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

[Valizix]

Ha ha even CNN is laughing at Jill stein this morning and her feeble atemots to make herself still relevant and keep her name in the running for the next election.

you mean her attempt at a cash grab and that's all it is, she has upped the amount needed a couple times

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/jill...ikely-recount/

[NYC17]

and you acting like a spoiled rotten child flipping the game board over after losing a game and pouting in the corner "it isn't fair it isn't fair they must have cheated"

Hmm..."it isn't fair", "it's so unfair". There was definitely a candidate who repeatedly said these things. let's see if you can guess who it was.

Note: this requires objectivity, which you are incapable of so you have to try REAAAAALLLLY hard.

[Xandrigity]

you mean her attempt at a cash grab and that's all it is, she has upped the amount needed a couple times

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/jill...ikely-recount/

That too, she collects it in the end doesn'not meet the criteria for recall and pockets all are part of it for the green parties campaign fund.

[Belize]

and you acting like a spoiled rotten child flipping the game board over after losing a game and pouting in the corner "it isn't fair it isn't fair they must have cheated"

Yup, look at these Democrats calling the election rigg-



Oh wait. It was actually president-elect man baby, whining before the election even happened.
Keep believing bullshit, darling.

[Stormspark]

If Putin had the electronic voting machines hacked, then I don't see how recounting will give a less hacked result. I think it's quite plausible that Putin had our election hacked, but we're more or less already screwed over if he did. I've personally opted for optical scans since it was revealed in 2003 how shitty the software on diebold voting machines were.

This is the root of the problem. If the voting machines are hacked (which is reportedly very easy to do and has been demonstrated by multiple researchers), recounting them isn't going to accomplish anything. The machines reportedly are very easily to manipulate to give the results you want.

[anyaka21]

Because nobody's found any questionable results that Trump has asked for a recount to confirm?

Is that a trick question? Because there's a really simple and nonpartisan answer.

Then why aren't we looking into the primaries where evidence was found that vote tampering was done by Hillarys camp? If we go the Trump route, we surely need to go back to the primaries. There was bigger discrepancies in exit poll data shown there, than this vendetta driven recount.

[Auxora]

Seems more like Stein is interested in a money grab. She wouldn't have anything to do with a doing recount and it certainly won't cost her anything out of pocket much less millions like she's raised. The recount itself is silly since the close states weren't really close enough to bother. If the counts were that far off (they'd need to be 10's of thousands of votes off) we'd have larger issues and it would call every election into question. So that seems unlikely.

However, I hope/assume the NSA watched the voting closely for any external state manipulation of the electronic counting. It might be worth an audit rather than a recount just to confirm that wasn't the case, but a simple recount is waste of resources. Some auditing should be done every Presidential election. It really wouldn't take that much work to change 4-5 swing state voting results just 1-2% which would flip the outcome. Heck the Target hack was probably harder than that.

[Endus]

Then why aren't we looking into the primaries where evidence was found that vote tampering was done by Hillarys camp? If we go the Trump route, we surely need to go back to the primaries. There was bigger discrepancies in exit poll data shown there, than this vendetta driven recount.

1> Because primaries aren't actually part of the electoral process, they're internal party action.
2> More importantly, because there WAS no such "tampering". It's all nonsense. http://www.forwardprogressives.com/f...ernie-sanders/

[Nadiru]

Seems more like Stein is interested in a money grab. She wouldn't have anything to do with a doing recount and it certainly won't cost her anything out of pocket much less millions like she's raised. The recount itself is silly since the close states weren't really close enough to bother. If the counts were that far off (they'd need to be 10's of thousands of votes off) we'd have larger issues and it would call every election into question. So that seems unlikely.

However, I hope/assume the NSA watched the voting closely for any external state manipulation of the electronic counting. It might be worth an audit rather than a recount just to confirm that wasn't the case, but a simple recount is waste of resources. Some auditing should be done every Presidential election. It really wouldn't take that much work to change 4-5 swing state voting results just 1-2% which would flip the outcome. Heck the Target hack was probably harder than that.

