It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 11
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
I'd like to have a very simple question answered ...so let's just imagine there ends up being a 3 state recount. To further the imaginary scenario, let's say that when the "recounted" totals are in, all 3 states end up somehow becoming wins for the Dems. Does the "recount" become the final incontestable result and that's that?




posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Voiceofthemajority

Yes and no... It would give her an electoral win however the electoral college can vote for Trump. I would imagine though we would see a repeat of Florida from the 2000 election.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   

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?


Nah... makes him logical. Both places are notoriously democractic, it would be a waste of money and time to try and turn that big a voter flock to the other side.
Best to invest time in the places that are actually swingable or where a previous Rep. victory was in risk of turning into a loss.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Arcturian8

originally posted by: carewemust
November 22, 2016

"Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private."

Full Story: www.msn.com... tanntp

How many of these 3 states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania) would Hillary Clinton need to win, in order to take the Presidency from Donald Trump? If there's a chance, why doesn't she simply ask for the recount? Hillary certainly has the money to pay for it.


It's a long shot. No proof of actual hacking as far as I read, just potential abnormal voting patterns? www.zerohedge.com...


We might have a 2017 U.S. Civil War after all.


Yeah, that's stupidity speaking. Care to not speak as an idiot fomenting violence? Or, would you care to hide behind a facade of 'well it could happen so I'm being objective!'?



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

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.


This is a joke, right? Have you never heard of the south states of the US?



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Bull. They've been investigating, and found that dead people and illegal immigrants have been voting for her. Which is no surprise as Hillary even let 60,000 dangerous criminals out of prison ....just to vote for her. How pathetic.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 05:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537

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?


Well, no need to waste your time campaigning in states like WA or CA, especially with their constant heavy liberal voting base, he knew he had no chance of winning those states.. I think it implies that he knew he already lost those states, so he spoke confidentially to the fact that he didn't need to campaign in those heavily democratic spots


Exactly. And Trump outsmarted the DNC and had huge rallies in those little swing states in the last days. They just need to get over their loss.

We need a smart guy (with good intentions) like Trump in charge. Not an alcoholic divider like Clinton.

If the DNC were sooooooo interested in fair elections maybe they could start by not fighting voter ID. Or busing in people across state lines like they were caught doing.

All this silly conjecture about Russian, China hacking. Maybe we should have made sure the elections weren't possibly rigged before the election. Not after. The DNC. The very ones that fight for voting corruption, allowing Soro's to own machines, no voter ID, are now whining about it. What a self inflicted wound.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust


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 implies he was smart enough not to waste his time and resources in states that were solidly blue, and instead focus on the battleground states. That's just what Republicans have been doing since 2000.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 06:19 AM
link   
I honestly don't see this happening. Hell, even Obama pretty much just wants the whole thing done and over with. So I can't see this really gaining any steam, especially with deadlines so close. Even Clinton herself doesn't seem to be showing much interest anymore.

That said, a couple things about this bother me. The main one being electronic machines being hacked. This has actually been a big issue and concern since machine voting started taking off in the 2004 election with the Diebolds. Electronic vote machines with no paper trail are one of the reasons I prefer early voting by mail. But with this election, with known involvement from Russian government and hackers, that changes a lot of things.

But what is also curious is how hush hush this is. Direct contact with Clinton's team, with only vague references in the media, but it looks like much more might be going on. Are they planning on pulling a black Friday surprise, or what?



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: windword

There is no evidence Russia did that at all. That is speculation. It has been maintained that it was an inside job, likely pulled by Sanders supporters angry at how the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign to throw the primary to their candidate.


You need to stop getting your news from Trump Media.

The NSA Chief Says Russia Hacked the 2016 Election. Congress Must Investigate. It's up to Capitol Hill to protect American democracy.


Despite all the news being generated by the change of power underway in Washington, there is one story this week that deserves top priority: Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. On Tuesday, the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, was asked about the WikiLeaks release of hacked information during the campaign, and he said, "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He added, "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily."

