Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29





I included this for the George Soros perspective.
But the black Captain America social justice warrior fighting for PC
against whites is new to me, and could warrant a topic all its own.



Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
Man...



Why millions of Electoral College protestors are likely to fail at making Hillary Clinton president

 Quote:
BUSINESS INSIDER
Rebecca Harrington, Nov 20th 2016 4:00AM


Thousands of people have taken to the streets in the week since the election, outraged that Donald Trump is the new president-elect.

Since Hillary Clinton likely won the popular vote, over 4 million have signed a petition to encourage the Electoral College to make Clinton president instead.

The electors will gather at their state capitols in December, and vote to formally make Trump the 45th president.

With so many citizens calling on the Electoral College to choose Clinton, and some electors even saying they will switch their votes, could it happen?


HOW DOES THE ELECTORAL VOTE STAND RIGHT NOW?

Each state has an elector for every congressperson they have, plus D.C. gets three, resulting in 538 people in the Electoral College.

Trump won the popular vote in 30 states, plus one of Maine's districts (which, along with Nebraska, splits up its electors by district), giving him 290
electoral votes. Michigan's results still aren't official, but given that Trump only needed 270 to win, it doesn't really matter.

While Clinton won almost 1 million more votes than he did overall because she carried population-heavy states like California and New York, she only
won the popular vote in 19 states plus D.C. — giving her 232 electoral votes.

HOW WOULD ELECTING CLINTON WORK?

Members of the Electoral College who decide to go against their state laws or traditions telling them who to vote for are quite ominously called
"faithless electors."

They're pretty rare in modern political history. Thomas H. Neale, an expert in American government and the electoral college for the Congressional
Research Service, found that only eight electors have been faithless since 1900.

Only electors from the party that won the popular vote get to cast their ballots in December, so only Republican electors will vote in the states
that Trump won, and only Democratic electors in the states Clinton carried.


If Trump wins Michigan as he's projected to do, Clinton would need 38 electors to vote for her instead. And if she carries the state, Clinton
would need 22 electors to flip.

"Even if Michigan's 16 electors went to Clinton, it would still be 290-248, and that's a lot of electors," Neale told Business Insider.
"That would require a lot of electors to change their mind."


WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF IT ACUALLY HAPPENING?

Several barriers are in place preventing electors from turning "faithless."

First, Neale said, 30 states plus D.C. have laws on the books "binding" their electors to vote for the candidate who won the state's
popular vote. Punishments for becoming a faithless elector range from paying a fine to being replaced with an elector who will follow the rules.

Trump has 155 unbound electoral votes, so there are technically enough electors who could decide to vote for Clinton who wouldn't get punished
legally for it.

Second, electors are usually selected by the political parties in each state, Neale said. Because at least 290 electors voting in December
will be Republicans, the petitioners encouraging them to vote for Clinton instead would have to convince them to abandon their party.

"The important point here to realize is these are all party loyalists, and they are pretty carefully vetted," Neale said. "Part of that
is because there have been the occasional faithless electors in the past who have been an embarrassment to the party, and they want to make
sure they avoid it."

A few electors have spoken out about being faithless (they call it being "moral"), but unfortunately for Clinton, they've said they plan to write
in former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, or Sen. Bernie Sanders' name.

But members of Congress can formally protest any faithless elector votes, and have them thrown out, when they officially count the ballots
in a joint session on January 6, 2017.

"One of my legal colleagues suggests that the joint session is the 'break glass in case of emergency' — it's the last line of defense
against an election that may have been corrupted in some way," Neale said.

Finally, history isn't on Clinton's side.

"The argument can always be made that, 'Well, Sec. Clinton won the popular election and therefore she should win the presidency.' This is the
core argument of the direct popular election reform movement to eliminate the electoral college," Neale said. "But that argument has been
raised time and time again, and Congress hasn't acted on this proposal since 1979."

Plus, the few times faithless electors have gone against their party's nominee, they've never swung an election.



