russians interfered in a way that helped their own party, and the opposing party, in November. And minorities in both parties said they wouldn’t mind an illegal assist. While 40% of Republicans said they’d approve or only mildly object, 14% of Democrats felt the same way. Here are those numbers, with the relevant findings highlighted:
Views toward Russian interference may be skewed, in part, by the combative nature of the Trump presidency. “I think these results are driven by partisan loyalties,” says Emily Ekins, director of polling for the libertarian Cato Institute, who has authored a detailed analysis of Trump voters . “While it’s a shockingly high number of Republicans who say it’s not a big deal, what you’re seeing is, they’re defending the candidate they voted for – Donald Trump.” In a less divisive environment, without Trump, she thinks the portion of Republicans okay with Russian interference would probably be lower.
The majority of Americans remain strongly opposed to Russian interference. Among all respondents, 72% are strongly opposed to the Russians helping Republicans, and 77% are strongly opposed to the Russians helping Democrats. It’s worth keeping in mind that neither political party represents a majority of Americans , so a minority view within a party represents an even smaller slice of the overall electorate.
Tags
Who is online
77 visitors
I predicted a few days ago that we would start to see right wingers approve of Russian interference as a way to protect Trump.
Personally...I don't count "posting shit on Facebook" as "interfering with an election".
If they hacked the voting computers and changed votes, that's different.
But liberals....who tend to be very soft in this area....need to understand.....that if the Russian government actually changed votes in the US election, it's time to go to war. If it proven that the Russian government changed votes, they have attempted to remove our inalienable right of self-governance. There is no greater reason to go to war.
Fortunately the guy in charge is a greedy sociopath who has no desire to have that issue investigated despite what our intel agencies have repeatedly told him. Plus he's Putin's Puppet anyway so there's no chance of going to war over this, unless Trump decides to invade Grenada to distract from his collusion with Russia.
The war is between Trumpsters and the other 65% of America.
John - 48 + 52 = 100 - not 65 + 35.
Oh right - Chicago math.
Are you trying to tell us that 48% of America are Trumpsters? Yikes ! Let's pray not.
Trump's approval ratings now are in the low 40's at best (Gallup has him at 40% this week) and I will assume that there are a few people who approve of him that are not his "base", so the base is 33-35% or so. Thats way too many, but these are the likely deplorables.
What else would you like to know?
So you don't feel that having information in order to help decide your vote is important?
You are correct for people who only vote based of if there is a "D" or "R" after the person's name, but most of us vote based on a candidate's beliefs and history of actions.
E.A So then does that mean that NT is an " Equal Voice " and that you will make sure that , that! is the case?
Could you translate your question into English if you want me to answer it?
I don't consider Facebook a "source of information".
IF you are intelligent enough to make your voting decisions in that manner, you are also intelligent enough to understand that Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are not news sources.
Ostensibly you are also smart enough to understand that when you "share" something on FB, it ceases to be private. Unfortunately, not all Americans are intellectually gifted enough to comprehend the concept of "share".
Neither do I, point?
Again, you are just stating the obvious. Only Trump feels that Twitter is a legitimate method of putting forth government policy.
What the fuck are you blathering about? Your reply does not seem to have anything whatsoever to do with my comment.
Then what is your point? Or are you just arguing for the sake of doing so?
You replied to my comment about Facebook with some bullshit about "don't I feel the need to be informed" like the two are somehow related...like anybody gets informed on Facebook.
My point was trying to get EA to clarify what he was talking about, unless you two are conjoined twins, I have no clue why you are trying to answer for him.
There is a reason that advertising is a multi-billion dollar a year business. Vote's may not have been PHYSICALLY changed, but to say that they had no influence at all is a flat out lie.
"Having influence" isn't a crime. If Lionel Messi endorses Jared Beto for the Senate, that's not "interfering with the election". People have opinions. Even foreigners.
Now...maybe YOU are of the intellectual caliber where idiotic bullshit on Facebook changes your vote...but I'm not, and I don't think most people are. I didn't vote for Trump, but I've spoken with lots of people who did, and Facebook had fuck all to do with their decisions. They were looking at the possibility of the Supreme Court being turned crazy liberal for a generation and were more scared of that than a Trump presidency.
There is no US law....nor should there be....attempting to control what people in foreign countries put on Facebook. The very idea is ludicrous.
It is if trump asked for/accepted help from Russia, who is not an ally of the USA.
Were the Russians who wanted to influence the election registered at Facebook under the name "Russians For Trump" or another similarly forthcoming name? I don't recall hearing that.