This was a stunning statement that has echoed other remarks from senior US officials. He was saying that Russia directly intervened in the US election to obtain a desired end: presumably to undermine confidence in US elections or to elect Donald Trump—or both. Rogers was clearly accusing Vladimir Putin of meddling with American democracy. This is news worthy of bold and large front-page headlines—and investigation. Presumably intelligence and law enforcement agencies are robustly probing the hacking of political targets attributed to Russia. But there is another inquiry that is necessary: a full-fledged congressional investigation that holds public hearings and releases its findings to the citizenry.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Huh, so their quote says "a nation state" and then the press calls it Russia? How does "nation state" automatically become Russia? Does the press read minds now?

I get that the narrative is that Russia is bad, m'kay, and that Trump is colluding with them, m'kay. But could the press put less words into the mouths of officials who don't directly say as much in their actual quotes? What if the nation state was actually the Saudis whom Hillary Clinton was in bed with?
edit on 24-11-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



Huh, so their quote says "a nation state" and then the press calls it Russia? How does "nation state" automatically become Russia? Does the press read minds now?


Some things are not meant to be available for public consumption.


If the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies are digging into the Russian effort to affect US politics, there is no guarantee that what they uncover will be shared with the public. Intelligence investigations often remain secret for the obvious reasons: they involve classified information. And law enforcement investigations—which focus on whether crimes have been committed—are supposed to remain secret until they produce indictments. (And then only information pertinent to the prosecution of a case is released, though the feds might have collected much more.) The investigative activities of these agencies are not designed for public enlightenment or assurance. That's the job of Congress.
www.motherjones.com...


Some things we may never know, or understand the "Why?".
edit on 24-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: UKTruth

In MI Trump leads by .2 of 1 percent...
In PA Trump leads by 1.2%
in WI Trump leads by .8 of 1%

She would need all three to turn her way to declare a win.

I think a recount is not justified, but it should be noted that Trump is on track right now to be elected with the largest percentage popular vote loss in the 240+ year history of our country. Right now he ranks 3rd from bottom for popular vote margin amongst every President we have ever had and the remaining count does not look in his favor. 7Mil. and much in CA.

Not saying recount...but he definitely has the teeniest "mandate" in a couple hundred years.



How many times do you need to be told that the popular vote is irrelevant?


Please don't take personal offense, but you keep confusing me with someone who gives a sh&$ what some guy in England who cheered fake news has to say about OUR election or outcome.

As a foreigner ...YOUR opinion is "irrelevant" to MY countries election.


ok fair enough...As a US citizen i ask -
"How many times do you need to be told that the popular vote is irrelevant? "



Tweets by Donald Trump in years past:

“The phony electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!”

“More votes equals a loss…revolution!”

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I honestly don't see this happening. Hell, even Obama pretty much just wants the whole thing done and over with. So I can't see this really gaining any steam, especially with deadlines so close. Even Clinton herself doesn't seem to be showing much interest anymore.


You forgot about Jill Stein..

Jill Stein Just Raised $2.5 Million To Start Recounts In 3 States
www.buzzfeed.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
She already stated she lost. She is a loser and there is no way a bogus, corrupt "elite recount" will be tolerated. I think we would have a real civil war if they tried..



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

MotherJones is your source? And you mock other sources?



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

So, then you admit that the news source you are taking as gospel that the Russian did it made that part up because it was what they wanted to believe and wanted all of us to believe?



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
A recount in PA would be very, very difficult to make happen.

There are only a few ways a recount can happen.

Trump is ahead by over 70,000 votes, which can be explained in each district by demographics.
That's a difference of 1.7%.


The most common way to get a vote recount in Pennsylvania is through an order by the Secretary of State, which is mandatory by law in statewide races decided by less than half a percentage point. That can’t happen in this case.

There are two other ways to get a vote recount. Voters can initiate a recount by having three voters from a voting district in question petition the county and ask for a recount. Coordinating that statewide would be nearly impossible. The third way, and the most likely in this case (if you can even called it “likely”), would be initiated by the candidate.

A candidate can’t actually file for a vote recount under Pennsylvania law. Instead, they would have to challenge a county board regarding its vote computations, and a state appeals judge would have to rule that a statewide recount is necessary. That means the Clinton campaign would either have to request a recount by petition in every voting district or present a prima facie case showing voter fraud.


billypenn.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
"It's dead Jim."

There won't be any recounts, Billary lost, now let's move on please.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Oh, but Clinton isn't seeking recount. It's Jill Stein who says she is the aggrieved party. Do they even have three registered green party voters in every PA district?



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join