Electoral College Hacking was actually done as an inside job by the elite

It is merely my opinion of mine and understanding of computers that the election was stolen by inside hacking of the electoral system. During predetermination of the President all polls pointed to Clinton as the projected winner in the media. I have no faith in the voting system when computers are involved without an audit trail and truly honest people running the polls. I don't believe the Russian had any effect on the electoral vote and that it was merely a side show that they hacked the DNC. I was really for Bernie Sanders!

Now it seems as if Trump is being influenced by a propaganda machine not unlike Joseph Goebbels from the age of NAZISM and Stephen Miller is the propaganda machine

a reply to: fema1

The press has been around longer than Trump or Goebbels, during the advent of mass radio broadcasts, Goebbels just organized it into the mass propaganda machine we still see being used today.

Dunno where you take it, the beginnings of persecution under the Nazis was first directed at one class of people, (then the jews, today the Muslims), the limitations first materialized placing limits on Travel, immigration, religious freedom, etc. Systematic scapegoating and demonizing of one class of people is what started the atrocities, well underway already, today.

Sound familiar?

Goebbels speech, radio conference of 1933

a reply to: fema1

HOW was the Electoral College hacked ? Its opinion yes but at least tell me HOW ? There is no evidence the Electoral College was hacked and since they vote at a meeting in person, it is not even possible to hack a person unless maybe the Wiki Leaks recently released hacking tools will tell us how to hack a person.

The Polls were wrong because they are subjective to the people asked and subjective to the questions asked. One does not have to tell the truth when answering a poll either. Hillary lost because she was an establishment candidate and Bernie lost because he was rolled over on by the DNC which made sure he never had a chance. President Trump won because he is so different from the establishment and not the typical politician.

And REALLY ??? You think President Trump is the only one with a propaganda machine ? See above about how Bernie was rolled over on, in case you missed it that happened to be a propaganda tornado better known as Hillary. They all have propaganda machines...the Democrats have an entire Media to spread their own brand of propaganda. It apparently is the American way.

You can't believe polls, I have participated in enough of them over the phone to know that they lead you to say what they desire a person to say. some people can't see this leading and polling is actually used some times to condition someone to vote or act a different way that is planned by the person designing the poll.

a reply to: fema1

No, it wasn't.

Even Obama said it wasn't. Get over it.

There actually was an attempt to get the Electoral College to vote for someone other than Trump. I believe a couple of members did vote for other people. But it backfired and it was Hillary who lost one vote at the end. This attempt did not affect the election in any way. A couple of electors in Washington state defected in this manner and were fined $1000 for their effort. Their fines were upheld by the court yesterday. Still, Bottom Line: No difference. And what's with this Nazi stuff? You're not making any sense at all.

a reply to: fema1

The US electoral college currently consists of 538 electors (the number corresponding approximately to the 435 representatives and 100 senators), chosen as a fairly representative distribution, across all states.

The electors meet, face to face, in each state for the vote. The average number of electoral college voters for each state is only 11 people.

Computers are not required or used to tally the electoral college votes at the polling places in each state. Neither are they required or used to tally the totals.

At all times and in all places, there are multiple observers to ensure that the voting and the tally are done fairly and honestly.

If Nazis were involved, the election results would have been different.

a reply to: fema1

Give me a microsoft laptop, Cisco chip router, VPN, NetDetect, Socket 5 and a couple more goodies and I can leave fingerprints that show myself in Russia when actually I am in USA. Not that hard to do..... BUT make ONE mistake and you can be tracked.

Forgive for my mistake, but if you watch the Video, "Electoral Voting Scandal", which is the wrong title it states facts about voting machines which had an illegal effect on the outcome for the electoral college.

a reply to: rickymouse

Then you have people like myself who go out of their way to skew their polling results...

originally posted by: rickymouse
You can't believe polls, I have participated in enough of them over the phone to know that they lead you to say what they desire a person to say. some people can't see this leading and polling is actually used some times to condition someone to vote or act a different way that is planned by the person designing the poll.

Even after-the fact exit polling could be wrong.


For example, I can imagine this scenario with a husband and wife talking to a pollster after leaving the voting booth:

Poll-taker: Excuse me, ma'am...can I ask for whom did you vote?

Wife: Hillary all the way!!! We need a woman in the White House, and Hillary is that woman!

Poll-taker: And you, sir...what about your vote?

Husband: errrmmm....uummmmmm (fidgeting uncomfortably and pointing to wife)...Um, yeah -- what she said.

