Stealing an election is not the same thing as winning an election

If "I" have evidence? I have no evidence of anything. But heroes like Greg Palast do.

"Suspicion of improper procedures"? You're kidding right? Greg Palast has shown overwhelming evidence at the sec.of state's office that they themselves admitted to, in Michigan, in that office, that they purged half a million people off the voter rolls and could not explain the middle name mix up with the purge. They took two people with the same first and last name, but different middle name and purged them off the list. This constitutes corruption, it constitutes a violation of the Voting Rights act, it takes away one's right to vote, it's dishonest, and it should be prosecuted all the way up to the AG for the state of Michigan. And this is just Michigan we are talking about.

We never agreed to voter suppression. Remember in the beginning when the Right said all they wanted people to do was get a voter ID? Lol! Whatever happened to that? I'll tell you what happened, voter suppression happened.

Not according to the numbers. Between 6 to 8 million voters, mostly of color were illegally denied their right to vote. The job was not given to him, it was stolen for him. And the evidence proves that.




​

[/QUOTE]

 

If you have no evidence of anyone hacking in to the various state systems and increasing/decreasing vote tallies, why did you make the claim the election was hacked?

- - - Updated - - -

Another claim you know you cannot support.

 

I accept your surrender of the information I provided, that you cannot debunk.

 

The information you presented did nothing to support the issue I put to you; that being the case, I need do noting with that information other than ignore it.

You made a claim and you know you cannot back it up; your refusal to address the issue put to you only continues to prove this.

 

There you go again, trying to confuse one issue for another. Why do you do that? You have to know you aren't fooling anyone? Is this all you can do? Conflate one thing with another to pivot away from the information I provided? Of course it is.

Go back to my OP and read it. I said the election was stolen. The intelligence community said they have evidence we have not seen yet that says the election was also hacked. Even Trump admitted it was probably the Russians who did the hacking. Seeing that we have yet to get that part totally straight, there still is the "actual" evidence the election was stolen through voter suppression.

Do I personally think the intelligence committee has evidence? Absolutely! Like Jill Stein said, it isn't rocket science. Since some of our home boy Republicans got caught this time proving voter suppression, it's a no brainer that the Russians and possibly Trump himself were heavily involved as well, concocting their own sinister scheme.

 

omg, is this guy ^^ still whining about the election?

dear God man where is your dignity, it's over, Trump is the president, 4 years minimum is a long time to whine, so find an outlet, maybe therapy

 

I'm not confused at all.
You claimed the election was hacked - the election, not e-mails
You know you cannot show this to be true in any way shape of form.

The very first line:
Now there is overwhelming proof that the election was hacked.
Prove it.

- - - Updated - - -

He ran out of crayons and play-doh.

 

In the end it won't be me who will need therapy. Everyone knows this election was stolen, and that Trump did not legally win it. That is going to take a toll down the road for the Right.

 

If you want to go down that road fine. But I have a very hard time convincing myself to believe your version that there was no hacking, when your own party and Trump accept the intelligence that the election was hacked. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-cyber-idUSKBN14S0O6 It's obvious you are alone with your claims. So, as much as you want to cling to your fantasies about there being no evidence, and while I have none myself of the Russian hacking, once you read that the intelligence community, the Republican party, and Trump all agree with the evidence the intelligence has, one would have to be hiding inside an egg shell not to believe that there wasn't any hacking.

 

Good.
You claimed the election was hacked - the election, not e-mails
Show this to be true.

 

I just did. Read the title of the article I posted. It says "election hacking".

 

Your source refers to hacking DNC/HRC e-mails, not the election.
You claimed the election was hacked - the election, not e-mails
Show this to be true.

 

When the title of an article says "election hacking", what do you suppose the topic will be about? If you can't interpret that as being about the election, you'll have to refer to someone else who can explain basic logic to you. I certainly have no interest myself.

"A U.S. intelligence report last week said Putin directed a sophisticated influence campaign including cyber attacks to denigrate Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and support Trump." Just refers to the emails did you say?

 

What does that even mean? You can't "hack" an election, unless you mean the votes were tampered with. And if you do, no serious person, and not even Obama or Clinton, agrees with you.

 

If you read the article, like I did, you'll see it is about hacking e-mails.
Not the election.
You claimed the election was hacked - the election, not e-mails
Show this to be true.

 

"A U.S. intelligence report last week said Putin directed a sophisticated influence campaign including cyber attacks to denigrate Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and support Trump." Hacking an election doesn't necessarily have to be confined to tampering with votes. Ever hear of the word "influence"?

 

Nothing you said here answers the charge he put to you.
But, you know that.

 

Nothing of what you say makes a whole lot of sense, and I'm convinced you know that.

 

How was it stolen?

 

You claimed the election was hacked - the election, not e-mails
In fact, you claimed "Now there is overwhelming proof that the election was hacked."
The election, not e-mails
Show this to be true.

 

Everyone knows that "progressive" arrogance is what cost Democrats the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, the White House in 2016 and a majority of governorships and statehouses across the country since 2008.

Everyone knows that "progressive" arrogance is behind the Left's denial and scapegoating.

Attorney General Lynch has already stated that there was no technical interference, i.e., tampering with voting machines, during the election, so the legality of Donald Trump's election is beyond dispute.

Go ahead and keep denying the facts and ignoring the message voters have been sending you. The longer you remain in the political wilderness, the better.

 

As you can see from the majority of posters here, and as you can deduce from President Obama's request that we give Trump a chance, no one confuses "hacking" with denigrating Hillary. And I notice you don't even say that the Russians said anything or released anything false about Clinton.

To me what the Russians did was no better or worse than President Obama overtly urging the British to vote no on Brexit. And forgive me if I don't swallow whole an anonymous "intelligence report" that you haven't sourced or directly quoted. You quoted someone apparently paraphrasing an anonymous, unsourced report. What's next, pee-pee-gate?

 

The eye witness testimony I presented from my link was from a man who was physically there, who said the machines were not working. Which meant the votes weren't getting counted. And, there were 87 of those machines. None of that has anything to do with Loretta Lynch's claim.https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/13/greg_palast_by_rejecting_recount_is

 

While I don't at all disagree about liberal arrogance, what I think swung the election was the left's focus on identity politics and social grievances instead of articulating clearly what they'd do to bring jobs back to WI, MI, and OH. The Republicans almost even won MN.

Does any liberal have any confidence that Hillary Clinton cared or had a clue about jobs or the trade imbalance? It was all "I am woman, hear me roar," along with Madonna, Meryl, Barbra, and the horrible Lena. Yeah, the "you go, girls!" know a lot about heavy industry, construction, and job creation.