Trump, backers ask courts to halt or block 3 state recounts

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

No, I posted it so that the relevant part was not out of context, the relevant part being,

"just as is the rest of spin we're flogging about the President-Elect."

The fact being that what is being said about Trump is not spin, it is hardly as if you need to spin anything to make Trump look bad, a quote will do fine!

 

 

Come on Shaun, you don't get two choices or is it anything to suit your agenda. I would like to know how, out of the little you quoted, you were able to determine that I intimated or actually said that I had a problem with him be scrutinised?   If you say there is no spin, that it's all fact, then maybe you should go and get yourself a seeing eye dog or take off those rose coloured glasses.  Why is the hate so ingrained?  The darling of the educated and elites failed, must be hard to swallow.    

[Shawn0000]

10 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Come on Shaun, you don't get two choices or is it anything to suit your agenda. I would like to know how, out of the little you quoted, you were able to determine that I intimated or actually said that I had a problem with him be scrutinised?   If you say there is no spin, that it's all fact, then maybe you should go and get yourself a seeing eye dog or take off those rose coloured glasses.  Why is the hate so ingrained?  The darling of the educated and elites failed, must be hard to swallow.    

 

You refer to the scrutinizing of Trump as spin, pretty simple stuff.

 

What is it that you actually fear?  That people will learn the truth about Trump?  That he is a statutory rape apologizing friend of a convicted pedophile, for instance?  Now there is no spin on that, just two cold facts.

 

Speaking of spin, what do you think of Trumps backtracking on persecuting Hillary?  Before the election it was all, "she is a crook" and "she has to go to jail", but after the election it is "Hillary is a great friend of mine" and "she's a very nice woman".

Would it be fair to say that Trump is just a typical spin merchant politician?

 

As for your closing comment, I found it hard to swallow when Sanders lost to Clinton, since then we have had two establishment members of the elite, so in a way I don't care either way, both are bad for the world, Trump perhaps worse, but who knows.

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

You refer to the scrutinizing of Trump as spin, pretty simple stuff.

 

What is it that you actually fear?  That people will learn the truth about Trump?  That he is a statutory rape apologizing friend of a convicted pedophile, for instance?  Now there is no spin on that, just two cold facts.

 

Speaking of spin, what do you think of Trumps backtracking on persecuting Hillary?  Before the election it was all, "she is a crook" and "she has to go to jail", but after the election it is "Hillary is a great friend of mine" and "she's a very nice woman".

Would it be fair to say that Trump is just a typical spin merchant politician?

 

As for your closing comment, I found it hard to swallow when Sanders lost to Clinton, since then we have had two establishment members of the elite, so in a way I don't care either way, both are bad for the world, Trump perhaps worse, but who knows.

 

No, spin is spin, just plain and simple BS Shaun, has absolutely nothing to do with your favourite word.  You are very good at being an anonymous poster saying things that you would not if you were out in the real world instead of hiding in the ether, so let's stop slinging it, do you see me denigrating the opposition, no, so why do you find the need to?  Why should I be afraid of anything, it's not me you are besmirching.  

 

He's been accused of many things, but I don't see any convictions, so at this time, wouldn't you say, that they are pure allegations proffered by those who use the first amendment to hide behind and many who are affected by the tall poppy syndrome?   Unfortunately there is no cure from such suffering.  Maybe the next thing is to accuse him of being a paedophile, I wouldn't put it past some but as far as his friendship with a paedophile, I don't know of this aspect but if it is true then it wouldn't be my choice but then I am not him.

 

As for backtracking I think he has been magnanimous after the event, a lot of things were said by both sides, let's not forget that.  Maybe he is trying to bring the country together rather than divide it further.  A good thing I'd say or would you rather he prosecute her?  And yes, all politicians are full of it, just look at Romney.

 

When someone says they don't care, they really do hence you proliferation of posts on the subject.   So you are, in fact, a lefty socialist, now I understand the contents of and the manner in which you try to hide your true self within your posts.   I'll give you one due, Bernie was cheated by the dream girl and her team but really I think you should just take a deep breath and give the guy a go, let's see what he can do, he could not be any worse than the past three.    

