Donald Trump Says He May Not Accept Election Results...Media Freaks Out.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

The only reason anyone discovered Pia's fraudulent vote is because of the unusual circumstances of her death. So, excuse me for my skepticism that fraudulent votes go entirely unnoticed, all the time. AND if Pia's case is any indication, it is VERY easy to just dismiss them as "most likely" being clerical errors.

But then, investigating it further would have revealed a much more nefarious link to her possible killer.

Pia's Story

To summarize:

Pia Farrankopf was dead in her garage for five years. She worked for a company, Alltel/Systematics, in Little Rock, with deep ties to some major scandals involving illegal government spying. She installed core banking systems linked with a major banking spy scandal. Hillary, Vince Foster, and the Rose Law firm represented that company during the years she worked there. Her family reported she had an argument with her former boss at Alltel/Systematics, and said she seemed to be in fear of someone. Coincidentally, she worked at Alltel/Systematics for many years with Obama's great uncle, Cecil Goeldner -- AND he may have even been her boss at some point and traveled with her to install Systematics' core banking systems across the globe.

And, someone with an interest in voter fraud is the best lead in a criminal investigation.

But her fraudulent vote was merely chalked up to "most likely" be a clerical error.

Yeah. Pia's story speaks volumes to me about how bad it could actually be and I am not willing to give any benefit of the doubt.

I think you may not be working in the computer industry.

One person does not go in and install a system in a bank. It takes a team - from sysadmins (often multiple sysadmins) who do the installation and set up the databases, techs who install client programs on individual computers, and trainers who then show up and train people how to use the system. Typically it will take a month or more just to put it in (meanwhile, the workers at the company have to do double work because the data isn't put in live until they've got it stable and have imported some historical data). The tech support on this will run for several years afterwards.

It's a total pain in the neck for everyone.

She wasn't a lone hero, riding into town and putting a system in and then riding off into the sunset. She was part of a group that involved dozens of coworkers (changing with every project) and thousands of users.

It's a high paced, high stress job, and you get hammered by EVERYONE when any little thing goes wrong. If they lose data, you get shrieked at and the spotlight's on you until you fix it. It's like one of those old movies from the 30's where they grill someone under hot lights.

Drug problems and suicide are not unknown.

a reply to: carewemust

He said no such thing. What he said was he would wait to the day and not commit either way until then. Seems to me the democrats demi-God AL Gore didn't accept the results until he was forced to and he still whines to this day. For some reason I don't remember any other candidates being specifically asked straight out if they would unconditionally accept the voting results.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

ehhh, if it happens in one place, its happening in other places.

I think Trump said it correctly. He never said he will not accept the results, as the media tries to proclaim. He said he would decide when he sees the results. If there is sufficient evidence to suggest foul play had a role in the election he has every right to deny the results. It would be foolish to say otherwise. If he said he would accept the results now and discovered after the election that there was fraud democrats would jump all over him for saying he would accept the results then changing his mind.

I wont say I will accept the results now either. After the election is when I will decide. If there is enough evidence to suggest the election results do not reflect the will of the people then I will not accept the results. I will not try to predict the future. I will instead wait and see. If there is no evidence of fraud, then no problem - other than the fact that if hillary wins we are going straight down the toilet as a country...but, that is not a prediction, just an opinion.

originally posted by: Byrd

One person does not go in and install a system in a bank.

Thought I covered this when I wrote:

Coincidentally, she worked at Alltel/Systematics for many years with Obama's great uncle, Cecil Goeldner -- AND he may have even been her boss at some point and traveled with her to install Systematics' core banking systems across the globe.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You're making that up. No one would call Trump out for questioning the legitimacy of an election when he has ACTUAL evidence of fraud after having said he'd accept the results.

originally posted by: tmeister182
a reply to: carewemust

He said no such thing. What he said was he would wait to the day and not commit either way until then. Seems to me the democrats demi-God AL Gore didn't accept the results until he was forced to and he still whines to this day. For some reason I don't remember any other candidates being specifically asked straight out if they would unconditionally accept the voting results.

Why do people keep bringing up Gore?

Gore couldn't concede because the results weren't officially in until after the mandatory recount. (Well, I suppose he could have conceded at any point, but conceding before the results are officially in seems a little silly).

