Wisconsin was hacked. Ex: 2027 votes from a precinct with 277 registered voters...

[ScienceRocks]

Wisconsin was hacked. Ex: 2027 votes from a precinct with 277 registered voters...
Twitter

It's all there.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Screen-shots: Wisconsin vote totals don't match ballots cast

 

[Auld Phart]

Any proof of which candidate got the extra votes?

 

[whitehall]

What's all there? What about the hacking? Is everything related to hacking these days? Don't forget who was in charge last November.

 

[Sunni Man]

Wisconsin was hacked. Ex: 2027 votes from a precinct with 277 registered voters....

And?? ....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Any proof of which candidate got the extra votes?

What's all there? What about the hacking? Is everything related to hacking these days? Don't forget who was in charge last November.

No solid proof, of course, but as Thoreau observed, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

We know which party it is that has long been striving to protect the electoral process from fraud, and which party has been striving to oppose any such protections.

We know which party expects and hopes to benefit from electoral fraud.

We know which party actually engaged in electoral fraud, to rig the results of its own Presidential primary elections.

If there was substantial voter fraud here, then I think we can very reliably guess which party was responsible for it, and which party gained from it.

 

[paperview]

Garbage thread.

 

[Auld Phart]

Any proof of which candidate got the extra votes?

What's all there? What about the hacking? Is everything related to hacking these days? Don't forget who was in charge last November.

No solid proof, of course, but as Thoreau observed, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

We know which party it is that has long been striving to protect the electoral process from fraud, and which party has been striving to oppose any such protections.

We know which party expects and hopes to benefit from electoral fraud.

We know which party actually engaged in electoral fraud, to rig the results of its own Presidential primary elections.

If there was substantial voter fraud here, then I think we can very reliably guess which party was responsible for it, and which party gained from it.

"reliably guess''

'I ain't got a clue, but you know where I want to put the blame'

 

[theHawk]

Screen-shots: Wisconsin vote totals don't match ballots cast

...and Clinton won those districts.


Dems probably cheat in every district.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Impossible.

Progs have always maintained that voter fraud does not exist.