...the Democrat butthurt continues.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
I didn't get around to posting this before, but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieAJ3ddbBQo

... in the closing panel Fridays on Special Report (their 6PM flagship news broadcast), they always pick political "winners" and "losers" for the week.
One winner picked by Tom Rogan (on Friday, Nov 18, 2016) was Pat Buchanan, saying that the issues Buchanan has championed since 1992 are basically the issues that got Trump elected.
And that a Trump administration is essentially the next best thing to a Pat Buchanan administration.

Needless to say, I couldn't possibly be more pleased with that notion.


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
Stein has apparently developed a sense of scrupulosity and concern-trolling. She has raised close to 4.2 million dollars in the span of a few days--just in time for the Friday deadline--to pay for the filing fees that will cover a recount in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. By PURE COINCIDENCE, she has chosen only states that Donald Trump won and would only INCIDENTALLY hand the race to Hilldawg assuming the recounts turn up Hillary wins as a result.

Suffice it to say, the details of her demand are suspicious--only by PURE COINCIDENCE of course--in that she was raising $160 thousand every hour. Someone managed to trace the influx of funds to a bot, most likely run by Soros. This also comes on the heals of "expert programmers" and "election lawyers" urging Killary to call for a recount even after her concession. Surely, we cannot assume that Hilldawg would use Stein as a proxy so that she wouldn't look like an idiot.....No we couldn't possibly assume that.

We also couldn't assume that the Green Party is controlled opposition leveraged by Soros...

Warning, Spoiler:
Jill Stein's running mate, Ajamu Baraka, has worked for at least two organisations funded by Soros

Evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajamu_Baraka

 Quote:
"From 2004 to 2011, Baraka served as the founding executive director of the US Human Rights Network"

"Baraka has served on the boards of several human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights"


Soros connection:

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/center_for_constitutional_rights/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_projects_supported_by_George_Soros

 Quote:
"CCR [Center for Constitutional Rights] received contributions from […] the Open Society Foundation (founded by George Soros – $495,000)"


USHRN: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/04/united-nations-human-rights-council.html
archived: https://archive.is/7eXDR

 Quote:
"Funding for the network and its Geneva submission apparently comes from the Human Rights Fund, an umbrella group whose steering committee of philanthropies include the Ford >Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Overbrook Foundation and an anonymous donor."

__

Now, this raises a few questions. Mainly why anyone would consider (((Stein))) a credible alternative to Clinton, when they're both getting paid by the same lobbyist billionaire.

It also casts doubt on any positions Stein and Baraka hold that'd be contrary to Soros' agenda. Like their support for Palestine/BDS, and their statements against the Soros-backed coup in Ukraine, and the corrupt Junta in Kiev.

Controlled opposition? Would be an explanation why Soros is indirectly funding them.

Let's take a closer look on the so-called US Human Rights Network:

 Quote:
"What they apparently share, according to their mammoth Human Rights Council submission, is a militant vision of the U.S. as a malignant force."

"The organization seeks "to challenge the pernicious belief that the United States is inherently superior to other countries of the world"


Well, oy vey, goyim, don't you dare being proud of your country!

That sounds more like something everyone's favourite Social Justice Merchant would come up with.

Now, Soros also has well-known ties to "Blacklivesmatter", something else that ties him directly to (((Jill Stein))):

http://jill2016-jillstein.nationbuilder.com/blm_ferg
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/69350262.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKdRZncVAAEPKKN.png

In conclusion, Baraka is Soros' personal stooge, BLM are useful idiots, and nothing the Green Party does can be taken at face value.

They're dancing to the tune of the Open Society Foundatiion.


....Nah, that couldn't possibly be true. And we definitely CANNOT ASSUME that all of these PURE COINCIDENCES are designed to try and de-legitimize Trump's win as well as line the Green Party members' pockets. That's clearly an absurdity.

Warning, Spoiler:










....It just never fucking ends.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
And now the Clinton campaign is participating in the recounting to "ensure fairness" or some bullshit like that.

Jebus. These people really will start a war to cover up their crimes.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

It's not really a surprise that Jill Stein's crew has connections to George Soros.

