Quote:
Originally posted by MrDeeds
Voting papers that are counted by machines tho?
For example, New Hampshire that was decided by only 3,000 votes.
Nevadad was decided by 27,000 votes (fewer than Pennsylvania). Voting method? Machine.
https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_metho...pment_by_state
The one thing Nevada and New Hampshire have in common is that Hillary won. Why is Jill not fundraising to investigate those states?
Jill is only gaining supporters (and money) for the next election. This movement is 100% political, there nothing fair or democratically behind it. |
The results in those states are consistent with polling and expectations. Hillary had a significant margin in the weeks before the election and the results of the election show it.
The results in the dust belt states don't, and there is statistical evidence that there may have been tampering due to the irregularities observed. Several counties in Wisconsin reported that 87% of registered voters voted. That's a statistical anomaly. Therein lies the difference
Furthermore, if there was tampering, it would be limited to a select few states as to not arise suspicion. Even when Hillary polled ahead consistently, Trump won by JUST enough to win the states. The only ones he needed to beat Hillary 100%.
Nothing may come out of this, but the inconsistencies warrant the reaction and the current recount investigations.
If the Republicans want to launch recounts into Nevada and NH, then they are allowed to. Why would Jill call for recounts in those states?
You say that you want people to take your opinions seriously, but you should use critical thinking more often before you post. Not everything is a partisan attack, especially when the Greens have historically requested similar recounts in the past.
