New York Magazine claims activists want Hillary Clinton to challenge presidential election results

[geriatrickid]

On 11/22/2016 at 11:06 PM, Ulysses G. said:

She lost and Donald Trump is the president-elect. Over and out.

 

And what of the    the voting machine irregularities?

The issue has to be addressed.

[Ulysses G.]

11 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

And what of the    the voting machine irregularities?

The issue has to be addressed.

 

Five ThirtyEight does not find this credible:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

[sirineou]

10 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

And about half the country forgets that if Hillary had simply used the gov't server and not made the personal decision to cheat the system and avoid transparency with ALL Americans then there would have never been an FBI investogation to begin with.

 

This whole thing started with her personal decisions and she has only herself to blame. 

 

 

The same kind of logic that led people to buy Trump's bull, is reflected in this reply

Not surprising that other who bought Trumps bull . gave it likes.

It was not the investigation , all alleged indiscretions of such importance  should be investigated as should this allegation of vote rigging.

It was the decision of the FBI to abandon the long standing policy of not making public an investigation of someone involved in an election so close to the election .

Ask yourself this.

Why this change in policy? and if such change in policy had being made against your candidate, wouldn't you , or shouldn't be just  apset? 

I sugest you would. If my suggestion is correct then I must go further and suggest that your attitude toward the occurrence, aside from being unwise, is simply partisan and unpatriotic.

This was not only an attack on HRC only  it was an attack on or Democracy.

   

[Baerboxer]

23 hours ago, pookiki said:

Interestingly enough, during the primary election between Clinton and Sanders in Massachusetts, there was a similar discrepancy between paper ballots and electronic voting. Sanders won on paper ballots. There are all kinds of ways electronic voting machines can be manipulated.  Give everyone a paper ballot.  Even though the count will take longer, it is the most reliable method. Nonetheless, there won't be a recount.

 

So your're saying Sanders should be the POTUS elect 555?

[Baerboxer]

9 hours ago, Silurian said:

 

If you actually look at voter power per state, California ranks around 49th or so. Someone in Wyoming has almost 4 times the voting power of someone in California.  Doesn't seem quite fair does it? This is what is partly wrong with the Electoral College among other issues. 

 

How Powerful Is Your Vote?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html

 

 

But the US is a union of states. Not a one level of government country. Changing to a simple popular vote would allow smaller population states to be controlled and dictated to by the ones with the big populations. That would provide more power to a centralized federal government and is something many many Americans do not want. Democrats favor anything that gives them a better chance of winning and enhances their central control. Very similar to the left in many other countries.

The founding fathers put a great deal of thought into their Constitution, the wisdom and vision of which shows through in many instances. The American people must decide the sort of government they want, at federal, state and local level and then what type of process ensures that democracy operates within that framework.

There were reports of some calling for California to become independent. Seems a trait of the modern left in politics. If we can't get all our own way we'll either change the rules of the game or sod off and take our ball with us.

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So your're saying Sanders should be the POTUS elect 555?

No

he is simply commenting on the reliability of electronic voting and suggests that Sanders should have  won Massachusetts in the Democratic  primary.

 

 

 

[Silurian]

31 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

But the US is a union of states. Not a one level of government country. Changing to a simple popular vote would allow smaller population states to be controlled and dictated to by the ones with the big populations. That would provide more power to a centralized federal government and is something many many Americans do not want. Democrats favor anything that gives them a better chance of winning and enhances their central control. Very similar to the left in many other countries.

The founding fathers put a great deal of thought into their Constitution, the wisdom and vision of which shows through in many instances. The American people must decide the sort of government they want, at federal, state and local level and then what type of process ensures that democracy operates within that framework.

There were reports of some calling for California to become independent. Seems a trait of the modern left in politics. If we can't get all our own way we'll either change the rules of the game or sod off and take our ball with us.

 

So how about this? Arrange electoral votes by state's GDP per capita. That way, the states that generate the most income per person have the most voting rights. Sound fair? Probably not.

 

Or how about each state splitting its electoral vote along voting lines instead of winner take all? Doesn't that seem more fair? Each state still gets its electoral power but split as the state population decrees. Seems more fair to the individual voter don't you think? Ah, but in this election, if the electoral college was split up by state, no one reached the magic 270 mark.

 

 

The current seemingly arbitrary way doling out of electoral votes makes very little sense to me. The founding fathers only had 13 states to deal with when it was created. 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Silurian

[ukrules]

On 23/11/2016 at 4:13 PM, Jingthing said:

I like this and hate this.

Giving us a tiny bit of hope when we know in our hearts, there is NO hope.

Batards!