It's a clear collaborative effort between Stein and the Clinton campaign.
But even the most liberal in the media say it's sour graapes, and a recount doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of changing the election.


In other news, Michigan FINALLY conceded its electoral votes to Donald Trump, after a few weeks of shaving down Trump's lead.

Jill Stein, collaborating with Hillary on the re-count, is the same Jill Stein who 3 weeks ago said Hillary would start World War III, and that Trump was less scary by comparison?

At least Stein missed the deadline for a re-count in Pennsylvania.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
There's another theory floating around.

Mayhaps Jill Stein is a rogue agent (considering she criticized Clinton as being the war candidate) and she's in cahoots with Trump to push this recount effort to make Hilldawg look like an idiot who's obviously in cahoots with Stein and Soros to try and steal the election. Thus, this situation gives Trump the greenlight to bring up the fact that millions of people voted illegally in Hillary's favor, more than likely diminishing what could have been a stronger republican majority in the process--not to mention a bigger landslide in the Electoral College and a Trump-owned popular vote.

In which case, Stein either got Trump to fund her effort OR duped Soros into feeding her money. In response, the Clinton campaign may very well be shitting bricks at the prospect that an unsupervised recount will expose fraud on her end, thus motivating her to stick her campaign's oar into the creek in the interest of "insuring fairness".

Wisconsin has already uncovered yet more votes for Trump that weren't previously counted.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

The complete reversal by Jill Stein regarding Hillary Clinton's candidacy makes almost any explanation possible.

In the case of Michigan I listed above, delaying the release of Michigan's state vote totals reduced Trump's 13,000 vote lead down to about 10,500. This is the kind of Democrat vote-counting delay that gave Al Franken a senate seat.

The possibility that Stein might use a recount to put the screws to Soros and Hillary, using their own financial backing, would be a beautiful scenario.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Pariah
And now the Clinton campaign is participating in the recounting to "ensure fairness" or some bullshit like that.

Jebus. These people really will start a war to cover up their crimes.


GOP files complaint alleging Clinton, Stein illegally coordinating in Wisconsin recount

  • The complaint contends that Stein only received 31,006 votes in Wisconsin — so Clinton is the only person who could benefit from a recount.

    The complaint also alleges Clinton appears to have illegally helped Stein raise nearly $7 million for the recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan — double the amount Stein raised for her own presidential campaign. It says the Clinton campaign also emailed supporters looking for volunteers to help the recount, something Stein’s campaign didn’t do.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29






There's a lot of exposure given to the Harvard-sponsored debate between Jennifer Palmieri and Kelly Ann Conway, where Conway wiped the floor with Palmieri.

Something Conway pointed out is the collective liberal media focused entirely on the electoral votes leading up to election day, selling us the inevitability of Hillary's election, due to the 244 "guaranteed" electoral votes (which didn't happen) and the "blue wall" of PA, OH, WI, MI (which didn't happen).
The liberal media focused entirely on the electoral votes. Now that Hillary lost, their focus is entirely on the popular vote, the portion that Hillary won while losing the actual election.

Conway also destroyed Palmieri and the other guy's notion that Trump didn't have a mandate, pointing out that beyond Trump's electoral victory, the Republicans also won 34 state governor offices, gained 60 Congressional seats, and gained 12 Senate seats during Obama's presidency, plus GOP control of thousands of other seats in state legislatures nationwide. Which manifests an overwhelming mandate for change from what the Democrats have put in place.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
I saw that. It was beautiful to watch.

Of course it's not too difficult to wipe the floor with delusional libshits.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
If a mandate means the support of the people, Trump has no mandate since more people voted for the other person. He and the GOP did well electorally via gerrymandering and the electoral college but it's a result that doesn't reflect the will of the people.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29



If that's how elections were done, M E M, then candidates would only campaign in a few large cities, like New York city, L.A., San Francisco and Chicago. And the rest of the country would be ignored. With the electoral college, all areas are represented, and aren't shut out by a few tiny concentrated blue areas of the country.

