Was the US election hacked?

Wilber · November 27, 2016

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Yeah but also, before the election the system wasn't rigged. Now it is ...

What's the big deal about a recount?

Topaz · November 27, 2016

What could have happen is the Clinton's were planning fraud and so they thought they had it in the bag UNTIL Trump wins, did they admit voters fraud too? In my view , from articles I've read, US elections is full of fraud but don't dare and come out with it because of what the voters would do and think!

sharkman · November 27, 2016

11 hours ago, Wilber said:

What's the big deal about a recount?

Recounts are done when there is a very close outcome and it is done almost immediately because of the close outcome. This situation is completely different. It's being done two weeks after the fact and not because of a close outcome, (say 1200 votes) but because of a conspiracy theory that the Russians must have hacked it because the outcome wasn't a dem victory. And recounts are not cheap.

I mean, they can go ahead and recount if they really want to but they'll find no smoking gun. It's a waste of money, because there is no actual evidence. There is no close outcome. Again, it's based on a conspiracy theory.

sharkman · November 27, 2016

14 hours ago, sharkman said:

Well, the real reason for this green party driven effort is that Trump won't allow their enviro cult to influence things any further than they already are. They'll do anything at this point, and taking money from innocents on a lottery type chance of overturning the election is worth it to them.

Meanwhile in other grasping at straws activity, the electoral college has been receiving death threats. Sore losers are starting to come unhinged.

What's wrong with a recount almost 3 weeks after the fact? It will encourage more rioting, and death threats from the radical left.

Wilber · November 27, 2016

Look on the bright side, if the result doesn't change, Trump will have an even bigger claim to the Presidency.

sharkman · November 27, 2016

Isn't that being a little glib?

You don't seem concerned about the threats of violence or the possible new round of rioting when those in denial get another dem defeat. The country needs to put the election behind them, not have recount after recount. And what if some non conspiracy related anomaly gets discovered? Some odd thing that has nothing to do with hacking, and they don't even know what it means because they've never looked for it before.

Then the conspiracy theorists would really have something to chew on, kind of like the no-minds that figure since the melting point of steel is above what jet fuel burns at, then those buildings shouldn't have come down AT ALL!! When something called common sense would suggest that the steel didn't have to melt, only weaken.

So at the end of the day, what benefit is there to recounting? Do you really think the Russians did it?

Edited November 27, 2016 by sharkman

Argus · November 27, 2016

16 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes, I'm with the "deplorables", and we have the power now.

Unfortunately, like Trump, you're often wrong.

kimmy · November 27, 2016

16 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes, I'm with the "deplorables", and we have the power now.

As Tonto once said to the Lone Ranger... "What do you mean 'we'?"

Trump might have power, but "the deplorables" don't (unless Pence and Bannon count.)

-k

bush_cheney2004 · November 27, 2016

"We" means decades of voting in U.S. elections for this Canadian illegal alien:

Quote

CHEEKTOWAGA, N.Y. (WIVB) — A Canadian woman, illegally living in the United States since the early 1970s, has been arrested on a charge of voter fraud.

http://wivb.com/2016/10/06/canadian-woman-living-in-us-for-decades-accused-of-voter-fraud/

Hacking U.S. elections....one illegal at a time.

OftenWrong · November 27, 2016

1 hour ago, kimmy said:

As Tonto once said to the Lone Ranger... "What do you mean 'we'?"

Trump might have power, but "the deplorables" don't (unless Pence and Bannon count.)

-k

By "we" I mean that the 'deplorables' are on the rise worldwide, as a reaction to years of leftism that has resulted in policies putting our liberal freedoms at risk. Brexit is one example. Donald Trump is another. Germany might be next. The door swings both ways.

Edited November 27, 2016 by OftenWrong

Wilber · November 27, 2016

5 hours ago, sharkman said:

Isn't that being a little glib?

You don't seem concerned about the threats of violence or the possible new round of rioting when those in denial get another dem defeat. The country needs to put the election behind them, not have recount after recount. And what if some non conspiracy related anomaly gets discovered? Some odd thing that has nothing to do with hacking, and they don't even know what it means because they've never looked for it before.

Then the conspiracy theorists would really have something to chew on, kind of like the no-minds that figure since the melting point of steel is above what jet fuel burns at, then those buildings shouldn't have come down AT ALL!! When something called common sense would suggest that the steel didn't have to melt, only weaken.

So at the end of the day, what benefit is there to recounting? Do you really think the Russians did it?

Not glib at all. You have a problem with transparency?

Trumpsters never had a problem with threats of violence or the politics of division before, it was the core of his campaign. I don't think they have suddenly grown a conscience.

sharkman · November 27, 2016

No, I was asking you if the possibility of rioting and attacks on people bothered you, and you side stepped the question. So you personally don't mind if people get injured and riots occur, because there is a 649 lottery type chance that Trump's win could be overturned. Good for you, after you brow beat posters with their use of the "deplorable" term.

Well I have bad news for you. The White House has said that there is no evidence of election votes tampering whatsoever. And when there was a much closer election, back in 2000, the Dems still lost. In this case they've cherry picked 3 states whose electoral votes would overturn the election. They've gotta come up with over 50,000 votes when they couldn't come up with under 3000 votes back in 2000. So they won't get anywhere.

But on the plus side for you, this whole mess will cause more violence and torched cars/buildings. Better warm up your PVR.