Edited December 4, 2016 by Si Thea01

[Shawn0000]

28 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

No, spin is spin, just plain and simple BS Shaun, has absolutely nothing to do with your favourite word.  You are very good at being an anonymous poster saying things that you would not if you were out in the real world instead of hiding in the ether, so let's stop slinging it, do you see me denigrating the opposition, no, so why do you find the need to?  Why should I be afraid of anything, it's not me you are besmirching.  

 

He's been accused of many things, but I don't see any convictions, so at this time, wouldn't you say, that they are pure allegations proffered by those who use the first amendment to hide behind and many who are affected by the tall poppy syndrome?   Unfortunately there is no cure from such suffering.  Maybe the next thing is to accuse him of being a paedophile, I wouldn't put it past some but as far as his friendship with a paedophile, I don't know of this aspect but if it is true then it wouldn't be my choice but then I am not him.

 

As for backtracking I think he has been magnanimous after the event, a lot of things were said by both sides, let's not forget that.  Maybe he is trying to bring the country together rather than divide it further.  A good thing I'd say or would you rather he prosecute her?  And yes, all politicians are full of it, just look at Romney.

 

When someone says they don't care, they really do hence you proliferation of posts on the subject.   So you are, in fact, a lefty socialist, now I understand the contents of and the manner in which you try to hide your true self within your posts.   I'll give you one due, Bernie was cheated by the dream girl and her team but really I think you should just take a deep breath and give the guy a go, let's see what he can do, he could not be any worse than the past three.    

 

What Trump did on the podium in relation to slandering Clinton would be, by definition, spin.

 

As for the "allegations" as you choose to believe them to be, well, actually well documented facts, he really did apologize for statutory rape, he did so on tape, “So do you think this 14-year-old kid is scarred forever? He might have put the moves on her. It might have given him confidence, actually,”

And he really was friends with a convicted pedo, Epstein, whom Trump referred to as "a terrific guy" and said he "likes girls as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side".  This was of course before Epstein was convicted of child rape but it would imply that Trump was already aware.  In his court care Epstein said under oath that he and Trump were friends, however, curiously when questioned as to whether Trump had ever attended one of his infamous sex parties, he decided to take the 5th.

 

I believe others deserve to know about the person who is about to president, got a problem with people telling the truth?  That is not denigration by the way, as that would imply that it was unfair and it is never unfair to tell the truth.

 

And of course you have to understand that a lot of the talk about Trump is really just giving him a taste of his own medicine, has there ever been such a smear campaign full of denigration, even hinting at murder for Christs sake, of the opposition before Trump took to the stand?  What really do you expect for him now, respect?

 

And I really don't care much between Clinton and Trump, that is the truth, however I do care to tell the truth about Trump, and why not?

 

I have no idea what you are blithering about with the "hiding your true self" nonsense, but how about we stick to the topic?  I know you so want to divert the attention away from your beloved but this really is about him not me.

 

In the end we have to give him a go, but just tell me why you don't want people to tell the truth about him?  Really, what is it that you are afraid of?

 

 

[lungbing]

I think she did it because she was paid to by a very sore loser.

[Si Thea01]

20 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

What Trump did on the podium in relation to slandering Clinton would be, by definition, spin.

 

As for the "allegations" as you choose to believe them to be, well, actually well documented facts, he really did apologize for statutory rape, he did so on tape, “So do you think this 14-year-old kid is scarred forever? He might have put the moves on her. It might have given him confidence, actually,”

And he really was friends with a convicted pedo, Epstein, whom Trump referred to as "a terrific guy" and said he "likes girls as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side".  This was of course before Epstein was convicted of child rape but it would imply that Trump was already aware.  In his court care Epstein said under oath that he and Trump were friends, however, curiously when questioned as to whether Trump had ever attended one of his infamous sex parties, he decided to take the 5th.

 

I believe others deserve to know about the person who is about to president, got a problem with people telling the truth?  That is not denigration by the way, as that would imply that it was unfair and it is never unfair to tell the truth.

 

And of course you have to understand that a lot of the talk about Trump is really just giving him a taste of his own medicine, has there ever been such a smear campaign full of denigration, even hinting at murder for Christs sake, of the opposition before Trump took to the stand?  What really do you expect for him now, respect?