Didn't these ads appear to be coming from American groups or American sounding names of groups?
Wasn't all the Russian activity on behalf of the Trump candidacy during the campaign done surreptitiously?
That's not "having influence". And it doesn't matter if they're an ally of the US or not.
But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about silly liberals who still can't admit they ran a candidate so shit that they lost to a man most Americans have reviled for decades, so they cling to stupid shit like the idea that "people who said mean things on the internet" decided the election.
If..... and I get more skeptical every day....it is proven that Donald Trump was in league with the Russian government, that will be a different story.
But frankly, I'm not sure why anybody thinks Putin would care who the president is. It's not like the last guy kept him out of the Crimea.
No, it's called treason.
Still waiting to see what votes were changed by Russian Interference. Countries routinely try to influence elections in other countries, as we, the United States has done tiome and time again. It is generally accepted as 'the way it is', but I still have not seen proof of any votes changed by Russians. If there is, please show me. Excuuses and coulda' dones are not facts. I'll continue waiting. While I'm waiting, still wondering who the dems are planning to run for President in 2020.....we're over halfway through 2018....time is running short.......
You mean like the 77,000 votes which were influenced by the sudden change in Trump's ad buys and campaign strategy shortly after Russia hacked the DNC analytics?
WOW - 77,000 votes, according to you, that were changed because of Russian interference. Golly gee whizzzzz - 77,000 out of 139,000,000 (notice - lot more zeros) equal .0056 %.
Yup - really damming up the works, eh?
No, I'd say it was many millions more than that. But that particular 77,000 is what broke the camel's back and it can be directly linked to Trump's change in strategy after the DNC analytics were hacked. Coincidence? I think not given what we know so far.
And just how do you know that any of those votes would have gone to Clinton ? How do you know anyone them were changed at all. You are just butt hurt that the two time loser didn't get her way and are actively looking for an excuse why except the real reason. She was the worse candidate.
This represents what we are up against on Newstalkers. We are not allowed to criticize such nonsense as is seen here. The inability to confront such drivel makes NT into a dog and pony show.
.
Yup, Russian interference and 77,000 +/- votes did make a big difference in the 2016 race.
.
The Election Came Down to 77,744 Votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan (Updated)
.
Here's a list of the 10 closest 2016 states, according to The Cook Political Report's running tally, ranked from narrowest margin by percentage to widest:
When 77,000 votes in three states counts more than 2.8 million votes in the entire country you know you're looking at a perversion of representative democracy, or specifically the monstrous electoral college which has damaged the country every time it's picked the president.
You mean despite the fact that far more Americans voted for her than for Trump?
the president has elected every president that gained the office by election. The only ones that were not were vicepresidents upon the death in off of the president
Unfortunately those votes were in a state or states she already won the EC votes in by good margins, she DID get those EC votes didn't she? she just didnt get the plurality of the EC votes needed to secure a win of the presidency.
"She was the worst candidate." Because thirty years of smear, lies and attacks by an overfunded right wing propaganda machine assured that perception by the great unwashed.
How many times was a president elected who did not win the popular vote?
A: It has happened five times.
FULL ANSWER
The 2016 election was the most recent when the candidate who received the greatest number of electoral votes, and thus won the presidency, didn’t win the popular vote. But this scenario has played out in our nation’s history before.
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.
In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.
In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
Update, Dec. 23, 2016: We have updated this article to include the results of the 2016 election.
Sounds like we need to end that vestige of white supremacy which gives disproportionate power to the low information voters in low population states. Little did the founding fathers know that one day it would be used to corrupt elections and thwart the will of the American people.
Of course you think that way. It could not possibly be that she is just a bad candidate. Face facts you backed a loser
How could she be since she easily got the most votes? The American people love her but their will was thwarted by a treasonous thug who colluded with a hostile foreign power. No wonder he lacks legitimacy today, both here and abroad. Only deplorable people have any respect for that Russian mole.
Interesting , I learned something today , say neither candidate had gotten the needed EC votes to secure the presidency , it is then decided by the house of reps in a simple majority vote.
All that would take is an amendment to the US Constitution , even the NPV compact, ( which would be taken to court as unconstitutional) wont fix it .
Can you think of 13 states that have the lowest number of EC votes that would not ratify the needed constitutional amendment?
Actually the smarter and more ethical blue states have already figured out a very good way to work around the deplorables in red states like yours. Soon your vote will have no more weight than that of any other American......which means the end of the threat which Russia and the GOP pose to America.
