5000 fake Trump votes in Wisconsin?

[mikeymikec]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/25/wisconsin-to-recount-ballots-after-claims-of-irregularities/

clears it up

I read that shortly before going to bed last night, but it doesn't actually address the claim from the OP article, and my thought was it may have been updated before whatever events occurred that formed the basis of the OP article. Having said that, the latest that most news sites appear to have is "recount has been organised/scheduled", so the claim in the OP article does appear to be dubious.

What I don't get is though, most fake/dubious news (in my experience) revolves around having an opinion piece (and maybe writing it in the style of a fact-based news article) and then fluffing it up with dubious research or twisted quotes that suspiciously aren't in quote marks any more. However this (OP) article makes a very specific claim (as well as a freaking huge one which should set off most peoples' potential bullshit detectors) that in the short term is easy to denounce as fake, and being Internet-based surely makes it a heck of a lot more likely that even its own readers will encounter evidence to the contrary without going out of their way to do so. All of this surely is going to have the effect of reducing the readership of the sites that posted it.

I suppose that any wannabe big-name fake news site has to start somewhere? 🙂

 

[michal1980]

rr


Well russians influenced the election already. We just want to see how far they went.

fud

 

[michal1980]

I have no idea how many voters decided to stay home, vote third party, vote Trump, or vote Clinton, based on wikileaks, and to some extent, it doesn't really matter. The election is over, and even if Wi, or Mi flipped, Trump still wins. Pa is gone, so it's all moot. That said, I think all elections should have a recount - if the original count was legit, it won't really change, and if it wasn't, then at least you know that there are problems that obviously need addressed. I mean, if you really care about election results, counting the votes twice shouldn't upset you.

To answer your question, I don't think that wikileaks threw the election to anyone. Trump voters aren't going to get nervous about supporting Trump just because Russia may prefer him over Clinton. And Clinton voters who are aghast that the Democratic party colluded with Democrats to tip the scale to the Democratic candidate in the Democratic primary were probably going to stay home or vote for Mickey Mouse anyway, all things being equal.

My question was more of a gauging of whether or not you think that Russia had intent to meddle, rather than whether Russia actively changed the election.

My own opinion is that, of course Russia wants to play a role in US elections, just like the US wants to play a role in every election it can.

What I find interesting is how people can rationalize it away, as if it doesn't really matter what Russia did, if their preferred candidate benefited from it. And I use the term "rationalize" very loosely, as can be seen by the comments of many people in this very thread.

fud

 

[michal1980]

If election fraud occurred then the American people should be made aware of it.

any proof of this? or just fud?

 

[michal1980]

Bingo!

So when the government said there were WMDs you believed them right?

or was that something you disagreed with, because you thought they were lying?

You cant even see how big of a hypocrite you are in one thread.

VG- you only believe government when it fits your world view. That's bad
VG - I only believe government when it fits my world view. That's good

 

[TheVrolok]

With the president elect alleging that he actually won the popular vote if not for millions of illegal votes, I'm surprised his supporters are opposing the recount efforts so fervently. I would think they would love a recount to prove all the voter fraud that has been storied for years now.

 

[mikeymikec]

With the president elect alleging that he actually won the popular vote if not for millions of illegal votes, I'm surprised his supporters are opposing the recount efforts so fervently. I would think they would love a recount to prove all the voters fraud that has been storied for years now.

That would be a logical way of looking at it, but why do you think his supporters would think like that? Doesn't the gospel according to Trump say, "one does not question Schrödinger's Election"?

 

[fskimospy]

With the president elect alleging that he actually won the popular vote if not for millions of illegal votes, I'm surprised his supporters are opposing the recount efforts so fervently. I would think they would love a recount to prove all the voter fraud that has been storied for years now.

It's almost as if their complaints about voter fraud weren't genuine! I know, I'm as shocked as you are.

 

[buckshot24]

Woosh!

One of your finer posts. You can believe them, out of hand, if you like but I've learned my lesson and will remain skeptical of their claims until they are substantiated.

 

[glenn1]

It's almost as if their complaints about voter fraud weren't genuine! I know, I'm as shocked as you are.

They're as real as the complaints that Clinton lost the election due to "sexism." And until the next election, none of the complaints matter for sh!t.

 

[jackstar7]

They're as real as the complaints that Clinton lost the election due to "sexism." And until the next election, none of the complaints matter for sh!t.

aka "In the wake of this tragedy, we do not think now is the right time to address the issues that brought about this event."

Sounds familiar.

 

[IGBT]

The DNC is no longer a National party and is now largely a "coastal" party comprised of eco-KOOKS and Marxist / Leninist street rioters and grievance mongers suffering from agenda stagnation and mental illness fueled by tribal group think.

 

[glenn1]

aka "In the wake of this tragedy, we do not think now is the right time to address the issues that brought about this event."

Sounds familiar.

You must have a very different definition of "tragedy" than me if you're using it in the context of a politician making a wild claim like "illegals voted." With the sheer volume of wild politician claims you must spend every waking moment in abject terror.

 

[Thebobo]

The DNC is no longer a National party and is now largely a "coastal" party comprised of eco-KOOKS and Marxist / Leninist street rioters and grievance mongers suffering from agenda stagnation and mental illness fueled by tribal group think.

DNC is comprised of exhaust parts?

eco-KOOKS

 

[jackstar7]

You must have a very different definition of "tragedy" than me if you're using it in the context of a politician making a wild claim like "illegals voted." With the sheer volume of wild politician claims you must spend every waking moment in abject terror.

