Poll: Will the recounts be worth the effort?

[Freewill]

I suppose the results of this poll are predictable. All the conservatives will of course say "no" because that kind of narrow-mindedness is expected from them and all the liberals will say vote either "yes" or "maybe".

I'm in the "maybe" camp. I wouldn't be surprised by the results either way. I am encouraged that independent experts believe fraud had occurred. If they were worth the effort, Jill Stein would become my hero. If they turn up with no significant change, it will be an embarrassment for both her and Hillary because Hillary has just announced she supports the recount. I suppose she doesn't have anything to lose.

And when it turns up empty they will be embarrassed, if liberals can be embarrassed, and you will look the fool.

Why would I look like a fool?

Come on, you are playing the fool right now. Read your OP. Read it. Everyone with any sense knows this is going no where. As I said, I am glad to see democrats waste their time and money. But I think in this case the money would be better spent helping inner city kids rather than feeding a herd of lawyers and paying for a recount when there is no evidence of fraud. At least fraud on Trump's side.

 

[Londoner]

I like how she says "If we raise more than what’s needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform." That, right there should raise a red flag since the left has opposed EVERY election integrity effort in the past.

A University of Michigan professor found statistical irregularities that should be looked at to ensure that it wasn't hacked by the Russians otherwise mishandled.

The Clinton camp declined a recount because they knew there was no way 3 states were completely hacked, especially PA which is out of reach. But Jill Stein/Green Party said they were moving forward with or without them.

Everyone knows this won't change the election results.

However, if Stein/Green Party find evidence of tampering, however small, than they will have the ammo needed to force the states to further protect the security of the process.

I read your professors article. He also stated that if the machines were hacked, there would be no evidence of it since the malware would likely have deleted itself.

Of course he was assuming the ballots which were created on the internet had no virus or malware protection. How he came up with that I don't know. His claim was it was possible that when those ballots were created on an unsecured computer, that's when the malware was inserted. He said it could contain an activation point where it only worked during the voting hours, and then self destructed.

That's very far fetched especially when there is absolutely no evidence that such a thing happened.

Nate Silver and Obama agree with you. And the Clinton team rebuffed the Michigan professors because even if there was minor tampering in Wisconsin and other places, there is nothing out there that will overturn one state, much less the election. The only good that can come out of this is if it forces the states to continually work toward better electronic security.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I like how she says "If we raise more than what’s needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform." That, right there should raise a red flag since the left has opposed EVERY election integrity effort in the past.

A University of Michigan professor found statistical irregularities that should be looked at to ensure that it wasn't hacked by the Russians otherwise mishandled.

The Clinton camp declined a recount because they knew there was no way 3 states were completely hacked, especially PA which is out of reach. But Jill Stein/Green Party said they were moving forward with or without them.

Everyone knows this won't change the election results.

However, if Stein/Green Party find evidence of tampering, however small, than they will have the ammo needed to force the states to further protect the security of the process.

I read your professors article. He also stated that if the machines were hacked, there would be no evidence of it since the malware would likely have deleted itself.

Of course he was assuming the ballots which were created on the internet had no virus or malware protection. How he came up with that I don't know. His claim was it was possible that when those ballots were created on an unsecured computer, that's when the malware was inserted. He said it could contain an activation point where it only worked during the voting hours, and then self destructed.

That's very far fetched especially when there is absolutely no evidence that such a thing happened.

Nate Silver and Obama agree with you. And the Clinton team rebuffed the Michigan professors because even if there was minor tampering in Wisconsin and other places, there is nothing out there that will overturn one state, much less the election. The only good that can come out of this is if it forces the states to continually work toward better electronic security.

Yeah, but you know.........we have to go through this every time a Democrats loses the presidency. That's three in a row now and it seems like it will never stop. The last two complaints, nearly the entire country had to spend tens of millions of dollars just to placate those complaining Democrats. Enough is enough already. We can't keep wasting time and money because the Democrat candidate lost.

