US Presidential Candidates

gcomeau wrote:
Perhaps I was unclear. Trump and the GOP both have been fighting any analysis of the Michigan vote in the courts.


http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20161 ... Wisc_.html

The recounts are the only reason we even know about the discrepancies you are talking about here. They Do Not Want anyone looking into the vote integrity.

Perhaps I was unclear; recounts are too limited. I want an FBI investigation. That is more likely under Trump.

The recount in Michigan was shitcanned by a Michigan judge because ia recount would reveal just what it did. Pennsylvania was motivated similarly and responded similarly. Recounts are politically driven. FBI investigations are less political or at least less likely to be.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
Perhaps I was unclear. Trump and the GOP both have been fighting any analysis of the Michigan vote in the courts.


http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20161 ... Wisc_.html

The recounts are the only reason we even know about the discrepancies you are talking about here. They Do Not Want anyone looking into the vote integrity.

Perhaps I was unclear; recounts are too limited. I want an FBI investigation. That is more likely under Trump.

A more extensive investigation is more likely under the guy fighting to make sure even the less extensive investigation is blocked from occuring.

Riiiiight....

And what the hell do you mean by "it would reveal just what it did"? You mean the evidence of a problem in the vote that you thought was so darn important a few posts ago? Because *that* is what it revealed. That came to light because of the recount push.

gcomeau wrote:
A more extensive investigation is more likely under the guy fighting to make sure even the less extensive investigation is blocked from occuring.

Riiiiight....

And what the hell do you mean by "it would reveal just what it did"? You mean the evidence of a problem in the vote that you thought was so darn important a few posts ago? Because *that* is what it revealed. That came to light because of the recount push.

A recount is an attack on the legitimacy of the election. An investigation by the guy who won the election is an exercise in rightful authority. Big difference. Also, very few votes recounted in Wisconsin or Michigan switched but there were many more ballots than documented votes cast. Which 50 of the 306 ballots in that heavily Clinton precinct should be counted? Records show that precinct certified 50 votes but the sealed packet contained 306 ballots. 60% of Detroits precincts had similar problems. How does a recount fix that? It doesn't.we need an investigation.

I was right about election fraud leading up to the election. Detroit is little different than Chicago. One party rule leads to election fraud. The re-count exposed the election fraud I cited in my prior post. Pennsylvania wanted nothing to do with the re-count. Not sure if the single party precincts there are being protected. All in all we need an investigation of the election process in all states.

Stumbled onto an interesting article:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/15/m ... the-enemy/

And, even though The New York Times and other big news outlets are reporting as flat fact that Russia hacked the Democratic email accounts and gave the information to WikiLeaks, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, told the London Daily Mail that he personally received the email data from a “disgusted” Democrat.

Murray said he flew from London to Washington for a clandestine handoff from one of the email sources in September, receiving the package in a wooded area near American University.

“Neither of [the leaks, from the Democratic National Committee or Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta] came from the Russians,” Murray said, adding: “the source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”

Perhaps I was unclear; recounts are too limited. I want an FBI investigation. That is more likely under Trump.

Ok, now you´re WAY beyond naive. Seriously PeterZ, wake up and smell the coffee or something, because whatever you´re smoking, it´s not doing you anything good.

Daryl, you're right. If you're bankrupt you can't hold elected office.

It's part of the hoohaha with one of the Federal Senators.

He went bankrupt after the election (technically probably was before) and had to resign from the parliment.
Of course then it came to pass that he was gaining financial benifit from the government so was not allowed to run in the first place.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Tenshinai wrote:Stumbled onto an interesting article:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/15/m ... the-enemy/

And, even though The New York Times and other big news outlets are reporting as flat fact that Russia hacked the Democratic email accounts and gave the information to WikiLeaks, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, told the London Daily Mail that he personally received the email data from a “disgusted” Democrat.

Murray said he flew from London to Washington for a clandestine handoff from one of the email sources in September, receiving the package in a wooded area near American University.

“Neither of [the leaks, from the Democratic National Committee or Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta] came from the Russians,” Murray said, adding: “the source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”

Perhaps I was unclear; recounts are too limited. I want an FBI investigation. That is more likely under Trump.

Ok, now you´re WAY beyond naive. Seriously PeterZ, wake up and smell the coffee or something, because whatever you´re smoking, it´s not doing you anything good.