Whether you like it or not, the rest of the country does matter, M E M. And Trump played by the rules, and won fair and square by those rules, despite every dirty trick and corruption by the vile core leadership of the DNC and Hillary campaign.

Re-read what I wrote above. Trump and the Republicans do have a mandate, not just by Trump's election, but also by the landslide of seats the GOP picked up in the Senate, Congress, elected state Governors, and state and local legislators.

And after every other deception and dirty trick unleashed by the Democrats, what makes you so sure that Democrats didn't rig the popular vote? Oh, that's right. Rules don't matter to you, only that your side wins, by whatever deceitful means.


  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


 Quote:
Something Conway pointed out is the collective liberal media focused entirely on the electoral votes leading up to election day, selling us the inevitability of Hillary's election, due to the 244 "guaranteed" electoral votes (which didn't happen) and the "blue wall" of PA, OH, WI, MI (which didn't happen).
The liberal media focused entirely on the electoral votes.

Now that Hillary lost, their focus is entirely on the popular vote, the portion that Hillary won while losing the actual election.


  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
Obamatard had a really choice quote some months back in response to Trump's charge that the vote and the polls was being rigged.

He essentially said that Trump would only have a valid argument of fraud if he won despite being so low in the polls.

I really wish I could find it now.

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
If a mandate means the support of the people, Trump has no mandate since more people voted for the other person. He and the GOP did well electorally via gerrymandering and the electoral college but it's a result that doesn't reflect the will of the people.


How in the motherfuck could you claim that the GOP is guilty of gerrymandering? Is this Bizarro world, or what?

In any event, Trump's political siege has overseen the manifestation of nation-wide majorities in congress, state legislatures, and governorship. That is a mandate. The GOP is a hair's breadth away from being able to pass, theoretically, constitutional amendments.

Even if I were to accommodate Clinton's millions of fraudulent voters as an argument, we are not a democracy. We're a Federalist Republic. While I haven't been a fan of federalism for quite some time, the Electoral College is the only means by which to fairly give every respective state--and the various cultures housed within them--a say over the direction of the country under such a system. What you propose would be a tyranny of the minority since all one would need is a single over-proportionately populous state to decide the fate of every other state in the union. That is bullshit. We are a collection of fifty sovereign states. Not a superstate with fifty provinces.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Yeah, don't really care about your politically motivated accusations. The piece of shit got less votes and so doesn't reflect the will of the people. Don't worry though he'll still able to fuck the country up and get lots of us killed without a mandate.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
Whatever you care to believe about the Clinton and her campaign's "honesty", you cannot ignore the fact that we are NOT A FUCKING SUPERSTATE. We are not a Tolkienian system in which we prop up one state to rule them all. The word for that is "tyranny".

The day that we decide the popular vote is all that matters is the day that we are no longer a republic. And quite frankly, neither you or your ilk put any emphasis on the popular vote prior to the election. It is only now, after competing for--and losing--the Electoral College votes, that you libshits are raising a stink about it. That makes you look particularly foolish.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
I was commenting on Drumf's non-mandate. There was an attempt to say he had one.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Bill Clinton won with 43% of the popular vote in 1992 and the press called that a mandate.



Trump got nearly 47% of the popular vote.

So, by the press' definition would that not be a mandate?

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Clinton unlike Drumf, got more votes than the other candidates. Time magazine probably wouldn't have had mandate in a cover story otherwise. It would look foolish trying to claim a mandate with a candidate that received less of the popular vote yes?


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Come on. If any Republican got elected under those exact same circumstances and Time (or anyone else) called it a mandate, you'd have had a fit.

In fact, I don't recall you thinking George W. had a mandate in 2000 or 2004.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Not surprised you feel that way. You're pretty partisan. Here for example you render the word mandate meaningless because the popular vote went to the democrat.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
In any event, getting back to the recount, I understand that as of today the net result is Trump has a net GAIN of six votes over the total on election night.

I hope you didn't donate too much to the recount MEM.



Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
HNN: Michigan Recount: Over 1/2 of Hillary Clinton’s Detroit Vote Faces Disqualification

  • Michigan votes in areas that voted for Hillary Clinton have been inflated due to worker error disqualifying recounts under state law.

