-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New vote count in Wisconsin and Michigan?
- Thread starter Shrew
- Start date
It's quite interesting that Jill Stein got the recount going. Some computer scientists were urging Hillarys team for a recount in three swing states which looks like is now under way. I can't really speculate what will be found, majority of times nothing is found but this has been far from an ordinary election. Michigan is so close though it could swing away from Trump. I would be satisfied if no tampering is found but could open a can of worms if anything nonlegit is found.
Nope
Nope.
This is why I think the Clinton team was hesitant but the green party raising money for it is pretty interesting. Hacks don't have to be unprecedented because discrepancies from computer scientists were telling the Clinton team that key county numbers seemed fishy.
Why limit the recounts to close states then?
Does she think Trump was right about the process being corrupted (but in his favor)?
I am not privy to the discussion. I don't claim to know.
But I suspect that the corruption and rigging might be easier to find in the three states involved. The results in those states were surprising and historic to say the least.
Tom
I know of no voting controversies here in Michiganistan.
But our vote was extremely close.
Could it be that Stein is hoping for a slight change which would send all our EC votes to Hilda instead?
That would be odd indeed, since Stein finds Hillary the more dangerous (war with Russia).
If you were going to rig an election by computer hacking which states would you do it in? (not saying you would, not saying it was rigged)
If you tried to do this in California it would take a lot of work, be very suspicious, and hard to cover up. But if you tried it in a state where the vote was expected to be close you might be able to flip the state with only a slight change in the numbers which would be harder to track.
The more computerized states would be the obvious targets.
But we're big on paper ballots here.
Is this her reasoning, & it's purely that MI, PA & WI have extremely close counts where Trump won?
It seems far more likely that she wants to roll the dice on the off chance that Hilda can eek out a win.
That would be especially odd since she said the exact opposite.
At least according to NPR that is what the folks spearheading and financing the effort said. Can you at least give NPR credit for accurately reflecting the Green Party statements?
Tom
Nope, mine.
It's not clear what you're saying is inaccurate, but
Jill Stein has been clear on the Hillarious danger....
(NPR is not to be trusted when quoting someone in a fight wherein they've taken a side.)
I find videos on my phone problematic, so I don't watch them.
Is your video about the recount, or something from back in the campaign?
According to the news I heard today, changing the outcome of the election is not part of the agenda. If you are taking issue with the report, please explain why.
Tom
The video supports my claim that Stein finds Hillary the more dangerous one regarding war with Russia.
I'm asking why the recounts are in states where Trump barely won....WI, MI, PA.
If the recount weren't about changing the result, why limit the recount to states where Hillary might win?