 

[Billy000]

I suppose the results of this poll are predictable. All the conservatives will of course say "no" because that kind of narrow-mindedness is expected from them and all the liberals will say vote either "yes" or "maybe".

I'm in the "maybe" camp. I wouldn't be surprised by the results either way. I am encouraged that independent experts believe fraud had occurred. If they were worth the effort, Jill Stein would become my hero. If they turn up with no significant change, it will be an embarrassment for both her and Hillary because Hillary has just announced she supports the recount. I suppose she doesn't have anything to lose.

And when it turns up empty they will be embarrassed, if liberals can be embarrassed, and you will look the fool.

Why would I look like a fool?

Come on, you are playing the fool right now. Read your OP. Read it. Everyone with any sense knows this is going no where. As I said, I am glad to see democrats waste their time and money. But I think in this case the money would be better spent helping inner city kids rather than feeding a herd of lawyers and paying for a recount when there is no evidence of fraud. At least fraud on Trump's side.

I have an open mind. You don't. My gut tells me nothing will come of it, but because I dont know for sure, my answer is "maybe".

 

[Freewill]

If the professor has time from him making a coconut radio i would like to know if there is no way of telling if it were hacked, then what is he expecting to get out of a recount? Does he really think it is so lame that whatever first pops out is the accepted vote? Why does he think Mi took so long?

More than likely he's some snowflake leftist that just can't stand to lose. But these machines have about a 3% tolerance which means there could be 3% of mistakes. So they will find some irregularities which is quite normal. Those irregularities could be in favor of Clinton, Trump, or both. It's a gamble.

You have to be mistaken. Elections have been closer then 3 percent. The program to count the votes can't be simplier. Hell we have cars that tell you when you crossed the center line and they are trying to tell us they can't count something as simple as a vote with 100 percent accuracy? I call BS, not on you but a system that would count votes and have a 3 percent error rate. I could write an excel macro to count votes that would be 100 percent accurate. This whole, calibration error is just plain BS.

 

[Freewill]

I like how she says "If we raise more than what’s needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform." That, right there should raise a red flag since the left has opposed EVERY election integrity effort in the past.

A University of Michigan professor found statistical irregularities that should be looked at to ensure that it wasn't hacked by the Russians otherwise mishandled.

The Clinton camp declined a recount because they knew there was no way 3 states were completely hacked, especially PA which is out of reach. But Jill Stein/Green Party said they were moving forward with or without them.

Everyone knows this won't change the election results.

However, if Stein/Green Party find evidence of tampering, however small, than they will have the ammo needed to force the states to further protect the security of the process.

I read your professors article. He also stated that if the machines were hacked, there would be no evidence of it since the malware would likely have deleted itself.

Of course he was assuming the ballots which were created on the internet had no virus or malware protection. How he came up with that I don't know. His claim was it was possible that when those ballots were created on an unsecured computer, that's when the malware was inserted. He said it could contain an activation point where it only worked during the voting hours, and then self destructed.

That's very far fetched especially when there is absolutely no evidence that such a thing happened.

Nate Silver and Obama agree with you. And the Clinton team rebuffed the Michigan professors because even if there was minor tampering in Wisconsin and other places, there is nothing out there that will overturn one state, much less the election. The only good that can come out of this is if it forces the states to continually work toward better electronic security.

You are doing what they are doing, assuming we don't have electronic security. I can't think of a simpler thing to do then to count votes.

 

[BluesLegend]

What else do you people have to do? Maybe it will keep you from murdering electors who refuse to break their pledge and vote for Hillary.

"You people"?

WTF are you talking about?

He's talking about you people, the unhinged left who are sending death threats to electors and in general freaking out like mental patients off their meds that Hillary got ***** slapped by Trump.

 

[candycorn]

I suppose the results of this poll are predictable. All the conservatives will of course say "no" because that kind of narrow-mindedness is expected from them and all the liberals will say vote either "yes" or "maybe".