    Michigan officials say they can not reconcile vote counts in 610 of 1,680 precincts, or 59% of the precincts, in Michigan’s largest county , Wayne County, which Hillary won by a margin of 2 to 1 over Donald Trump because the original vote counts in the poll books do not match the number of votes in the machine printout reports.

    Specifically, the number of votes recorded by the voting machines were higher than the number of voters that were logged into to vote in these precincts.

    The news comes as Hillary Clinton lost 32,423 votes in day 5 of the Wisconsin recount which are now showing anomalies that may indicate absentee ballot fraud in Milwaukee.

    In many cases Canvassers say there were aware of the discrepancies in the original vote counts but gave no explanation for the why counts did not match up but certified the original election counts anyway.

    Now officials are mainly blaming the discrepancy on jams in the optical ballots in the scanners which forced workers to run the same ballots through the machines more than once.

    To prevent a ballot scanned multiple times from being counted as more than one vote poll workers were supposed to adjust the machine counters but officials stated the workers failed to do so in many cases.

    They also state in more rare cases there could have been issues with people not having identification being manually placed in boxes or rare human errors such as sealing the wrong number of votes for certification due to transposing numbers.

    Michigan state law requires precincts which poll books don’t match to be excluded from the recount and if the recount results can’t be certified, which requires reconciliation of the counts, the original certified results stand.

    Issues due to human error, such as sealing the wrong number of votes in the original certification should be easily reconciled during a hand recount but in the precincts in question they are unable to reconcile the votes.

    The discrepancy was only uncovered yesterday after an Obama appointed judge issued a midnight ruling ordering a hand recount in Michigan on Sunday.

    Despite state law requiring the votes be disqualified election officials are fighting to keep the counts included and believe that not all of the 392 precincts will be excluded from the final recount.

    There are also discrepancies in other counties Clinton carried but they are not as widespread as Detroit

    Clinton carried Genesee County, which includes Flint, where so far 13 of 222 precincts are reported with invalid results but officials certified the results there as well.

    Officials in Ingham reported six of their 30 precincts from Lansing including a ballot box with a hole in it which could have been used to slip in fraudulent ballots or remove legitimate ones.

    Votes in Rochester Hills precinct 11 in Oakland county have been disqualified after more ballots were found in the machine logs than were actually in the ballot box. Workers could offer no explanation other than it didn’t match in the original certified results and it doesn’t match now before conceding that the precinct is not recountable.


I'm starting to believe that theory a whole lot more.

Especially since, mayhaps, this is not simply a vie for honesty and an attempt to expose how Stein, herself, was cheated, but also to expose the corruption of the Democratic Party and possibly have the Green party inherit the DEM voter base as a result.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
TGP: Michigan Recount Uncovers Serious Voter Fraud in Detroit- VOTES COUNTED UP TO 6 TIMES

  • More bad news for Democrats—
    Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s Michigan recount unintentionally exposed this major voting fraud scandal.




    In Detroit, one of the chief ways they engage in voter fraud is to count the same ballot MULTIPLE times. This is just ONE way. They also do some shady stuff with absentee ballots etc.

    Once they started the Michigan recount in earnest, and knowing he would be exposed, the Detroit City Clerk Daniel Baxter all of a sudden started claiming that the optical scanners which read the paper ballots did not work the day of the election. Baxter blamed the discrepancies on decade-old voting machines. That is his cover story. Nothing like this was mentioned until he realized their voting fraud scheme would be detected.

    Baxter’s claim is that, when trying to push the ballots through the readers, the ballots would be stuck and they’d have to push them through again thus ‘ACCIDENTALLY’ resulting in a double count. He says the poll workers sometimes ‘FORGET’ to adjust the machine count and instead let the ballot count twice.

    Of course, that’s COMPLETELY BULLSH*T.