 

And I really don't care much between Clinton and Trump, that is the truth, however I do care to tell the truth about Trump, and why not?

 

I have no idea what you are blithering about with the "hiding your true self" nonsense, but how about we stick to the topic?  I know you so want to divert the attention away from your beloved but this really is about him not me.

 

In the end we have to give him a go, but just tell me why you don't want people to tell the truth about him?  Really, what is it that you are afraid of?

 

 

 

Not biting Shaun, you keep dragging this off topic and making it about yourself, so off you go and play your little games with someone else.  Have a good night.  

[Shawn0000]

28 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Not biting Shaun, you keep dragging this off topic and making it about yourself, so off you go and play your little games with someone else.  Have a good night.  

 

Actually I was answering your question, that was the only inclusion of my personal feelings, no games played, just a little Trump reality spoken, but if that is the best you got, resorting to making things up, I guess we will have to leave it there.  Night then. xx

[Linzz]

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Stein didn't get much support in the election, but she's part of the reason trump won. There is a false narrative being bandied about that it was the rust belt whites that gave trump the win. It's much more than that. Millenials just didn't vote in enough numbers, too many voted for Stein, stayed home, assumed Hillary Clinton would win. If they had voted for Hillary Clinton in the same levels as they did for Obama, we wouldn't be stuck with the horror real life reality t.v. show of a President trump. So fie on Stein! 

 

I'ts easy to blame Hillary, the Russians, voter fraud, absentee voters, other candidates etc etc. The loss was because of policies of the far left Obama administration. The Dems still do not recognise this that's why Pelosi is voted to carry on signalling there will be no change. Big mistake, if Trump stays on track, there could be an even bigger defeat in 4 years.

[stevenl]

 
I'ts easy to blame Hillary, the Russians, voter fraud, absentee voters, other candidates etc etc. The loss was because of policies of the far left Obama administration. The Dems still do not recognise this that's why Pelosi is voted to carry on signalling there will be no change. Big mistake, if Trump stays on track, there could be an even bigger defeat in 4 years.

No. If Obama could have been elected again he would have won easily.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[Ulysses G.]

47 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No. If Obama could have been elected again he would have won easily.
 

 

Don't think so. Hillary campaigned as his third term and Obama enthusiastically campaigned for her. She still lost.

[Andaman Al]

I find it bizarre in a democratic system why anyone would object to a recount, particularly when those requesting it are paying for the service. There is a very strong smell of fish!

[Shawn0000]

3 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

I find it bizarre in a democratic system why anyone would object to a recount, particularly when those requesting it are paying for the service. There is a very strong smell of fish!

 

Yes, particularly when there is overwhelming evidence that another country interfered in the campaign process and there is a possibility that they also could have hacked the online polling stations, especially so considering that that country is generally considered an enemy of America, it seems absolutely anything can be forgotten when your side won, incredible stuff that will go down in history as one of the least honorable moves of the Republican Party.

[Ulysses G.]

23 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Yes, particularly when there is overwhelming evidence that another country interfered in the campaign process and there is a possibility that they also could have hacked the online polling stations, especially so considering that that country is generally considered an enemy of America

 

Absolutely no evidence of hacking concerning the Trump win.

 

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

[Shawn0000]

59 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Absolutely no evidence of hacking concerning the Trump win.

 

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

 

I didn't say there was, I said there was overwhelming evidence that there was interference in the campaign, that is a fact.  Which also raises the possibility that there COULD have been interference in the election, the recounts will tell us, unlike your demographics of voters which tell us nothing except giving the vague impression that there may not have been, that is not "evidence" that there wasn't, obviously.  Now tell me, what is that is leading some to not want a recount?

[lannarebirth]

9 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

I didn't say there was, I said there was overwhelming evidence that there was interference in the campaign, that is a fact.  Which also raises the possibility that there COULD have been interference in the election, the recounts will tell us, unlike your demographics of voters which tell us nothing except giving the vague impression that there may not have been, that is not "evidence" that there wasn't, obviously.  Now tell me, what is that is leading some to not want a recount?

