jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (98 posts)

Computer experts find suspicious voting in favor of Trump

  1. promisem profile image94
    promisemposted 13 days ago

    Computer security experts say they have evidence that results were hacked or manipulated in three key states that emphasize electronic voting.

    "In Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000."

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 … sults.html

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 13 days ago in reply to this

      It's worth mentioning the name of Reince Priebus, Trump's new chief of staff and RNC chairman. He was previously the Wisconsin Republican chair.

      He and Scott Walker, the Republican Wisconsin governor, have great influence over the state elections there.

    2. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 13 days ago in reply to this

      Your party would still be 64 electorals short.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 13 days ago in reply to this

        As the article points out, the three states would swing the election in favor of Clinton. And those are just the three states they have identified so far.

        Trump would end up with 260 and Clinton would have 278.

        Regardless, do you believe any voting irregularities favoring either candidate should be investigated?

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 13 days ago in reply to this

          You mean like dead people voting democrat in chicago?  Whats to investigate? Everyone knows it. Been happening for decades. Old news.

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 13 days ago in reply to this

            Even if what you say is true, which most non-partisan experts say is not, you can't compare a local election with a national one.

            I guess you don't think people hacking our presidential elections is a problem. OK, we're clear.

            1. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 13 days ago in reply to this

                 Gosh im still waking up here. Need more coffee if I had it. I see. I see now. You are just interested in finding vote irregularities, but only if they favor your ideology.

              1. promisem profile image94
                promisemposted 13 days ago in reply to this

                Yes, you do. "Do you believe any voting irregularities favoring EITHER candidate should be investigated?"

                Yes or no?

                FYI, I can't take back my votes for Reagan and Romney.

                1. PhoenixV profile image79
                  PhoenixVposted 13 days ago in reply to this

                  We are kind of jumping the gun here. Both your links contain a "ny" in them. Im not sure if you are aware of it yet but lately there has been a lot of "fake news" and fake news sites. Have any of the two sites you have linked to been cleared by Google or Zuckerburg?



                  http://media.salon.com/2013/04/mark_zuckerberg3.jpg

                  Obey

                  1. promisem profile image94
                    promisemposted 13 days ago in reply to this

                    Do you think any voting irregularities favoring EITHER candidate should be investigated?

                    Yes or no?

          2. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 13 days ago in reply to this

            Well, voter fraud is usually done by democrats. It would be very odd to see voter fraud from the republicans. Or Trump because the republicans weren't really on his side until after the election.

            1. colorfulone profile image86
              colorfuloneposted 13 days ago in reply to this

              This is on point!

            2. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 13 days ago in reply to this

              Exactly. What, there is an allegation of voter fraud regarding Trump voters?  Hey welcome to our world, where you been the last half century.

              1. promisem profile image94
                promisemposted 8 days ago in reply to this

                Where is your proof? Trump's tweets?

            3. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 12 days ago in reply to this

              Spoken like a loyal Republican.

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 12 days ago in reply to this

                lol

                I'm not a republican. I'm an independent. Your statement is typical of those who don't get a rubber stamp to their opinions.

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 11 days ago in reply to this

                  Someone who makes broad generalizations of another party is not an independent, i.e., "voter fraud is usually done by democrats."

                  Real independents are objective, open minded and see both the strengths and the weaknesses of each party.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 11 days ago in reply to this

                    I'll point out again what I have already stated, repeatedly. Every incident of voter fraud I have heard of in my lifetime is done by democrats. I suppose I can be one sided and insist that the republicans must do it just as often but that is difficult since I haven't heard of any. When the number of incidents by one side come close the number by the other I'll change my mind.

        2. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 13 days ago in reply to this

          And you people are actually serious , BOOOooooo !, Watch out everybody ,the election ghosts are sneaking about .   I have come to realize one thing , If it wasn't for conspiracies ,fantasies ,  fallacies  and  liberal newbies like yourself , elections would actually be booooorrrriiinnnggggg.!

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 13 days ago in reply to this

            "Do you believe any voting irregularities favoring EITHER candidate should be investigated?"

            Yes or no?

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 12 days ago in reply to this

              I guess the answer is no.

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 12 days ago in reply to this

                I think, since the US government isn't investigating this means it doesn't warrant investigation. If it did I would think all citizens would support it.

                As it stands it is simply another example of grasping because some don't want to eat sour grapes. Thank goodness the government doesn't act on every goose chase some want them to engage in.

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 12 days ago in reply to this

                  Trump himself said the election was rigged many times, did he not? He only has himself to blame for this.

