Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Teague wrote:

Yes, they were hacked in 30 seconds and code was entered into the system to then infect other terminals - check the video above I quoted Willie on

Can anyone explain why the votes always favour Clinton here over Sanders - in every case?

Luck of the draw? I can't imagine any other reason for that. Apparently we need to submit that video for expert analysis because we aren't smart enough to get it. At least that was the explanation from the strongest naysayer on this issue. That's after he said I think anyone who disagrees with me is not smart enough to get it. Hypocrisy 101, I guess.

Care to site where I said you weren't smart enough to get it? I suppose this will go as well as the last time you made up something I said and I requested that you provide a citation.

Semantics? When did I ever say you weren't smart enough, or mentally ill? You extrapolated out of something I said. Apparently you don't like this type of extrapolation directed at you, but can throw them around at other people ad nauseum without cognitive dissonance.

In this instance, you said none of us are experts, and the video needed to be verified by experts (they were quoted in the video btw.)

My request was for other experts to look at this data, i.e. peer review, ever heard of it?

If what they are claiming were true it would be massively important and others should be looking into it. Not others as in youtube commentators but others with real expertise in the field. Is that really such an outlandish or insulting ask?

You wouldn't accept a one-off video on climate change denial or evolution denial, even if they made some really good points. You wold be asking the same, requesting that their findings be reviewed and verified by others with expertise in those respective fields.

You know the thing is if that video that Teague claims actually is true that would be the story of the century. CNN, MSNBC, and most importantly Fox News (who has been harping about voter fraud for years) would pounce on that because it would generate coverage and people would actually tune in to watch. They would make a ton of money off of a story like that.

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/23/13726784/trump-clinton-election-audits

“Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not,” Halderman writes. “I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.” But he argues that a recount is the best way to make sure.

Hacking is not likely. But that doesn't mean recounts shouldn't happen, or paper trails shouldn't exist.

But making a conclusion based on half-hearted facts? Nope.

Willie71 wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:This is the President Trump Watch thread move all this crap about the election elsewhere will someone.

Trump was elected through a system that is hackable and fraudulent, you don't think the two are related?

No they are not. Make a thread about the fraudulent system. He is elected like it or not. I dont like it but you have to live with it. Lets hope others will act.

Hmmmm.... it seems the republicans might have something to hide.

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Luck of the draw? I can't imagine any other reason for that. Apparently we need to submit that video for expert analysis because we aren't smart enough to get it. At least that was the explanation from the strongest naysayer on this issue. That's after he said I think anyone who disagrees with me is not smart enough to get it. Hypocrisy 101, I guess.

Care to site where I said you weren't smart enough to get it? I suppose this will go as well as the last time you made up something I said and I requested that you provide a citation.

Semantics? When did I ever say you weren't smart enough, or mentally ill? You extrapolated out of something I said. Apparently you don't like this type of extrapolation directed at you, but can throw them around at other people ad nauseum without cognitive dissonance.

In this instance, you said none of us are experts, and the video needed to be verified by experts (they were quoted in the video btw.)

My request was for other experts to look at this data, i.e. peer review, ever heard of it?

If what they are claiming were true it would be massively important and others should be looking into it. Not others as in youtube commentators but others with real expertise in the field. Is that really such an outlandish or insulting ask?

You wouldn't accept a one-off video on climate change denial or evolution denial, even if they made some really good points. You wold be asking the same, requesting that their findings be reviewed and verified by others with expertise in those respective fields.

Then why all the posts saying it's basically impossible? Your posting history doesn't support your backtrack.

Alan B wrote:

Teague wrote:in 1992, the US population was 258 million - today it's 324 million - that's 66 million extra people and she only got 20 million more votes?

Is that 66 million extra voters?

LOL no I was just being silly at that point as to say she "got the most votes ever" is ridiculous considering there's 66 million MORE people since 1992 when her husband won.

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:
Care to site where I said you weren't smart enough to get it? I suppose this will go as well as the last time you made up something I said and I requested that you provide a citation.