 

No question, foreign governments should play no part in any US election campaign. If they did, that should be investigated and if they worked in cahoots with any Americans, those Americans should be prosecuted, for something. That said I'm not sure what the interference was. If they had been Americans we'd be calling them "whistle blowers" who exposed corrupt practices withing a national party and a campaign. They gave transparency,  though I guess it wasn't appreciated by some. I've yet to hear anyone come out to refute or question the authenticity of the emails that came to light in the Wikileaks dumps. 

[Shawn0000]

29 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

No question, foreign governments should play no part in any US election campaign. If they did, that should be investigated and if they worked in cahoots with any Americans, those Americans should be prosecuted, for something. That said I'm not sure what the interference was. If they had been Americans we'd be calling them "whistle blowers" who exposed corrupt practices withing a national party and a campaign. They gave transparency,  though I guess it wasn't appreciated by some. I've yet to hear anyone come out to refute or question the authenticity of the emails that came to light in the Wikileaks dumps. 

 

True, it is more just about the further concerns that it arises, could Russia have infiltrated the proven pathetically weak security of some polling stations, probably.  It might be a good idea to at least check.

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

I didn't say there was, I said there was overwhelming evidence that there was interference in the campaign, that is a fact.  Which also raises the possibility that there COULD have been interference in the election, the recounts will tell us, unlike your demographics of voters which tell us nothing except giving the vague impression that there may not have been, that is not "evidence" that there wasn't, obviously.  Now tell me, what is that is leading some to not want a recount?

 

Of course you did not say that but you did say that there was the possibility of them having hacked the online polling stations.  Who are you referring to, have a problem with the word, Russia?  So what is the overwhelming evidence of interference in the campaign? Maybe you should just put up or shut up, if it is so overwhelming as you allege.  And according to the initial post there is only a possibility that they may have hacked the online polls, what no overwhelming evidence here, just the possibility?  Hardly credible if one is hoping it may have occurred.

 

Also, why change the wording to now read "could have interfered in the election" from "the possibility of them having hacked the online polls." Make up your mind, you can't have it all ways, but when you want to contradict another it is easy deny and to make it a more credible, alter the wording to suit. You have a go at another by stating, "giving the vague expression that there may not have been, that is not evidence that there wasn't."  Sounds like when one says "the possibility of," doesn't it?  

 

Who cares if a sore loser, like Stein, who needs the money, wants a recount, let there be one. It wont alter the fact that she is a nobody in politics and it will not change the results. Why is it that he is the only one out of those who were involved?  Now whether HRC was behind this or not we will ever know but her campaign sure jumped on board, at a rapid pace and for what purpose?  They just can't accept that they were beaten fair and square and because they used all the dirty tricks in the book they think others are tarred with the same brush.    

 

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Si Thea01

[Shawn0000]

1 minute ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Of course you did not say that but you did say that there was the possibility of them having hacked the online polling stations.  Who are you referring to, have a problem with the word, Russia?  So what is the overwhelming evidence of interference in the campaign? Maybe you should just put up or shut up, if it is so overwhelming.  And according to the initial post there is only a possibility that they may have hacked the online polls, what no overwhelming evidence here, just the possibility?  Hardly credible if one is hoping it may have occurred.

 

Also, why change the wording to now read "could have interfered in the election" from "the possibility of them having hacked the online polls."  Make up your mind, you can't have it all ways, but when you want to contradict another it is easy deny and to make it a more credible, alter the wording to suit.  You have a go at another by stating, "giving the vague expression that there may not have been, that is not evidence that there wasn't."  Sounds like when one says "the possibility of," doesn't it?  

 

Who cares if a sore loser, like Stein, who needs the money, wants a recount, let there be one. It wont alter the fact that she is a nobody in politics and it will not change the results. Why is it that he is the only one?   Now whether HRC was behind this or not we will ever know but her campaign sure jumped on board, at a rapid pace and for what purpose.  They just can't accept that they were beaten fair and square and because they used all the dirty tricks in the book they think others are tarred with the same brush.    

 

 

 

I didn't say Russia as it is irrelevant, all that matters is there was outside intervention.

 

The claim of overwhelming evidence comes from the Departments of Homeland Security and office of the director of national intelligence in a joint statement.

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

 

No, there is no overwhelming evidence of hacking the polls, in fact there is no evidence at all, just a raised suspicion which is clearly justified considering the evidence of interfering in the election in other ways.  That is the point of the recounts, to make sure there wasn't any.  What is hard to understand?

