• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Chitchat Trump agrees to accept result of recount?

Thick Face Black Heart

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Recount for FUCK?

It's nothing but a sore loser way of being unable to accept the result.

Clinton's proxy Jill Stein can fuck off.

-----


https://www.facebook.com/hillaryclinton/posts/1343809752342217

Hillary for America general counsel Marc Elias on listening and responding to calls for an audit and recount:

"Over the last few days, officials in the Clinton campaign have received hundreds of messages, emails, and calls urging us to do something, anything, to investigate claims that the election results were hacked and altered in a way to disadvantage Secretary Clinton. The concerns have arisen, in particular, with respect to Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — three states that together proved decisive in this presidential election and where the combined margin of victory for Donald Trump was merely 107,000 votes.

It should go without saying that we take these concerns extremely seriously. We certainly understand the heartbreak felt by so many who worked so hard to elect Hillary Clinton, and it is a fundamental principle of our democracy to ensure that every vote is properly counted.

Moreover, this election cycle was unique in the degree of foreign interference witnessed throughout the campaign: the U.S. government concluded that Russian state actors were behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee and the personal email accounts of Hillary for America campaign officials, and just yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the Russian government was behind much of the “fake news” propaganda that circulated online in the closing weeks of the election.

For all these reasons, we have quietly taken a number of steps in the last two weeks to rule in or out any possibility of outside interference in the vote tally in these critical battleground states.
First, since the day after the election we have had lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result. These have included analysts both from within the campaign and outside, with backgrounds in politics, technology and academia.

Second, we have had numerous meetings and calls with various outside experts to hear their concerns and to discuss and review their data and findings. As a part of this, we have also shared out data and findings with them. Most of those discussions have remained private, while at least one has unfortunately been the subject of leaks.

Third, we have attempted to systematically catalogue and investigate every theory that has been presented to us within our ability to do so.

Fourth, we have examined the laws and practices as they pertain to recounts, contests and audits.

Fifth, and most importantly, we have monitored and staffed the post-election canvasses — where voting machine tapes are compared to poll-books, provisional ballots are resolved, and all of the math is double checked from election night. During that process, we have seen Secretary Clinton’s vote total grow, so that, today, her national popular vote lead now exceeds more than 2 million votes.

In the coming days, we will continue to perform our due diligence and actively follow all further activities that are to occur prior to the certification of any election results. For instance, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania conduct post-election audits using a sampling of precincts. Michigan and many other states still do not. This is unfortunate; it is our strong belief that, in addition to an election canvass, every state should do this basic audit to ensure accuracy and public confidence in the election.

Beyond the post-election audit, Green Party candidate Jill Stein announced Friday that she will exercise her right as a candidate to pursue a recount in the state of Wisconsin. She has indicated plans to also seek recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well. We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.

The campaign is grateful to all those who have expended time and effort to investigate various claims of abnormalities and irregularities. While that effort has not, in our view, resulted in evidence of manipulation of results, now that a recount is underway, we believe we have an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings to ensure that an accurate vote count will be reported."
 

cuckoldoolittle

Alfrescian
Loyal
Originally Posted by winnipunchet "Goodness me ...if you read the article, the recount was funded from donations to the Green Party. Of course, if you believe only info from right-wing sources, there is no basis for further discussion. I live in the real world and believe that main stream news source is the most reliable."


Devil Within:
Show how retarded you are. Green donate for the recount when they have no chance of winning? Show how illogical and stupid you are.

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
Mark Twain

It's actually AssLoong who is using taxpayer's money to support the USA Presidential Election recount campaign
programmatically.

An investigative journalist reports donations to Jill Stein’s recount campaign are being made programmatically at a steady rate of $160,000 per hour.

According to the post a donations to Jill Stein’s election recount campaign are being made at a steady rate of $160,000 on the hour every hour of the day.

The constant rate of donation, 24 hours a day, suggest that a computer program is being used to post the donations as opposed to real people making grassroots donation.

However, the donations are being reported as grassroots donations from a myriad of online supporters to help her verify the integrity of the election.

However, if real individuals are in fact making the actual donations they rate of the donations should drop over night when internet traffic is low.

The rate should then steadily pick up during the course of the day up and then culminate during the “internet rush hour” when usage peaks, which is usually between 7 and 11 PM.

For example the BBC, the UK’s equivalent of CNN, reports hourly average internet usage usage is as follows:


BBC-Internet-usage.png



If Jill Stein’s recount campaign was real and donations are in fact coming in from real grass roots supporters then donations to the campaign should reflect this curve in some manner.

However, they do not follow the curve of typical internet..

Instead they are coming in at a constant hourly rate of $160,000 per hour every hour on the hour.

To illustrate, HNN has compile this graph of Stein’s donations per hour superimposed on the BBC’s graph of internet usage per hour by device.




