Hillary Clinton could still win the presidency

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

The head of the NSA basically said "Yeah, Russia directly interfering is totally a possibility."

Interfering as in hacking the DNC and leaking information. Actually directly rigging the election is a whole different ball game.

A group of computer scientists believe the have evidence for tampering of some sort. IMO it's worth an audit to be sure - we shouldn't really be blase about something as important as an election. And it's definitely grounds to audit every federal election going forward, no matter who wins.

[Galloism]

Incidentally, now that the Russian government knows that works (thanks America), we can expect it to be a regular feature of the elections.

Well, you can in part blame your party for having so much corruption in their closet.

Not my party, incidentally, but in any case, I'd say that's a matter of relative disclosure rather than relative corruption comparison.

[San Lumen]

Difference being he was whining before a single vote was cast.

True, but still. I thought the election wasn't rigged. I thought voter fraud wasn't a problem in the US. What happened?

Well it just doesnt make sense when not a single poll showed Trump winning Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. Something seems way off.

[Valrifell]

Interfering as in hacking the DNC and leaking information. Actually directly rigging the election is a whole different ball game.

A group of computer scientists believe the have evidence for tampering of some sort. IMO it's worth an audit to be sure - we shouldn't really be blase about something as important as an election. And it's definitely grounds to audit every federal election going forward, no matter who wins.

We could just go back to paper ballots...

True, but still. I thought the election wasn't rigged. I thought voter fraud wasn't a problem in the US. What happened?

Well it just doesnt make sense when not a single poll showed Trump winning Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. Something seems way off.

To be fair, a large chunk of them were within the margin of error.

[San Lumen]

Interfering as in hacking the DNC and leaking information. Actually directly rigging the election is a whole different ball game.

A group of computer scientists believe the have evidence for tampering of some sort. IMO it's worth an audit to be sure - we shouldn't really be blase about something as important as an election. And it's definitely grounds to audit every federal election going forward, no matter who wins.

Or better yet to mandate all states use optical scan machines which have paper trails. I doubt Republicans will do that though as I'm convinced they dont care about democracy. They are willing to do almost anything to win.

[Kravanica]

Interfering as in hacking the DNC and leaking information. Actually directly rigging the election is a whole different ball game.

A group of computer scientists believe the have evidence for tampering of some sort. IMO it's worth an audit to be sure - we shouldn't really be blase about something as important as an election. And it's definitely grounds to audit every federal election going forward, no matter who wins.

If a recount is warranted then I have no problem with it. Even if Trump lost these states he still wins.

[Galloism]

True, but still. I thought the election wasn't rigged. I thought voter fraud wasn't a problem in the US. What happened?

Well it just doesnt make sense when not a single poll showed Trump winning Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. Something seems way off.

I'll go on record and say I think it was the shy Tory effect. I say this because of all the blatant racist ridiculousness that has broken out everywhere.

However, because of the discrepancy, just to resolve it and not have it hanging over our heads for years, a doublecheck is worth the money. I'd also add Florida to that list because... well... fucking Florida.

[Kravanica]

True, but still. I thought the election wasn't rigged. I thought voter fraud wasn't a problem in the US. What happened?

Well it just doesnt make sense when not a single poll showed Trump winning Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. Something seems way off.

Ever considered the polls were wrong?

Which is more reasonable? That there was massive rigging of elections by the Russians (McCarthyism reborn) or the polls were wrong?

[Kravanica]

Well, you can in part blame your party for having so much corruption in their closet.

Not my party, incidentally, but in any case, I'd say that's a matter of relative disclosure rather than relative corruption comparison.

Semantics. Ether way, welcome to the club of hating the party you vote for.

[Valrifell]

A group of computer scientists believe the have evidence for tampering of some sort. IMO it's worth an audit to be sure - we shouldn't really be blase about something as important as an election. And it's definitely grounds to audit every federal election going forward, no matter who wins.

If a recount is warranted then I have no problem with it. Even if Trump lost these states he still wins.