 

Not sure what you think is different in meaning between "could have' and "the possibility of" but they were both intended to have the exact same meaning.  But no, the possibility of, or the fact that there could have been, is clearly quite different from implying that there couldn't have been or that there is no possibility of, due to the demographics of online voters matching those of paper voters, there has been a foreign hack to influence the election, this is serious stuff, nothing should be neglected in the investigation, particularly the election result.

 

I also don't think a recount will change the result, but then not every move is about trying to gain power, Stein has no chance remember?  She has stated from the beginning that it is nothing to do with not accepting the result and everything to do with ensuring the system is secure from attack.  Do you not think that might just be a good idea?

 

And it is not Stein and Hillary who think that dirty tricks were used, it is Homeland Security and National Intelligence, got it now?

[Linzz]

11 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Of course you did not say that but you did say that there was the possibility of them having hacked the online polling stations.  Who are you referring to, have a problem with the word, Russia?  So what is the overwhelming evidence of interference in the campaign? Maybe you should just put up or shut up, if it is so overwhelming as you allege.  And according to the initial post there is only a possibility that they may have hacked the online polls, what no overwhelming evidence here, just the possibility?  Hardly credible if one is hoping it may have occurred.

 

Also, why change the wording to now read "could have interfered in the election" from "the possibility of them having hacked the online polls." Make up your mind, you can't have it all ways, but when you want to contradict another it is easy deny and to make it a more credible, alter the wording to suit. You have a go at another by stating, "giving the vague expression that there may not have been, that is not evidence that there wasn't."  Sounds like when one says "the possibility of," doesn't it?  

 

Who cares if a sore loser, like Stein, who needs the money, wants a recount, let there be one. It wont alter the fact that she is a nobody in politics and it will not change the results. Why is it that he is the only one out of those who were involved?  Now whether HRC was behind this or not we will ever know but her campaign sure jumped on board, at a rapid pace and for what purpose?  They just can't accept that they were beaten fair and square and because they used all the dirty tricks in the book they think others are tarred with the same brush.    

 

 

 

I had some respect for Stein until I saw her interviewed by Chris Wallace. She continually talked over the top of him and in the confusion her points were lost. She wouldn't answer his questions but just made sure we were getting what she wanted us to hear. She lost me at that point.

[sgtsabai]

I have to disagree, there is no overwhelming evidence of Russian hacking, just the word of some very suspect US spy agencies. Not one single bit of evidence has been released, why? Oh, the seal was broken on 5 voting machines in Wisc.

 

Hillary, the DNC and corporate blue dawg Democrat elites lost this election by using a piss poor campaign, not having an honest candidate (debatable over who is the most dishonest but I think the orange fascist wins), not realizing that the US is not right wing and want progressive change for the people, not the 1%. Bernie offered the change people needed/wanted and would have won hands down, regained the Senate and very possibly the House. No those that voted for Jill Stein did not rob the Clinton of victory, she did it herself. Millennials did not as claimed by the Washington Post loose the election for Clinton. Frankly Clinton's only campaign message was he's worse than me and he is dangerous, now that is true. Many just said to hell with it and sat out the election. Trump's was a mass of lies, racism and misogynist bull but the fools believed him. Just look at his Cabinet/adviser choices, not draining the swamp, filling it with alligators.

 

On the other hand massive voter suppression by the right wing Republicans did influence the orange fascist's win and they've bragged about it. The ignorance of many people and the fact that the racist's had a chance to get their revenge on the black man in the White House. No, Obama's administration was anything but left, barely center right and that only because there were some needed social changes accomplished. He was/is a tool of Wall Street criminals/banksters and codified the worst of the Cheney/Bush et al war criminals Constitutional destruction. Dwight Eisenhower was to the left of him, hell in some ways so was Nixon (pardon me while I vomit-that prick put me in jail). Things wouldn't have gotten better, the changes people wanted wouldn't have happened under Clinton, but things are going to get a lot worse for the middle/working class and those that want equality and freedom under the orange fascist.

 

The recount rightly continues and Penn. is still in play.

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

I didn't say Russia as it is irrelevant, all that matters is there was outside intervention.

