Goose wrote:

The Man wrote:

Goose wrote:

Maybe the moon is made of cheese.

If you have any evidence, any evidence at all, that millions of fraudulent votes were cast for Clinton which cost Trump the popular vote,,,, please present it now.

What did you use to inform your second opinion?  A Quija board perhaps?
 

 
A Ouija board would be more substantial than their baseless claims of fraud and hacking.

If you ever care to actually read the news, Trump is offering baseless claims, Stein is merely requesting a recount.
I won't hold my Breath.

So, what information did you use to inform your opinion that Trump actually won by a much larger vote than reported.
I'll wait.

 
I didn't say that Trump did win by a larger vote margin than reported, I said that I think Trump won by a much larger margin than reported.  The media hasn't been exactly honest in this whole election cycle, and they've pulled for Hillary the entire way.

The Man wrote:

So let me get this straight, Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton are claiming there was possible voter fraud on a mass scale, but both are against requiring voter ID to vote. Does that make sense to anyone who has a brain in their head?

Sadly, you've gotten the basic facts of this situation wrong.

As a member of the reality based community, I feel it is my duty to correct your statement.

Donald Trump alleged massive voter fraud that changed to outcome of the popular vote.

Jill Stein requested the recount to "ensure the integrity of our elections."

Clinton has not commented on the efforts.

The Clinton campaign held out little hope of success in any of the three states, and said it had seen no “actionable evidence” of vote hacking that might taint the results or otherwise provide new grounds for challenging Donald J. Trump’s victory. It suggested it was going along with the recount effort to assure supporters that it was doing everything possible to verify that hacking by Russia or other irregularities had not affected the results.

It ain't what you don't know that gets you. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. 

Last edited by Goose (11/27/2016 6:04 pm)

It's also my understanding that Stein is asking for an audit of the Wisconsin vote at this point.

This will require a court hearing. Since the Clinton campaign has a direct interest in the outcome of the Wisconsin vote, I believe her campaign said that they would have a representative at that hearing. I believe Trump will too (at least he should)

For what it's worth, I don't think this audit / recount thing is really going anywhere.

TheLagerLad wrote:

It's also my understanding that Stein is asking for an audit of the Wisconsin vote at this point.

This will require a court hearing. Since the Clinton campaign has a direct interest in the outcome of the Wisconsin vote, I believe her campaign said that they would have a representative at that hearing. I believe Trump will too (at least he should)

For what it's worth, I don't think this audit / recount thing is really going anywhere.

According to this article, it appears she isn't doing this just for an audit.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/25/jill-stein-election-recount-clinton-trump-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin

The Wisconsin filing, a copy which was obtained by the Guardian, focuses on a “significant increase in the number of absentee voters as compared to the last general election”. It had been thought that it would instead focus on the scale of Donald Trump’s victories in counties using only electronic voting.

“This significant increase could be attributed to a breach of the state’s electronic voter database,” Stein said in her petition regarding the rise in the number of absentee ballot filings. Trump won a narrow victory in the state against Hillary Clinton, surprising pollsters.

The 64-page recount filing contains an affidavit from J Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan’s centre for computer security, who is an expert on election integrity.

“One explanation for the results of the 2016 presidential election is that cyberattacks influenced the result,” Halderman writes in his five-page account.Halderman said the hacking theory was “plausible” because other cyberattacks took place during the election campaign, some voting machines used in the US are highly vulnerable, and skilled hackers could change the result and “leave no outwardly visible evidence”.

Last edited by Brady Bunch (11/27/2016 6:27 pm)

Jill Stein wasn't able to raise $5 million in nearly two years, and now she all of a sudden was able to raise nearly $5 million in one day.  How did that happen exactly? Something is shady there for sure.

And also, Jill Stein got what, 1% of the vote? Why would she want a recount? Does she think the recount might possibly get her 1.001% of the vote?

This whole thing is funded by the DNC, they just paid Jill Stein to be the face of it so they don't have to take the negative publicity.  It is clear as day.