                  Besides, it's not a federal government choice. It is done by a state via anyone who pays for it. Jill Stein has already come up with the money for a Wisconsin recount. It's a done deal.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 12 days ago in reply to this

                    I see they had 1 million and need 2 by Friday. So, of the US taxpayer isn't footing the bill that's good.

                    I will say, as I have already stated in this thread, if there is a reasonable doubt backed by some evidence it should be investigated.

                2. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 12 days ago in reply to this

                  http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13291568.jpg

                  You commented: "I think, since the US government isn't investigating this means it doesn't warrant investigation. If it did I would think all citizens would support it."

                  I am not interested in changing your mind. I stand a better chance of hitchin' a ride from the cow that jumps over the moon. However, I am interested in how you could have such faith in a government that has clearly  demonstrated  over the last 250 years it's disregard for the working class, and for human life in general. How do you reconcile your faith with the truth?

                  1. Yoda Speaks profile image60
                    Yoda Speaksposted 11 days ago in reply to this
                  2. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 10 days ago in reply to this

                    Forget about that. Think of it like this. We, the people of the United States, want to have faith that our vote counts. We want the election process to move forward with honesty.

                    Now, a Republican won the White House. I doubt a Democrat in the land is happy about that and I doubt Obama is over joyed. If there is evidence that there is wrongdoing or tampering the majority will demand that it be corrected. I'm quite certain if there were a reasonable reason to believe that any tampering had occurred that the current administration would move forward with some type of investigation.

                    Not certain what purpose your little posters were supposed to serve in this conversation.

    3. Yoda Speaks profile image60
      Yoda Speaksposted 13 days ago in reply to this

      This quote from that NY Magazine article says it all

      "The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private."

      Just more BS from the left wing media

      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-magazine/

      aimed at fueling the protests, the left is so desperate and brainwashed they're just looking for and grabbing any straw they can find to put there so protesters have something to believe.

      NEW YORK MAGAZINE

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13289714_f248.jpg

      Promisem when will you ever learn.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 13 days ago in reply to this

        Thanks for the extremist vent. Would you be happier with the right-wing New York Daily News?

        http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic … -1.2884089

        1. Yoda Speaks profile image60
          Yoda Speaksposted 13 days ago in reply to this

          You are more confused than your comments if you think the Daily News is a conservative newspaper. Some have suggested that The New York Daily News’ editorial page is as reliably conservative as the right-leaning New York Post. It is not. The evidence? One does not have to sift through the pre-Obama-era archives in order to find examples of left-leaning op-eds at The New York Daily News. http://www.mediaite.com/online/no-the-n … y-is-huge/

          Before you try another feeble attempt to support your nonsense I have to tell you since you seem not to think anything through, once the left media gets something out there other venues, even conservative may pick up on it because after all they need to make money from advertising so the band wagon of any story that may increase circulation is often jumped on.

          And the left knows it, that's why they create the fake news, they know it will get copy just because venues want to make money.

          Promisem when will you ever learn.

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 13 days ago in reply to this

            I get it. Your name is ironic.

            1. Yoda Speaks profile image60
              Yoda Speaksposted 11 days ago in reply to this

              ...and get it, I do, get anything YOU don't! A fantasy world of your incoherent mind, you live in, speaks Yoda!

  2. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 13 days ago

    Very interesting "evidence".  Wisconsin counties went Trump 48-13 over Clinton.  And some counties used electronic voting.  Therefore Clinton got cheated of 30,000 votes.

    How about we find some computer hacking, with a trail showing changed votes?  Except that the people providing this valuable information (but refusing to put their name on it) can't find any.Heck, why don't we just claim that every other vote was changed somehow - that way she will definitely win!  But hurry - she's running of time to claim fraud in this lopsided election!

    (Wonder if it ever occured to anyone that TRUMP got cheated in ares that did NOT use electronic voting)

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 13 days ago in reply to this

      Do you agree that voting irregularities in favor of either candidate should be investigated?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 13 days ago in reply to this

        Depends on if we have any reason to think there were irregularities.  And, I suppose that considering the enormous cost, whether it would change anything might be a consideration.  As there is nothing but a tenuous statistical anomaly (so tenuous the "finders" won't even go public with their names), and it won't change anything, I'd say no in this case.

        As Trump already won, the insinuation that he lost thousands of votes when paper ballots were thrown away doesn't seem like a winning proposition to spend a lot of money giving him a bigger lead.  I'd think we'd be better off to look into why voters in a few areas of the state voted against the majority (I'm assuming that these unnamed areas went blue).  Are even the cities, liberal as they are, getting fed up with the swamp?

