• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Recount

Junebug said:
You serious Clark? The claim is being made that Russian hackers have somehow surreptitiously infiltrated our voting machines. How does that claim not undermine the integrity of the process?
Click to expand...

Also, Clinton didn't make that claim, a computer science professor at the University of Michigan made that claim and tried to convince Clinton to call for a recount, she declined the Jill Stein saw an opportunity and jumped on it. It is a pretty far out there claim, but Clinton is not the one who made it and has made no public comment on it. She and the DNC are not being nearly as nefarious as you're letting on.
 
bob may owe me a new screen. I laughed so hard at his insane "my bad" post that I spit a full mouthful of diet Hansen mandarin orange/key lime soda on it.

Has he not been around anyone under 65 for that long?

Hell, I remember hearing that on basketball courts for at least a quarter of a century and in other situations for as long as I can remember. Maybe "bees' knees" and "on the kisser" are still the "hip" terms in Randleman.
 
Junebug said:
This truly is Trumpian. Make something up and then say that anyone who doesn't agree is doing the very thing that making something up does. Bravo.
Click to expand...

I am not saying this at all. First of all I didn't make anything up, at best a computer science professor in Michigan made something up, but really he was just trying to explain the disparity between polling data and the election outcome, i.e., floating a hypothesis. Second, I asked you to explain to me how inquiring to determine if the claim that voting machines were hacked is a threat to our democracy. I forgot the question mark but it was intended as a question.

Thanks for your, as usual, flippant non-helpful response though.
 
RChildress107 said:
The recount effort being led by Jill Stein is a publicity stunt, plain and simple. The chances of voter fraud, Russian hackers, or other forms of tampering accounting for the 20,000 vote gap in Wisconsin (not to mention the even larger gap in PA) are next to zero. I have no idea why the Clinton campaign has any formal involvement. She took the high road the entire campaign, why open yourself up to sore loser claims now.

That being said, auditing the national vote on a regular basis seems like a good idea. At the very least, it would put to rest right-wing claims of "millions" of illegal votes.
Click to expand...

You can't audit the vote and prove anything about illegal votes. It's not like the ballot comes with a questionnaire. Are you (a) a felon, (b) a citizen of another country, (c) under 18 years of age? It's what makes Trump's claim so ridiculous. He can't prove its true and no one can prove its false (even if all of us deep down know it's totally dumb and irrelevant).
 
Junebug said:
A recount is a way to count again. "Count" means to "determine the number of" and "re" is a prefix that means "again."

Re-count. Re-count. Think it through slowly if it doesn't make sense at first.

A recount is not a means to gather evidence. A recount should be based on evidence. Statistical analysis showing that paper votes in cities skew more to Clinton and rural electronic votes skew toward Trump is not evidence. It's common sense, and this entire enterprise, which your candidate supports, is a colossal waste of time and money, not to mention a threat to the integrity of the process.

I assumed donkeys were poor losers, but I wouldn't have thought they would have stooped to this level. It's downright -- dare I say it -- Trumpian.
Click to expand...

God you're an ass.

Recounts will be done on different machines or by hand. If there are discrepancies from the original count, then there's evidence that could support the theory (which you've so badly misstated that it's almost comical).

Or did you really think they were going to run all those ballots through the original machines?
 
Junebug said:
As you said on another thread about this very issue, you are really bad at trolling.
Click to expand...

This time around it is a sincere question, asshole. I don't understand the point of view that recounts are bad, please explain it to me. How does counting the votes again pose a threat to the integrity of our voting system?
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
It's a money grab by Stein that's all, and dumb Clinton supporters fell for it. Save the outrage for what Trump is bound to do. His strategy of overwhelming negative news with so much negative news you can't grasp any one thing is going to continue through out his presidency. You will be outraged about some bullshit no name appointment advisor that's a racist and behind your back he's fracking national parks.
Click to expand...

That's the game within the game with Trump. Tweets out something nutty of Conway deliberately leaks something or appears to go rogue to distract from something else (family ties, shady business deals). Russians didn't hack voting machines, but there also weren't millions of illegal HRC voters either. Trump's a master of the misdirection, so people have to dig deeper to figure out what his angle/end game are.
 
birdman said:
This time around it is a sincere question, asshole. I don't understand the point of view that recounts are bad, please explain it to me. How does counting the votes again pose a threat to the integrity of our voting system?
Click to expand...

You can certainly come up with scenarios - take the year 2000 for instance where depending on how you wanted to read chads very much could have impacted who became President (albeit, a situation where a few hundred votes decided the election).
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
That's the game within the game with Trump. Tweets out something nutty of Conway deliberately leaks something or appears to go rogue to distract from something else (family ties, shady business deals). Russians didn't hack voting machines, but there also weren't millions of illegal HRC voters either. Trump's a master of the misdirection, so people have to dig deeper to figure out what his angle/end game are.
Click to expand...

