WOW, computer scientists claim that there is evidence the election was hacked, Urge Clinton
Options
Comments
-
Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Stop ? ? already she ? lost get over it and move on
She lost? Isn't that assuming that there was no hacking?
The whole point of this call for a recount is to obtain some certainty about who lost and who won. Maybe there was no hacking, and she did lose. Or maybe there was a hacking, and she won. Or perhaps even there was a hacking, and she still would have lost. But with the evidence presented, we can't know for sure unless there is a recount.
Lol and maybe and maybe and maybe please once you get into speculation ? it will never end.... she lost the electoral college and conceded it's ? over already.
You're sounding like a Trump support now actually. And one who could care less whether or not he won fair and square.
And this isn't just a wild shot in the dark. These are leading computer scientists who study this issue who are saying this.
And again, we do not know whether she did in fact lose the electoral college. That is what we want to find out. Can you really not understand that? We have had our disagreements, but I have never thought you were dumb.
He won't fair and square you are grasping at straws and so are those computer scientists
How do you know he won fair and square?
Because I don't believe Hillary would have conceded otherwise
She was working on the assumption that nothing like what we are taking about had happened. But now leading independent experts are calling that assumption into question and are suggesting that she challenge the results.
That she conceded is really not a good reason to be so confident that Trump won fair and square. -
Election fraud? In the USA?
Nothing new under the sun lol
-
Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Stop ? ? already she ? lost get over it and move on
She lost? Isn't that assuming that there was no hacking?
The whole point of this call for a recount is to obtain some certainty about who lost and who won. Maybe there was no hacking, and she did lose. Or maybe there was a hacking, and she won. Or perhaps even there was a hacking, and she still would have lost. But with the evidence presented, we can't know for sure unless there is a recount.
Lol and maybe and maybe and maybe please once you get into speculation ? it will never end.... she lost the electoral college and conceded it's ? over already.
You're sounding like a Trump support now actually. And one who could care less whether or not he won fair and square.
And this isn't just a wild shot in the dark. These are leading computer scientists who study this issue who are saying this.
And again, we do not know whether she did in fact lose the electoral college. That is what we want to find out. Can you really not understand that? We have had our disagreements, but I have never thought you were dumb.
He won't fair and square you are grasping at straws and so are those computer scientists
How do you know he won fair and square?
Because I don't believe Hillary would have conceded otherwise
She was working on the assumption that nothing like what we are taking about had happened. But now leading independent experts are calling that assumption into question and are suggesting that she challenge the results.
That she conceded is really not a good reason to be so confident that Trump won fair and square.
Listen I actually believe in the system. until you can show me some verified proof of electronic tampering I am inclined to believe that Trump won. The burden of proof is on the other side -
With all the other weird ? that's happened this year........
inb4 Electoral College denies Trump the presidency lol
? it, let's just get the civil/race war over with. Mods should sticky a thread about organizing paramilitary units. -
Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Stop ? ? already she ? lost get over it and move on
She lost? Isn't that assuming that there was no hacking?
The whole point of this call for a recount is to obtain some certainty about who lost and who won. Maybe there was no hacking, and she did lose. Or maybe there was a hacking, and she won. Or perhaps even there was a hacking, and she still would have lost. But with the evidence presented, we can't know for sure unless there is a recount.
Lol and maybe and maybe and maybe please once you get into speculation ? it will never end.... she lost the electoral college and conceded it's ? over already.
You're sounding like a Trump support now actually. And one who could care less whether or not he won fair and square.
And this isn't just a wild shot in the dark. These are leading computer scientists who study this issue who are saying this.
And again, we do not know whether she did in fact lose the electoral college. That is what we want to find out. Can you really not understand that? We have had our disagreements, but I have never thought you were dumb.
He won't fair and square you are grasping at straws and so are those computer scientists
How do you know he won fair and square?
Because I don't believe Hillary would have conceded otherwise
She was working on the assumption that nothing like what we are taking about had happened. But now leading independent experts are calling that assumption into question and are suggesting that she challenge the results.
That she conceded is really not a good reason to be so confident that Trump won fair and square.
Listen I actually believe in the system. until you can show me some verified proof of electronic tampering I am inclined to believe that Trump won. The burden of proof is on the other side
The thing is that there is no way to obtain that proof unless one of the candidates challenge the results. The computer scientists have offered some evidence, but what they have offered is admittedly far from conclusive.
