Wisconsin recount now underway - Polidicks

cructo, brexit absolutely won - the problem with brexit is that nobody actually agreed on the plan beforehand if they were to win [editline]26th November 2016[/editline] we voted to "leave the EU", which says absolutely nothing about staying in the EEA, the single market, or any of that crap

Here's the scenario if clinton has more votes to pressure the electoral college to change it's mind, they will mostly say no and stick to trump and be pressured to say otherwise and they'll just put their hands into the air and say it there hasn't been precedence and ask for the supreme court to decide. The supreme court is right now split between red and blue seats, and will most likely have a stalemate because there isn't a person to split the tie. With the tie vote, it will go down to the lower courts. Now there's a slim chance in the lower court that things will go as far as bribes, but it will be a clusterfuck never the less.

If the machines were hacked how exactly does a recount help? You're just counting the ballots to see if any were missed in the initial count. Wouldn't it be better to have experts examine the machines somehow? or the internet connection of the machines? [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] Makes sense, most of Hillary's lead, from what I understand, comes from absentee ballots. I'm increasingly suspecting that most of her lead comes from fraudulent votes. Is it really plausible that a candidate with record unfavorables, (her's were higher than Trump's just before the end) low enthusiasm from her party voters, and with such glaring trust issues, could go on to win more votes than almost any other presidential candidate in US history? Especially given that her opponent was a firebrand populist who inflames the passions of his base and gets a sizable chunk of democratic voters too. I could trust a lead of about a hundred thousand, but 2 million? If these recounts do happen to turn up +30,000 extra Clinton votes out of thin air Trump should call bullshit. Important to remember that he hasn't come out and said he no longer feels the election is rigged, still has that card to play with his followers. [editline]26th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ForgottenKane;51430269]Yeah, let's just ignore the possibility of foreign influence and hackers screwing with our election results![/QUOTE] If there was indeed a hack of the voting machines I'm sure the intelligence community (CIA, NSA, etc...) have a fuck-ton more evidence than any of these "experts" and academics. Which leaves only 2 conclusions: 1) They have no evidence. 2) They do have evidence but Obama is sitting on it because he's now decided he likes Trump and wants him to be President, for some reason.

[QUOTE=Cructo;51430410]The election should follow the constitutional rules that have been in place for decades tbh, I would think you would agree with that, yes? [editline]26th November 2016[/editline] I mean you don't want people suddenly violating the constitution in favor of their own interests, right?[/QUOTE] Stop trying to change the topic Cructo. You're very skilled at evading direct questions and I'm not going to allow you that. You said the will of the people should be followed. The people willed for Clinton. That means that you are in favor of Trump publically admitting defeat and conceding the election to the candidate that the public voted for, correct? If not, explain why you don't think the will of the people should be respected. And try to do it without changing the topic, or running away from the thread -- as you do, oh so often.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51430556]Stop trying to change the topic Cructo. You're very skilled at evading direct questions and I'm not going to allow you that. You said the will of the people should be followed. The people willed for Clinton. That means that you are in favor of Trump publically admitting defeat and conceding the election to the candidate that the public voted for, correct? If not, explain why you don't think the will of the people should be respected. And try to do it without changing the topic, or running away from the thread -- as you do, oh so often.[/QUOTE] Do we really need this conversation for the 8th time? Why should you get free reign to shit up every thread into electoral college vs popular vote arguments because Cructo is "running away"? This topic has been discussed ad nauseum throughout numerous threads, you don't need to throw a strop every time someone references the fucking will of the people. Take it to one of the other threads on the subject or one of the other threads already derailed into the same shit show. The forum is getting tedious with this crap.

I hope Trump remains the winner because my Hillary toxx had no escape clause. :ohno:

Hillary won the popular vote is not a valid argument for her winning this election. Voter turnout is significantly lower in non battleground states. I myself didn't even bother voting because my state has a 100% chance of turning the color I want. Trump and Hillary both campaigned with the electorial college in mind, and Hillary lost.

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;51430231]says a lot about a country when people throw fits and want to recount fifty times to be sure their favourite candidate lost lol[/QUOTE] the vote in michegan is too close to call, pennsylvania and wisconsin went trump by less than .5%

[QUOTE=Sableye;51430684]the vote in michegan is too close to call, pennsylvania and wisconsin went trump by less than .5%[/QUOTE] He actually won Pennsylvania by over one percent. But this is what concerns me, it was too close to call, it is a perfect opportunity for democratic operatives to just materialize hundreds of thousands of new votes out of thin air. I would not be surprised to still see Hillary inaugurated on January, the forces behind her campaign are too powerful. I should have known Trump winning was too good to be true, and that the democrats would behave like the treacherous snakes that they are.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51430719]He actually won Pennsylvania by over one percent. But this is what concerns me, it was too close to call, it is a perfect opportunity for democratic operatives to just materialize hundreds of thousands of new votes out of thin air. I would not be surprised to still see Hillary inaugurated on January, the forces behind her campaign are too powerful. I should have known Trump winning was too good to be true, and that the democrats would behave like the treacherous snakes that they are.[/QUOTE] thats not how the audit works fyi. theyre going to sample ballots from each county and compare the paper records to the electronic ones. no new ballots will be engineered and besides trump himself said every day for months that the election was going to be rigged, lets be safe that it wasnt and check the fucking records.

