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: 13
27
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I believe that this was planned from the start. From this portion of your post it clearly states that Michigan had their results on the 9th. Yet CNN and other MSM news agencies refused to report it. Is that proof that the MSM is still working in coordination with the DNC to try to steal an election?

Not only that, but from this portion of your post it also states that the votes have been counted and recounted!




"Many people have asked about Michigan’s process for counting ballots and certifying election results. Please be aware that all 1,521 Michigan cities and townships completed ballot counting and reported unofficial results by the morning of Wednesday, Nov. 9," according to a statement on the Secretary of State's website. "The county canvassing boards, as they do after every election, then began their work to review and certify the results from each precinct."


The fact that Trump now has 306 electoral votes, and Michigan has been counted and recounted means that if they recount Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (and she somehow won both states) it still would not give her enough votes to win or contest.

What a load of crap!

I'm not implying any thing I am stating this is clearly a Trump victory. Michigan spent 15 days verifying their results. I believe they are accurate.

edit on 24-11-2016 by Diisenchanted because: edit ta add responce




posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Diisenchanted

and MI was a reliable Blue state according to polls. Why try to rig a paper ballot election in a state you dont stand a chance in?

Also the unofficial count is on the 9th. Each location then recounts and verifies the count and then its submitted on the 29th for verification and acceptance.

The optical scan ballots are not connected via the internet nor are they connected to each other. So you are suggesting the machines across the state were rigged, individually, and done so through several recount / verification processes.

Please explain to me how that can occur.

What we are seeing is a sore loser push from the left in hopes of sifting the conversation from their election fraud / vote rigging during the Democratic primaries. The DNC corruption is what caused the Dems to lose.
edit on 24-11-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Halderman wrote: “It doesn’t matter whether the voting machines are connected to the internet. Shortly before each election, poll workers copy the ballot design from a regular desktop computer in a government office, and use removable media (like the memory card from a digital camera) to load the ballot onto each machine. That initial computer is almost certainly not well secured, and if an attacker infects it, vote-stealing malware can hitch a ride to every voting machine in the area.”

The only way to know with certainty whether that happened — or didn’t happen — is to compare the electronic voting results with an actual hand count of the paper ballots.


Detroit News




Michigan’s elections director at the Secretary of State’s Office downplayed concerns about a potential hack of the state’s voting results because he said there is no evidence that has happened.

“Really, evidence needs to come forward showing that that has occurred,” Thomas said. “Then actions could be considered at that point. But to date, there’s been no evidence. It’s just conjecture, and I don’t think that serves anyone’s good purpose.”


Yes, there is no evidence. One would have to examine the paper ballots to obtain any evidence.

It is not a matter of who won. It is a matter of the integrity of the American election system. There could be a problem that needs to be addressed going forward for future elections.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

and once again Michigan does NOT use any of the machines the article you quoted is talking about. Halderman also stated he does not believe MI was hacked and that the polls were that wrong. He has also released statements saying his report was taken out of context and misquoted in regards to MI by the media (no shock there).



Reached by email, Halderman pointed us to a statement he'd written at Medium. It's a lengthy examination of how vote-tallying systems have been rigged or manipulated in the past, but the most important line (for our purposes) is this one:

Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.

Halderman's concern is less about 2016 than it is broadly about the risk to our electoral systems. As it was in August, when he was featured in a Politico article warning of the same risks. (Halderman also notes that Sherman got the numbers wrong.)

edit on 24-11-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-11-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Halderman's concern is less about 2016 than it is broadly about the risk to our electoral systems.


Yes. And as he wrote in the Medium article


The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence — paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, nobody is ever going to examine that evidence unless candidates in those states act now, in the next several days, to petition for recounts.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

See my post above.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
So, even with paper ballots where do the totals end up?

Do you just write the numbers down on a post-it note and carry it around in your pocket?
edit on 24-11-2016 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

* - Nov 23rd - Detroit Free Press - The numbers are in: Trump wins Michigan by 10,704

The Michigan Secretary of State posted results Wednesday that were submitted by the state's 83 county clerks on Tuesday after the votes were reviewed and certified by each county.



The state's Board of Canvassers will officially certify the results on Nov. 28. The electoral college in all the states, including Michigan's 16 electors, will cast their votes on Dec. 19.

"Many people have asked about Michigan’s process for counting ballots and certifying election results. Please be aware that all 1,521 Michigan cities and townships completed ballot counting and reported unofficial results by the morning of Wednesday, Nov. 9," according to a statement on the Secretary of State's website. "The county canvassing boards, as they do after every election, then began their work to review and certify the results from each precinct."

►Related:Michigan elections director casts doubt on vote-hacking concerns
►Related:Betsy DeVos tapped by Donald Trump for education secretary

Across the nation, Trump won 306 electoral votes -- including Michigan's 16 -- to 232 for Clinton. In the popular vote, Clinton holds a lead of more than 2 million votes.

Trump is the first Republican presidential candidate since 1988 to win Michigan.