So if you are sincere in wanting that verified proof, you should support the call for Hillary or some other candidate to challenge the results. -
She should protest this ? . I always thought this ? was too good to be true w/ Trump winning so easily. I'm 95% sure the Russians rigged this election. Trump knew it too "we're gonna win, and we're gonna win big".
-
They just need to start taking these tallies in real time, all this gathering and counting ? is so pre-? that matters, have they never seen a poll option on a forum?
-
Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Stop ? ? already she ? lost get over it and move on
She lost? Isn't that assuming that there was no hacking?
The whole point of this call for a recount is to obtain some certainty about who lost and who won. Maybe there was no hacking, and she did lose. Or maybe there was a hacking, and she won. Or perhaps even there was a hacking, and she still would have lost. But with the evidence presented, we can't know for sure unless there is a recount.
Lol and maybe and maybe and maybe please once you get into speculation ? it will never end.... she lost the electoral college and conceded it's ? over already.
You're sounding like a Trump support now actually. And one who could care less whether or not he won fair and square.
And this isn't just a wild shot in the dark. These are leading computer scientists who study this issue who are saying this.
And again, we do not know whether she did in fact lose the electoral college. That is what we want to find out. Can you really not understand that? We have had our disagreements, but I have never thought you were dumb.
He won't fair and square you are grasping at straws and so are those computer scientists
How do you know he won fair and square?
Because I don't believe Hillary would have conceded otherwise
She was working on the assumption that nothing like what we are taking about had happened. But now leading independent experts are calling that assumption into question and are suggesting that she challenge the results.
That she conceded is really not a good reason to be so confident that Trump won fair and square.
Listen I actually believe in the system. until you can show me some verified proof of electronic tampering I am inclined to believe that Trump won. The burden of proof is on the other side
? isnt that the whole point of this to see if there was any tampering?? -
Voting fraud has already been proven in Chicago when it came to Mayors and Alderman
-
She conceded to Trump. Too late in the game...
-
blackamerica wrote: »She should protest this ? . I always thought this ? was too good to be true w/ Trump winning so easily. I'm 95% sure the Russians rigged this election. Trump knew it too "we're gonna win, and we're gonna win big".
Donald Trump was saying the election was rigged, he just did not clarify who was it rigged for . -
the DOJ,Homeland Security, NSA, FBI & CIA must be some garbage organisations. You really cant find a way to stop voter fraud ? really.
smh. -
It's over.
Bush w... I mean Trump won..... -
fortyacres wrote: »the DOJ,Homeland Security, NSA, FBI & CIA must be some garbage organisations. You really cant find a way to stop voter fraud ? really.
smh.
Of course. They'd just rather surveil us instead. -
Damn, stein already raised the money to challenge...and hillary conceding has no legal basis, if and thats a huge if it turns out that this ? was rigged
-
It's worth challenging. You don't win the overall vote by 2.2 Million and lose the EC like that. Cally and NYC ain't THAT ? big to carry that size of a margin by themselves.
Interestingly enough, everyone BUT Hillary is gung ? with this. She's off having Eat Pray Love book club sessions in New England instead of leading the charge. You'd figure she of all people would be down for this. -
It's worth challenging. You don't win the overall vote by 2.2 Million and lose the EC like that. Cally and NYC ain't THAT ? big to carry that size of a margin by themselves.
Interesting enough, everyone BUT Hillary is gung ? with this. She's off having Eat Pray Love book club sessions in New England instead of leading the charge. You'd figure she of all people would be down for this.
Dont think itd be a good look on her part if she was cosigning, ? she'd be acting like trump and itd be even worse if they find nothing so best to just sit back and let them handle it -
Hillary cheated and still lost
-
Weeks before the election Hillary (and her worshiping media) made such a big deal over whether Trump would accept or challenge the results. She painted herself into a corner. She can't challenge the results without looking like a sore loser that she implied Trump would be.
Also her pity party won't allow it. She gave up. She stopped showering and wearing make-up. -
Jill stein =
WE DODGED A BULLET
-
-
the warriors blew a 3-1 lead in the nba finals
-
It's hopeless at this point. No one would ever see her as the real winner.
-
-
@Undefeatable Give it up champ.
Your pipe dreams of having crooked Hillary as your savoir have vanished.
