>You are commenting about a blog post from one of the world's authorities on voting security, a CS professor at the University of Michigan (one of the country's best engineering schools) --- a post other voting security people (for instance: Matt Blaze) have been pointing at.

I'm commenting on the claims of Russian hacking being the latest refuge for election denialists. The reason people are talking about Russian hacking is not due to academic curiosity about the security of voting machines. Pretending that it is, in an attempt to give the discussion an unearned air of impartial dispassion, is dishonest.

>And all you've managed to come up with a dismissal based on partisan politics

My dismissal is based on two things: 1) partisan politics, in that this theory is being pushed by the same people and for the same reason as previous explanations for why the election was illegitimate, and 2) the complete and utter absence of evidence.

>Injecting volatile political arguments unrelated to stories is a form of trolling. Could you please stop doing that?

It strains credulity to assert this discussion was apolitical prior to my interjection.

Again, but with different words: you could have written exactly the same original comment without having read the article, because it doesn't touch on the article at all. What you did --- again --- was to dismiss one of the world's foremost authorities on election security as a leftist partisan. This is exactly what 'dang is talking about when he asks commenters not to take threads on generic ideological tangents. Please stop.

You are welcome to disagree with Halderman! But before you try, you should acquaint yourself with his point, which is not that the election was stolen from Clinton, or even hacked at all.