Trump is alleging widespread voter fraud, of which there is zero evidence, and suggesting the entire process is rigged before it has even started. Very different.

a reply to: Greggers

They clearly don't know what happened during 2000, don't remember it, or are just purposely distorting history so that they can make it look like the Gore situation was the same as this situation. It isn't. For one, Gore DID ultimately concede defeat when the recount thing ultimately failed to work out for him, which signifies that he was always willing to do so.

I predict a Wikileaks coming out that somehow shows voter fraud as Nov 8th approaches.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
I seem to recall a recount in 2000 after a candidate "didn't accept the results"...

John Kerry wasn't any too sanguine about them either and used the results to commisserate with an Afghan who thought he should have won and that the election was rigged against him. Kerry was all, :Well, you know ... I ought to have been president, but the thing was rigged ..."

I remember the liberals that year freaking out because th exit polls early on showed him winning, and then ... they were wrong.

Would this also be a bad place to mention Al Franken, teh @ss who graces the senate because he didn't accept HIS election results and kept refusing the accept them until enough trunkloads of ballots could be found to install him?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
I seem to recall a recount in 2000 after a candidate "didn't accept the results"...

John Kerry wasn't any too sanguine about them either and used the results to commisserate with an Afghan who thought he should have won and that the election was rigged against him. Kerry was all, :Well, you know ... I ought to have been president, but the thing was rigged ..."

John Kerry also conceded before the vote was even finished counting.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Didn't stop him and the rest of the left from whining about it having been rigged though. There is accepting it and acceptingit. John Kerry and the left were poor losers. They didn't accept it.

There were people on the right who didn't feel that Obama won fairly in 2012 too, they didn't accept, but I've never heard Mitt grumble about it the way Kerry did.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Didn't stop him and the rest of the left from whining about it having been rigged though. There is accepting it and acceptingit. John Kerry and the left were poor losers. They didn't accept it.

There were people on the right who didn't feel that Obama won fairly in 2012 too, they didn't accept, but I've never heard Mitt grumble about it the way Kerry did.

How about posting proof of this grumbling? I'd say that conceding defeat early is pretty much accepting it, so you are going to need a bit more than your say so to prove that he actually bitched about it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Didn't stop him and the rest of the left from whining about it having been rigged though. There is accepting it and acceptingit. John Kerry and the left were poor losers. They didn't accept it.

There were people on the right who didn't feel that Obama won fairly in 2012 too, they didn't accept, but I've never heard Mitt grumble about it the way Kerry did.

I think that you're overlooking the fact that Kerry wasn't complaining that the vote was rigged three damn weeks before the election. No-one has ever done this before. No-one. The peaceful handover of power after an election is a fundamental part of the history of the Republic. For Trump to whine like this before the election is unprecedented. And also disgraceful. And massively unpresidential.

Just because Trump believes something doesn't make it wrong. Plenty of research indicates varieties of vote rigging, from the Diebold voting machines, to the work of the Votescam Collier brothers, to the hanging chad of Florida. What happened with Sanders in the primaries is another example. Drink the Kool Aid for whichever side you want, parapolitics is palpable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vroomfondel

You're making that up. No one would call Trump out for questioning the legitimacy of an election when he has ACTUAL evidence of fraud after having said he'd accept the results.

Considering the incredibly warped views of some democrats, yes, they would. hillary is a perfect example. She goes to no end to complain about the source of the hacked emails all the while ignoring the fact that they incriminate her and her staff along with the white house, the AG, and the FBI. In the face of so much evidence of criminal wrongdoing she and the loyal royal followers continue to deny and obfuscate. Yes, I can see democrats calling him out for not accepting a rigged election after he said he would prior to the fact.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Considering the warped logic of this post I'm just going to back out slowly.

Donald Trump obviously feels that his campaign has been slighted and screwed by the left-wing media. He believes (as I do) that there is a conspiracy by the left to promote illegal voting, there is a video showing how the left sent paid thugs to cause violence during Trump speeches, there are a handful of women who without any vetting became front page news claiming assault against Trump (some of whom have been proven as lies), etc.

In short...Donald Trump believes he has been screwed against his will. Now, whether you believe that or not...he does. So...does a rape victim have to shut their mouth and accept the actions of their rapist just because they win the race? I say no! If Trump believes he was conspired against, then he has no requirement to accept those actions.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Please.

Now he's accusing FOX of collusion.

This is ludicrous.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Please.

Now he's accusing FOX of collusion.

This is ludicrous.