 

There is zero chance of the result changing, even if all three of these swing states were to change result, here's why :

 

Wisconsin 10 (EC Votes)
Michigan 16...
Pennsylvania 20...

Total disputed EC votes : 46

 

Trump won by 58 Electoral College votes...

 

 

[Silurian]

45 minutes ago, ukrules said:

 

There is zero chance of the result changing, even if all three of these swing states were to change result, here's why :

 

Wisconsin 10 (EC Votes)
Michigan 16...
Pennsylvania 20...

Total disputed EC votes : 46

 

Trump won by 58 Electoral College votes...

 

 

 

Interesting math. Let's try it using the magic 270 number.

 

Hillary: 232 + 46 = 278

Donald: 306 - 46 = 260

 

[ukrules]

22 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

Interesting math. Let's try it using the magic 270 number.

 

Hillary: 232 + 46 = 278

Donald: 306 - 46 = 260

 

 

I see, I'm also working off different 'final results', are there still some states yet to declare ?

 

[Silurian]

Just now, ukrules said:

 

I see, I'm also working off different 'final results', are there still some states yet to declare ?

 

 

I gave Michigan's EC votes to Donald (which some news sites have yet to call) so 232 Hillary and 306 Donald should be the final outcome. There are a total of 538 EC votes.

[sirineou]

  " Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has raised the $2.5 million dollars necessary to initiate a recount in key swing states — after computer scientists and election lawyers revealed “persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked.” 

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/computer-scientists-call-hillary-clinton-165621753.html

[ukrules]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

  " Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has raised the $2.5 million dollars necessary to initiate a recount in key swing states — after computer scientists and election lawyers revealed “persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked.” 

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/computer-scientists-call-hillary-clinton-165621753.html

 

The total she's now raised to fund these recounts has jumped up to $4.1 Million in the last few hours !

 

They have a live total on this page :

https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/Recount

[sirineou]

16 minutes ago, ukrules said:

 

The total she's now raised to fund these recounts has jumped up to $4.1 Million in the last few hours !

 

They have a live total on this page :

https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/Recount

Thank you for that link

Just made that number go a litle higher

[charmonman]

13 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

But the US is a union of states. Not a one level of government country. Changing to a simple popular vote would allow smaller population states to be controlled and dictated to by the ones with the big populations. That would provide more power to a centralized federal government and is something many many Americans do not want. Democrats favor anything that gives them a better chance of winning and enhances their central control. Very similar to the left in many other countries.

The founding fathers put a great deal of thought into their Constitution, the wisdom and vision of which shows through in many instances. The American people must decide the sort of government they want, at federal, state and local level and then what type of process ensures that democracy operates within that framework.

There were reports of some calling for California to become independent. Seems a trait of the modern left in politics. If we can't get all our own way we'll either change the rules of the game or sod off and take our ball with us.

 

This whole California discussion started off with someone on the right claiming that California had too MUCH power, which is absurd. 

 

Remember the calls for Texas to secede after Obama was elected?

 

This is not just trait of the modern left, as you claim. It works both ways.

[Chicog]

On 11/24/2016 at 4:45 AM, OMGImInPattaya said:

I see you're still prattling on about things you know nothing about; I mean, why would Congress have anything to do with it...elections, even to federal offices, are a matter for the states.  

Congress can launch an investigation any time they like, as Cummings did into Voter Suppression.

I was being sarcastic, since there's no way the Republicans are going to bother with this.

If you're going to *try* and be pedantic, it's important to actually be right.

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by Chicog

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 minutes ago, Chicog said:

Congress can launch an investigation any time they like, as Cummings did into Voter Suppression.

I was being sarcastic, since there's no way the Republicans are going to bother with this.

If you're going to *try* and be pedantic, it's important to actually be right.

 

Recounts aren't investigations...maybe bookmark Dictionary.com

[Chicog]

16 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Recounts aren't investigations...maybe bookmark Dictionary.com

 

Yes, and I never said they were. I was responding to a post about vote rigging.

If you're trying to make a fool of yourself, you're succeeding.

 

 

[Steely Dan]

The DOJ does not carry out investigations into electoral votes based on a tally of liberal outrage, they stick to facts and facts alone.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[ClutchClark]

2 hours ago, Steely Dan said:

The DOJ does not carry out investigations into electoral votes based on a tally of liberal outrage, they stick to facts and facts alone.
 

 

 

 

 

I think the DoJ was used for political ends by obama and holder.

 

interesting video. I started a thread asking if we were seeing some group psychosis with the liberal group think a week ago.