Semantics? When did I ever say you weren't smart enough, or mentally ill? You extrapolated out of something I said. Apparently you don't like this type of extrapolation directed at you, but can throw them around at other people ad nauseum without cognitive dissonance.

In this instance, you said none of us are experts, and the video needed to be verified by experts (they were quoted in the video btw.)

My request was for other experts to look at this data, i.e. peer review, ever heard of it?

If what they are claiming were true it would be massively important and others should be looking into it. Not others as in youtube commentators but others with real expertise in the field. Is that really such an outlandish or insulting ask?

You wouldn't accept a one-off video on climate change denial or evolution denial, even if they made some really good points. You wold be asking the same, requesting that their findings be reviewed and verified by others with expertise in those respective fields.

Then why all the posts saying it's basically impossible? Your posting history doesn't support your backtrack.

Saying what is impossible? I never said hacking of electronic voting machines was impossible. Never even said anything close. You either have be confused with somebody else or are simply making shit up.

I asked you several days ago to cite where I'd ever said that particular video was wrong. Now if you don't want to respond because you realize you made a mistake I really don't care, but do go back for your own good so that you stop making a fool of yourself.

willhud9 wrote:You know the thing is if that video that Teague claims actually is true that would be the story of the century. CNN, MSNBC, and most importantly Fox News (who has been harping about voter fraud for years) would pounce on that because it would generate coverage and people would actually tune in to watch. They would make a ton of money off of a story like that.

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/23/13726784/trump-clinton-election-audits

“Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not,” Halderman writes. “I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.” But he argues that a recount is the best way to make sure.

Hacking is not likely. But that doesn't mean recounts shouldn't happen, or paper trails shouldn't exist.

But making a conclusion based on half-hearted facts? Nope.

The media made 10 billion covering this corrupt election. A single story toppling the house of cards could eliminate those profits in upcoming elections. Do they really want to upset one of their biggest revenue sources?

Willie71 wrote:

Hmmmm.... it seems the republicans might have something to hide.

"The 'Recount' ... is a baseless exercise."

So why bother trying to stop it?

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Semantics? When did I ever say you weren't smart enough, or mentally ill? You extrapolated out of something I said. Apparently you don't like this type of extrapolation directed at you, but can throw them around at other people ad nauseum without cognitive dissonance.

In this instance, you said none of us are experts, and the video needed to be verified by experts (they were quoted in the video btw.)

My request was for other experts to look at this data, i.e. peer review, ever heard of it?

If what they are claiming were true it would be massively important and others should be looking into it. Not others as in youtube commentators but others with real expertise in the field. Is that really such an outlandish or insulting ask?

You wouldn't accept a one-off video on climate change denial or evolution denial, even if they made some really good points. You wold be asking the same, requesting that their findings be reviewed and verified by others with expertise in those respective fields.

Then why all the posts saying it's basically impossible? Your posting history doesn't support your backtrack.

Saying what is impossible? I never said hacking of electronic voting machines was impossible. Never even said anything close. You either have be confused with somebody else or are simply making shit up.

I asked you several days ago to cite where I'd ever said that particular video was wrong. Now if you don't want to respond because you realize you made a mistake I really don't care, but do go back for your own good so that you stop making a fool of yourself.

Wtf???? You have been contradicting the info in that video for days? Do you mean saying the actual words "that video is wrong" or disagreeing with the content of the video? The latter is abundantly true.

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:You know the thing is if that video that Teague claims actually is true that would be the story of the century. CNN, MSNBC, and most importantly Fox News (who has been harping about voter fraud for years) would pounce on that because it would generate coverage and people would actually tune in to watch. They would make a ton of money off of a story like that.

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/23/13726784/trump-clinton-election-audits

“Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not,” Halderman writes. “I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.” But he argues that a recount is the best way to make sure.

Hacking is not likely. But that doesn't mean recounts shouldn't happen, or paper trails shouldn't exist.

But making a conclusion based on half-hearted facts? Nope.

The media made 10 billion covering this corrupt election. A single story toppling the house of cards could eliminate those profits in upcoming elections. Do they really want to upset one of their biggest revenue sources?

What's the logic behind that?