It seems that Republican candidates have been losing the national popular vote lately. Most Americans simply can't stand those unethical morons. But by all means please help your party to improve its policies and offer better candidates rather than the corrupt and dimwitted thugs they field at the RNC convention. Or is it the GOP base which the GOP first needs to improve? Maybe it would help if your party weren't so white and so old? I can guarantee you that more people would vote for Republicans if the GOP didn't support bigotry and had saner policies.
Sorry but the last two Republicans were installed by the EC they didn't win the national popular vote. So I can see why you oppose the idea.
E.A seems to me, that so many have No Clue about " Constitutional Republic " and a " Democracy " which the US of A is not!
Nor does it claim to be!
Yeah, until it bites you on the ass one day.
Oh, EXCUSE ME John - ever since 9 Nov 2016, you - you personally - have spewed your hate and distain over President Trump - sometimes totally flooding the FP with your "stories".
And you have the audacity to state "This represents what we are up against on Newstalkers. We are not allowed to criticize such nonsense as is seen here. The inability to confront such drivel makes NT into a dog and pony show."
THAT is what we're up against on Newstalkers - the drivel of folks who can't let go of losing.
you already know that that NPV compact will be deemed unconstitutional, it is basically an end run around the constitution, besides the first time it is used to allot the EC votes from a state , that the majority of the state did not vote for , the voters will actually riot. better there than here I guess.
can you imagine the first time all californias EC votes have to go to the looser of the popular vote in state , but to the winner of the national popular vote?
No, all but four* have been elected by both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Three of those four times resulted in devastating consequences for this country. History has rendered the verdict on the EC and it's not pretty.
*The 1824 election went to the House of Representatives since no candidate received a majority of the EV in the election.
"We need to end that vestige of white supremacy"
Great - was waiting for the RACISM card to get played. Way to go Skrekk - way to go.
The constitution doesn't say anything about how states should apportion their electoral votes. Maybe you need to read it some time?
E.A Am Amazed at the Educational system, that has Failed so miserable to explain the Difference between the State Democratic Vote, and then the States Electoral Vote for the Federal Government, what does that say about " Money paid for THAT education "??
Then I wonder why your Scumbag keeps lying about how the PV was "rigged" against him. BTW, that claim cuts both ways. If it was rigged at all, it could just have easily been so to his benefit with the relatively small tiny number of votes that got him the EV in 3 neighboring states---seewhudameen?
How could it be? The constitution doesn't say anything about how a state should apportion those votes, and as long as the people properly voted to change the apportionment strategy there is no legal issue.
Otherwise there would already be successful challenges to the many states which have "winner takes all" EC apportionment rather than ratiometric apportionment. It's solely a matter for each state to decide for itself.......and when that happens the GOP will finally be screwed bug time. Not even the GOP's racist gerrymandering will help them then.
Yeah, there sure seems to be a lot of people who don't know the EC was demanded by slave states along with the 3/5 rule and a senate to increase its political power far out of proportion to their populations in order to sustain slavery.
E.A Hmm so YOU want to change the " Federation"? Know how to DO it?
Of course, if Abuela had won, we would not have heard a peep from you concerning that mean ole white supremacy EC thingy.
If she had won the EC but lost the popular, and those on the other side complained, you probably would have told them to fuck off, as what many liberals are being told today.
Don't all ethical and patriotic Americans have an obligation to do that? Or did you vote the Russian mole?
simple enough , the federal government dictates through the voter laws that an individuals vote cannot be usurped by the state , otherwise a condition of disenfranchisment exists, the compact awarding all EC votes to the winner of the national popular vote , will disenfranchise the individuals vote at some point in time , each state IS allowed according to their own state laws and the US constitution to apportion those EC votes according to the popular vote within the state , not nationally.
basically all the NPV compact does is try to game the system that is not going to be changed through the amendment process a afforded in the constitution, thankfully , the compact does not go into effect until there is enough compact members to hold the majority of the EC votes, at present , they don't have enough , but it is an interesting discussion subject.
And yes the lawsuits will come where it will be decided if the compact is actually constitutional or not , and those will come when a compact members votes have to go against the in state popular vote winner .
these are of course only my thoughts and opinion on the NPV compact.
E.A See 3.1.44 Eagle Averro replied to Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.42 12 minutes ago
And have fun with changing the " Federation " and then tell us how " better of you be " ok?
No more than the various apportionment systems currently in place, and as long as the people vote to change that there's no legal claim to be made (in fact it's each legislature which decides that). At least 21 states currently don't require their electors to vote a specific way in any event.
