Clinton Urged to Call For Recount After Suspected Vote Tampering And/Or Hacking

[Deleted]

Whatever comes out of this, wont be good...

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

[Deleted]

Hillary would have to win all three steps in question to win. They still need to raise 6-7 million for lawyer fees on top of the filing fees. So let's see if all three states are even contested. It's unlikely she will get one and certainly all three states to flip.

Tell me if I'm a victim of those mythical 'fake news', but aren't there already investigations going on about the exact same issue, except voting fraud was meant to favour her? Meanwhile you need to raise milion to even get an opposite case considered...

[jackofwind]

*I* don't need to make any sense at all when I present *facts*, you can have a go at facts, not me. Even a monkey is right when it presents facts.

You present opinions, not facts. As for the ad hominem, may I remind you of the last part of your post:

But I bet you're just one of those poeple from both sides that like to pull it to extremes, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Please explain how is it different. There are some reasons that I do know of, but I consider all of them belonging to 'beware-of-public-reaction' domain, which pretty much rejects rationality due to scare of the crowd.

Explain how it is different? Because the peaceful transfer of power and candidates accepting the results of the election are a staple of the American presidential process. Public be damned, it really doesn't matter if they complain or not because they don't hold the power. When you have candidates implying that they won't accept the results of a presidential election during said election you threaten the process itself.

[Xandrigity]

Tell me if I'm a victim of those mythical 'fake news', but aren't there already investigations going on about the exact same issue, except voting fraud was meant to favour her? Meanwhile you need to raise milion to even get an opposite case considered...

There are fees for requesting a recount. That goes to the state in question. To pay their employees I assume. Or should the states just eat it?

I'm also not aware of any action actually taken by trumps team on voter fraud thought to have occurred on her sides part. If there is, I'd love a link.....

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Whataboutism at its finest.

Its not really "whataboutism" to suggest that the guy that said he would only accept the results of the election if he won would not accept the results of the election if he lost.

[Deleted]

You present opinions, not facts.

Cool, so who gets to decide what is a fact and what is an opnion? I didn't see any link, citation or reference to anyting in this entire thread.

As for the ad hominem, may I remind you of the last part of your post:

Guess we're even now then and you will refrain from repeating it?

- - - Updated - - -

Explain how it is different? Because the peaceful transfer of power and candidates accepting the results of the election are a staple of the American presidential process. Public be damned, it really doesn't matter if they complain or not because they don't hold the power. When you have candidates implying that they won't accept the results of a presidential election during said election you threaten the process itself.

Still don't get how what you said is different wheter done before or after elections.

- - - Updated - - -

There are fees for requesting a recount. That goes to the state in question. To pay their employees I assume. Or should the states just eat it?

I'm also not aware of any action actually taken by trumps team on voter fraud thought to have occurred on her sides part. If there is, I'd love a link.....

As far as I know, right-wing isn't asking for recount though. It's asking to investigate entire process due to bunch of various possible frauds.

[Vyxn]

You're acting like looking into these counties is some huge unwarranted endeavour, and that's just untrue. Literally the only reason to avoid doing so is because you fear there were shenanigans there in Trump's favor.

If you think it's nothing, we'd just confirm it's nothing, and go on with our lives.
If you think Clinton is behind voter tampering, then you should want the investigation.

There's no circumstance where this is bad for you unless Trump's representatives did something bad. Hell, I don't even think there's necessarily anything wrong. But it's odd, and it should be checked out. That should be completely bipartisan; I really don't understand how anyone not trying to conceal voter fraud would think otherwise.

because a 7% difference shouldn't warrant any concern and it is only a concern to the people desperate to delegitimize Trump winning it is a text book case of grabbing at straws

[TrumpIsPresident]

It was WaPo that first gave these conspiracy theorist nutjobs a voice.

I like their "evidence" though.

Trump did well in a distrcit that he was unqestionedly expected to do well in all along so it must be "haxsoring".

Hehe

[jackofwind]

Cool, so who gets to decide what is a fact and what is an opnion? I didn't see any link, citation or reference to anyting in this entire thread.

Guess we're even now then and you will refrain from repeating it?

I always try to keep ad hominems out of my posts, you may have noticed. I apologize for letting one slip in.

Do we agree that the peaceful transfer of power is integral to the American presidential election process?

[Williamgood]

Not calling for recall, cause they rigged it too hehe

[Forogil]

Hillary would have to win all three states in question to win. They still need to raise 6-7 million for lawyer fees on top of the filing fees. So let's see if all three states are even contested. It's unlikely she will get one and certainly all three states to flip.

If the voting machines were hacked it would be likely that two or and most likely all three states flip, if they weren't - the results will barely change.

So, just one state flipping is in my opinion the least likely outcome.

[Deleted]

I always try to keep ad hominems out of my posts, you may have noticed. I apologize for letting one slip in.

Do we agree that the peaceful transfer of power is integral to the American presidential election process?

On that single thing we do agree.

What do we not agree on then? I guess - who are the ones disrupting the process? In my opinion both 'sides' do, except in different ways. Which one ends up more damaging is yet to be seen due time. It's just that 'right now' only one side seems to do so. It would be most likely the same if 'other side' won.

[jackofwind]

On that single thing we do agree.

