There is defiantly fraud or at the very least gaming the system, by both parties. It benefits you to cheat and you have to cheat to stay up with your competition doing the same. Given the allegations of voter fraud in the dem primary, the democrats I would expect to be more likely to cheat as it's basically proven they did. In this case I was trying to say that she could be essential tricking the democratic party into investigating their own fraud.
Swaying people I'm not really trying to do. I'm mearly pointing out another viewpoint . Sure she could be Clinton's bitch but the most probable course of action someone would take is one that benefits themselves.
Why I think this is the case is she gets contact resources for herself and gets a chance at damaging the democrats/republicans or both will help her. Damaging the reputation of the democrats is more valuable to her though as it will draw more support to the green party as that is the next closest party to theirs in ideals. I'd expect her to attack the creditable of the dems in the near future. Especially after the damage caused by Sanders and the lost election the dem party is at its most vulnerable and therefore the green at it's strongest.
You could look at Pennsylvania fir further proof. The date to submit fire a recount already passed, she would have had to have known that, and by sueing then she is likely to save money than having to pay for a recount rule showing effort that she's trying. If one of the three states doesn't get recount there is no real threat to trump. (Then again this could be to oust trump not st the bestest of Clinton to prevent a republican supermajority.)
Edit: also according to my time log you posted your response 4 minutes before I posted my comment you responded to. I guess in a way I am trying to convince you though that is the basics of a discussion much as you try to conceive me if your point.
The suspicion is that she's being used as a pawn to help Hillary win these states and thus overturn Trump's win. Giving those states' electoral votes to Clinton would make it so she would be the sole winner of 270 electoral votes. Basically, stealing the election because you never know what kind of shenanigans could occur during the 'recount' (like, "Oh look! A box of absentee ballots we overlooked! And they all voted Clinton!")
Not really! If they don't make the deadline, those electoral votes are null affectively lowering the margin.
If the null PA taking 20 from Trump there that leaves him with 286 then if he loses MI that takes him down to 270 and HRC up to 248, if HRC also takes WI Trump would be at 260 and HRC at 258. Then if any of the electoral votes are additionally in her favor, which is likely, she will win.
The numbers they were stating as stats were also fluff. If the margin of error is 2% than the election could be recounted a 100 times and flip flop all over that 2%. The reason we use machines as apposed to hand count is because the margin of error is so much higher by hand counting, as much as 15%.
They could also have re-hacked the failed rigging of the machines. As they said, expecting a close call would make it easy to fluff the election by a small margin. Such as a self destructing virus that counts a flip factor of 2-5% But that would be if they had assumed the states in question were going to be close as they are usually blue states.
But with over whelming Trump voters, the hack would fail. Since then, they would then have to get the virus back into the machines and do the recount with a higher factor like 4-6%. to flip the votes. Or they could also infiltrate the poling places, as they already have people working there, threats and money can swing those votes in a hand count. Attributing to why there is up to a 15% error factor with hand counting!
And his stating that auditing just 100 poling places would be insufficient is absurd based on his own numbers.
What he suggests is as little as one poling place could have swung the votes. That would mean the error factor would have to be so significant at that poling place that it would not be possible to miss! Not even for a 4 year old child!
This means of the 538 electoral votes, HRC and company have already "persuaded" at least 20 of the electoral college voters outside of those states! EDIT (if my previous scenario applies, HRC only needs 2 "persuaded" electoral college votes leaving Trump 258 and HRC 260.)
Somebody archive my comments because you might use these as evidence. Predicting the outcome of this scam!
I see the logic, I do. But this chicken only got 1% in most states.. if that. It's negligible horse shit. Hillary lost. Lost Ohio, Michigan, a lot of states.. too late.
Did you see her donation amounts lately? Everytime they reached a goal she would increase it by a few more million. Last time I looked the target was at 7.5 million dollars. She is raking in the big dollars from all the fucking Clinton sore losers; not her 'green party' people! She even put out a statement that not all the money may go to the recount. Which means her fucking pocket! How kinds of stupid make up the left? At least 7.5 million types of stupid.
Well.... maybe we will see the Green Party destroy the dem party in the next elections, ensuring republican rule!
Just a thought, not LikeI'm sober or anything... but the more whites are blamed for everything... the more the rational ones will vote for people like trump to toss a hand grenade into the system
ashekchum ago
There is defiantly fraud or at the very least gaming the system, by both parties. It benefits you to cheat and you have to cheat to stay up with your competition doing the same. Given the allegations of voter fraud in the dem primary, the democrats I would expect to be more likely to cheat as it's basically proven they did. In this case I was trying to say that she could be essential tricking the democratic party into investigating their own fraud.
Swaying people I'm not really trying to do. I'm mearly pointing out another viewpoint . Sure she could be Clinton's bitch but the most probable course of action someone would take is one that benefits themselves.