All a state's popular vote does is select the proportion of electors from each party. What happens after that is entirely up to state law as the constitution indicates.
Given that she won the popular vote why would anyone complain if she had won the EC too? It's only when the EC thwarts the will of the people and creates a perverse result that it matters. But of course that was the real point to the EC to begin with, to prevent a president who would act contrary to the interests of the white supremacist states. That's why the system had to be gamed in favor of racist morons from the very beginning and we saw the unfortunate result in 2016 when the racist King of the Birthers was installed.
and you don't see a problem with the compact taking the popular vote in the state , and throwing that away if the national popular vote says the other candidate wins the national popular vote?
No, only when the EC thwarts the will of the people. It's usually been a disaster for the country when that happens since the installed president inherently lacks legitimacy and is thus hobbled in the US and abroad.
And as we've seen the EC apportionment itself is very easily manipulated by hostile foreign powers. It's far easier for Russia to sway the votes of a few tens of thousands of voters in a few key states than to hack the votes of many millions nationwide.
If it's the only practical way to fix this inherent flaw in our system then it seems like a very good idea.
And in a sense wasn't that the true purpose of the EC anyway, to have another layer which could prevent a (non-racist) ........or a manifestly unqualified, corrupt and treasonous candidate from reaching the highest office? So the EC will still be doing its job.
No it wasn't.
Yes it was, otherwise it serves no legitimate purpose.
We're talking about a national election here not merely one which happened in CA. So when a person other than the one who got the most popular votes is installed as prez the will of the people has been thwarted and the nation has a real problem, as all sane people recognize. That's why we're temporarily stuck with an incompetent and corrupt traitor as prez.
Only to whiny revisionist liberals who cannot accept that their lousy two time losing candidate lost the election fair and square according to the rules of the game. Come on grow up, quit your pouting and accept the results of the election as you expected others to do.
You are aware that up until the crunchy granola vote from California came in, Trump was also leading in the popular vote by over a million votes.
I know. they are hopeless.
Stand on your head next time and then the returns will come in in reverse.
Any extra attention on California regarding votes is just plain DUMB. Every vote is equal whether it was counted at 7 o clock eastern or midnight pacific. If you look at the southeast part of the US, Florida Georgia and Alabama , they have roughly the area and population of California. Should I bitch about votes that trump got in those areas that helped him win or added to his vote total? It makes as much fucking sense as people who try to make a "thing" out of the vote in California, that is to say "none".
the EC is not a flaw... it is a fail-safe. and it is never going to go away.
the EC protects the nation from people too stupid to understand the USA is not a democracy.
republic: look it up
seems to me people are failing to realize that the race for president is NOT a single national race , but 50+ individual state races where the individual state results are totaled and then combined.
that would make more sense if we were not all americans with the same president
Both.
John , the only problem I have with the electoral college is the all or nothing rule. and the only way that will be changed is on the state level where they decide how to allot the delegates.
It will take the voters themselves to change from the all or nothing rule to an apportioned system, making more votes actually count in the choosing of the President , under the all or nothing rule , if 100 people are voting , and who ever gets 51 votes gets all the EC votes , disregarding the other 49 voters, essentially disenfranchising that half. but that's majority popular vote rule.
Only 2 states do not use the all or nothing rule , and I feel those states because their states government decided to , is more accurately and effectively representative of the states voters wishes.
Imagine if all the states did that? it would have more accurately depicted the political lay out of the nation , not only just the state.
Way I see it the will of the voters nationally , dictated that the popular national vote was not to be the deciding factor in the 2016 Presidential race, which by the way is the way the Constitution has it set up.
I looked at how the country voted down to the county level, and I noticed the places voting blue or red , were definitely segregated by population size.
You said , the President represents all the states , the nation , thing is I don't think either of the national candidates set foot in all 50 states.
You can bitch and whine like a little girl about whatever you want. Getting my permission or not has never stopped you before. And guess what else? His total national vote count isas meaningless as Hillary's. The only vote counts that matter are the individual state counts that determine that states winner and gets that states electoral votes.
Then stop saying votes in California mean something special. They don't mean anything other than what any group of votes means. Stop believing all that right wing media bullshit, it might help you make some better points.
I have never made the CA special. All I have ever done is point out that until those votes were counted the Crone of Chapaqua was even losing Te popular vote.