Even if it's not a money grab, I find it unlikely she's doing this for Clinton's benefit. Wouldn't that be a nasty little scandal, though, if it came out that the Dems were leeching Green Party votes in key states.

[Bullettime]

Even if it's not a money grab, I find it unlikely she's doing this for Clinton's benefit. Wouldn't that be a nasty little scandal, though, if it came out that the Dems were leeching Green Party votes in key states.

She's more doing it because as much as she dislikes Hillary, she hates Trump more, and this is a chance to get her name into the spotlight and take a shot in the dark at making herself out to be a national hero.

If there's nothing, then who cares? She goes back to relative obscurity. If she's right, she'd be looked at as a hero by the anti Trump base. edit: Basically she's throwing a publicity Hail Mary.

[Xandrigity]

1> Because primaries aren't actually part of the electoral process, they're internal party action.
2> More importantly, because there WAS no such "tampering". It's all nonsense. http://www.forwardprogressives.com/f...ernie-sanders/

Just nonsense like the hacking that didn't occur in the three states in question.

- - - Updated - - -

She's more doing it because as much as she dislikes Hillary, she hates Trump more, and this is a chance to get her name into the spotlight and take a shot in the dark at making herself out to be a national hero.

If there's nothing, then who cares? She goes back to relative obscurity. If she's right, she'd be looked at as a hero by the anti Trump base. edit: Basically she's throwing a publicity Hail Mary.

In the end she will end up looking like a hack as will the computer "scholar" who was misquoted about his opinion on hacking in the first place

[Bullettime]

Just nonsense like the hacking that didn't occur in the three states in question.

- - - Updated - - -



In the end she will end up looking like a hack as will the computer "scolar" who was misquoted about his opinion on hacking in the first place

She was going to fade into obscurity regardless like most every green party candidate before her. They show up at election time, try to rally some "fuck the two party system" voters, spout ridiculous garbage, then disappear.

If you're doomed to that anyways, why not take a shot at taking down Trump?

[anyaka21]

1> Because primaries aren't actually part of the electoral process, they're internal party action.
2> More importantly, because there WAS no such "tampering". It's all nonsense. http://www.forwardprogressives.com/f...ernie-sanders/

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6m...w?pref=2&pli=1

seems like a massive discrepancy to me, which would definitely mean tampering.

[Daerio]

She was going to fade into obscurity regardless like most every green party candidate before her. They show up at election time, try to rally some "fuck the two party system" voters, spout ridiculous garbage, then disappear.

If you're doomed to that anyways, why not take a shot at taking down Trump?

Because it's a petty PR scheme with dire negative consequences and zero chance of legitimate success.

To be clear, the dire negative consequences in this case are the fuel they're adding to the rioting and fostering the notion that Clinton can still be president when she can't.

[THE Bigzoman]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6m...w?pref=2&pli=1

seems like a massive discrepancy to me, which would definitely mean tampering.

Your argument assumes that exit polls will match primary results to a certain degree.

I'm not pointing out fault here. I'm just asking if that's the case.

[Daerio]

Your argument assumes that exit polls will match primary results to a certain degree.

I'm not pointing out fault here. I'm just asking if that's the case.

When we examine election fraud in other countries, what metric do you think we use?

[THE Bigzoman]

When we examine election fraud in other countries, what metric do you think we use?

Its occurrences that we undeniably know happen.

[Daerio]

Its occurrences that we undeniably know happen.

No, the correct answer was exit polling.

[Endus]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6m...w?pref=2&pli=1

seems like a massive discrepancy to me, which would definitely mean tampering.

Literally their entire argument is "states voted differently". There's no evidence of anything untoward, there; the idea that states would all show similar support for candidates is just obviously incorrect.

[anyaka21]

Your argument assumes that exit polls will match primary results to a certain degree.

I'm not pointing out fault here. I'm just asking if that's the case.

The issue is that exit poll data is the determining factor in the current recounts. Thus, if that's the case, we should also go back and look at the primaries.

- - - Updated - - -

Literally their entire argument is "states voted differently". There's no evidence of anything untoward, there; the idea that states would all show similar support for candidates is just obviously incorrect.

Nope, its' the exact same thing, discrepancies in exit poll data.