How would you suggest they "dig deeper"? Do they look into his eyes and get a read on what he's really thinking?
 
Junebug said:
Every article I have read on the topic (and admittedly there have not been very many) has stated that hacking in such a way as to alter votes would be all but impossible because those records weren't linked up with the internet. It's one thing to access voter registration information, which is housed online, but quite another to interfere with actual voter results. If you have read something that suggests otherwise please post it. Until there is actual credible evidence of vote tampering, I'm going to have a hard time not viewing this recount effort as similar to birtherism.
Click to expand...

One would need to have physical access to the machines. Obviously, gaining access is the difficult part, but once you have done that, the hacking part is simple.

This obviously takes it from the realm of a nebulous internet hacker to an actual espionage agent which is a little bit too conspiracy theory minded for my taste. Despite that, I think a result(likely proving that nothing was hacked) either way will be a good thing for our election process. Once we rule out any potential nefarious activity, we can focus on the real problem. Ongoing efforts to suppress voter turnout ;)

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2012-11/how-i-hacked-electronic-voting-machine

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rigged-...ckers-demonstrate-voting-threat-old-machines/
 
DeacMan said:
How would you suggest they "dig deeper"? Do they look into his eyes and get a read on what he's really thinking?
Click to expand...

SNL's been around for 40 years and presidents from Ford to Trump have been taking shit ever since. Trump's the first one to actively go after SNL aggressively. God forbid he's truly that thin skinned. He's got much bigger fish to fry as POTUS. While still not great, misdirection is a more palatable choice than getting into the weeds and feuding with Seth Myers or Alec Baldwin.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
SNL's been around for 40 years and presidents from Ford to Trump have been taking shit ever since. Trump's the first one to actively go after SNL aggressively. God forbid he's truly that thin skinned. He's got much bigger fish to fry as POTUS. While still not great, misdirection is a more palatable choice than getting into the weeds and feuding with Seth Myers or Alec Baldwin.
Click to expand...

Curious to see what would happen if Duterte's comments about Obama were levied against Trump instead. I'm betting we'd see some interesting tweets.
 
Pretty sure he's also the only one to host SNL before running for President and the only one to have a long running show on NBC.
 
DeacMan said:
Apparently the deadline to file for a recount in Pennsylvania may have been missed. If that is true, the whole exercise may not be worth the effort. Does he even need Michigan and Wisconsin if he has PA in the bag?
Click to expand...

In PA candidates can't request a recount, voters have to do it in their own precinct (which have varying deadlines), or candidates can go to court to get a recount if they have evidence of fraud. Stein has a handful of voters requesting a recount in their districts (no idea on those deadlines) and filed a lawsuit requesting a recount.

So even getting a recount in PA seems unlikely.

As for what Stein gets out of this: publicity, the opportunity to promote ranked choice voting, and a chance to appeal to liberals that feel like their leaders should be fighting for them rather than talking about working with Trump. (#feelings) Plus, most likely, cash for the Green party.
 
DeacMan said:
You can certainly come up with scenarios - take the year 2000 for instance where depending on how you wanted to read chads very much could have impacted who became President (albeit, a situation where a few hundred votes decided the election).
Click to expand...

Good, this is a start, thanks. So we are worried about observation error e.g., two different observer (i.e., the person reading the ballot) might count the same ballot in different ways and if that happened enough times the election could go one way or another. That is a problem and it certainly could cause issues for the integrity of our voting system, but what came out of that halted 2000 recount was a better way of designing ballots, like no more chads in Florida, and a reduction in the inter-observer error probability, like electronic voting machines. So, the 2000 recount (despite being prematurely halted) was probably a net positive, in my view anyway.
 
Did Trump running around for a month before the election claiming it was already rigged undermine the integrity of the process? What evidence did he bring forward?
 
bobknightfan said:
LOLOLOL. Are we talking about the guy who came out of nowhere, destroyed unified opposition within his own party when he was given no chance to even make it to the 1st debate, destroyed his media opposition, then defeated the vaunted Clinton Machine ground game & the Democratic Party to win the presidency?

This is the fool you are talking about?

Man, if that guy is a fool I'd love to see your resume.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the same fool.

Give me 200mil in the 1970s (thanks daddy!)...I would not have a billion in claimed losses on my tax returns and have four bankrupted businesses. I feel confident in that. :)
 
This is so fucking stupid. Even when I agree with the ultimate point of the 'pubs on this thread (the recount is pointless and should not be supported) the reasoning behind their support for that point is just asinine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top