The vote totals that will be submitted to the state Canvassers Board on Nov. 28 are:

Donald J. Trump, Republican: 2,279,543
Hillary Clinton, Democratic: 2,268,839
Gary Johnson, Libertarian: 172,136
Jill Stein, Green: 51,463
Darrell L. Castle, U.S. Taxpayers: 16,139
Evan McMullin, write-in: 8,177
Emidio Mimi Soltysik, Natural Law: 2,209
Michael Maturen, write-in: 517
Tom Hoefling, write-in: 95
Laurence Kotlikoff, write-in: 87
Ben Hartnell, write-in: 39
Monica Moorehead, write-in: 30
​Cherunda Fox, write-in: 10


I think the issue is dead in Michigan now.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Is no going to be any recounts all recounts has been done and votes has been validated, the few pushing for this recount base on possible fraud are just doing it so the protest and violence keeps going on false hopes in order to keep the agenda of dissent in our nation, this nothing but propaganda.

Shame on all of them.

We are going to have a new president and thank god is not another Democrat.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

K, thanks for that -- but it doesn't address my question.

The numbers and totals are "reported", how and where? Do people show up and pull crumpled post-it notes out of their pockets and have someone transcribe them?

How did the above numbers make it onto ATS? Seems like at some point computers were involved.

Numbers don't magically appear on a computer screen unless someone inputs them. If computers aren't used, the only way we would know the vote totals is over the radio or possibly TV.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu


"Many people have asked about Michigan’s process for counting ballots and certifying election results. Please be aware that all 1,521 Michigan cities and townships completed ballot counting and reported unofficial results by the morning of Wednesday, Nov. 9," according to a statement on the Secretary of State's website. "The county canvassing boards, as they do after every election, then began their work to review and certify the results from each precinct."



After the unofficial count and then the recount and verification each result is reported to the secretary of states office.

See this post here for links to each states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan) election laws and reporting requirements.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Pennsylvania
* - Citizens for Election Integrity - Pennsylvania State Law
* - Pennsylvania Department of State - Voting and Elections


Michigan
* - Citizens for Election Integrity - Michigan
* - MI Administrative code - Election recounts ***PDF LINK***
* - Michigan Secretary of State - Elections


Wisconsin
* - Citizens for Election Integrity - Wisconsin
* - Wisconsin State Laws - Elections ***PDF LINK***
* - Wisconsin Legislator - Elections
* - Wisconsin elections commission
* - Wisconsin election recount procedures ***PDF LINK***


ETA -
* - Michigan state laws on elections
edit on 24-11-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Drudge is carrying the article www.freep.com...

about the "The numbers are in: Trump wins Michigan by 10,704" article.


Before that compiled count, Trump held a 13,107 lead over Clinton. But after each county certified its results, the lead shrunk to 10,704, with the biggest chunk coming from Wayne County, which showed that Clinton had gotten 565 more votes than originally tallied by the county.



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

originally posted by: 727Sky
Drudge is carrying the article www.freep.com...

about the "The numbers are in: Trump wins Michigan by 10,704" article.


Before that compiled count, Trump held a 13,107 lead over Clinton. But after each county certified its results, the lead shrunk to 10,704, with the biggest chunk coming from Wayne County, which showed that Clinton had gotten 565 more votes than originally tallied by the county.


Yes, it's been officially called. Not only that but the results were known on 9th November, but it's been a 15 day verification process to get to the official counts.
A recount would almost certainly yield a similar result.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: Xcathdra

K, thanks for that -- but it doesn't address my question.

The numbers and totals are "reported", how and where? Do people show up and pull crumpled post-it notes out of their pockets and have someone transcribe them?

How did the above numbers make it onto ATS? Seems like at some point computers were involved.

Numbers don't magically appear on a computer screen unless someone inputs them. If computers aren't used, the only way we would know the vote totals is over the radio or possibly TV.


The paper ballots are scanned and read into a computer.
The results have now been verified.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Trump was right.
Must be rigged.

Believe me.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

I think the issue is dead in Michigan now.


The Green Party is going to contest the official numbers in Michigan, which they're allowed to do. They've already covered the cost for the recount and the investigation into the integrity of the voting machines.

At issue with at least one of the states is that Trump won handily in counties and precincts with voting machines whereas Clinton won easily where a paper ballot was used.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

Likely the very same people who reported results in 2012 and 2008. In many places the election boards are volunteer positions. So now, you are claiming that there was a statewide, concerted effort to by off the people who reported the results so that there was a coordinated attempt to swing the election to Trump by those people?



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: Xcathdra

I think the issue is dead in Michigan now.


The Green Party is going to contest the official numbers in Michigan, which they're allowed to do. They've already covered the cost for the recount and the investigation into the integrity of the voting machines.

At issue with at least one of the states is that Trump won handily in counties and precincts with voting machines whereas Clinton won easily where a paper ballot was used.


They have no standing. They cannot claim their party or candidate suffered any real harm as to the outcome and that a recount would discover sufficient votes that were missed for them to make any difference for either of those.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Seeing as they've met and surpassed their fundraising goal I guess we'll see what happens next week.

Again, there appear to have been disparities in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. I don't know the ins and outs of how contesting the results goes but an argument could be made that the Green's feel they earned more votes than they were given which entitles them the right to contest the election, it shouldn't matter if it changes the outcome for them. If legitimate votes aren't counted then that's a serious problem with how we hold elections, regardless of who they vote for.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   

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 *



originally posted by: BlueAjah
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.


Hmmmm....did you guys even read the OP? The voting machines are showing a 7% anomaly in Trump's favor. If leftwing, demigod Soros owns the companies that control the machines, why would he fix it for Trump?

You make no sense.




top topics



 
27
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join