The election was certainly a boon to the media but wouldn't a story on it being fixed be a double, tripling or even far more of that for them?

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

purplerat wrote:
My request was for other experts to look at this data, i.e. peer review, ever heard of it?

If what they are claiming were true it would be massively important and others should be looking into it. Not others as in youtube commentators but others with real expertise in the field. Is that really such an outlandish or insulting ask?

You wouldn't accept a one-off video on climate change denial or evolution denial, even if they made some really good points. You wold be asking the same, requesting that their findings be reviewed and verified by others with expertise in those respective fields.

Then why all the posts saying it's basically impossible? Your posting history doesn't support your backtrack.

Saying what is impossible? I never said hacking of electronic voting machines was impossible. Never even said anything close. You either have be confused with somebody else or are simply making shit up.

I asked you several days ago to cite where I'd ever said that particular video was wrong. Now if you don't want to respond because you realize you made a mistake I really don't care, but do go back for your own good so that you stop making a fool of yourself.

Wtf???? You have been contradicting the info in that video for days? Do you mean saying the actual words "that video is wrong" or disagreeing with the content of the video? The latter is abundantly true.

I've never watched the video. How the fuck could I contradict anything in it?

I contradicted the crackpot story you were spreading about vote padding in Wisconson but I haven't said shit about the video other than if what you say it shows is true that it should be looked into and verified by other experts.

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:You know the thing is if that video that Teague claims actually is true that would be the story of the century. CNN, MSNBC, and most importantly Fox News (who has been harping about voter fraud for years) would pounce on that because it would generate coverage and people would actually tune in to watch. They would make a ton of money off of a story like that.

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/23/13726784/trump-clinton-election-audits

“Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not,” Halderman writes. “I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.” But he argues that a recount is the best way to make sure.

Hacking is not likely. But that doesn't mean recounts shouldn't happen, or paper trails shouldn't exist.

But making a conclusion based on half-hearted facts? Nope.

The media made 10 billion covering this corrupt election. A single story toppling the house of cards could eliminate those profits in upcoming elections. Do they really want to upset one of their biggest revenue sources?

What? Biggest corruption scandal of the century wouldn't make them even more money? They wouldn't be toppling a house of cards they would be exposing the fact that the house was made of straw instead and that it easily went up in flames.

That's profit for the media.

http://www.electoralsystemincrisis.org/

That's the study tht was linked in the video which was also mentioned in the video had people watched it who didn't "Watch video's that didn't have a proper report behind them"

Well, this one does so it's all there to view.

I've got to the part where she's talking about NY and they use optical voting. They fill out a card, the machine reads the card then the results are processed and totalled by the machine and then tabulated centrally giving a few avenues to nudge things.

willhud9 wrote:You know the thing is if that video that Teague claims actually is true that would be the story of the century. CNN, MSNBC, and most importantly Fox News (who has been harping about voter fraud for years) would pounce on that because it would generate coverage and people would actually tune in to watch. They would make a ton of money off of a story like that.

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/23/13726784/trump-clinton-election-audits

“Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not,” Halderman writes. “I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.” But he argues that a recount is the best way to make sure.

Hacking is not likely. But that doesn't mean recounts shouldn't happen, or paper trails shouldn't exist.

But making a conclusion based on half-hearted facts? Nope.

Absoulte bullshit. There's plenty of stories that would receive lots of views that never get aired because the MSM you just spoke of are part of the problem. "Hi it's the MSM here we're going to investigate this voter fraud as that will directly hurt us!"

Teague wrote:

willhud9 wrote:You know the thing is if that video that Teague claims actually is true that would be the story of the century. CNN, MSNBC, and most importantly Fox News (who has been harping about voter fraud for years) would pounce on that because it would generate coverage and people would actually tune in to watch. They would make a ton of money off of a story like that.

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/23/13726784/trump-clinton-election-audits

“Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not,” Halderman writes. “I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.” But he argues that a recount is the best way to make sure.

Hacking is not likely. But that doesn't mean recounts shouldn't happen, or paper trails shouldn't exist.

But making a conclusion based on half-hearted facts? Nope.

