Holy Nightmare - Hillary Might Be Our Next President. A 3-state Recount is Possible.

Election's over. This is beyond pathetic already, even for the Left.

Hillary would never risk exposing her illegal voters and inflated popular count.

I'm serious.

We know foreign governments hack into our military -- repeat, our MILITARY computers.

Does anyone here honestly think the security of a computer owned by a state, like Kansas is as secure as a Dept. of Defense computer?

The "voting machines" and the machines that scan/count the ballots aren't networked or connected to the internet. However, the computers that store that information, the computers that store the vote counts ARE connected to the internet.

Hell, these state governments are woefully underfunded and can't afford to hire the best network security people anyway. When it comes to IT, state governments surprisingly pay less than the private sector.

And you get what you pay for.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Wouldn't it be ironic if they recounted and found that the election had been rigged for Trump, that the polls (including Trump's own internal polling) and the predictions derived from them were accurate (or closer to accurate)?

Donald Trump made a curious statement today when he said that HE KNEW that he didn't need to campaign on the West Coast or in New York. That implies that there was no doubt of his victory, doesn't it?

No means he knew there was no way to win California or new York. Republicans all ways write those two off to the democrats. That's why democrats never start at zero they all ways start at 84. The funny part is people questioning the results don't realize the system is weighted against republicans.

Forget HC she is history. Hilary Criminal is now History Clinton!

originally posted by: Kettu
I'm serious.

We know foreign governments hack into our military -- repeat, our MILITARY computers.

Does anyone here honestly think the security of a computer owned by a state, like Kansas is as secure as a Dept. of Defense computer?

The "voting machines" and the machines that scan/count the ballots aren't networked or connected to the internet. However, the computers that store that information, the computers that store the vote counts ARE connected to the internet.

Hell, these state governments are woefully underfunded and can't afford to hire the best network security people anyway. When it comes to IT, state governments surprisingly pay less than the private sector.

And you get what you pay for.

No there not the votes are counted on the machine then the total is moved to flash drive and printed out. The two are verified to match and reported.

If the statistical abnormality is accurate, then ironically, the most likely explanation is the reverse of the authors' assumption here. It's the excess of paper ballots for Hillary that are most likely to not be legit, whereas the electronic machines were simply not hacked and thus the accurate tally.

Then it'd just be a case of old school ballot box stuffing, which has been done probably the whole way back in the USA. That's the old school Democrat m.o. where dead people vote and after the polls close the poll workers start going through the voter registration rolls and voting for people who didn't show up.

While there was a lot of attention on 'hacking' of voting machines, one thing about them is that if the machines are/were hacked, it wouldn't be hard to find out so long as you wanted to check on it. Whereas if this was just paper ballot box stuffing, then you have to resort to stuff like handwriting analysis maybe (if there is enough writing on a paper ballot?), fingerprints, or sting operations on poll workers. In other words, it's harder to catch the fraud with the old paper ballots.

So this story will probably go nowhere because the Democrats will not be contesting results to catch their own ballot box stuffing.

a reply to: carewemust

It won't happen.

Next pipe dream? anyone?

So, if enough irregularities magically appear, a re-count is ordered, and Clinton WINS, does the SUPREME COURT get involved? They're non-partisan aren't they?

a reply to: carewemust

The show is over, there will be no recount.

And even if there were the figures would once again simply reflect exactly what "They" wish to show. Simply window dressing for the masses, democracy or at least the notion of the democratic process is a sham.

Clintons rally's were half empty
Trumps were over flowing

You dont need a scientist to tell you more people voted Trump!

Look at these ''protests''.. nothing but paid agitators!

People didnt want Hillary & the Russians arent the ones who are involved with Voting Machine companies * cough soros cough *

a reply to: Kettu

We know foreign governments hack into our military -- repeat, our MILITARY computers

Out of curiosity, would you be referring to the red one or the blue one?

In Pennsylvania there were at least several areas where machines had to be removed or recalibrated because they were flipping votes from Trump TO Clinton.
This was verified by voting officials, and in at least one district the FBI was called in to investigate.
I did not hear of any at all flipping votes to Trump.

I think people were more alert to watch for machine issues this election because there was so much talk about it in advance.

The machines in many state come from a company whose owner is on the board of Soros's Open Society.

There were also a couple of Democratic voting registration groups in PA who were arrested because they were found to have created fraudulent registrations. Duplicates, invalid addresses, people who don't exist.

If anything, evidence was showing Democrat fraud, not the other way around.
I think they were surprised to lose because they thought they had it all arranged and too many of their attempts were thwarted.
I wonder how many of the votes they did get were fraud.

And yes - I agree with others that the bogus Russia hacking accusations were set up in advance to give the Democrats an excuse to undermine Trump votes.

originally posted by: Kettu
I'm serious.

We know foreign governments hack into our military -- repeat, our MILITARY computers.

Indeed they do. China and Israel do it primarily to acquire technology.

However at no point do the votes from machines end up on the internet.

The only way to alter it would be to tamper with the machine, but I think someone might notice if anyone was up to that.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
Clintons rally's were half empty
Trumps were over flowing

You dont need a scientist to tell you more people voted Trump!

Look at these ''protests''.. nothing but paid agitators!

People didnt want Hillary & the Russians arent the ones who are involved with Voting Machine companies * cough soros cough *

Exactly..The ONLY thing that WOULD result if an actual "fair recount" happened is they'd find real evidence of Hillary's vote cheating.
The difference in rally attendance simply tells the tale....I never understood why people couldn't see this as physical evidence.
What? All these supposed multitude of Hillary voters just happened to NOT be able to attend ALL of her rallies ??
COME ON ...COMMON SENSE goes a long way......POPULAR VOTE ??.....I doubt that too....popularity compared to vote choice....NOT LOGICAL

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Wouldn't it be ironic if they recounted and found that the election had been rigged for Trump, that the polls (including Trump's own internal polling) and the predictions derived from them were accurate (or closer to accurate)?

Donald Trump made a curious statement today when he said that HE KNEW that he didn't need to campaign on the West Coast or in New York. That implies that there was no doubt of his victory, doesn't it?

No, it merely means that by the rules of the EC he doesn't need those states to win if he wins others.

Most Republicans don't even try for the West Coast because it's pretty much considered a lost cause. They do their calculus and fight for other states.

a reply to: Kettu

I don't know about Kansas, but Missouri doesn't use voting machines. We still vote on paper.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Wouldn't it be ironic if they recounted and found that the election had been rigged for Trump, that the polls (including Trump's own internal polling) and the predictions derived from them were accurate (or closer to accurate)?

Ironic? You just KNOW that all the Trump supporters would refuse to accept the recount results and allegations of hacking.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Hillary would never risk exposing her illegal voters and inflated popular count.

Yeah, I really don't think that Hillary or the DNC are going to want to open this can of worms. Trump could retaliate by requesting a recount in Nevada, because illegal aliens voting were likely enough to tip that state to her.

An investigation of California, Oregon, and Washington would probably reveal that about 3 million Hillary ballots were illegally mailed in days after the election, to create the illusion that she won the popular vote.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

You have any proof of these allegations? Even the stuff in the op is merely circumstantial evidence. It looks like you are just inventing up grandiose conspiracy plans out of the air.