    ** Over One-Third of Detroit Precincts Will Not Be Recounted Due to Ballot Discrepancies

    And, it’s much worse than that.
    In one Detroit Precinct, a recount team was given a box of ballots with an unbroken seal where everything appeared proper and in place. The tag on the box said there were 306 ballots. The book said 306, and the ticket said 306, so that means there should be 306 paper ballots on the box. When they pulled out the ballots, there were exactly FIFTY paper ballots in a locked sealed box that again was supposed to have 306. The official canvasser approved count for this precinct was 306. For FIFTY ballots.

    It looks like Detroit counts each vote more than SIX TIMES! No wonder they get such high turnout rates!

    Ken Crider, who helped with the recount in Cobo Hall in Detroit, posted this on Facebook last night. Ken said a ballot box in Detroit had been tampered with — and that each vote was counted SIX TIMES!


Barring more conflicting information, I'm prepared to call Jill Stein a genius. As a Green, she's still technically on Soros' payroll, but apparently she cares more about the party than the agenda of its sponsorship. She, like everyone else, knew that Hilldawg rigged the vote--using the various methods I mentioned prior. As such, she also knew that, because of the rig, it was all but certain that the Green Party would be robbed of the 5% threshold that would qualify it for federal funding in future elections (incidentally, the Libertardian party was most assuredly robbed as well).

Keeping this in mind, as well as her previous criticism directed toward Shillary, we have sufficient evidence to reason her motives as going beyond an attempt to undermine Trump. All the same however, if she started any recounts in Killary-won states, it would be a very unpopular move, and she would be immediately shot down. So what's the alternative? Three Trump-won states. The only perceived goal of a recount would be to undermine Trump. In which case, any attempt to crowd-source for this seemingly pro-Hillary recount strategy would attract the open wallets of zealous liberals who're still butthurt over the loss--perhaps even Soros himself, which would explain the bot donating so much cash.

And this turns out to be the real reason that Killary's campaign insinuated itself into the recount effort: to keep people from finding out the truth. But apparently, it wasn't enough.

My question: did Trump have foreknowledge of Stein's move all along? Did he, perhaps, help fund the operation, assuming he knew?

And even though Stein's Pennsylvania recount isn't panning out as smoothly as she'd like, suspicious vote counts have been realized through the absentee ballots: out of the of the 20,736 absentee ballots cast, 18,467 went to Clinton.


Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Associated Press:
  • A federal judge on Monday issued a stinging rejection of a Green Party-backed request to recount paper ballots in Pennsylvania's presidential election, won by Republican Donald Trump, and scan some counties' election systems for signs of hacking.

    In his 31-page decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said there were at least six grounds that required him to reject the Green Party's lawsuit, which had been opposed by Trump, the Pennsylvania Republican Party and the Pennsylvania attorney general's office.

    Suspicion of a hacked Pennsylvania election "borders on the irrational" while granting the Green Party's recount bid could "ensure that that no Pennsylvania vote counts" given Tuesday's federal deadline to certify the vote for the Electoral College, Diamond wrote.

    "Most importantly, there is no credible evidence that any 'hack' occurred, and compelling evidence that Pennsylvania's voting system was not in any way compromised," Diamond wrote. He also said the lawsuit suffered from a lack of standing, potentially the lack of federal jurisdiction and an "unexplained, highly prejudicial" wait before filing last week's lawsuit.

    The decision was the Green Party's latest roadblock in Pennsylvania after hitting numerous walls in county and state courts. Green Party-backed lawyers argue that it was possible that computer hackers changed the election outcome and that Pennsylvania's heavy use of paperless machines makes it a prime target. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein also contended that Pennsylvania has erected unconstitutional barriers to voters seeking a recount.

    It is part of a broader effort by Stein to recount votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Trump won all three states narrowly over Democrat Hillary Clinton, while Stein captured about 1 percent of the vote, or less, in all three states.

    In Pennsylvania, Trump beat Clinton in Pennsylvania by about 44,000 votes out of 6 million cast.

