Yes he would cheat, but so would Hillary and maybe just maybe she got outcheated and she can't stand she got out done.

 

Yes. We know Hillary is a cheater. Old news but thanks for the reminder.

 

I just think it is foolish to discuss cheating in the election and only call Hillary the cheater even though we have no proof that either of them cheated. To act like Trump wouldn't cheat to win is foolish and naive. It's like the old saying that the person that knows who all at work is cheating on their spouse knows because they cheat on their spouse also.

 

You like conspiracy theories so how about this one?

 

Trump talks about rigging the election more than anyone. How would he know? Didn't he fund some of his campaign with his own money? Hmmmm....he can hide his paper trail. Wait, we'd see the paper trail on his taxes that he has released. Oh. Wait. So basically I am supposed to believe that only Hillary is capable of rigging an election even though chances are that Trump not only has more money than Hillary to pull it off but he could possibly already have a team in place to pull it off?

 

Now, I'm fine with the results. I'm also fine with Hillary wanting a recount via Jill Stein. I still think Hillary loses. My point is for everyone to quit acting like Hillary is the only one capable of rigging an election. There's a reason that Trump keeps saying things about rigged voting without any evidence and there is a reason he isn't planning to pursue charges against Hillary as well. "They are good people."

^^^^

I agree with everything and yeah it's possible he did rig the election himself. But Hillary has more power than old Donald ever had and for her to get outcheated is a smack in the face to her.

 

But Hillary and them are not good people. Trump is lying about that.

So is it safe to assume Trump rigged the election then?

 

No. The reason for the Trump victory is very easy to understand. He pulled 10%+ more votes out of the R districts that Romney or McCain. And that that was anicdotally shown by the reports of the long lines.

 

You could see what was happening easily on election night. I called Penn at 11:30. The 'news' called in at 3:30. That was only because they either could not read the numbers or were hoping for the bail outs from Allegany and Philidelphia that did not come like it did from Cuyahoga in Ohio late in 2012.

No. The reason for the Trump victory is very easy to understand. He pulled 10%+ more votes out of the R districts that Romney or McCain. And that that was anicdotally shown by the reports of the long lines.

 

You could see what was happening easily on election night. I called Penn at 11:30. The 'news' called in at 3:30. That was only because they either could not read the numbers or were hoping for the bail outs from Allegany and Philidelphia that did not come like it did from Cuyahoga in Ohio late in 2012.

 

Okay. :lol2:

 

And yes, you called Pennsylvania at 11:30. So had Hillary won Pennsylvania then I am assuming that means she rigged the election?

No. The reason for the Trump victory is very easy to understand. He pulled 10%+ more votes out of the R districts that Romney or McCain. And that that was anicdotally shown by the reports of the long lines.

 

You could see what was happening easily on election night. I called Penn at 11:30. The 'news' called in at 3:30. That was only because they either could not read the numbers or were hoping for the bail outs from Allegany and Philidelphia that did not come like it did from Cuyahoga in Ohio late in 2012.

 

But maybe Paul Manafort just has the master keys to the GEM? :lol2:

Let's be honest, if the election was rigged either way, it wouldn't be by Trump or Hillary and I bet neither would even know it was rigged on their behalf.

 

Those rigging it would keep that information from them so they have plausible deniability.

IMO, President Obama does not want a recount and HRC joined the recount because they may be afraid of what could be found. The reason Dems don't want voter ID is not because voter ID laws are racist.

I don't really know how recount's work. Do they simply recount the votes or do they look at who voted, if they are legal, if they are alive, etc.?

 

What's the harm if the result stays the same or if the count shows HRC really won? We all want to follow rules, correct ?

 

And that's the rub. If HRC really won, she did not and will not. Trump's lead in these three states is so great that they will not find enough votes for her to make up the difference. Unless, they find a car trunk filled with uncounted ballots, or considering the number needed a railroad car filled with ballots. Been known to happen before with Al Franken. No, Trump will still be the PEOTUS when this recount is over or December 13 comes first. Then it will be done, unless HillnBill come up with another "legal" roadblock compliments of David Axelrod or John Podesta.

If the presidential election results were overturned at this point...

 

They won't be.

So is it safe to assume Trump rigged the election then?

 

No, Trump did not rig the election and the recount will prove Trump won. Just like I said he would back in 2015. And I was ridiculed for my choice, past Bush, Rubio, Fiorina, and Dr. Carson who was my second choice. Look my posts up, from the day Papaw and I watched him ride down that escalator. If he runs us into the ditch fine, I've had to shovel before. I'd rather shovel for my guy than someone else's loser.

I think the recount is a foolish waste of time and money. But I am kind of curious exactly how they work.

To clarify on what was said about a recount in Pennsylvania I've done some more research. My understanding now is the deadline is this week. You have to have 3 voters from every precinct in the state fill out a recount form have it notarized by a notary and certified by your precincts clerks office by the deadline. There is no way they can get those in time so Jill Stein is asking a court to extend the deadline. For that to happen they have to show cause or a reason.

Okay. :lol2:

 

And yes, you called Pennsylvania at 11:30. So had Hillary won Pennsylvania then I am assuming that means she rigged the election?

 

It would mean that something really odd had to happen in Pittsburgh and Philly later that night - the Dem counties that make or break Pennsylvania. They were showing as 90% reported by then and it was clear they were coming in around the 2012 number if the last 10% extrapolated to the 90%. The red counties were so much higher for Trump than Romney - and they were 100% reported by then. Its always odd that the urban Dem strong-holds report late or last.

 

They say rigging a 'national election' is impossible. But its infinitely easier for the Dems since their vote is so, so concentrated in the urban/minority areas. One just needs Cuyahoga (Ohio), Allegany and Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Miami-Dade and Orange (Florida) and Wayne (Michigan) to 'heavily turn out' and those swing states will swing. For the Repubs to win they need a much more dispersed, but still heavy, turnout. That is what happened November 8th. The long lines outside of the Dem strongholds were the indication of the future result. Some of the Dem strongholds still over delivered, like Miam-Dade and Orange. But 'rigging' - even with FracMagic - can only be like a thumb on the scale but not outright stealing. That is why heavy turnout can overcome fraud. There is a limit to voting fraud before it becomes completely obvious.

To clarify on what was said about a recount in Pennsylvania I've done some more research. My understanding now is the deadline is this week. You have to have 3 voters from every precinct in the state fill out a recount form have it notarized by a notary and certified by your precincts clerks office by the deadline. There is no way they can get those in time so Jill Stein is asking a court to extend the deadline. For that to happen they have to show cause or a reason.

 

So if she goes court there is a supposed problem for her. Supposed being the operative word.

 

What is the 'relief' she expects as a plaintiff who is supposedly not tied to the Democratic campaign? For a judge to move forward he has to say - if you do win, plaintiff, and you are completely 100% successful in making your case (which currently has no evidence at all) what do YOU, plaintiff, win? What harm that you, plaintiff, suffered will be corrected?

 

Even if these states were were reversed and given to Clinton and the election turned on its head, what relief or issue does that fix for Ms. Jill Stien specifically? The answer is, or appears to be, none. She can not win the election. So why would the court even bother? There is not outcome that changes the status of Ms. Stien specifically even under the best circumstances for her.

Hillary should read this from her fellow Democrat.

I'm a Democrat. Here's how Hillary and the recount campaign leaves me feeling | Fox News