[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;51430682]Hillary won the popular vote is not a valid argument for her winning this election. Voter turnout is significantly lower in non battleground states. I myself didn't even bother voting because my state has a 100% chance of turning the color I want. Trump and Hillary both campaigned with the electorial college in mind, and Hillary lost.[/QUOTE] And mine is one of those 'We might as well call it at 7:15PM for the GOP candidate' states. I didn't waste my time either, TN hasn't voted blue in decades.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51430719]He actually won Pennsylvania by over one percent. But this is what concerns me, it was too close to call, it is a perfect opportunity for democratic operatives to just materialize hundreds of thousands of new votes out of thin air. I would not be surprised to still see Hillary inaugurated on January, the forces behind her campaign are too powerful. I should have known Trump winning was too good to be true, and that the democrats would behave like the treacherous snakes that they are.[/QUOTE] Man, Trump has really done a number on your critical thinking skills. An unaffiliated candidate has called for a recount from a non-partisan election board in one state, and you're already accusing Clinton of rigging the election by fabricating "hundreds of thousands" of votes.

[QUOTE=Laferio;51430281]Trump is currently at 306 electoral votes. If hillary wins WI back, it'll put trump at 296. So lets not only give WI to hillary, but lets also give her MI. Puts trump at 280. She literally cannot do this without PA.[/QUOTE] As others have pointed out, a recount that turned up a significantly different result would definitely warrant recounts elsewhere. I doubt we'll see much difference, though - I don't like the US system of doing things very much, but I sincerely doubt any major fraud have or could've taken place.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51430745]The interns are creating ballots as we speak.[/QUOTE] Golly gee it sure was sloppy that Clinton didn't use her magic election-rigging powers on, you know, the actual election, but decided instead to wait til a month afterwards and rig the recount instead. I suppose she just isn't high energy enough.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51430719]He actually won Pennsylvania by over one percent. But this is what concerns me, it was too close to call, it is a perfect opportunity for democratic operatives to just materialize hundreds of thousands of new votes out of thin air. I would not be surprised to still see Hillary inaugurated on January, [B]the forces behind her campaign are too powerful[/B]. I should have known Trump winning was too good to be true, and that the democrats would behave like the treacherous snakes that they are.[/QUOTE] How do you people reconcile "Hillary is the shadow puppet master and she has been rigging everyone's thoughts all along!" with the fact that Hillary [I]fucking lost the election[/I]. This is the general theme I've seen - Hillary and her team of lizard people are both so experienced in subterfuge that they can rig basically anything (except winning the election it seems), but they also apparently run a child trafficking ring out of some random pizza restaurant (and left a lot of "clues"). What the actual fuck?

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51430719]He actually won Pennsylvania by over one percent. But this is what concerns me, it was too close to call, it is a perfect opportunity for democratic operatives to just materialize hundreds of thousands of new votes out of thin air. I would not be surprised to still see Hillary inaugurated on January, the forces behind her campaign are too powerful. I should have known Trump winning was too good to be true, and that the democrats would behave like the treacherous snakes that they are.[/QUOTE] You must be delusional to think the democrats are secretly rigging a Clinton inauguration in January. This recount was called by Jill for one state so far, I doubt Clinton will get more than one or possibly even two states if she's lucky. I can't fathom what led you to think there's more to this election then what we know so far.

[QUOTE=Cructo;51430571]I'm not changing the topic. In fact, I've made my point multiple times here already. The people voted for Trump as per the Electoral College rules that have been in place for many elections by the constitution. And again as I've already said, if the recount shows that he loses these particular votes, it should be respected. Now, you can shift my words to fit your own narrative as you like, but my point is clear. There's no reason to violate the constitution here.[/QUOTE] You have failed to make your point. The first thing you did when I confronted you was bring up Brexit. Now, the popular vote is the method used to determine the will of the people. The electoral college is a system designed to overturn the will of the people, should they fall victim to treachery. You've gone from saying we should respect the will of the people, to saying we shouldn't break from the constitution. Those two are mutually exclusive this year. You can't have both, so pick one Cructo. Which is it? Do you think we should respect the will of the people, or allow a tyrant that the people didn't choose into power?