Edited November 25, 2016 by ClutchClark

[Strange]

On 11/23/2016 at 10:26 AM, webfact said:

New York Magazine reports that a group, including Boston voting-rights lawyer John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Centre for Computer Security and Society, believe they have found evidence that the results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are suspicious.

 

How convenient it is that they are only concerned with a select few states that were/are pretty close and when combined would give us a Hillary win. 

 

Pretty pathetic that they are only concerned about voter fraud when its them on the losing side. 

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Chicog said:

Congress can launch an investigation any time they like, as Cummings did into Voter Suppression.

I was being sarcastic, since there's no way the Republicans are going to bother with this.

If you're going to *try* and be pedantic, it's important to actually be right.

 

 

Your link is talking about alleged voter suppression, not allegedly fraudulent/hacked/broken electronic voting machines. 2 completely different deals. Your post is completely pointless and off topic in the context of the OP. 

 

7 hours ago, Chicog said:

7 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Recounts aren't investigations...maybe bookmark Dictionary.com

 

Yes, and I never said they were. I was responding to a post about vote rigging.

If you're trying to make a fool of yourself, you're succeeding.

 

Broken voting machines and alleged voter suppression are 2 completely different deals. Hence recounts are not investigations.

 

Its pretty clear who is looking like a fool. Not only that, but nothing is going to come of this because they are only looking at it from a conveniently one-sided perspective. An official Audit has to be done for both sides, not just Hillarys votes in a way that makes her win. 

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

[Chicog]

44 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Your link is talking about alleged voter suppression, not allegedly fraudulent/hacked/broken electronic voting machines. 2 completely different deals. Your post is completely pointless and off topic in the context of the OP. 

 

 

Broken voting machines and alleged voter suppression are 2 completely different deals. Hence recounts are not investigations.

 

Its pretty clear who is looking like a fool. Not only that, but nothing is going to come of this because they are only looking at it from a conveniently one-sided perspective. An official Audit has to be done for both sides, not just Hillarys votes in a way that makes her win. 

 

Another completely pointless post.

I simply pointed out that even if a congressional investigated was merited, they would not do it. Stupid email servers and Benghazi witch hunts, different story. As soon as the next Democratic contender is announced in two years time, they'll find some more shit to shovel.

But since my comment was hypothetical, I really can't understand quite why you're trying to be so analytical.

 

Good lord, any excuse for a bit of faux indignation eh?

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Chicog said:

Another completely pointless post.

I simply pointed out that even if a congressional investigated was merited, they would not do it. Stupid email servers and Benghazi witch hunts, different story. As soon as the next Democratic contender is announced in two years time, they'll find some more shit to shovel.

But since my comment was hypothetical, I really can't understand quite why you're trying to be so analytical.

 

Good lord, any excuse for a bit of faux indignation eh?

 

You didn't 'simply point out' anything you made a couple of irrevalent posts full of passive aggressive nonsense and insinuating people are fools and thats crazy to me considering you don't even have a dog in this fight. Its just your distaste of the US bleeding through into your posts. 

 

There is nothing analytical in what I posted and it was 100% on point. If you consider what I posted to be "analytical" (when it was a very basic kindergarten level clarification) then you really shouldn't be calling anyone a fool. 

 

Anyway it appears there is only a couple days left until its too late to contest so the Dem crybabies will have one less thing to winge about. 

[Scott]

I will strongly advise people to stop with the bickering.  

[Chicog]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

You didn't 'simply point out' anything you made a couple of irrevalent posts full of passive aggressive nonsense and insinuating people are fools and thats crazy to me considering you don't even have a dog in this fight. Its just your distaste of the US bleeding through into your posts. 

 

There is nothing analytical in what I posted and it was 100% on point. If you consider what I posted to be "analytical" (when it was a very basic kindergarten level clarification) then you really shouldn't be calling anyone a fool. 

 

Anyway it appears there is only a couple days left until its too late to contest so the Dem crybabies will have one less thing to winge about. 

 

Like I said, it's a non-starter anyway, but there are obviously some desperate people out there because Stein's up to $5 million now.

It's amazing how easy it is to part a fool and their money.

 

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/trump-make-america-great-ornament-amazon-gets-reviews-best/

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, Chicog said:

Like I said, it's a non-starter anyway, but there are obviously some desperate people out there because Stein's up to $5 million now.

 

$5 Million is nothing really. Another dog that won't hunt even if they do get a re-count. 

[Chicog]

59 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

$5 Million is nothing really. Another dog that won't hunt even if they do get a re-count. 

 

I think they only needed a couple of million. I wonder what she'll do with the spare....

 

[lannarebirth]

34 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

I think they only needed a couple of million. I wonder what she'll do with the spare....

 

 

She raised less than that for her own campaign for the presidency.