The cia analysts claim (at least from what is publically available) appears to be based on circumstantial evidence. In the spy world that's often the norm. The fbi looking at the same evidence (they get to see the classified stuff) finds it inconclusive. The nsa hasn't weighed in yet. All 3 have overlapping jurisdiction here ( cia foreign, fbi domestic, nsa cyber). The cia refuses to defend their position to congress. Possible reasons for this 1. The position is indefensible and the analyst who leaked the info lied or significantly misinterpreted the evidence. 2. There is an internal dispute at the cia. 3. They are afraid some politician will leak the name of their spy and get him/her killed.

Annachie wrote:Daryl, you're right. If you're bankrupt you can't hold elected office.

It's part of the hoohaha with one of the Federal Senators.

He went bankrupt after the election (technically probably was before) and had to resign from the parliment.
Of course then it came to pass that he was gaining financial benifit from the government so was not allowed to run in the first place.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Is this a permanent ban? Say for example some Austrian kid starts a tech company in his parent's basement. He goes bankrupt because he doesn't have business sense. 40 years later, he's older wiser and has learned from his experience and is now fiscally savvy. Would his bankruptcy in his 20s bar him from running in his 60s?

Tenshinai wrote:Stumbled onto an interesting article:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/15/m ... the-enemy/

And, even though The New York Times and other big news outlets are reporting as flat fact that Russia hacked the Democratic email accounts and gave the information to WikiLeaks, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, told the London Daily Mail that he personally received the email data from a “disgusted” Democrat.

Murray said he flew from London to Washington for a clandestine handoff from one of the email sources in September, receiving the package in a wooded area near American University.

“Neither of [the leaks, from the Democratic National Committee or Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta] came from the Russians,” Murray said, adding: “the source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”

Perhaps I was unclear; recounts are too limited. I want an FBI investigation. That is more likely under Trump.

Ok, now you´re WAY beyond naive. Seriously PeterZ, wake up and smell the coffee or something, because whatever you´re smoking, it´s not doing you anything good.

What the hell does Russian non hacks have to do with election fraud? We've had election fraud in one party precincts since before Russia freed their serfs. We're more likely to see something done about it now that a non-career politician has the reigns.

Oh, I've just been trolled and I've fed the beast. Silly me! Bye, bye now.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
A more extensive investigation is more likely under the guy fighting to make sure even the less extensive investigation is blocked from occuring.

Riiiiight....

And what the hell do you mean by "it would reveal just what it did"? You mean the evidence of a problem in the vote that you thought was so darn important a few posts ago? Because *that* is what it revealed. That came to light because of the recount push.

A recount is an attack on the legitimacy of the election. An investigation by the guy who won the election is an exercise in rightful authority. Big difference. Also, very few votes recounted in Wisconsin or Michigan switched but there were many more ballots than documented votes cast. Which 50 of the 306 ballots in that heavily Clinton precinct should be counted? Records show that precinct certified 50 votes but the sealed packet contained 306 ballots. 60% of Detroits precincts had similar problems. How does a recount fix that? It doesn't.we need an investigation.

I was right about election fraud leading up to the election. Detroit is little different than Chicago. One party rule leads to election fraud. The re-count exposed the election fraud I cited in my prior post. Pennsylvania wanted nothing to do with the re-count. Not sure if the single party precincts there are being protected. All in all we need an investigation of the election process in all states.

Given that the government in Detroit is both incompetent and corrupt, the election problems observed could be due to either (i.e. 306 voters showed up and cast ballots, but the poll workers only documented 50 of them or someone added extra Democratic ballots for 256 invisible voters). Since there is hard evidence of something bad either extreme incompetence or corruption, Detroit's precincts should be monitored by court appointed neutral observers next time. Perhaps we can hire the Australians.

Agree with Peter that one party government (either party) leads to corruption. We are best served when there is a functional opposition. In Idaho for example (one party Republican), there aren't ballot problems but there are a lot of corrupt crony backroom deals that are never called out because the Democrats are so non-functional. So it's a two way street.

[quote="PeterZ]

What the hell does Russian non hacks have to do with election fraud? We've had election fraud in one party precincts since before Russia freed their serfs.
[quote]

Agreed.