If Trump loses the recount in MI, WI, and PA, he loses.

[Kravanica]

If a recount is warranted then I have no problem with it. Even if Trump lost these states he still wins.

If Trump loses the recount in MI, WI, and PA, he loses.

Hm, all right, my math is shitty. But still, go for it if it's warranted.

[The Holy Empire of the Spaghetti Monster]

Well it just doesnt make sense when not a single poll showed Trump winning Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. Something seems way off.

Ever considered the polls were wrong?

Which is more reasonable? That there was massive rigging of elections by the Russians (McCarthyism reborn) or the polls were wrong?

Which is more reasonable? That we should investigate the possibility of Russian interference, or that we should just let it go and accept that they may be tampering in our elections?

Better to double check and not need to than to not double check and later find out Russia did interfere.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

A group of computer scientists believe the have evidence for tampering of some sort. IMO it's worth an audit to be sure - we shouldn't really be blase about something as important as an election. And it's definitely grounds to audit every federal election going forward, no matter who wins.

We could just go back to paper ballots...

Yep. Not likely though.

A group of computer scientists believe the have evidence for tampering of some sort. IMO it's worth an audit to be sure - we shouldn't really be blase about something as important as an election. And it's definitely grounds to audit every federal election going forward, no matter who wins.

If a recount is warranted then I have no problem with it. Even if Trump lost these states he still wins.

It's a little more complicated than that though. If there's evidence of tampering in those three races, what's stopping other states from having being tampered with too? Uncharted territory at that point - do we still let Trump take office if the validity of the whole election is in doubt? Maybe postpone his taking office until after a full audit has taken place? At that point it wouldn't matter much if Trump did legitimately win the election in the end, there would be that period where we just didn't know.

[Kravanica]

Ever considered the polls were wrong?

Which is more reasonable? That there was massive rigging of elections by the Russians (McCarthyism reborn) or the polls were wrong?

Which is more reasonable? That we should investigate the possibility of Russian interference, or that we should just let it go and accept that they may be tampering in our elections?

Better to double check and not need to than to not double check and later find out Russia did interfere.

I think I've stated twice now that I have no problem with recounts if it's warranted. But right now there isn't a shred of evidence of Russians actually directly rigging the elections in key states.

[Valrifell]

We could just go back to paper ballots...

Yep. Not likely though.

If a recount is warranted then I have no problem with it. Even if Trump lost these states he still wins.

It's a little more complicated than that though. If there's evidence of tampering in those three races, what's stopping other states from having being tampered with too? Uncharted territory at that point - do we still let Trump take office if the validity of the whole election is in doubt? Maybe postpone his taking office until after a full audit has taken place? At that point it wouldn't matter much if Trump did legitimately win the election in the end, there would be that period where we just didn't know.

I would not mind a few bonus months of Obama.

[Kravanica]

We could just go back to paper ballots...

Yep. Not likely though.

If a recount is warranted then I have no problem with it. Even if Trump lost these states he still wins.

It's a little more complicated than that though. If there's evidence of tampering in those three races, what's stopping other states from having being tampered with too? Uncharted territory at that point - do we still let Trump take office if the validity of the whole election is in doubt? Maybe postpone his taking office until after a full audit has taken place? At that point it wouldn't matter much if Trump did legitimately win the election in the end, there would be that period where we just didn't know.

Who's going to postpone him taking office? You're delving seriously close to conspiracy theorist territory. Irregularities in some areas doesn't mean the entire election needs to be called into question.

[PaNTuXIa]

Jill Stein just raised over $4 million for a recount. And yet, any time she reaches the amount she raises the amount required. This couldn't all just be a scam, could it?

[Galloism]

Jill Stein just raised over $4 million for a recount. And yet, any time she reaches the amount she raises the amount required. This couldn't all just be a scam, could it?

Arguable, but she also updates the verbiage each time.

She now says she has the money for WI and PA, and is raising it for Michigan.