 

The claim of overwhelming evidence comes from the Departments of Homeland Security and office of the director of national intelligence in a joint statement.

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

 

No, there is no overwhelming evidence of hacking the polls, in fact there is no evidence at all, just a raised suspicion which is clearly justified considering the evidence of interfering in the election in other ways.  That is the point of the recounts, to make sure there wasn't any.  What is hard to understand?

 

Not sure what you think is different in meaning between "could have' and "the possibility of" but they were both intended to have the exact same meaning.  But no, the possibility of, or the fact that there could have been, is clearly quite different from implying that there couldn't have been or that there is no possibility of, due to the demographics of online voters matching those of paper voters, there has been a foreign hack to influence the election, this is serious stuff, nothing should be neglected in the investigation, particularly the election result.

 

I also don't think a recount will change the result, but then not every move is about trying to gain power, Stein has no chance remember?  She has stated from the beginning that it is nothing to do with not accepting the result and everything to do with ensuring the system is secure from attack.  Do you not think that might just be a good idea?

 

And it is not Stein and Hillary who think that dirty tricks were used, it is Homeland Security and National Intelligence, got it now?

 

 

Well if you're going to offer up a report as your overwhelming evidence, which implicates Russia, then it is relevant, why are you saying it isn't?  It doesn't matter, of course it does, as this is who the HRC camp first alleged was responsible, then conveniently, a short time later, a report is issued in the hope of substantiating those allegations.  Now is this part of your overwhelming evidence:-

 

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities"

 

Doesn't this section deal with emails only?  They are confident it was the Russian government; the disclosure of recent emails are consistent with their methods and the theft was designed to interfere with the US election process.  They, the Russians have used similar tactics in other countries and as such we believe that only Russia's senior officials could have authorised these activities. These are nothing but mere words without any evidence presented so how can you articulate that there is overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing?

 

The next section of the report containing your overwhelming evidence is as follows:-

 

"Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process."

 

Doesn't this state that such hacking would be extremely difficult, I'd say it would have to be considering it isn't connected to the internet.  There are also a number of other safeguards in place that it would make the altering actual ballot counts or election results extremely difficult.  So I have to agree with you there is no evidence, yet  nowhere, within the body of the report, is there an available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, so where is your overwhelming evidence.

 

Nothing you have presented so far would reach first base in a US Court of law and you put it forward in order to sustain your overwhelming evidence?  With your reference to a hack to influence the election are you suggesting this is about the emails because it sure ain't about the polling stations?  Has anyone refuted or denied their authenticity and offered proof when doing so?  Hell, if the system is not connected to the internet,  and all those other safeguards are in place then what are you on about ensuring the system is safe.  No internet, no hack or altering outcomes I'd say.

 

Not every move is about trying to gain power, not from Stein's side but why does it just happen to be in three Blue states that flipped Red?  Of course it has everything to do with the result, otherwise why put it into play, that's why the democrats jumped on board.  It wasn't just for the fun of it or being transparent or all the other BS they want to spin. She states that it has nothing to do with accepting the result, balderdash, she's just another lying politician.  Yes, I know it won't help her but she is sure going out of her way to help HRC. 

 

So is this more so called evidence "And it is not Stein and Hillary who think that dirty tricks were used, it is Homeland Security and National Intelligence, got it now?"  The operative word is THINK, which in no way relates to your overwhelming evidence malarkey.  Have you got it because you sure do not have any overwhelming evidence as you often claim? 

 

 

 

[Shawn0000]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Well if you're going to offer up a report as your overwhelming evidence, which implicates Russia, then it is relevant, why are you saying it isn't?  It doesn't matter, of course it does, as this is who the HRC camp first alleged was responsible, then conveniently, a short time later, a report is issued in the hope of substantiating those allegations.  Now is this part of your overwhelming evidence:-

 

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities"

 

Doesn't this section deal with emails only?  They are confident it was the Russian government; the disclosure of recent emails are consistent with their methods and the theft was designed to interfere with the US election process.  They, the Russians have used similar tactics in other countries and as such we believe that only Russia's senior officials could have authorised these activities. These are nothing but mere words without any evidence presented so how can you articulate that there is overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing?