Absoulte bullshit. There's plenty of stories that would receive lots of views that never get aired because the MSM you just spoke of are part of the problem. "Hi it's the MSM here we're going to investigate this voter fraud as that will directly hurt us!"

Plenty of stories such as what?

I keep forgetting that some people actually believe there is a plot of the MSM to keep people out of the loop and not inform people of current event and news.

purplerat wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:You know the thing is if that video that Teague claims actually is true that would be the story of the century. CNN, MSNBC, and most importantly Fox News (who has been harping about voter fraud for years) would pounce on that because it would generate coverage and people would actually tune in to watch. They would make a ton of money off of a story like that.

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/23/13726784/trump-clinton-election-audits

“Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not,” Halderman writes. “I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.” But he argues that a recount is the best way to make sure.

Hacking is not likely. But that doesn't mean recounts shouldn't happen, or paper trails shouldn't exist.

But making a conclusion based on half-hearted facts? Nope.

The media made 10 billion covering this corrupt election. A single story toppling the house of cards could eliminate those profits in upcoming elections. Do they really want to upset one of their biggest revenue sources?

What's the logic behind that?

The election was certainly a boon to the media but wouldn't a story on it being fixed be a double, tripling or even far more of that for them?

And expose the process as corrupt when they're benefitting from it? They still need politicians in their pockets remember - I'm not quite sure whu this obvious point is lost on some people here.

willhud9 wrote:

Teague wrote:

willhud9 wrote:You know the thing is if that video that Teague claims actually is true that would be the story of the century. CNN, MSNBC, and most importantly Fox News (who has been harping about voter fraud for years) would pounce on that because it would generate coverage and people would actually tune in to watch. They would make a ton of money off of a story like that.

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/23/13726784/trump-clinton-election-audits

“Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not,” Halderman writes. “I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.” But he argues that a recount is the best way to make sure.

Hacking is not likely. But that doesn't mean recounts shouldn't happen, or paper trails shouldn't exist.

But making a conclusion based on half-hearted facts? Nope.

Absoulte bullshit. There's plenty of stories that would receive lots of views that never get aired because the MSM you just spoke of are part of the problem. "Hi it's the MSM here we're going to investigate this voter fraud as that will directly hurt us!"

Plenty of stories such as what?

I keep forgetting that some people actually believe there is a plot of the MSM to keep people out of the loop and not inform people of current event and news.

Standing Rock for one.

Teague wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Teague wrote:

willhud9 wrote:You know the thing is if that video that Teague claims actually is true that would be the story of the century. CNN, MSNBC, and most importantly Fox News (who has been harping about voter fraud for years) would pounce on that because it would generate coverage and people would actually tune in to watch. They would make a ton of money off of a story like that.

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/23/13726784/trump-clinton-election-audits



Hacking is not likely. But that doesn't mean recounts shouldn't happen, or paper trails shouldn't exist.

But making a conclusion based on half-hearted facts? Nope.

Absoulte bullshit. There's plenty of stories that would receive lots of views that never get aired because the MSM you just spoke of are part of the problem. "Hi it's the MSM here we're going to investigate this voter fraud as that will directly hurt us!"

Plenty of stories such as what?

I keep forgetting that some people actually believe there is a plot of the MSM to keep people out of the loop and not inform people of current event and news.

Standing Rock for one.

I've not followed the story very closely myself yet I have a pretty basic grasp on what's going on there simply because it's being covered everywhere.

It might not be the hottest story, because people don't care as much about it, but this narrative that it's being ignored is completely false.

And FWIW, from what I've seen the protestors seem to be getting the most favorable coverage, such that I'd be inclined to support them before looking into the issue more closely.

Can someone tell me what checks are in place for voting in the US? I mean does anyone know?

Purp - According to Jordan Cheriton who's been going back and forth for months, the media (as in CNN et al) only showed up at the last minute. It seems as though on hearing that TYT organised 2000 veterans to go down there people suddenly got interested. Other claims are that the media were only reporting pretty much what the lying cops were telling them - as in the protestors were getting violent and starting fires when they weren't. You obviously have a different take - what's your experience?