Why I think this is the case is she gets contact resources for herself and gets a chance at damaging the democrats/republicans or both will help her. Damaging the reputation of the democrats is more valuable to her though as it will draw more support to the green party as that is the next closest party to theirs in ideals. I'd expect her to attack the creditable of the dems in the near future. Especially after the damage caused by Sanders and the lost election the dem party is at its most vulnerable and therefore the green at it's strongest.
You could look at Pennsylvania fir further proof. The date to submit fire a recount already passed, she would have had to have known that, and by sueing then she is likely to save money than having to pay for a recount rule showing effort that she's trying. If one of the three states doesn't get recount there is no real threat to trump. (Then again this could be to oust trump not st the bestest of Clinton to prevent a republican supermajority.)
Edit: also according to my time log you posted your response 4 minutes before I posted my comment you responded to. I guess in a way I am trying to convince you though that is the basics of a discussion much as you try to conceive me if your point.
ashekchum ago
So looking for democratic voter fraud and getting the democrats to pay for it?
youareivan ago
why the fuck would it cost $3.9 million to audit data that already exists and is only a few weeks old?
redditrunbyfascists ago
it could also be that they directly have their grandchildren threatened.
it actually seems more likely to me that this would be the case.
bourbonexpert ago
I ffs will she go away already? She didn't matter at all before, why is she being covered now?
NeedleStack ago
The suspicion is that she's being used as a pawn to help Hillary win these states and thus overturn Trump's win. Giving those states' electoral votes to Clinton would make it so she would be the sole winner of 270 electoral votes. Basically, stealing the election because you never know what kind of shenanigans could occur during the 'recount' (like, "Oh look! A box of absentee ballots we overlooked! And they all voted Clinton!")
Rebel_Media_FTW ago
The results in all 3 states have to be reversed for it to effect Trump.
It's over, done, finished.
ThorTheWonderful ago
Not really! If they don't make the deadline, those electoral votes are null affectively lowering the margin.
If the null PA taking 20 from Trump there that leaves him with 286 then if he loses MI that takes him down to 270 and HRC up to 248, if HRC also takes WI Trump would be at 260 and HRC at 258. Then if any of the electoral votes are additionally in her favor, which is likely, she will win.
The numbers they were stating as stats were also fluff. If the margin of error is 2% than the election could be recounted a 100 times and flip flop all over that 2%. The reason we use machines as apposed to hand count is because the margin of error is so much higher by hand counting, as much as 15%.
They could also have re-hacked the failed rigging of the machines. As they said, expecting a close call would make it easy to fluff the election by a small margin. Such as a self destructing virus that counts a flip factor of 2-5% But that would be if they had assumed the states in question were going to be close as they are usually blue states.
But with over whelming Trump voters, the hack would fail. Since then, they would then have to get the virus back into the machines and do the recount with a higher factor like 4-6%. to flip the votes. Or they could also infiltrate the poling places, as they already have people working there, threats and money can swing those votes in a hand count. Attributing to why there is up to a 15% error factor with hand counting!
And his stating that auditing just 100 poling places would be insufficient is absurd based on his own numbers. What he suggests is as little as one poling place could have swung the votes. That would mean the error factor would have to be so significant at that poling place that it would not be possible to miss! Not even for a 4 year old child!
This is criminal absurdity!
ThorTheWonderful ago
This means of the 538 electoral votes, HRC and company have already "persuaded" at least 20 of the electoral college voters outside of those states! EDIT (if my previous scenario applies, HRC only needs 2 "persuaded" electoral college votes leaving Trump 258 and HRC 260.) Somebody archive my comments because you might use these as evidence. Predicting the outcome of this scam!
CrudOMatic ago
http://archive.is/TN3Wr
bourbonexpert ago
I see the logic, I do. But this chicken only got 1% in most states.. if that. It's negligible horse shit. Hillary lost. Lost Ohio, Michigan, a lot of states.. too late.
mirimar ago
Did you see her donation amounts lately? Everytime they reached a goal she would increase it by a few more million. Last time I looked the target was at 7.5 million dollars. She is raking in the big dollars from all the fucking Clinton sore losers; not her 'green party' people! She even put out a statement that not all the money may go to the recount. Which means her fucking pocket! How kinds of stupid make up the left? At least 7.5 million types of stupid.
gazillions ago
I'd love to see an audit telling us how many were really small donations
bourbonexpert ago
Well.... maybe we will see the Green Party destroy the dem party in the next elections, ensuring republican rule!
Just a thought, not LikeI'm sober or anything... but the more whites are blamed for everything... the more the rational ones will vote for people like trump to toss a hand grenade into the system
Joker68 ago
Trump gets to win twice and the Libtards are paying for it! MAGA
kybarnet ago
Jill is one more piece of the Jewish Russian Korean conspiracy.
NeedleStack ago
@Dudicles Jill Stein is confirmed as paying the Wisconsin recount fee.
NeedleStack ago
@Rainy-Day-Dream
Well, the recount is on!
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
if they can't bypass the deadline in PA they don't have enough votes for it to matter
NeedleStack ago
Stein's attorneys have a scheduled hearing in PA Monday the 5th.