 

The next section of the report containing your overwhelming evidence is as follows:-

 

"Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process."

 

Doesn't this state that such hacking would be extremely difficult, I'd say it would have to be considering it isn't connected to the internet.  There are also a number of other safeguards in place that it would make the altering actual ballot counts or election results extremely difficult.  So I have to agree with you there is no evidence, yet  nowhere, within the body of the report, is there an available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, so where is your overwhelming evidence.

 

Nothing you have presented so far would reach first base in a US Court of law and you put it forward in order to sustain your overwhelming evidence?  With your reference to a hack to influence the election are you suggesting this is about the emails because it sure ain't about the polling stations?  Has anyone refuted or denied their authenticity and offered proof when doing so?  Hell, if the system is not connected to the internet,  and all those other safeguards are in place then what are you on about ensuring the system is safe.  No internet, no hack or altering outcomes I'd say.

 

Not every move is about trying to gain power, not from Stein's side but why does it just happen to be in three Blue states that flipped Red?  Of course it has everything to do with the result, otherwise why put it into play, that's why the democrats jumped on board.  It wasn't just for the fun of it or being transparent or all the other BS they want to spin. She states that it has nothing to do with accepting the result, balderdash, she's just another lying politician.  Yes, I know it won't help her but she is sure going out of her way to help HRC. 

 

So is this more so called evidence "And it is not Stein and Hillary who think that dirty tricks were used, it is Homeland Security and National Intelligence, got it now?"  The operative word is THINK, which in no way relates to your overwhelming evidence malarkey.  Have you got it because you sure do not have any overwhelming evidence as you often claim? 

 

 

 

 

You are coming accross as increasingly desperate.  You post a quote from the link where the government make a statement attributing the hack to Russia yet you go on to claim that there is not evidence, well they did not pluck the idea out their backsides, they only release statements attributing things to other nations when they have all the evidence, which by the way is in the Guccifer 2.0 online persona.

 

Doesn't this state that all electronic voting machines in the US can be hacked?

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/09/20/which-voting-machines-can-be-hacked-through-the-internet/

 

And as I have repeatedly said, there is no evidence that votes have been compromised, there is fear, a justified fear considering that other aspects of the process were interfered with by Russia.

 

Now, why would anyone have a problem with ascertaining whether or not they have been, regardless of whether or not there is evidence to suggest there is?  Just what is it that Republicans are fearing?

[sgtsabai]

Actually if you go back a few posts the reasons for the recounts are explicetly explained. No, I'm not doing it for you. And the various "intelligence" agencies that spend all their time and tax payer dollar spying on innocent people have not offered one shred of proof that Russia had anything to do with the welcome release of the cheating by the DNC etc. Just their word. Tell me would you actually take one of those people's word when the heads routinly lie to Congress.

[Shawn0000]

7 minutes ago, sgtsabai said:

Actually if you go back a few posts the reasons for the recounts are explicetly explained. No, I'm not doing it for you. And the various "intelligence" agencies that spend all their time and tax payer dollar spying on innocent people have not offered one shred of proof that Russia had anything to do with the welcome release of the cheating by the DNC etc. Just their word. Tell me would you actually take one of those people's word when the heads routinly lie to Congress.

 

Again, why would you have a problem with checking?

[lannarebirth]

56 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Again, why would you have a problem with checking?

 

I guess the obvious answer is that if voting machines can be hacked that it may be the people "recounting" that do it.

[Shawn0000]

10 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I guess the obvious answer is that if voting machines can be hacked that it may be the people "recounting" that do it.

 

Which is one of the reasons they are requesting a hand recount, these can then be randomly sampled for accuracy, an obvious solution.

[Si Thea01]

3 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

You are coming accross as increasingly desperate.  You post a quote from the link where the government make a statement attributing the hack to Russia yet you go on to claim that there is not evidence, well they did not pluck the idea out their backsides, they only release statements attributing things to other nations when they have all the evidence, which by the way is in the Guccifer 2.0 online persona.

 

Doesn't this state that all electronic voting machines in the US can be hacked?

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/09/20/which-voting-machines-can-be-hacked-through-the-internet/

 

And as I have repeatedly said, there is no evidence that votes have been compromised, there is fear, a justified fear considering that other aspects of the process were interfered with by Russia.