@Soylent Green

Even after-the fact exit polling could be wrong. For example, I can imagine this scenario with a husband and wife talking to a pollster after leaving the voting booth: Poll-taker: Excuse me, ma'am...can I ask for whom did you vote? Wife: Hillary all the way!!! We need a woman in the White House, and Hillary is that woman! Poll-taker: And you, sir...what about your vote? Husband: errrmmm....uummmmmm (fidgeting uncomfortably and pointing to wife)...Um, yeah -- what she said.

You absolutely make no sense please stay on topic.

originally posted by: rickymouse
You can't believe polls, I have participated in enough of them over the phone to know that they lead you to say what they desire a person to say. some people can't see this leading and polling is actually used some times to condition someone to vote or act a different way that is planned by the person designing the poll.

I too have participated in American polls. Not this most recent election, but the Obama election. Yep, "Anne" from politico was calling Canadians, full of questions.

Just because I didn't get a call this time doesn't mean they didn't poll Cdns this election as well.

There's no way I would believe those polls.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: rickymouse
You can't believe polls, I have participated in enough of them over the phone to know that they lead you to say what they desire a person to say. some people can't see this leading and polling is actually used some times to condition someone to vote or act a different way that is planned by the person designing the poll.

Even after-the fact exit polling could be wrong.


For example, I can imagine this scenario with a husband and wife talking to a pollster after leaving the voting booth:

Poll-taker: Excuse me, ma'am...can I ask for whom did you vote?

Wife: Hillary all the way!!! We need a woman in the White House, and Hillary is that woman!

Poll-taker: And you, sir...what about your vote?

Husband: errrmmm....uummmmmm (fidgeting uncomfortably and pointing to wife)...Um, yeah -- what she said.

Most polls are not a good judge of anything other than to judge how good the writer of the poll does at twisting information.

originally posted by: fema1
@Soylent Green

Even after-the fact exit polling could be wrong. For example, I can imagine this scenario with a husband and wife talking to a pollster after leaving the voting booth: Poll-taker: Excuse me, ma'am...can I ask for whom did you vote? Wife: Hillary all the way!!! We need a woman in the White House, and Hillary is that woman! Poll-taker: And you, sir...what about your vote? Husband: errrmmm....uummmmmm (fidgeting uncomfortably and pointing to wife)...Um, yeah -- what she said.

You absolutely make no sense please stay on topic.

Really?

I thought my fictional example was a very plausible real world reason for why polling -- specifically exit polling -- could be inaccurate.

My example was a husband who just simply told the pollster what he thought his wife wanted to hear, but another example could be a person who voted for Trump telling a pollster that he voted for Hillary because of the "eyebrow raising" that occurs when someone says they supported Trump.

In either case, there could have been people who, for various reasons, may have told a pollster that they will vote/had voted for Hillary who actually voted for Trump.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: fema1
@Soylent Green

Even after-the fact exit polling could be wrong. For example, I can imagine this scenario with a husband and wife talking to a pollster after leaving the voting booth: Poll-taker: Excuse me, ma'am...can I ask for whom did you vote? Wife: Hillary all the way!!! We need a woman in the White House, and Hillary is that woman! Poll-taker: And you, sir...what about your vote? Husband: errrmmm....uummmmmm (fidgeting uncomfortably and pointing to wife)...Um, yeah -- what she said.

You absolutely make no sense please stay on topic.

Really?

I thought my fictional example was a very plausible real world reason for why polling -- specifically exit polling -- could be inaccurate.

My example was a husband who just simply told the pollster what he thought his wife wanted to hear, but another example could be a person who voted for Trump telling a pollster that he voted for Hillary because of the "eyebrow raising" that occurs when someone says they supported Trump.

In either case, there could have been people who, for various reasons, may have told a pollster that they will vote/had voted for Hillary who actually voted for Trump.

Hey, I would do the same thing as your example, but would not directly lie though. I would try to avoid conflict and twist the other person's interpretation of what I say so I don't have to directly lie and cause conflict. Everybody does that and if they don't, people think they are irate. It is built into our society. A little white lie. I know people do it, I can pick it out almost instantly when someone tries to twist my perception. I have kids and grandkids, you learn to read between the lines constantly. I guess this is politically correct, in fact lying is considered politically correct if it is done a certain way. Politicians have rules as to how they can lie. They lie all the time, it is how they lie that is important.