    A federal judge halted Michigan's recount last week after three days. The Wisconsin recount was expected to conclude Monday. With about 95 percent of the votes recounted as of Sunday, Clinton had gained 25 votes on Trump, but still trailed by about 22,000.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
Well, the Democrats (and their allies in the media), have tried multiple post-election campaigns to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's presidential election victory:

1) Blaming James Comey for re-opening his investigation of Hillary 11 days before the election. (Then closing it again a few days later.)
2) Obsessing over Hillary's winning the popular vote, despite her losing the electoral vote. (Even though there's some persuasive evidence Hillary rigged the popular vote. Just as she rigged her victory over Bernie Sanders, rigged the debates by knowing the questions in advance, etc., etc.)
3) In collaboration with Jill Stein, demanding a re-count, which again didn't go Hillary's way, and in some cases showed even more votes for Trump in the re-count.
4) Now they're selling the narrative that "The Russians wanted Trump to win", and implying if not outright saying that Trump was openly colluding with the Russians to do so. But there's no evidence that Russian hacking attempts had any effect on the election, regardless of their intent. The Russians didn't piss off voters by vowing to destroy the coal industry, Hillary did. The Russians didn't skip campaigning in Ohio and Pennsylvania, arrogantly complacent in her assured victories there, Hillary did. The Russians didn't rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders, didn't pay front-men $1,500 each to start violence at Trump rallies, didn't cheat in the debates by getting the questions in advance. Hillary did.

The latest effort to discredit Trump's election victory is 5) harassing and intimidating electors into not voting for Trump as they are obligated by law to do. In some cases, even making death threats at electors if they vote for Trump. A nice glimpse of what Hillary's Reich would have been like, had she won. No one ever so richly deserved to lose, like Frau Hitlery deserved to lose. And to anyone not already part of the indoctrinated Left, that is increasingly obvious.


  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
ELECTION THERAPY FROM MY BASKET OF DEPLORABLES
by Maureen Dowd


 Quote:
The election was a complete repudiation of Barack Obama: his fantasy world of political correctness, the politicization of the Justice Department and the I.R.S., an out-of-control E.P.A., his neutering of the military, his nonsupport of the police and his fixation on things like transgender bathrooms. Since he became president, his party has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 14 governorships.

The country had signaled strongly in the last two midterms that they were not happy. The Dems’ answer was to give them more of the same from a person they did not like or trust.

Preaching — and pandering — with a message of inclusion, the Democrats have instead become a party where incivility and bad manners are taken for granted, rudeness is routine, religion is mocked and there is absolutely no respect for a differing opinion. This did not go down well in the Midwest, where Trump flipped three blue states and 44 electoral votes.

The rudeness reached its peak when Vice President-elect Mike Pence was booed by attendees of “Hamilton” and then pompously lectured by the cast. This may play well with the New York theater crowd but is considered boorish and unacceptable by those of us taught to respect the office of the president and vice president, if not the occupants.

Here is a short primer for the young protesters. If your preferred candidate loses, there is no need for mass hysteria, canceled midterms, safe spaces, crying rooms or group primal screams. You might understand this better if you had not received participation trophies, undeserved grades to protect your feelings or even if you had a proper understanding of civics. The Democrats are now crying that Hillary had more popular votes. That can be her participation trophy.

If any of my sons had told me they were too distraught over a national election to take an exam, I would have brought them home the next day, fearful of the instruction they were receiving. Not one of the top 50 colleges mandate one semester of Western Civilization. Maybe they should rethink that.

Mr. Trump received over 62 million votes, not all of them cast by homophobes, Islamaphobes, racists, sexists, misogynists or any other “ists.” I would caution Trump deniers that all of the crying and whining is not good preparation for the coming storm. The liberal media, both print and electronic, has lost all credibility. I am reasonably sure that none of the mainstream print media had stories prepared for a Trump victory. I watched the networks and cable stations in their midnight meltdown — embodied by Rachel Maddow explaining to viewers that they were not having a “terrible, terrible dream” and that they had not died and “gone to hell.”

The media’s criticism of Trump’s high-level picks as “not diverse enough” or “too white and male” — a day before he named two women and offered a cabinet position to an African-American — magnified this fact.