[Kravanica]

Jill Stein just raised over $4 million for a recount. And yet, any time she reaches the amount she raises the amount required. This couldn't all just be a scam, could it?

Arguable, but she also updates the verbiage each time.

She now says she has the money for WI and PA, and is raising it for Michigan.

Jill Steins such a fucking chameleon. First she claims that Trump would be less damaging than Hillary. She claims the Dems stole the nomination from Sanders. Now she's raising money for recounts in Hillary's favor.

She's a Grade A opportunist and a hack. She won't do a thing.

[Valrifell]

Arguable, but she also updates the verbiage each time.

She now says she has the money for WI and PA, and is raising it for Michigan.

Jill Steins such a fucking chameleon. First she claims that Trump would be less damaging than Hillary. She claims the Dems stole the nomination from Sanders. Now she's raising money for recounts in Hillary's favor.

She's a Grade A opportunist and a hack. She won't do a thing.

The first part of that is very true. Though if we're being cynical about this, she's probably trying to further her image as the true Progressive and Defender of American Democracy.

[Galloism]

Arguable, but she also updates the verbiage each time.

She now says she has the money for WI and PA, and is raising it for Michigan.

Jill Steins such a fucking chameleon. First she claims that Trump would be less damaging than Hillary. She claims the Dems stole the nomination from Sanders. Now she's raising money for recounts in Hillary'a favor.

She's a Grade A opportunist and a hack. She won't do a thing.

I'll broadly agree with the opportunist hack, but if she doesn't at least try to make the recounts happen that would be soliciting money under false pretenses, and could result in being legally required to return it.

Long ball play, but if a recount did, hypothetically, hand it to Hillary, one could argue stein would be owed a favor.

Edit: maybe Hillary could get all the cancerous wifi away from her home

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Yep. Not likely though.



It's a little more complicated than that though. If there's evidence of tampering in those three races, what's stopping other states from having being tampered with too? Uncharted territory at that point - do we still let Trump take office if the validity of the whole election is in doubt? Maybe postpone his taking office until after a full audit has taken place? At that point it wouldn't matter much if Trump did legitimately win the election in the end, there would be that period where we just didn't know.

Who's going to postpone him taking office? You're delving seriously close to conspiracy theorist territory. Irregularities in some areas doesn't mean the entire election needs to be called into question.

With very close margins in key swing states? Certainly a possibility that can't be excluded. And again that's part of the whole 'uncharted territory' thing. AFAIK there isn't any legal precedent or framework for a situation where an election has to be audited.

[Kravanica]

Jill Steins such a fucking chameleon. First she claims that Trump would be less damaging than Hillary. She claims the Dems stole the nomination from Sanders. Now she's raising money for recounts in Hillary's favor.

She's a Grade A opportunist and a hack. She won't do a thing.

The first part of that is very true. Though if we're being cynical about this, she's probably trying to further her image as the true Progressive and Defender of American Democracy.

She's a hack and is nuttier than Elizabeth Warren on meth. Pro-homeopathic medicine and anti-vaccine. There's a winner.

[The Holy Empire of the Spaghetti Monster]

The first part of that is very true. Though if we're being cynical about this, she's probably trying to further her image as the true Progressive and Defender of American Democracy.

She's a hack and is nuttier than Elizabeth Warren on meth. Pro-homeopathic medicine and anti-vaccine. There's a winner.

Finally, something we can agree on.

[Kravanica]

Who's going to postpone him taking office? You're delving seriously close to conspiracy theorist territory. Irregularities in some areas doesn't mean the entire election needs to be called into question.

With very close margins in key swing states? Certainly a possibility that can't be excluded. And again that's part of the whole 'uncharted territory' thing. AFAIK there isn't any legal precedent or framework for a situation where an election has to be audited.

Well, firstly Obama'a constitutionally limited to two terms so no matter what happens he needs to leave come January. Also, don't certain states have laws that if the race is less than 1% close then an automatic recount is called?