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

[Morch]

On 12/4/2016 at 1:10 PM, Si Thea01 said:

 

Where did I say or even intimate that I have a problem with him being scrutinised?  See how you make things up.  People can scrutinize him as much as they like, as long as it is fair, factual and not concocted to satisfy certain types or agendas. It has no effect on me whatsoever and if you and anyone else want to do so, then go for it.

 

Once he is sworn in as POTUS, and does something that is not within keeping of the office, it is factual and not hearsay or innuendo, then I will be one of the first to criticise but neither what I or you have to say will ever have any bearing on his position.  You really should learn to live with it but it is obvious you can't.  And as you say, why would that be exactly?

 

   

 

So in the next seven weeks, Trump can pretty much do what he likes, even if it causes diplomatic or economic trouble, and still be immune from any criticism or scrutiny? Are his obvious conflict of interests issues put on hold? 

[Si Thea01]

14 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

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.

 

 

Nothing desperate in what I have done, I've read all your posts and time is what I have plenty of and I can assure you that none of it's wasted.  I'll acknowledge that on a number of occasions you have indicated there is no evidence of hacking but in a number of posts you say there is no evidence, but then maybe there is; maybe there's a possibility; there could be, then later the wording goes from hacking to interference when referring to the polls.

 

I'm not trying desperately to show there is no evidence of hacking just how you're having bets all ways and that what you say is overwhelming evidence is not.  You raise doubt and suspicion, despite saying there is no evidence, and to back this up you use the report from Homeland Security but what the heck, don't worry about that and no one is worried about being in power, or that it won't change the result, so let's have a recount anyway, just to make sure.  Make sure of what?

 

You then provide a link to another subject which totally contradicts that of Homeland Security by telling one and all that the polling system can be hacked.  So what is it, your overwhelming evidence from Homeland or the other link that contradicts the Homeland report.  So, if there is no evidence, why are you pursuing the need for a recount.  Hoping someone will find something.  Be careful what you wish for.  It doesn't worry me one bit if there is a recount won't make any difference but it does highlight the childish antics of some sore losing whingers.

 

I thought I'd waste some more time, just checking your posts and maybe you can answer some questions or will you do, as you do on  some occasions, fail to answer and deflect?

 

ID22 "that Russia may have infiltrated the system!"  What System, Polling or DNC emails or both?"

 

ID72  "and there is a possibility that they also could have hacked the online polling stations"  Are you referring to the polling systems, remembering the two links you posted, one says no, the other yes, so which is it?

 

ID 74  "Which also raises the possibility that there COULD have been interference in the election."   What interference or are you only raising suspicion and doubt or is this one of your ifs , maybe or could be?

 

ID 76  "could Russia have infiltrated the proven pathetically weak security of some polling stations, probably."  So it's proven that some polling stations have pathetically weak security and Russia could probably have infiltrated it. Why mention Russia when you claim you did not mention them as they were irrelevant and why are you raising this when you overwhelming evidence from Homeland Security states it is highly unlikely to have occurred? 

 

ID 78   "just a raised suspicion which is clearly justified considering the evidence of interfering in the election in other ways."  And what are the suspicious other ways of interference?

 

ID 78   "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."  No evidence, so why use the word hack, why say it is serious and nothing should be neglected in the investigation?  Homeland security's overwhelming evidence not good enough?

 

ID 78   "and everything to do with ensuring the system is secure from attack.  Do you not think that might just be a good idea?"  Homeland Security indicates that it is, don't you  accept their findings?

So what is it, there is no hacking, or maybe, it could be, it's suspicious, there is doubt? 

 

You are flip flopping all over the place that's why you number 2 question is BS and didn't warrant a response when you initially raised it, not me trying to desperately trying to prove there is no hacking.  Them's  your words.  My initial point was that you overwhelming evidence (Homeland Security) of an outsider (Russia) interfering in the campaign or election simply does not exist despite all your hoo haa that it does.  

[Shawn0000]

5 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Nothing desperate in what I have done, I've read all your posts and time is what I have plenty of and I can assure you that none of it's wasted.  I'll acknowledge that on a number of occasions you have indicated there is no evidence of hacking but in a number of posts you say there is no evidence, but then maybe there is; maybe there's a possibility; there could be, then later the wording goes from hacking to interference when referring to the polls.