I'm in the "maybe" camp. I wouldn't be surprised by the results either way. I am encouraged that independent experts believe fraud had occurred. If they were worth the effort, Jill Stein would become my hero. If they turn up with no significant change, it will be an embarrassment for both her and Hillary because Hillary has just announced she supports the recount. I suppose she doesn't have anything to lose.

Every time I’ve heard of this happening—a recount—the winner usually expands her/his margin of victory.

 

[oreo]

7 Reasons Jill Stein's Recount Is A Scam

Even renowned democrat water boy Nate Slver can see through this farce.

Nate Silver on Twitter

Wisconsin is going to start an audit of the state vote toward the latter part of next week. They've already agreed to do it.

The thing that raised the eyebrow were several cyber experts noticing that in several democrat precincts the paper ballots were coming in very strong for Hillary Clinton, but the electronic machines were showing her 7% down. When they kept looking at this they noticed a trend of the same thing going on in other states.

IOW--this is a long way from being over. It was the Reich wing and Donald Trump who repeatedly claimed that the election was rigged. We were inundated with Wiki--leaks and 17 different intelligence agencies stated that they were coming from Russia. They were all against the DNC, and none were for the RNC. We had Trump suggest that mail in ballots were a hoax and people could mail one in, and then still go to their precinct to vote again, or vote (twice.) He claimed that dead people voted, he claimed that illegals voted. We had the FBI director, James Comey intervene into this election 11 days prior, and then gave birth to a nothing burger 7 days later. We have Huma, Clinton's aid still saying she has no idea how her emails ended up on her x-husband's laptop.

Americans need to be assured of the integrity of a National Election, and if this does anything, it will restore confidence in our elections. Because right now there are just way too many unanswered questions.

Now the Clinton campaign has joined Jill Stein, so no I don't believe this is just for a fund raiser for the Green party. The audit and recount is on.

 

[Billy000]

I suppose the results of this poll are predictable. All the conservatives will of course say "no" because that kind of narrow-mindedness is expected from them and all the liberals will say vote either "yes" or "maybe".

I'm in the "maybe" camp. I wouldn't be surprised by the results either way. I am encouraged that independent experts believe fraud had occurred. If they were worth the effort, Jill Stein would become my hero. If they turn up with no significant change, it will be an embarrassment for both her and Hillary because Hillary has just announced she supports the recount. I suppose she doesn't have anything to lose.

Every time I’ve heard of this happening—a recount—the winner usually expands her/his margin of victory.

Each time it happens it is an independent result.

 

[saveliberty]

Careful Hillary, Trump may reconsider prison for you, should you promote recounts....

 

[Billy000]

Careful Hillary, Trump may reconsider prison for you, should you promote recounts....

Which would only prove how much of a whiney little ***** he is.

 

[candycorn]

I suppose the results of this poll are predictable. All the conservatives will of course say "no" because that kind of narrow-mindedness is expected from them and all the liberals will say vote either "yes" or "maybe".

I'm in the "maybe" camp. I wouldn't be surprised by the results either way. I am encouraged that independent experts believe fraud had occurred. If they were worth the effort, Jill Stein would become my hero. If they turn up with no significant change, it will be an embarrassment for both her and Hillary because Hillary has just announced she supports the recount. I suppose she doesn't have anything to lose.

Every time I’ve heard of this happening—a recount—the winner usually expands her/his margin of victory.

Each time it happens it is an independent result.

Meaning what exactly?

 

[Freewill]

7 Reasons Jill Stein's Recount Is A Scam

Even renowned democrat water boy Nate Slver can see through this farce.

Nate Silver on Twitter

Wisconsin is going to start an audit of the state vote toward the latter part of next week. They've already agreed to do it.