Stein-Donations-VS-Internet-Usage.png



The graph illustrates Jill Stein’s recount donations in orange with a red outline which plots recount donations coming in at a constant rate of 4.16% per hour.

It is impossible for Jill Stein’s recount campaign to be receiving the same amount of donations from real online users every hour on the hour when real internet usage among devices varies widely hour to hour, specifically it peaks in the evening and becomes virtually non-existent between 1 am and 6 am in the morning.

This clearly indicates the donations to the recount campaign are not from “grassroots internet users” but instead are the result of a computer programmed bot which is working behind the scenes to fund the campaign.
It is almost as perplexing that Jill Stein’s managed to raise in less than 24 hours more money than she has raised throughout her entire campaign but that is another story.

It is still uncertain there is even a prima facie case for Stein to even demand a recount given she failed to capture more than 2% of the vote in any state. If Republicans stand their ground on this argument, Hillary will have to step out from behind her proxy and get her own hands hands dirty to force a recount to happen.

 
Last edited:

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
Goodness me ...if you read the article, the recount was funded from donations to the Green Party. Of course, if you believe only info from right-wing sources, there is no basis for further discussion. I live in the real world and believe that main stream news source is the most reliable.

What left wing right wing, eagle one wing how to fly? :confused: Your whiny beg here also no use, what you expect me to do, meet my MP ask for recount in American erection? :confused:
 

frenchbriefs

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The question is not whether Trump will agree to accept the recount results. It is whether you and your those of your ilk will finally shut the fuck up when the recount/s confirm/s Trump's win.

Your incessant whingeing as though the world has collapsed is starting to be really fucking irritating. Trump is a social "progressive" on gay marriage. That means you will still be able to suck men's cock or have their cocks up your arse or yours up theirs. Two people with the same sexual organs can still marry under a Trump administration. It's not the end of the world.

So for fuck sake, please harden the fuck up, shut up, and move on.

to be honest we dont really know whats trump's ideology is or what he stands for,his entire election campaign consist of him speaking rubbish and whatever racist,bigotry rhetoric he can pull out of his ass to get the dumbass denomination of american excited and riled up and screaming his name like bieber fans.hes just a tv show character and the dumbfucks have fallen for his spiel.nobody really knows what trump stands for or what his motives are but judging from his past and his character u can safely assume its one of self interest and self only.he merely clicked and resonated with the bottom half degenerates of america because his character resonates with who they are,vile disgusting and repulsive.
 

Devil Within

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The Democrats and Anti-Trump are idiots! So easy to con these idiots.

JILL STEIN EXPOSED AS NEW FINE PRINT SHOWS EXACTLY WHERE FUNDRAISER MONEY IS GOING

[video=youtube;n9nkSXi3xWo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9nkSXi3xWo[/video]
 

cuckoldoolittle

Alfrescian
Loyal
U.S. President-elect Trump says vote recount bids are "scam"

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said Saturday that Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein's
request for a vote recount is "scam."

"This is a scam by the Green Party for an election that has already been conceded, and the results
of this election should be respected instead of being challenged and abused," Trump said in a statement.

"This recount is just a way for Jill Stein, who received less than one percent of the vote overall......to
fill her coffers with money, most of which she will never even spend on this ridiculous recount," Trumps said.

Stein filed for vote recount in the state of Wisconsin Friday, and promised to ask for the same in Michigan and Pennsylvania next week.

Trump won all three states by a narrow margin in the presidential election, leading his major rival
Democrat Hillary Clinton with just over 100,000 votes in all three states.

Clinton's campaign said earlier Saturday that it will join Stein's effort to make sure the vote count is "fair to all sides."
Stein won approximately one percent of the vote in each of the three states, but local media has reported
that she raised over five million U.S. dollars to finance her recount bid, which is 3.5 million dollars more than
what she raised for her presidential campaign.

Trump announced victory in the presidential election on Nov. 9, after upsetting rival Clinton in several key states that
were traditionally viewed as blue states, including Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

The result sparked anger among thousands of Clinton supporters who staged mass protests across the country, and called for recounts.

Clinton campaign backs recount effort in Wisconsin, Trump says move a "scam"

"We feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings
and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process".Elias said the campaign has "quietly taken a number of steps" to analyze the integrity of the election,
but has not found "any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology".


Haas added that the process is very detail-oriented and he is concerned that some counties will be challenged
to finish on time. In a recount, ballots must be examined to determine voter intent before being counted.

Wisconsin officials confirmed on Friday evening they would move forward with the first presidential recount in state history.
They've urged supporters to accept Trump's electoral vote victory, even though her lead in the popular vote continues to grow, now approaching 2 million.


Unofficial vote tallies in the three battleground states show Trump won MI by less than 12,000 votes,
Wisconsin by less than 30,000 and Pennsylvania by less than 70,000.