Edited November 27, 2016 by sharkman

Wilber · November 27, 2016

7 minutes ago, sharkman said:

No, I was asking you if the possibility of rioting and attacks on people bothered you, and you side stepped the question. So you personally don't mind if people get injured and riots occur, because there is a 649 lottery type chance that Trump's win could be overturned. Good for you, after you brow beat posters with their use of the "deplorable" term.

Well I have bad news for you. The White House has said that there is no evidence of election votes tampering whatsoever. And when there was a much closer election, back in 2000, the Dems still lost. In this case they've cherry picked 3 states whose electoral votes would overturn the election. They've gotta come up with over 50,000 votes when they couldn't come up with under 3000 votes back in 2000. So they won't get anywhere.

But on the plus side for you, this whole mess will cause more violence and torched cars/buildings. Better warm up your PVR.

Please don't insult me by maintaining Trump and his followers have their knickers in a knot because they are worried about rioting.

Why should there be rioting and attacks, can't Americans follow a legal process? Recounts are a normal part of elections, they happen all the time.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Wilber

Rue · November 28, 2016

5 hours ago, kimmy said:

As Tonto once said to the Lone Ranger... "What do you mean 'we'?"

Trump might have power, but "the deplorables" don't (unless Pence and Bannon count.)

-k

Thank you. What the pack is going on. There is zero diff between Hilary and Donny....they both sodomize the masses and are just players for the powers that be.

Who really calls the shots does anyone really know their names....

Rue · November 28, 2016

7 hours ago, sharkman said:

What's wrong with a recount almost 3 weeks after the fact? It will encourage more rioting, and death threats from the radical left.

touche

Rue · November 28, 2016

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Please don't insult me by maintaining Trump and his followers have their knickers in a knot because they are worried about rioting.

Why should there be rioting and attacks, can't Americans follow a legal process? Recounts are a normal part of elections, they happen all the time.

you gotta point....but Shark refers to the public at large....recounts 3 weeks after the fact sets a dangerous precedent of undermining the

very voting process..i think it should only be done in close votes precisely for the reason it undermines the system based on unproven rumour if its done otherwise..why trust the recount either and where does it end...

Edited November 28, 2016 by Rue

Wilber · November 28, 2016

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

you gotta point....but Shark refers to the public at large....recounts 3 weeks after the fact sets a dangerous precedent of undermining the

very voting process..i think it should only be done in close votes precisely for the reason it undermines the system based on unproven rumour if its done otherwise..why trust the recount either and where does it end...

In 2000 the lack of a recount resulted in a large percentage or the population thinking the election was stolen and with some justification. Not holding a recount when there is a question is much worse than holding it. I'm also thinking this recount will be more heavily scrutinized by more parties than the first count.

Much more important than the recount is the possibility the system was tampered with by outside interests. More than anything, that must be determined.

The people deserve the correct count, regardless of the outcome.

bush_cheney2004 · November 28, 2016

11 minutes ago, Wilber said:

In 2000 the lack of a recount resulted in a large percentage or the population thinking the election was stolen and with some justification. Not holding a recount when there is a question is much worse than holding it. I'm also thinking this recount will be more heavily scrutinized by more parties than the first count.

Several recounts were completed after the 2000 election, confirming a Bush victory in Florida. Like Hillary Clinton, a recount for Gore could not make up for a poor candidate who should have won easily.

Edited November 28, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

OftenWrong · November 28, 2016

This recount thing is quite simple. Merely political, nothing more. Just read the news objectively, if you can, and it becomes clear.

Who called for the recount, and why? Some lady from a small party that received less than 1% of the vote. She has nothing to gain from this, other than an attempt to look good to disenfranchised Democrat voters for the next time. Hence the reason that Dems had no interest in participating in a useless venture that costs millions at first, but now realizing this is going to happen, changed their position in reaction to what is at stake. If you don't get that, then it's just more hope for the hopeless.

bush_cheney2004 · November 28, 2016

Then why not have recounts in all states ? And then another recount ? Count every vote...multiple times !

sharkman · November 28, 2016

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Several recounts were completed after the 2000 election, confirming a Bush victory in Florida. Like Hillary Clinton, a recount for Gore could not make up for a poor candidate who should have won easily.

Can you believe that? Wilber actually thinks that there was no recount in 2000.

Earlier I miisspoke. I said that to win the three states in a recount, Hillary would have to get about 50,000 votes changed. Actually the number is around 100,000 votes. They think that the Russians hacked hundreds of voting machines across counties of these states to give Trump the win. What a mass conspiracy!

Edited November 28, 2016 by sharkman

Derek 2.0 · November 28, 2016

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Then why not have recounts in all states ?

How about just the States that Clinton squeaked by in.....

Omni · November 28, 2016

The recount in Wisconsin won't change the outcome of course, butg what makes me scratch my head is how gullible Americans have become to buy into "fake news" and will they continue to disregard any type of logical fact checking next time around.

BubberMiley · November 28, 2016

9 hours ago, sharkman said:

Can you believe that? Wilber actually thinks that there was no recount in 2000.

Earlier I miisspoke. I said that to win the three states in a recount, Hillary would have to get about 50,000 votes changed. Actually the number is around 100,000 votes. They think that the Russians hacked hundreds of voting machines across counties of these states to give Trump the win. What a mass conspiracy!

Trump himself said yesterday that there were millions of illegal votes in that election. If his words have any meaning at all, that is justification for an audit.

sharkman · November 28, 2016

Okay, to do all of these recounts, it could push the results past inauguration day. I've heard that might be the real strategy here, that's really why they waited almost 3 weeks to ask for a recount. It's to make Trump seem illegitimate, because then instead of the electoral college selecting a winner, the congress and senate will have to. It's a scam.