 

I'm not trying desperately to show there is no evidence of hacking just how you're having bets all ways and that what you say is overwhelming evidence is not.  You raise doubt and suspicion, despite saying there is no evidence, and to back this up you use the report from Homeland Security but what the heck, don't worry about that and no one is worried about being in power, or that it won't change the result, so let's have a recount anyway, just to make sure.  Make sure of what?

 

You then provide a link to another subject which totally contradicts that of Homeland Security by telling one and all that the polling system can be hacked.  So what is it, your overwhelming evidence from Homeland or the other link that contradicts the Homeland report.  So, if there is no evidence, why are you pursuing the need for a recount.  Hoping someone will find something.  Be careful what you wish for.  It doesn't worry me one bit if there is a recount won't make any difference but it does highlight the childish antics of some sore losing whingers.

 

I thought I'd waste some more time, just checking your posts and maybe you can answer some questions or will you do, as you do on  some occasions, fail to answer and deflect?

 

ID22 "that Russia may have infiltrated the system!"  What System, Polling or DNC emails or both?"

 

ID72  "and there is a possibility that they also could have hacked the online polling stations"  Are you referring to the polling systems, remembering the two links you posted, one says no, the other yes, so which is it?

 

ID 74  "Which also raises the possibility that there COULD have been interference in the election."   What interference or are you only raising suspicion and doubt or is this one of your ifs , maybe or could be?

 

ID 76  "could Russia have infiltrated the proven pathetically weak security of some polling stations, probably."  So it's proven that some polling stations have pathetically weak security and Russia could probably have infiltrated it. Why mention Russia when you claim you did not mention them as they were irrelevant and why are you raising this when you overwhelming evidence from Homeland Security states it is highly unlikely to have occurred? 

 

ID 78   "just a raised suspicion which is clearly justified considering the evidence of interfering in the election in other ways."  And what are the suspicious other ways of interference?

 

ID 78   "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."  No evidence, so why use the word hack, why say it is serious and nothing should be neglected in the investigation?  Homeland security's overwhelming evidence not good enough?

 

ID 78   "and everything to do with ensuring the system is secure from attack.  Do you not think that might just be a good idea?"  Homeland Security indicates that it is, don't you  accept their findings?

So what is it, there is no hacking, or maybe, it could be, it's suspicious, there is doubt? 

 

You are flip flopping all over the place that's why you number 2 question is BS and didn't warrant a response when you initially raised it, not me trying to desperately trying to prove there is no hacking.  Them's  your words.  My initial point was that you overwhelming evidence (Homeland Security) of an outsider (Russia) interfering in the campaign or election simply does not exist despite all your hoo haa that it does.  

 

The desperation, in my opinion, is in how you try to undermine what I am saying by implying that my different phrasing carry different meanings, they does not, hacking is a type of interference, and maybe and possibility mean rather similar things, is it pedantry that you want to demonstrate or something on topic?

 

The homeland report and the other post do not actually contradict each other at all, the former stating that it would be highly improbable to hack the system from afar, the latter stating that all it would take is someone physically reaching the system.

 

The overwhelming evidence, and really for the last time now, is that the election process was interfered with, in the way of hacking emails and releasing them at strategic moments, it is clear that Russia wanted and aided Trump.  That raised suspicion as to how far that aiding has gone, some have suggested that the polls show irregularities that could suggest outside interference, others have denied this due to the demographics of the voters, I say, why not check?

 

I fail to understand how anyone could think that a recount could not make any difference, if it was shown that Russia did interfere then that really would make a difference, it should, for one, change the systems integrity for the better in the future.  Nothing childish or winging about wanting the system to be secure from foreign interception, obviously, but to seek reasons not to check is another matter, that is plain idiocy.

 

The answer to all your question is above, learn how to read and you will answer the questions yourself, you seem unable to differentiate between when I am talking about the campaign and polls and keep mixing them freely, that is not my problem and I am not going to keep spelling it out to you like you are a young child.
 