If the recounts go in favor of Hilary Clinton, she would win the elections with 278 electoral votes, CBS News reported.


They are also reportedly preparing for a handcount in MI but not before the ballots are officially canvassed on Monday.


The $7 million Stein has sought to raise for the recounts is a way "to fill her coffers with money, most of which she will
never even spend on this ridiculous recount", he said.

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has been quietly exploring whether there was any "outside interference" in the election
results and will participate in the election recount in Wisconsin initiated by Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein,
a Clinton campaign lawyer revealed Saturday.


The New York billionaire, whose defeat of Democrat Hillary Clinton surprised even some loyalists, has scrambled to fill his Cabinet
as the January 20 inauguration approaches. The deadline for filing a recount bid in Pennsylvania is Monday.
An opposing candidate would have seven days to file objections to the recount petition, after which the board would schedule a
public hearing and later issue a ruling on the objections. State officials say the recount will begin next week, according to NBC News.


" 'There's a little bit of ambiguity in the statutes, ' Haas said".
"I will do a recount in any state where the deadline has not passed".


The Wisconsin Elections Commission said it plans to complete the recount of votes by December 10.
Their goal is $4.5-million. By Friday, that figure had rose to $5 million.

Donations are still rolling in, but as Stein's fundraising website states, money doesn't necessarily mean the
recounts are assured: "We can not guarantee a recount will happen in any of these states we are targeting".


"We note we are guarding our prerogatives now that someone else has launched a recount".
If the recounts don't happen, what will become of all that money?


Trump transition spokesman Sean Spicer said the president-elect scheduled Monday meetings with eight more prospective administration hires,
a group that includes several business leaders, Pennsylvania Rep. Lou Barletta, and David Clarke,
the Wisconsin sheriff who is an aggressive opponent of the Black Lives Matter movement. It did not specify what those efforts would be.
 
Last edited:

PTADER

Alfrescian
Loyal
You want to ban me? You have a choice to ignore. I didn't force you to respond

I would love to put you on "Ignore" except that it can only save me from seeing your crap only if I log in (which I don't) each time I visit the forum.

The numerous Trump nonsense that you post has the effect of pushing more worthy postings down into subsequent pages and out of view.

Show some consideration for other readers by sticking to just one thread and bump it as much as you like onto the front page with all your anti-Trump rant and articles. To help you along, I have created this thread just for you.

"NEWSFLASH!!! President Hillary Clinton Thanks Winnipegjets, Giant Slayer of Trump"

It is a win-win solution for all. Worthy posts are not drowned by your rubbish. You are not denied but get to continue to post all your rants and articles under this thread title and have it appear on the front page each and every time you spout your usual anti-Trump nonsense.
 

gsfosnis

Alfrescian
Loyal
[h=2]Obama denounces recount effort[/h][h=5]By Eric London
28 November 2016[/h] The Obama administration is opposing efforts to recount the presidential election vote in the three key states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.


The New York Times reported Friday that a “senior Obama administration official” issued a statement that read, “We stand behind our election results,
which accurately reflect the will of the American people.” The official said the administration is “confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure,
a confidence that was borne out. As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective.”


This statement is extraordinary on several levels. First, the fact that the Times identified the official as a senior figure means that the president—either
personally or through a close advisor—is denouncing an entirely legitimate legal action to verify the outcome of the election in states where the result was
exceptionally close.


Second, the claim that the election “accurately reflects the will of the American people” is contradicted by the fact that Clinton’s lead in the popular vote has
swelled to over 2.2 million and is expected to climb even higher. Trump won the November 8 election despite his popular vote defeat because of the arcane
and anti-democratic American Electoral College system.


Clinton won the popular vote by a wider tally than the victorious candidates in four post-World War II elections: 1948 (Truman over Dewey), 1960 (Kennedy over Nixon),
1968 (Nixon over Humphrey) and 1976 (Carter over Ford). Al Gore lost the Electoral College to George W. Bush in 2000 due to the anti-democratic intervention
of the Supreme Court, which halted a recount in Florida that would have given the decisive state to Gore. The Democratic candidate won the popular vote by 500,000
—a quarter of Clinton’s margin in 2016.


Yet the Democratic Party and its main spokespeople, from Obama and Clinton to the supposedly “left” Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, are virtually ignoring
the divergence between the popular vote and the electoral vote and quietly accepting Trump’s fraudulent claim to have won a massive popular mandate for the
implementation of a far-right agenda.


Third, growing calls for a recount follow legitimate appeals by attorneys and election scientists for a review of possible fraud. On Wednesday, Professor J. Alex Halderman
of the University of Michigan issued a statement calling for a recount on the grounds that electronic voting machines may have been hacked,
resulting in Trump winning key states.


Halderman wrote: “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.”