Or it was hyperbole for the sake of comedy.

Tricky to tell on this board especially.

 

[IGBT]

Or it was hyperbole for the sake of comedy.

Tricky to tell on this board especially.

You must have a very different definition of "tragedy" than me if you're using it in the context of a politician making a wild claim like "illegals voted." With the sheer volume of wild politician claims you must spend every waking moment in abject terror.

..or wild Jill Stein demands for recounts when there is no evidence of "hacking" or any other problem with the exception of dead democrats and illegal alien votes. As many as 3 million illegal votes in California alone. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ecounts-more-states-insure-election-integrity

If Hillary (re Pennsylvania) has decided 70,000 votes is the threshold to ask for a recount in states she lost, on Monday President Trump should demand a recount in all the states he lost by 70,000 votes or less. 1) Delaware (50k) 2) Maine (20k) 3) Minnesota (44k) 4) Nevada (25k) 5) New Hampshire (3k) 6) New Mexico (55k) 7) Rhode Island (70k)...

 

[jackstar7]

..or wild Jill Stein demands for recounts when there is no evidence of "hacking" or any other problem with the exception of dead democrats and illegal alien votes. As many as 3 million illegal votes in California alone. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ecounts-more-states-insure-election-integrity

If Hillary (re Pennsylvania) has decided 70,000 votes is the threshold to ask for a recount in states she lost, on Monday President Trump should demand a recount in all the states he lost by 70,000 votes or less. 1) Delaware (50k) 2) Maine (20k) 3) Minnesota (44k) 4) Nevada (25k) 5) New Hampshire (3k) 6) New Mexico (55k) 7) Rhode Island (70k)...

I imagine that's where percentages would be a factor, but rant on, man. Audit the entire system. Please and thank you. Leave no state unchecked.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

..or wild Jill Stein demands for recounts when there is no evidence of "hacking" or any other problem with the exception of dead democrats and illegal alien votes. As many as 3 million illegal votes in California alone. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ecounts-more-states-insure-election-integrity

If Hillary (re Pennsylvania) has decided 70,000 votes is the threshold to ask for a recount in states she lost, on Monday President Trump should demand a recount in all the states he lost by 70,000 votes or less. 1) Delaware (50k) 2) Maine (20k) 3) Minnesota (44k) 4) Nevada (25k) 5) New Hampshire (3k) 6) New Mexico (55k) 7) Rhode Island (70k)...

Ahhh again with the 3 million illegals in Cali. You guys realize the source for that is one guy on Twitter. One guy making a claim with absolutely no evidence at all provided.

And yet you have the balls to chide Stein saying there's no evidence of "hacking".

How do you reconcile Trump saying there shouldn't be a recount because there was rampant fraud? How do you square that in your mind?

 

[glenn1]

Ahhh again with the 3 million illegals in Cali. You guys realize the source for that is one guy on Twitter. One guy making a claim with absolutely no evidence at all provided.

And yet you have the balls to chide Stein saying there's no evidence of "hacking".

How do you reconcile Trump saying there shouldn't be a recount because there was rampant fraud? How do you square that in your mind?

If you wish to pass a new law apportioning funds for a routine recount after every election then go for it. Otherwise states have existing laws for how they handle automatic recounts or recounts on demand. Given the current Electoral College vote projections, a recount seems like a rather academic exercise at this point since there is no true credible path to changing the results. A recount that resulted in a net change of over 70 EC votes would be fairly suspect since you'd be talking on the order of tens of thousands of votes in multiple states. Most recounts that change the results are in contests settled by some very small fraction of votes, generally a couple hundred net votes at max.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

If you wish to pass a new law apportioning funds for a routine recount after every election then go for it. Otherwise states have existing laws for how they handle automatic recounts or recounts on demand. Given the current Electoral College vote projections, a recount seems like a rather academic exercise at this point since there is no true credible path to changing the results. A recount that resulted in a net change of over 70 EC votes would be fairly suspect since you'd be talking on the order of tens of thousands of votes in multiple states. Most recounts that change the results are in contests settled by some very small fraction of votes, generally a couple hundred net votes at max.

I absolutely agree. There's no point in the recounts. Clinton is not challenging the results. The whole exercise is futile. You'll notice that non of my posts on this subject are to lend credibility to the need for a recount. I'm just marveling at the mental gymnastics by some, including the President-Elect that wide spread voter fraud with not a shred of proof negates the need for a recount saying there's no proof of hacking.

 

[NesuD]

Wow and i just finished reading an article that claimed only righties bit on false news stories that liberals were to smart to. Guess they got that part wrong

 

[glenn1]

I absolutely agree. There's no point in the recounts. Clinton is not challenging the results. The whole exercise is futile. You'll notice that non of my posts on this subject are to lend credibility to the need for a recount. I'm just marveling at the mental gymnastics by some, including the President-Elect that wide spread voter fraud with not a shred of proof negates the need for a recount saying there's no proof of hacking.

Trump is a hack and an assclown whose pronouncements should influence no one. Saying he's doing "mental gymnastics" is giving him far too much credit, it's more like this:

 

[FerrelGeek]

And Jillybean gets to keep any money over what it takes to finance the recount. Hmmmmmm.

 

[pcgeek11]

" Democratic Coalition Against Trump filed an Election Fraud complaint "

No bias there at all.

I'm all for a recount as long as they pay for it.

 

[Griffinhart]

Never mind, I was mathematically challenged briefly