It is the liberals that makes the CA vote a big deal because that is where her extra 3 minions votes came from
Actually it's already happening. I think 12 states have now passed the National Popular Vote for a current total of 172 EC votes. There are less than 100 EC votes to go before its provisions kick in and the GOP is permanently shut out of the presidency, and it's already passed one legislative chamber in a number of red states. Pretty cool, eh?
that doesnt make any sense. unfortunately you dont seem to be able to see that
those three million votes come from everywhere and nowhere. could be from illinois or new york or Massachusetts or texas or any combination
Not at all - we just want every citizen's vote to count the same in national elections. Right now they don't since the votes in a place like Idaho have disproportionate weight compared to those in a state like CA. That's unjust on its face even before you factor in the problems caused when the EC installs a prez who lost the popular vote.
No, I'd say it was many millions more than that. But that particular 77,000 is what broke the camel's back and it can be directly linked to Trump's change in strategy after the DNC analytics were hack
Why do you just make things up and expect to be taken seriously?
it is a simple concept that escapes you. never mind.
Keep on drinkin' that stuff - man it has done wonders for your thought processes.
Did some checking here , prior to the last election (16). my state does not have their voting machines connected to the interwebs , so any chance of hacking is only in the software, which is nill.
Now I think the 1 st amendment did allow , other countries to put out whatever they desired to be the story , but I keep in mind , that what was reported on both parties was done so in the press, they were under no obligation to run any of the stories originating from anywhere. useful idiots.
personally I made my decision not to vote for either of the parties nominated candidates shortly after the conventions were held .
And I used my own "yardstick" of measurement for the candidates that were on my states ballot, that yardstick includes but isn't limited to trust , policy stances on different issues , which also influences where they measure , unfortunately neither national parties nominees measured up , they both were basically in negative territory actually , even the person I did vote for was in negative territory , but slightly less so . and thinking about it , that is a sad commentary on the choices voters have and the condition of national politics in general.
sorry but no Russian or foreign influence in that I can see.
And my always apt response to that line: There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see.
Well the burden of proof is on you to prove the allegation, so can you prove that my individual vote was influenced in any way by any foreign entity? please , since you seem to think you know me so well , bring forth said proof.
I'm gonna let Robert Mueller do that--and so are you. And neither my or your individual vote matters now in that arena.
lol as far as me ,he cant prove it for or against either , so you admit you have no proof of the allegation I personally was influenced by any foreign entity?
keep chasing fairey farts , might get lucky.
Two things wrong with that two-part sentence. First, voting machines are not the only things hackers are after and actually got into. Twenty-one states had their voter registration files raided in 2016 (and I think some even in this current mid-term cycle already). That's were hackers can alter information that would disqualify voters when they came to vote. Second, the idea that no one can jimmy with the software that goes into voting machines is naive in the extreme.
motor voter registration, have a DL here and over 18 your registered , don't have a DL , simply register at the poll, the voter lists don't have a thing to do here with who can vote , simply provide your valid lic with address or a piece of mail with the address in the place voting. I used my power bill , as well as my DL, last time as proof of residency, wasn't asked but offered it anyway.
as for the software being hacked , not likely , not with the certification process used. I am confident my vote was registered as given at the polling station.
that's not to say other states don't have that problem.
That's a very ignorant statement. Many states don't have same-day registration, and ballots cast without the registration being verified are treated as provisional and aren't usually ever counted.
In addition the confederate states and other red states have been passing laws to make it much harder for minorities and the poor to get registered or to get an ID for voting use. The courts have even found that in many if not most cases these restrictions have a deliberately racist intent.
and who does the verification? county clerk right? at least they do here , and each polling place has a county clerks representative on hand , hense why the DL and piece of mail ( in my case the power bill) to show residency , there was no provisional about it here.
cant claim to know how it is handled where you live , can only say how its been done here.
So no votes were physically changed. Is this the new talking point?
When people believe pizzagate, yes we have enough dumb voters that could be easily swayed.
And in this case we're not talking about the brightest segment of the population anyway. As the racist King of the Birthers said "I love the uneducated!"
Trump is sooooooooooo concerned about our elections being messed with that he has literally not spent ONE DIME, to prevent it from happening again. Trump is a traitor.
There is some merit to the premise of this story.
Two examples I know personally.
Cousin #1. Told me that the Russians helped Trump in order to save America from a secret international criminal enterprise headed by Obama, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton.
Cousin #2. Told me that the Russians and Jesus helped Trump to stop America from its wanton slaughter of innocent babies.
These comments were made at our annual 'family reunion' last month. I accepted their reasonings, remained polite, being a Vietnam Veteran I know there is not any defense I could offer. These people were not always this way, but they are now.