On Friday, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein filed paperwork for a recount in Wisconsin and is expected to file recount petitions in Michigan and Pennsylvania
this week. These will likely be accepted and recounts will move forward. Should the results be overturned in all three states, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would
pass the threshold of 270 electoral votes required to become president.


[h=4]Wisconsin[/h] Trump’s present lead is 22,000 votes out of 2.9 million cast. A recount will now begin with a deadline of December 13. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Attorney General
Brad Schimel are both Republicans. Several precincts in Sauk and Outagamie County posted results that showed more votes for presidential candidates than total votes.
Local official election web sites then updated the figures, eliminating thousands of votes for Trump. A Democratic Party-aligned group filed an election complaint with the
Wisconsin Elections Commission to investigate the discrepancies.

[h=4]Michigan[/h] Trump leads by roughly 10,000 votes out of 4.8 million cast. Unlike Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Michigan does not conduct a manual audit of precincts to compare reported
election totals with ballots cast. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are both Republicans.

[h=4]Pennsylvania[/h] Though the vote margin in Pennsylvania is larger than in the other two states—68,000 votes out of 6 million—most Pennsylvania counties use electronic voting machines that Halderman
characterizes as “insecure.” These machines do not print a paper record of the vote. Halderman explains that such machines can be “infected” by “bugs, misconfiguration, or malicious software”
aimed at altering the result. They have been labeled the highest risk for fraud by the voter-protection non-profit organization Verified Voting.



PA+counties.png



The Clinton campaign issued an official response on Saturday through its general counsel, Marc Elias. The statement reads, “Because we had not uncovered any actionable
evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves [i.e., initiate a recount], but now that a recount has
been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides.”


Elias wrote that the Clinton campaign “will take the same approach” in Pennsylvania and Michigan. “We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump
and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states—Michigan—well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount.”

The Obama administration remains openly hostile to any recount effort.


The Hill reported: “Obama allies are dead-set against the multi-state recount effort. Former Obama White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer mocked it on Twitter:
‘The amount of Democratic energy and money being wasted on recounts instead of trying to win the Louisiana Senate Race is mind-boggling.’”

Just six weeks ago, the Obama administration took the unprecedented step of officially accusing Russia of interfering in the elections. The October 7 denunciation by the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security read: “The US Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed
the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations… These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.”


Attempts by the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign to downplay the coming recount exposes the fraudulence of their pre-election effort to generate hysteria over “Russian hacking.”
According to a forthcoming book by Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen, Obama pressured Clinton to concede relatively early on election night. Three high-level Clinton sources say
Obama called Hillary Clinton on election night and told her: “You need to concede.”

“There was a lot of discussion about Michigan and Wisconsin and whether the numbers could flip it,” one of the sources close to Clinton said. “If anybody knew what actually happened
that night, no one would have conceded.”


Clinton has come under substantial pressure to go along with the Green Party’s recount effort due to the scale of her popular vote margin and the narrowness of her defeats in these
three states. The fact that the effort to rescue the Democratic Party has fallen to the Green Party speaks both to the spinelessness of the Democrats and the pro-capitalist,
pro-establishment character of the Greens. This opens the door for a more prominent role for the Greens within the political establishment in the period ahead.

The Trump campaign has responded to the recount in a defensive and provocative manner. In a series of tweets, Trump attacked the recount as a vindictive political stunt and claimed
he lost the popular vote because of “millions of people who voted illegally.” The latter completely unsubstantiated claim actually undermines his argument against the recount, since
such widespread fraud would clearly necessitate an extensive review and recalculation.


On Sunday, Trump’s former campaign manager and current transition leader Kellyanne Conway implied on ABC News’ “This Week” program that Trump might revoke his decision not
to prosecute Clinton for her use of a personal email account while serving as secretary of state if she does not oppose the recount effort. Conway accused Clinton of joining “this
ridiculously fantastical recount that Jill Stein is engaging in in Wisconsin and perhaps elsewhere.” She added, “So you’ve got the president-elect, Donald Trump, being quite magnanimous
to Hillary Clinton and you’ve got her responding with joining into this recount…”


Underscoring the support of the Obama administration for Trump’s ultra-right government-in-waiting, Conway noted later in the interview, “President Obama and President-Elect Trump
speak regularly. They spoke yesterday at length. They’re trying to move on and form a government.”


Senator Bernie Sanders appeared on the same ABC News program and said the recount was “not a big deal.” He added, “I don’t think that anybody, Secretary Clinton or anybody else,
thinks that there’s going to be profound changes.”


The pathetic role played by the Democrats cannot be explained merely as the product of their congenital spinelessness and cowardice, although these traits are on full display.
Rather, the Democratic Party represents a capitalist class whose priority in the transition of power lies in limiting social opposition in the working class and imposing the reactionary
policies planned by the incoming administration.
 
Top