The thing that raised the eyebrow were several cyber experts noticing that in several democrat precincts the paper ballots were coming in very strong for Hillary Clinton, but the electronic machines were showing her 7% down. When they kept looking at this they noticed a trend of the same thing going on in other states.

IOW--this is a long way from being over. It was the Reich wing and Donald Trump who repeatedly claimed that the election was rigged. We were inundated with Wiki--leaks and 17 different intelligence agencies stated that they were coming from Russia. They were all against the DNC, and none were for the RNC. We had Trump suggest that mail in ballots were a hoax and people could mail one in, and then still go to their precinct to vote again, or vote (twice.) He claimed that dead people voted, he claimed that illegals voted. We had the FBI director, James Comey intervene into this election 11 days prior, and then gave birth to a nothing burger 7 days later. We have Huma, Clinton's aid still saying she has no idea how her emails ended up on her x-husband's laptop.

Americans need to be assured of the integrity of a National Election, and if this does anything, it will restore confidence in our elections. Because right now there are just way too many unanswered questions.

Now the Clinton campaign has joined Jill Stein, so no I don't believe this is just for a fund raiser for the Green party. The audit and recount is on.

It is not surprising. That is how the left wing cheated, paper ballots. Early voting and paper absentee ballots, fodder for cheating, and that is what they will find.

 

[Freewill]

According the Hillary what she is doing threatens the very fabric of our country. If that is what she believes(d) then she doesn't care about out country.

 

[Freewill]

I suppose the results of this poll are predictable. All the conservatives will of course say "no" because that kind of narrow-mindedness is expected from them and all the liberals will say vote either "yes" or "maybe".

I'm in the "maybe" camp. I wouldn't be surprised by the results either way. I am encouraged that independent experts believe fraud had occurred. If they were worth the effort, Jill Stein would become my hero. If they turn up with no significant change, it will be an embarrassment for both her and Hillary because Hillary has just announced she supports the recount. I suppose she doesn't have anything to lose.

And when it turns up empty they will be embarrassed, if liberals can be embarrassed, and you will look the fool.

Why would I look like a fool?

Come on, you are playing the fool right now. Read your OP. Read it. Everyone with any sense knows this is going no where. As I said, I am glad to see democrats waste their time and money. But I think in this case the money would be better spent helping inner city kids rather than feeding a herd of lawyers and paying for a recount when there is no evidence of fraud. At least fraud on Trump's side.

I have an open mind. You don't. My gut tells me nothing will come of it, but because I dont know for sure, my answer is "maybe".

No, you are playing the fool. YOUR gut feeling is not intuition. It is what you want to happen. The discrepancy between paper ballots and the electronic voting is EXACTLY what was said before the election. Early voting was going to Hillary. The voters for Trump got off their asses and went to the polls so it is of no surprise there is a difference. Silvers agrees. Besides, how can fraud be proven with electronic voting? The paper ballots are where the real fraud could occur.

 

[GHook93]

7 Reasons Jill Stein's Recount Is A Scam

Even renowned democrat water boy Nate Slver can see through this farce.

Nate Silver on Twitter

Maybe she got 0.4 instead of 0.0124. She is shooting for the stars!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Papageorgio]

Careful Hillary, Trump may reconsider prison for you, should you promote recounts....

Which would only prove how much of a whiney little ***** he is.

Go ahead with the recounts, just ensures Trump's Electoral College victory.

The Dems crying and whining because they can't cheat the system to win.

 

[saveliberty]

Careful Hillary, Trump may reconsider prison for you, should you promote recounts....

Which would only prove how much of a whiney little ***** he is.

Funny, I thought it showed Hillary as a criminal.

 

[The Breeze]

7 Reasons Jill Stein's Recount Is A Scam

Even renowned democrat water boy Nate Slver can see through this farce.

Nate Silver on Twitter

They're paying for it.

Hence - no scam.

Boy are you partisans dumb.

George Soros is paying for it, dumbass.

Hasn't he lost enough already?