Wisconsin Padded Trump's Numbers

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Indigo5

My point is: this thread seems to be a political troll, meant to gloat over something that hasn't even happened yet.

Welcome to ATS...You will get used to it once you have been around a while

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Indigo5

My point is: this thread seems to be a political troll, meant to gloat over something that hasn't even happened yet.

Welcome to ATS...You will get used to it once you have been around a while

Just wondering if you realized that you are replying to an ATS moderator?

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Indigo5

My point is: this thread seems to be a political troll, meant to gloat over something that hasn't even happened yet.

Welcome to ATS...You will get used to it once you have been around a while

Just wondering if you realized that you are replying to an ATS moderator?

Of course...

a reply to: DJW001

A President is allowed to keep his holdings and assets that he had before becoming President. However, he needs to place those holdings and assets in a blind trust to be controlled by someone else. The President does not knw what the person controlling the blind trust is doing with his assets.

Trump may be among the richest people to be President, but there have been many Presidents before who had millions of dollars in assets being held in a blind trust. Hillary Clinton would have had millions of dollars in assets that she would have needed to place in a blind trust if she were elected. She would not have needed to sell off those assets.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

It would be wrong to remove his children from the company.
That is their livelihood.
It would not be fair to put them out of work.

There is no law that says a president must not have any businesses.
It is a temporary job.
Yet Trump is removing himself from running his businesses to devote himself to service to the country.

One of the things wrong for a long time has been that we have had life-long politicians with no other worldly business experience.
In the earlier years of our country, many presidents still ran their farms and property while serving.
Trump is a new thing - he actually has a life outside of politics.
An 8 year service to the country should not mean that the rest of his life is over.

And I highly doubt that Clinton would have put her millions into a blind trust.

ETA: I just realized again that this OP is not even about this, its about Wisconsin.
I fell for the distraction since the last couple of pages derailed the thread. Sorry!

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: DJW001

A President is allowed to keep his holdings and assets that he had before becoming President. However, he needs to place those holdings and assets in a blind trust to be controlled by someone else.

Actually, the President doesn't need to place his holdings into a blind trust.

However, he can be impeached for using the office of President to enrich himself.

In Trumps case, he has business partnerships in 25 foreign nations, and most of those partnerships have close relationships with the national governments of each of those countries.

So....when the President makes a decision involving foreign governments, the question will always arise, did he do the deal for his own benefit or the benefit of the US of A ?

When a foreign government wants to give The Donald "a gift", they can easily hide the fact by simply booking a suite in one of Trump's hotels, and passing the money through one of his many offshore businesses.

So, Trump has so many ways to receive kickbacks for using the Oval Office to do "favors" for friends and acquaintances, that it is probably "wise" for him to detach himself from all these links.

Otherwise, his entire Presidency will be spent with hearings in Congress questioning his motives for this or that decision. In fact, even if everything he does is above board, the Democrats will have a perfect vehicle for keeping the Republicans tied up all the time with trivial "but serious" issues of the "possibility of graft."

a reply to: Kettu

You cant argue with these people logic has left them and replaced by deception and wishful thinking.

All one has to do is go to Grag Palast and get all the evidence one wants that this election was stolen without a doubt

www.gregpalast.com...

If the GOP takes over were likely headed for a tyranny in America unlike anything we've had because they will institute corruption and election rigging on an unprecedented scale…in-fact as this OP illustrates they’ve already done it!

They cannot win a fair vote the country does not want these conservative rulers to destroy (and they will) the country as they almost did under Bush.


They can thank an archaic, racists system called the Electoral College because Hillary is now ahead way over 2 million votes

In this atmosphere the only way out of this corruption are the courts and if the GOP gets in power they will start rigging the court system with crazy conservative fascist types and we’ll be finished as a democratic nation in a few years

originally posted by: Willtell
If the GOP takes over were likely headed for a tyranny in America unlike anything we've had because they will institute corruption and election rigging on an unprecedented scale…in-fact as this OP illustrates they’ve already done it!

Riiight.
Just like the 4.5 years they held both houses and the White House before - you know, the last time we had a Republican President.
Whew! Thank God Obama did away with the tyranny of GW Bush!

Harte

a reply to: Willtell

U mad bro? As has been pointed out a multitude of times, both candidates campaigned based on the electoral college. Trump won.

If the vote was majority wins both candidates would have greatly changed their strategy. I believe Trump still would have won.

If he had hit the west coast as hard as other states with the dirty Hilary campaign he would have gotten more votes there. Instead he almost completely ignored the entire west coast.

This election was more anti Hilary than it was Pro Trump.

a reply to: Harte

Your posts are a breath of reason in a vacuum of ignorance :-)

a reply to: Kettu

It amazes me how these political tactics are so evident coming from left leaning parties. Accuse your enemy for what you are doing.

We all have known of democratic antics of illegal votes and vote padding. (Dead people voting, bussing in people, rigging voting machines, etc.)

And yet here we are, the left accusing Trump of rigging votes now.

Even after months of 24/7 anti-Trump media blaring from the Ministry of Truth

(I by no means support the GOP 100% either. I've always floated around who I like by what they say, and do.)

originally posted by: Kettu
So why is Trump furrious about the Wisconsin recount? Why are people pushing back and not wanting to have one? Why is Wisconsin today saying they won't go through a hand count for Jill Stein?