[Si Thea01]

25 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

The desperation, in my opinion, is in how you try to undermine what I am saying by implying that my different phrasing carry different meanings, they does not, hacking is a type of interference, and maybe and possibility mean rather similar things, is it pedantry that you want to demonstrate or something on topic?

 

The homeland report and the other post do not actually contradict each other at all, the former stating that it would be highly improbable to hack the system from afar, the latter stating that all it would take is someone physically reaching the system.

 

The overwhelming evidence, and really for the last time now, is that the election process was interfered with, in the way of hacking emails and releasing them at strategic moments, it is clear that Russia wanted and aided Trump.  That raised suspicion as to how far that aiding has gone, some have suggested that the polls show irregularities that could suggest outside interference, others have denied this due to the demographics of the voters, I say, why not check?

 

I fail to understand how anyone could think that a recount could not make any difference, if it was shown that Russia did interfere then that really would make a difference, it should, for one, change the systems integrity for the better in the future.  Nothing childish or winging about wanting the system to be secure from foreign interception, obviously, but to seek reasons not to check is another matter, that is plain idiocy.

 

The answer to all your question is above, learn how to read and you will answer the questions yourself, you seem unable to differentiate between when I am talking about the campaign and polls and keep mixing them freely, that is not my problem and I am not going to keep spelling it out to you like you are a young child.
 

 

There's many things you fail to understand so responding would just receive a rehash of your past comments given you've been so blindsided by the left's rhetoric.  You just go on believing what you want and when the BS you're proffering fails to make one iota of difference let's see what you will say at that time.  If you learnt to stop looking down your nose and brush of the arrogance, then maybe you could learn to be a little more realistic in your thoughts.   Bye     

[MadDog2020]

On Sunday, December 04, 2016 at 0:50 PM, Shawn0000 said:

 

No, there are not, anyone who stood can request a recount.

Not true.  Check the laws.

[Richard W]

On 05/12/2016 at 5:17 AM, Shawn0000 said:

Now tell me, what is that is leading some to not want a recount?

For Trump, there may well be the possibility that a slow recount will result in the state missing the electoral college vote.  I gather that if neither side wins the election, congress gets to choose the president.  There is speculation that a Republican congress may choose someone other than Trump to be president!

 

For the Democrats, there must be the fear that Democrat officials were tampering with the vote.  There's already a report of some votes primarily for Clinton being counted 6 times.  Now, this only amount to about 250 extra votes (probably less), but it looks bad.  I don't know how badly Republican officials behaved - possibly they just prefer to strike voters off the register.  There also seems to be plenty of opportunity for biased declarations that ballots have been spoilt.  Basically, it seems that American votes are counted badly, and that the system offers plenty of opportunity for biased miscounting.

[Shawn0000]

1 hour ago, Richard W said:

For Trump, there may well be the possibility that a slow recount will result in the state missing the electoral college vote.  I gather that if neither side wins the election, congress gets to choose the president.  There is speculation that a Republican congress may choose someone other than Trump to be president!

 

For the Democrats, there must be the fear that Democrat officials were tampering with the vote.  There's already a report of some votes primarily for Clinton being counted 6 times.  Now, this only amount to about 250 extra votes (probably less), but it looks bad.  I don't know how badly Republican officials behaved - possibly they just prefer to strike voters off the register.  There also seems to be plenty of opportunity for biased declarations that ballots have been spoilt.  Basically, it seems that American votes are counted badly, and that the system offers plenty of opportunity for biased miscounting.

 

The miscounting has not all been intentional, many machines are old and broken, they put in the paper, it gets stuck, they put it in again, and it was actually counted twice, at least that is what they are saying.

 

[Richard W]

5 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

The miscounting has not all been intentional, many machines are old and broken, they put in the paper, it gets stuck, they put it in again, and it was actually counted twice, at least that is what they are saying.

 

I've a feeling that actually works out to the Democrats' advantage.  Original assessments found that Trump did better in counties without paper.  That difference has now been reascribed to social make-up, but I don't know how reliably.  If the counties choose and pay for the voting equipment, then all sorts of weird but plausibly innocent effects may emerge.  However, an inherently poor system of counting provides temptation to bias the results.