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 12 days ago in reply to this

          I agree there is an important difference between manipulations and anomalies. The process should prove which one is the cause.

          For the record, Trump has not already won. The Electoral College doesn't vote until mid December, and Congress doesn't ratify the vote until January. A recount before those dates could change the outcome.

  3. Tom T profile image82
    Tom Tposted 12 days ago

    I think the folks over at 538, have debunked the whole 'election-was-hacked' issue.  Not a Right wing site. 

    If you read carefully these "computer scientists' are cherry picking results and using the idea that machines 'could' be hacked.  The folks at 538 suggest shifting demographics are a far better explanation for results. 

    Finally, why limit yourself to one form of irregularity? Why not investigate all forms of irregularities, like dead people voting and non-citizen voting?

    1. Yoda Speaks profile image60
      Yoda Speaksposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      Yep, it's just like I said - left wing propaganda

      http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1389 … ost2856000

    2. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      One article written by someone with no expertise in voting rights and computer security and published on a small, unknown website that doesn't list its staff or publisher does not inspire much confidence.

      As I keep asking, and people on the right keep ignoring, should voting irregularities favoring EITHER candidate be investigated? Do posters on the right support the U.S. Constitution and U.S. election laws? Do they support hacking if it gets their candidate into the White House?

      Such simple questions, and none of them dare to answer.

      1. Tom T profile image82
        Tom Tposted 12 days ago in reply to this

        The "Computer Security Experts" claim is based on statistics (albeit poorly formulated) and the idea that the voting machine "could" be hacked.  Has nothing to do with voting rights.  It is a combination of fantasy and faulty logic.  The article debunks the whole claim.  Nothing to investigate. 

        Regarding the whole topic of investigating irregularities, I suppose if we had a justice department that was not corrupt, it would be reasonable to investigate legitimate voting irregularities starting with the biggest frauds perpetrated on the US electorate which are non-citizen voting and ballot stuffing.

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 11 days ago in reply to this

          You didn't answer my question.

          Despite the fact that Trump himself said the election was rigged and started this new mess, your objection is moot.

          The Jill Stein campaign confirms it now has enough money for a recount in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. It's the largest donation drive for a third party in U.S. history.

          1. Yoda Speaks profile image60
            Yoda Speaksposted 11 days ago in reply to this

            When was a recount in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania confirmed? Yesterday officials in the three states confirmed that no recounts have been ordered. A spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department says it is not tallying the number of voting complaints to determine whether federal action is warranted.

            promisem when will you ever learn, you can't blindly buy into the left wing media talking points

            1. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 11 days ago in reply to this

              Its a partisan agenda driven inquiry based on zero evidence. If there are any irregularities or votes in specific places that were tainted of course the lefties want those votes to be thrown automatically to Hillary Clinton. Not just voided. Then conveniently they won't want any more inquiries.

              1. promisem profile image94
                promisemposted 8 days ago in reply to this

                Twenty states reported hacker probes of their election sites. They include states controlled by Republicans.

            2. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 8 days ago in reply to this

              If you actually read what I write, you will see I was referring to the funds that were raised to pay for recounts. Recounts in multiple states are now confirmed.

              Even better, Trump himself now says there were "millions" of illegal votes.  smile

              1. Yoda Speaks profile image60
                Yoda Speaksposted 8 days ago in reply to this

                A recount isn't confirmed by raising funds...again, you need to think about what you write, but then you always write misleading things, when will you ever learn? Last I heard she hasn't raised enough money to cover all the legal fees and expenses (over 6 1/2 million) and probably won't. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jill-steins … d-to-know/

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 8 days ago in reply to this

                  You really aren't up to date. Maybe the Wisconsin election commission is lying too?

                  http://elections.wi.gov/node/4436

                  1. Yoda Speaks profile image60
                    Yoda Speaksposted 7 days ago in reply to this

                    Up to date has nothing to do with it. You have already been shown by me and Tom how the premise  of your forum topic is nothing but BS and a left wing attempt to raise money and create a false impression that Trump should not be president. This

                    http://www.podcastone.com/pg/jsp/progra … id=1693000

                    explains everything and before you dismiss it because it is a republican conservative telling you how nutso your take is, as you always do when faced with facts you disagree with try listening to it a couple times because I know you won't even allow yourself to think about it and of course you'll never admit you are wrong about anything when you are actually wrong about nearly everything.

    3. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      https://lavandearomatherapy.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/church-lady.jpg

      Seems like a reasonable request.