It seems this there's a little tidbit of news flew under the radar....amidst the many sensationalized headlines involving Trump, Twitter, illegals, ect...

...three precincts in the Wisconsin county of Outagamie had revised their vote totals downward for Donald Trump by more than a thousand votes combined, with local officials insisting to their local ABC News affiliate that it was a mere arithmetic error.

Odd. So what's the story there? An arithmetic error? Let's see...

The first is that, even ahead of the forthcoming recount in Wisconsin, Donald Trump’s lead has already shrunk to just 22,525 votes. That means 18% of his “lead” has already vanished, based on precincts catching some of their own incorrect numbers, and internet gawkers catching others. But the second thing that jumps out is that the revisions have served to erase thousands of votes from Trump, while affirming that Clinton’s vote total was essentially correct to begin with.

Link

So, Trump's numbers were too high, but Hillary's didn't change? How'd that happen?

The story goes like this: after Wisconsin posted its voting totals, various internet users who looked at the numbers noticed the same discrepancy. Three precincts in Outagamie County were each claiming that more people had voted in the presidential race than had voted at all. That’s not possible, of course. So after it became a minor online controversy, those precincts each revised their totals. The result: more than a thousand imaginary votes for Donald Trump came off the board from those three precincts alone

So...somehow "votes" that were never actually cast ended up in the final vote totals? How Odd...?

What's the "official" explanation for this?

Here’s the explanation which local officials offered to an ABC News affiliate to explain the discrepancy:

“In order to give election returns to the Outagamie County Clerk’s office as quickly as possible the Chief Inspector added together the votes from the election machine tapes. An error was made while keying the numbers on the calculator during this process resulting in an incorrect number of votes reported on Election night.”

Wait...so the vote totals coming from the machine tapes were reported incorrectly? Haven't I been saying this all along? The vote totals have to go SOMEWHERE after the machine totals come in or paper ballots have been scanned. The numbers the people count or the machines count have to be reported. Hm...

Okay, so someone goofed up. However it seems odd that someone doing that job can't use a 10-key or calculator properly. Anyway, mistakes happen...or do they?

Here's the kicker:

But for this to be believed, one would have to accept that the same honest error was made in three precincts – and that in all of them, Donald Trump was a huge beneficiary of that math error. Moreover, Hillary Clinton’s vote totals didn’t change at all in these three precincts.

Link

And it looks like the numbers from another precinct don't add up either.

So maybe a hand count is being denied because it will reveal more of these "math errors" and election officials who can't seem to use calculators?

Things that make you go, "HMMMMM" ...

Fake news.

a reply to: everyone

No kidding, every single "source" is a twitter feed or blog...it's getting ridiculous.

a reply to: dragonridr

ATM machines tally currency printed for the US Mint. Election optical scanners scan voter marked paper ballots, which may not always be filled out to machine tallying specifications. (A la the "hanging chads" recount in Florida.) When an election is close, it is proper to hand tally all paper ballots, not rerun them through the same electronic scanners.

Also

“Even with optical scan voting, it’s not just the voting machines themselves—it’s the desktop and laptop computers that election officials use to prepare the ballots, prepare the electronic files from the OpScan machines, panel voter registration, electronic poll books. And the computers that aggregate the results together from all of the optical scans.”

source

With accusations of "rigged" elections, it would be prudent to check to see if any tampering could have been possible via software and/or hacking into election office computers.

The difference between Trump and Hillary goes from 70,638 in Pennsylvania.

NY Times: Recount Bids in 3 States Seem the Longest of Long Shots

To a revised Trump lead of 46,765 in Pennsylvania prior to the recount, and the MSM completely fails to address how this could have happened. What the hell is going on?

Washington Post: Donald Trump will be president thanks to 80,000 people in three states

And this after 5000 votes being stripped from Trump in Wisconsin, along with 2403 in Michigan, all prior to the recount in voluntary revisions. How can this be normal?

Palmer Report: Ahead of recounts, three states admit they “erred” in Trump’s favor by thousands of votes



Something ain't right with this picture.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: everyone

No kidding, every single "source" is a twitter feed or blog...it's getting ridiculous.

IKR, but when we have hours of footage of hundreds of hillary supporters beating up trump supporters posted on breitbart then it is somehow fake. But when hillary tells stories again about landing and ducking under sniper fire and the video is posted on a blog (or worse, buzzfeed) then it is the god given truth and gospel.

But documented facts and seeing hillary herself saying "she was a golddwater girl and proud of it" (for the uninitiated, goldwater basically was the KKK

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Kettu

You cant argue with these people logic has left them and replaced by deception and wishful thinking.

All one has to do is go to Grag Palast and get all the evidence one wants that this election was stolen without a doubt

www.gregpalast.com...

I found this funny..

Now there’s a new trope to explain away the exit polls that gave Clinton the win. Supposedly, Trump voters were ashamed to say they voted for Trump. Really? ON WHAT PLANET?

Most likely, the machines were rigged, so when the voter pushed the button for "Clinton", the machine itself automatically recorded it as a vote for "Trump."

That would explain all anomalies. Exit polls are correct, and Trump wins despite the accurate exit polls.

Simple logic tells me that's the best scientific explanation for why the the usually accurate statistics failed to predict the outcome for this particular election.