What do we not agree on then? I guess - who are the ones disrupting the process? In my opinion both 'sides' do, except in different ways. Which one ends up more damaging is yet to be seen due time. It's just that 'right now' only one side seems to do so. It would be most likely the same if 'other side' won.

I agree that both sides would complain if their candidate didn't win, the left is already doing it and I don't think the right would be silent if Hillary was the president elect.

What I find reprehensible is when one of the candidates themselves says they won't honor the outcome of the election, since that peaceful transfer of power is a key component of the process. It's simply not done to take part in a democratic process and then say "I won't accept it if I don't win." To me that is a lot different than supporters saying they won't accept it.

[Endus]

because a 7% difference shouldn't warrant any concern and it is only a concern to the people desperate to delegitimize Trump winning it is a text book case of grabbing at straws

This has nothing to do with "deligitimizing Trump". Trump isn't President. The Electoral College has yet to vote. And those counties could have swung the election, so the responsible thing to do is to investigate.

There's no downside, if you're so certain that Trump legitimately won. Letting them investigate would silence the outcry. Trying to block it makes it look like you're deliberately hiding something.

[Deleted]

I agree that both sides would complain if their candidate didn't win, the left is already doing it and I don't think the right would be silent if Hillary was the president elect.

What I find reprehensible is when one of the candidates themselves says they won't honor the outcome of the election, since that peaceful transfer of power is a key component of the process. It's simply not done to take part in a democratic process and then say "I won't accept it if I don't win." To me that is a lot different than supporters saying they won't accept it.

But here's the thing - did he really say it or was it interpreted by media aginst him like this? I'm not claiming anything, I'm asking, maybe I'm just a victim of those 'fake-news', becasue I don't watch TV, only get info from internet. And as far as I know there were vaild concerns about voters' registration in 'blue' states, letting non-US citizens vote and similar shit like this. Sure I've heard about same things happening in 'red' states, but those seemed minor cases in sparsely populated areas compared to those with huge EC votes impact.

But aside of all that, I'm more baffled about supporters from each side rather than candidates themselves.

[xuros]

This is what happens when we dont give out participation awards? Fuck man, get those losers a trophy!

- - - Updated - - -

This has nothing to do with "deligitimizing Trump". Trump isn't President. The Electoral College has yet to vote. And those counties could have swung the election, so the responsible thing to do is to investigate.

There's no downside, if you're so certain that Trump legitimately won. Letting them investigate would silence the outcry. Trying to block it makes it look like you're deliberately hiding something.

Nope it is all said and done with.

[jackofwind]

But here's the thing - did he really say it or was it interpreted by media aginst him like this? I'm not claiming anything, I'm asking, maybe I'm just a victim of those 'fake-news', becasue I don't watch TV, only get info from internet.

No, he made it pretty clear that he was not committed to accepting the results on live TV during the final debate, and then doubled-down when directly probed about the peaceful transfer of power. I find it pretty reprehensible for a candidate to imply that they might not accept the results of a democratic election depending on the outcome.



And then there was this gem, which is pretty cut and dry.

[anyaka21]

This has nothing to do with "deligitimizing Trump". Trump isn't President. The Electoral College has yet to vote. And those counties could have swung the election, so the responsible thing to do is to investigate.

There's no downside, if you're so certain that Trump legitimately won. Letting them investigate would silence the outcry. Trying to block it makes it look like you're deliberately hiding something.

I find it highly ironic that those who huffed and puffed and called vote tampering the stuff of conspiracy theories when they said Hillary did it in the primaries, especially when exit polls the same type of discrepancies, and then those exit polls were notoriously "highly inaccurate" are fully on board calling for further investigation.

Further, this on the Clinton side which made a massive issue about accepting the results and conceeding. But who is being the disingenuous ones now...

[Bullettime]

I find it highly ironic that those who huffed and puffed and called vote tampering the stuff of conspiracy theories when they said Hillary did it in the primaries, especially when exit polls the same type of discrepancies, and then those exit polls were notoriously "highly inaccurate" are fully on board calling for further investigation.

Further, this on the Clinton side which made a massive issue about accepting the results and conceeding. But who is being the disingenuous ones now...

Except it's not even fucking Clinton doing the damn thing. They're saying for her to do it, she's not doing it, Jill Stein is.

People read a fucking title and jump right to a comment.

[Endus]

I find it highly ironic that those who huffed and puffed and called vote tampering the stuff of conspiracy theories when they said Hillary did it in the primaries, especially when exit polls the same type of discrepancies, and then those exit polls were notoriously "highly inaccurate" are fully on board calling for further investigation.

Further, this on the Clinton side which made a massive issue about accepting the results and conceeding. But who is being the disingenuous ones now...

Oh, come off it.

When people hadn't even voted yet, claims of vote tampering were imaginary nonsense. Which is why it was deemed ridiculous conspiracy theorization; the votes hadn't even happened yet, so there were absolutely no grounds to claim that kind of voter fraud.

That's not the case now, and the issue is only in a few counties. Double-checking their results, when they have systems intended to let you do just that, is not a ridiculous idea. And it's not comparable to the fearmongering by Trump's side beforehand, because this is a reaction to actual results, whereas Trump's wharrgarble was about his own fantastical imagination.