 

Now, why would anyone have a problem with ascertaining whether or not they have been, regardless of whether or not there is evidence to suggest there is?  Just what is it that Republicans are fearing?

 

I took the quotes from what you listed as your overwhelming evidence and what has been alleged is not evidence of anyone or any country's government involvement.  I at least know what evidence is and a report stating this and that is certainly not evidence.  Either you are naïve or truly have no idea what people do in certain positions when they have certain masters, maybe both..

 

So you presented the Homeland Security report as your be all to end all evidence, which says the machines cannot be hacked as they are not connected to the internet. Then, when this is pointed out you run off and find another post, of course to suit your agenda, which contradicts what the Homeland Security report advises and tell people that they can be hacked. So if you're on about no votes being compromised why throw this additional report into the fro, what are you trying to prove, that I'm wrong and you're right. 

 

So which is it, Homeland Security is right or they are wrong and the other report is correct.  Whatever way you go, you really have no idea so who is getting increasingly desperate, not I, all I have to do is point out the total contradictions of what you want to throw up as your overwhelming evidence.   What is it you do not understand? 

[Shawn0000]

10 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

I took the quotes from what you listed as your overwhelming evidence and what has been alleged is not evidence of anyone or any country's government involvement.  I at least know what evidence is and a report stating this and that is certainly not evidence.  Either you are naïve or truly have no idea what people do in certain positions when they have certain masters, maybe both..

 

So you presented the Homeland Security report as your be all to end all evidence, which says the machines cannot be hacked as they are not connected to the internet. Then, when this is pointed out you run off and find another post, of course to suit your agenda, which contradicts what the Homeland Security report advises and tell people that they can be hacked. So if you're on about no votes being compromised why throw this additional report into the fro, what are you trying to prove, that I'm wrong and you're right. 

 

So which is it, Homeland Security is right or they are wrong and the other report is correct.  Whatever way you go, you really have no idea so who is getting increasingly desperate, not I, all I have to do is point out the total contradictions of what you want to throw up as your overwhelming evidence.   What is it you do not understand? 

 

Wow, is this the forth time I have had to tell you that there is no evidence that the machines have been hacked, the only reason you could think I said that is if you couldn't read properly!  I never said they were, I never said there was any evidence to suggest they were, I said there is evidence that the process was interfered with and this has led people to worry that there could also have been tampering at the pols.  Got it yet?  I doubt it!

 

The fact is that they could be hacked, the report I originally posted says it is unlikely, great, lets check anyway, why not? 

 

By the way, you have repeatedly avoided all of my questions.  Here are some more.  What is it that you fear?  Why are you desperately trying to demonstrate that there is no evidence of hacking?  Why don't you want them to check?

 

[Si Thea01]

10 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Wow, is this the forth time I have had to tell you that there is no evidence that the machines have been hacked, the only reason you could think I said that is if you couldn't read properly!  I never said they were, I never said there was any evidence to suggest they were, I said there is evidence that the process was interfered with and this has led people to worry that there could also have been tampering at the pols.  Got it yet?  I doubt it!

 

The fact is that they could be hacked, the report I originally posted says it is unlikely, great, lets check anyway, why not? 

 

By the way, you have repeatedly avoided all of my questions.  Here are some more.  What is it that you fear?  Why are you desperately trying to demonstrate that there is no evidence of hacking?  Why don't you want them to check?

 

 

,I've already answered one, Number two is a BS question not warranting an answer, number three, who said I didn't want a check, couldn't care less if it happens or not, it's not my time or money being wasted and it will prove that there was no interference.  As for the rest, you often forget what you bring up so there is no need for a response.  Have a goodnight Shaun.

[Shawn0000]

1 minute ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

,I've already answered one, Number two is a BS question not warranting an answer, number three, who said I didn't want a check, couldn't care less if it happens or not, it's not my time or money being wasted and it will prove that there was no interference.  As for the rest, you often forget what you bring up so there is no need for a response.  Have a goodnight Shaun.

 

Number two is the best question considering you have wasted half your afternoon trying desperately to catch me out and demonstrate that there is no evidence of hacking of the polls, shame you didn't just read what  wrote in the first place, could have saved yourself some time.