[QUOTE=Sableye;51430729]thats not how the audit works fyi. theyre going to sample ballots from each county and compare the paper records to the electronic ones. no new ballots will be engineered and besides trump himself said every day for months that the election was going to be rigged, lets be safe that it wasnt and check the fucking records.[/QUOTE] Isn't there a difference between an audit and a recount? They're doing the latter here. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51430741]Man, Trump has really done a number on your critical thinking skills. An unaffiliated candidate has called for a recount from a non-partisan election board in one state, and you're already accusing Clinton of rigging the election by fabricating "hundreds of thousands" of votes.[/QUOTE] I know I'm paranoid, but I honestly think I have good reason to be at this point. Hillary was backed by an unprecedented alliance of the most wealthy and powerful people [B][U]on the planet[/U][/B]. They had a lot invested in her winning the Presidency, numerous agendas were absolutely dependent on her being President for at least the next 4 years. But instead she lost to someone they had nothing but the utmost contempt for and posed an unprecedented threat to their interests. Trump represents a threat to the neoliberal world order that has existed since the end of the Cold War, he wants to pursue a peaceful relationship with Russia and end the foreign policy that has resulted in American Hegemony over the whole world. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Na5-1LbUI"]Not too different from a certain other president.[/URL] Bottom line: how could I not be concerned that there are conspiracies under way right this instant to deny him the presidency? even if Clinton isn't involved there are plenty of powerful people with an interest in her becoming President, come hell or high water.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51430741]Man, Trump has really done a number on your critical thinking skills. An unaffiliated candidate has called for a recount from a non-partisan election board in one state, and you're already accusing Clinton of rigging the election by fabricating "hundreds of thousands" of votes.[/QUOTE] 1+1 = clinton and china on a bun this year. also again, Trump himself claimed fiercely that the election would be tampered with so we should be safe and audit the damn thing like we probably already should because the records are right there and all we gotta do is check to make sure the frantic 3AM count was correct with the records that exist.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51430814]Isn't there a difference between an audit and a recount? They're doing the latter here. I know I'm paranoid, but I honestly think I have good reason to be at this point. Hillary was backed by an unprecedented alliance of the most wealthy and powerful people [B][U]on the planet[/U][/B]. They had a lot invested in her winning the Presidency, numerous agendas were absolutely dependent on her being President for at least the next 4 years. But instead she lost to someone they had nothing but the utmost contempt for and posed an unprecedented threat to their interests. Trump represents a threat to the neoliberal world order that has existed since the end of the Cold War, he wants to pursue a peaceful relationship with Russia and end the foreign policy that has resulted in American Hegemony over the whole world. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Na5-1LbUI"]Not too different from a certain other president.[/URL] Bottom line: how could I not be concerned that there are conspiracies under way right this instant to deny him the presidency? even if Clinton isn't involved there are plenty of powerful people with an interest in her becoming President, come hell or high water.[/QUOTE] Democrats aren't neoliberal, for one. Neoliberalism is pretty much the opposite of the social democrat line. Secondly - why, if Hillary was being backed by this super powerful conglomerate, would the election not be called in her favour? If they had the means and the will to rig the election, why didn't they? Why wait until now?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51430790]How do you people reconcile "Hillary is the shadow puppet master and she has been rigging everyone's thoughts all along!" with the fact that Hillary [I]fucking lost the election[/I]. This is the general theme I've seen - Hillary and her team of lizard people are both so experienced in subterfuge that they can rig basically anything (except winning the election it seems), but they also apparently run a child trafficking ring out of some random pizza restaurant (and left a lot of "clues"). What the actual fuck?[/QUOTE] I do think they tried, based on expectations, I think they completely underestimated Trump's threat in the Rust Belt and didn't rig there, they also didn't expect that the Hispanic vote percentage would be unchanged from 2012, and thus assumed the higher Hispanic turnout meant it was in the bag. Point is: They underestimated know how much they needed to rig it the last time around. Now they know exactly how many fraudulent votes they will need to put her in the White House.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51430831]I do think they tried, based on expectations, I think they completely underestimated Trump's threat in the Rust Belt and didn't rig there, they also didn't expect that the Hispanic vote percentage would be unchanged from 2012, and thus assumed the higher Hispanic turnout meant it was in the bag. Point is: They underestimated know how much they needed to rig it the last time around. Now they know exactly how many fraudulent votes they will need to put her in the White House.[/QUOTE] If you honestly believe that they didn't rig the election [U]enough[/U] and that's the reason Clinton lost you've got another thing coming. Clinton lost because of her own arrogance and losing touch with the traditional democrat vote bank. :conspiratard:

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51430831]I do think they tried, based on expectations, I think they completely underestimated Trump's threat in the Rust Belt and didn't rig there, they also didn't expect that the Hispanic vote percentage would be unchanged from 2012, and thus assumed the higher Hispanic turnout meant it was in the bag. Point is: They underestimated know how much they needed to rig it the last time around. Now they know exactly how many fraudulent votes they will need to put her in the White House.[/QUOTE] This is your brain on Trump.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51430831]I do think they tried, based on expectations, I think they completely underestimated Trump's threat in the Rust Belt and didn't rig there, they also didn't expect that the Hispanic vote percentage would be unchanged from 2012, and thus assumed the higher Hispanic turnout meant it was in the bag. Point is: They underestimated know how much they needed to rig it the last time around. Now they know exactly how many fraudulent votes they will need to put her in the White House.[/QUOTE] This is an incredible amount of mental gymnastics. Maybe the reason she lost is that [i]it wasn't rigged[/i] rather than 'it just wasn't rigged hard enough'?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51430790]How do you people reconcile "Hillary is the shadow puppet master and she has been rigging everyone's thoughts all along!" with the fact that Hillary [I]fucking lost the election[/I]. This is the general theme I've seen - Hillary and her team of lizard people are both so experienced in subterfuge that they can rig basically anything (except winning the election it seems), but they also apparently run a child trafficking ring out of some random pizza restaurant (and left a lot of "clues"). What the actual fuck?[/QUOTE] It's similar to how they treat Soros tbh. Either he's a liberal cuck mastermind zionist commie who is funding absolutely everything and is the architect of everything from abortions to the Arab Spring. But at the same time, he's a bumbling moron who can't even convince a 5 year old Santa isn't real because Hillary lost (somehow his involvement was an assurance she'd win??).

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51430831]I do think they tried, based on expectations, I think they completely underestimated Trump's threat in the Rust Belt and didn't rig there, they also didn't expect that the Hispanic vote percentage would be unchanged from 2012, and thus assumed the higher Hispanic turnout meant it was in the bag. Point is: They underestimated know how much they needed to rig it the last time around. Now they know exactly how many fraudulent votes they will need to put her in the White House.[/QUOTE] So they just kinda went "ehh, let's not rig it that much, and especially not Florida or Pennsylvania that were two of the most important states" or what? Are they incompetent or are they competent enough to rig hundreds of thousands of ballots [I]without anyone noticing[/I]? How many people are in on this? Hillary could've won by 5% and it really wouldn't look that weird compared to the predictions. They didn't need to just win by an itsy bitsy margin, and if no one could ever find out (because that's what your conspiracy theory hinges on), why not do it properly?

[QUOTE=hexpunK;51430849]It's similar to how they treat Soros tbh. Either he's a liberal cuck mastermind zionist commie who is funding absolutely everything and is the architect of everything from abortions to the Arab Spring. But at the same time, he's a bumbling moron who can't even convince a 5 year old Santa isn't real because Hillary lost (somehow his involvement was an assurance she'd win??).[/QUOTE] soros is another whole round of cognitive dissidence, the right accuses him of being some kind of left wing socialist nut who rigs elections with his vast sums of money when the vast majority of what he does spend is get-out-to-vote programs and voter awareness initiatives, meanwhile the Koch's literally audit the candidates and platforms they support with the stated goal of reducing the government's influence and cutting up red-tape restrictions like the ones that hold back their oil business.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;51430849]It's similar to how they treat Soros tbh. Either he's a liberal cuck mastermind zionist commie who is funding absolutely everything and is the architect of everything from abortions to the Arab Spring. But at the same time, he's a bumbling moron who can't even convince a 5 year old Santa isn't real because Hillary lost (somehow his involvement was an assurance she'd win??).[/QUOTE] This is basically what conspiracy theories come down to. Competent enough to do anything at any point, just not when it's convenient for the conspiracy theorists. I don't know how people get so delusional as to believe crap like this.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51430864]This is basically what conspiracy theories come down to. Competent enough to do anything at any point, just not when it's convenient for the conspiracy theorists. I don't know how people get so delusional as to believe crap like this.[/QUOTE] When the facts sound too convenient, simple, or outright unbelievable despite the truth being shoved in your face, those who want to believe otherwise will try to form their own (invalid) conclusions with the facts available, editing or adding elements to suit their narrative. The internet being what it is, it's easy to disseminate these unfounded opinions as being the actual truth, and when enough people see them and believe them (like the jet fuel bit for the 9/11 incident, or where people still think Tupac is alive in Serbia) they start taking this as actual fact instead of just accepting the actual reality behind an incident.

[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;51430682]Hillary won the popular vote is not a valid argument for her winning this election. Voter turnout is significantly lower in non battleground states. I myself didn't even bother voting because my state has a 100% chance of turning the color I want. Trump and Hillary both campaigned with the electorial college in mind, and Hillary lost.[/QUOTE] Further shows that the people who claim the election results are "the will of the people" are talking out of their ass. Nobody even knows what the will of the people is.