    4. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      Apparently Hillary Clinton has conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt. I guess Hillary has a rapport with the dead. Its no surprise they vote for her.

  4. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 12 days ago

    Trump votes changing to hillary. 

    http://www.usasupreme.com/texas-voting- … p-hillary/

    I personally saw many claims of this on twitter.


    Chinese hack a lot

    http://nyti.ms/1GzmUmW


    Therefore the chinese could have done it.

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 11 days ago in reply to this

      Sarcasm aside, you are probably stunned to hear that I agree with your last point. If there was an any election hacking, it could have been done by the Chinese.

      They have hacked us many times in the past. It's not a stretch to think they would do the same to our national election.

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 11 days ago in reply to this

        Both cases have the same " evidence " in common.


        Absolutely none.

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 8 days ago in reply to this

          Trump just announced there were "millions" of illegal votes. Is he wrong?

      2. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 11 days ago in reply to this

         

        If it is true, why would we want to elect the same crew that would be so incompetent to have allowed it to be possible in the first place? Thankfully, that crew lost their jobs on Nov 8.

  5. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 8 days ago

    Recount - The last great gasp of a dying alt-left party line. --  Here's the thing - What does anyone expect from a party that  compromised  the entire election process  in the Clinton crime theater ?  They compromised  the party itself   ,they compromised and criminalized the DNC election system , they bought out and compromised  the media ethics ,accuracy and what little honor they had left to begin with  , they compromised the  very counting process of all elections .    What they couldn't do was convince the electoral college in the final  mainstream election process to " take the fall";   WHY IN the World is anyone surprised that Hilary is NOW "All  in" on the recount , in spite of her declaration of  "accepting the election outcome "?

    I know the answer she's all in ; for  the $ !!!!!

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 8 days ago in reply to this

      Trump just announced that the election had "millions" of illegal votes. Is he wrong?

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 8 days ago in reply to this

        He's probably setting the stage in case the recounts go south.

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 8 days ago in reply to this

          Yes, I agree.

      2. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 7 days ago in reply to this

        If it did , and it probably does ,  its on the left - illegal voters - No voting I.D. required ?

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 7 days ago in reply to this

          Then a recount is a good thing, right?

          1. Yoda Speaks profile image60
            Yoda Speaksposted 7 days ago in reply to this

            Wrong, a recount will do nothing to find illegal voters. The machines don't identify who any voters are or who they voted for.

          2. ahorseback profile image47
            ahorsebackposted 7 days ago in reply to this

            No !

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 7 days ago in reply to this

              Then Trump is wrong about millions of illegal votes?

              1. ahorseback profile image47
                ahorsebackposted 7 days ago in reply to this

                Even millions of illegal votes cannot change the electorally  completed count . Wouldn't ya think ?

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 7 days ago in reply to this

                  1. Many studies have proven that "illegal votes" are propaganda spread by the likes of Breitbart and other fake news sites. More than 1 BILLION votes have been reviewed with only a handful of fraud cases found.

                  https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/ … fraud-myth

                  2. All states require registration by address. You must confirm your address when you vote. You just don't walk into any polling place you want and vote without a registered address.

                  3. All states require some form of identification or proof of address.

                  4. The fact that some states don't require a PHOTO identification doesn't mean that you can vote without proof.

                  "These states have "non-documentary" ID requirements, meaning voters must verify their identity in other ways, such as by signing an affidavit or poll book (that match a registered address), or by providing personal information. In addition, all states have procedures for challenging voter eligibility." - National Conference of State Legislatures

                  5. Finally, the recount numbers must match the ballots, which must match the registrations of voting addresses, which are confirmed by the proofs of identification.

                  If any major fraud is done, it is done in the databases and not in the fantasies of Donald Trump and Breitbart.

                  1. ahorseback profile image47
                    ahorsebackposted 7 days ago in reply to this

                    You should actually try Brietbart   125 Sirius radio ,  not so slanted as you might think ,  Now CNN - slant city !

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 7 days ago in reply to this

                How in the world do you get to that from a recount that cannot determine the legality of the vote is bad?

  6. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 7 days ago

    By the rules of our electoral process , Hilary  lost the election , Have YOU heard her acceptance speech about" not questioning the process " ...for the integrity of our national interests ?    Rather true to form of Hilary and the lefts  hypocrisy- For sure !

    What a loser she really is !

  7. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 7 days ago

    http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/10/Bill-Clinton-Scared-Face-620x325.jpg


    Which states that hillary allegedly won in are going to get recounted?

 
working