Here is a final word to my Democratic friends. The election is over. There will not be a do-over. So let me bid farewell to Al Sharpton, Ben Rhodes and the Clintons. Note to Cher, Barbra, Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham: Your plane is waiting. And to Jon Stewart, who talked about moving to another planet: Your spaceship is waiting. To Bruce Springsteen, Jay Z, Beyoncé and Katy Perry, thanks for the free concerts. And finally, to all the foreign countries that contributed to the Clinton Foundation, there will not be a payoff or a rebate.

As Eddie Murphy so eloquently stated in the movie “48 Hrs.”: “There’s a new sheriff in town.” And he is going to be here for 1,461 days. Merry Christmas.



Yes, you read the name correctly. That scathing critique of the Left was by Maureen Dowd!



Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Dowd hates Clinton, that's a column she's been writing in different variations for probably the last decade. I found our CIA and FBI reports much more interesting but since it amounts to Putin helping elect Trump to weaken us, it's something you won't ever accept as true.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Quote:
Putin helping elect Trump to weaken us


Just for the sake of argument, assume that Putin had the power to elect one candidate over another. Why didn't he Putin (if he thought Hillary was such a threat), not knock her out in the primary so that he'd have either Trump or Bernie "the Socialist Peacenik" Sanders?

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
I think Putin used what he had in the best strategic way. Remember Wikileaks intentionally timed the leaks to do the most damage. In other news republicans are starting to increasingly warming up to Putin more.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
CIA and FBI intelligence vs internet memes, sad but it's the future for you I guess


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
I understand that you're still reeling from your girl's crushing, and in all likelihood, final defeat. As such, you need to find some excuse to explain it.

However, even if accept as true that Russia hacked the DNC and attempted to influence the election, there is not one scintilla of evidence that it did, in fact, affect the outcome.

First off, as reported in the Wall St. Journal, there was an attempt to hack the RNC as well. But it failed. It failed because the RNC had tighter security and cooperated with the FBI in stopping the hack. The DNC, conversely, did not.

Second, the emails weren't fake. And they were largely the kind of "insider baseball" that journalists find interesting for a day or two but generally don't hold much sway with the general public. Indeed, as leftists are quick to point out, Hillary won the popular vote. If, as you know claim, the emails were turning off voters she wouldn't have done so.

The bottom line here is that Hillary lost because she got overconfident, thought she had about three states "in the bag" that weren't and Trump was able to peel off just enough of the white working class vote in those states to take the electoral college. Even Bill has more or less admitted that.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
I would note you are the one avoiding the CIA & FBI intel. Russia helped Trump win. Why they did that should make you very uncomfortable.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I would note you are the one avoiding the CIA & FBI intel. Russia helped Trump win. Why they did that should make you very uncomfortable.


I didn't ignore anything. I pointed out that, even if we concede your point, that is not why Trump won.

Even Obama is saying that isn't why Trump won:
  • President Obama is blaming his party's electoral losses this year on Democrats' failure to "show up" and make their argument all around the country.

    In an interview with NPR broadcast Monday, the president said the country has a "scrambled political landscape."

    "There are some things that we know are a challenge for Democrats — structural problems," he said.

    Obama noted that Democratic voters are often clustered in urban areas and on the coasts.
    "So as a consequence, you've got a situation where there're not only entire states but also big chunks of states where, if we're not showing up, if we're not in there making an argument, then we're going to lose," he said.

    "And we can lose badly, and that's what happened in this election."

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Putin helped depress the turnout for Clinton though. You guys were having orgasms when Wikileaks timed the releases but it was Russia cupping your balls


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Putin helped depress the turnout for Clinton though...when Wikileaks timed the releases...


As you have just admitted, Wikileaks timed the releases, not Putin.

Even if one were to concede that the leaks (as opposed to your other whipping boy, Comey)(or even Jill Stein) depressed turnout, Putin didn't time them.

Accordingly, there is no way for Putin to have "depressed the turnout" in the manner you described.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
You "forgot" that Russia supplied Wikileaks with the material.


Fair play!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Do you think Russia helped Trump to strengthen our country?


Fair play!
Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5