Obama orders full review of elections hacking

[jc456]

Is the butthurt brigade suggesting "Russians" hacked the corrupt democrats emails and sent them to Wikileaks or are they implying "Russians" hacked local voting machines?

Not on line! Too fking funny the disgrace they show!

 

[jc456]

I ought to invest in Kleenex and puffs. Tissues are really going to be used up!

 

[Dr Grump]

[
Well it's the number of states 30 to 20 went trump for 306 to 232

So you're okay with disenfranchising the population.
I've already posted this once, there is something like 750,000 people per EC vote in California. In Alaska it is 222,000. So you think it okay that the people of Alaska have more of a say in the govt? You want to disenfranchise Californians because of where they live? A person living in the country should have more say than a city dweller simply because of where they live? How benevolent of you...

 

[Auld Phart]

[
Well it's the number of states 30 to 20 went trump for 306 to 232

So you're okay with disenfranchising the population.
I've already posted this once, there is something like 750,000 people per EC vote in California. In Alaska it is 222,000. So you think it okay that the people of Alaska have more of a say in the govt? You want to disenfranchise Californians because of where they live? A person living in the country should have more say than a city dweller simply because of where they live? How benevolent of you...

So you're okay with disenfranchising the population.

and you seem to be okay with disenfranchising the populations of 30-35 states.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
and you seem to be okay with disenfranchising the populations of 30-35 states.

Um, no. I'm saying everybody's vote should have the same weight. You're saying that's not okay..

 

[jc456]

[
Well it's the number of states 30 to 20 went trump for 306 to 232

So you're okay with disenfranchising the population.
I've already posted this once, there is something like 750,000 people per EC vote in California. In Alaska it is 222,000. So you think it okay that the people of Alaska have more of a say in the govt? You want to disenfranchise Californians because of where they live? A person living in the country should have more say than a city dweller simply because of where they live? How benevolent of you...

Disenfranchise who? The 100 million in those 30 states?

 

[jc456]

[
and you seem to be okay with disenfranchising the populations of 30-35 states.

Um, no. I'm saying everybody's vote should have the same weight. You're saying that's not okay..

How is there a different weight? CA went Clinton didn't it? They had more people than Wyoming

Stop pouting and crying, you know the rules right? Say you're not stupid.

 

[PredFan]

Obama orders review into Russian hacking of 2016 election
Obama orders review into Russian hacking of 2016 election - CNNPolitics.com

But Trump will stop it when he takes office. Gotta protect Putin...

Just like everything else the idiot 0bama has done the last 8 years, this is a complete fail. First it's based on a lie, the Russians did not hack the election. That is completely made up by the Democrats. And second, 0bama knows this and is lying his ass off.

This is exactly the fake news that the left wing idiots (pardon the redundancy) are complaining about.

 

[Dr Grump]

How is there a different weight? CA went Clinton didn't it? They had more people than Wyoming

As I said, there is 1 EC vote for every 725,000 (that is the correct number) Californian. There is 1 EC vote for every 222,000 Alaskan. IOW, Alaskans have more of a say. If things were equitable either there would be 1 EC vote for every 222,000 Californian or 1 EC vote for every 750,000 Alaskan (in which case Alaska would not even get a full vote as there are only 662,000 of them). So, if you live in a populous state, you vote is worth less...

 

[Auld Phart]

[
and you seem to be okay with disenfranchising the populations of 30-35 states.

Um, no. I'm saying everybody's vote should have the same weight. You're saying that's not okay..

Hillary took 20 states, and had a higher popular vote than Trump.

IF the presidency was based on the popular vote, the people in the other 30 states would have been disenfranchised.

You're basically saying the 30 smaller states should have no input in the presidential election.

This year, they thought the Blue wall was going to put Hillary in the WH, that failed. (badly)

now you want to whine about the popular vote.

 

[jc456]

How is there a different weight? CA went Clinton didn't it? They had more people than Wyoming

As I said, there is 1 EC vote for every 725,000 (that is the correct number) Californian. There is 1 EC vote for every 222,000 Alaskan. IOW, Alaskans have more of a say. If things were equitable either there would be 1 EC vote for every 222,000 Californian or 1 EC vote for every 750,000 Alaskan (in which case Alaska would not even get a full vote as there are only 662,000 of them). So, if you live in a populous state, you vote is worth less...

And you know the rules right? Are you uneducated?

 

[jc456]

I truly hate people who argue stupid! Where was your concern before the election? Nothing changed the count of EC votes. Where were you all?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[
and you seem to be okay with disenfranchising the populations of 30-35 states.

Um, no. I'm saying everybody's vote should have the same weight. You're saying that's not okay..

Country has had elections since 1792? or was the first one sooner then that? And in those over 200 years please be specific and tell us WHEN the popular vote decided who would be president? Dems controlled the Government from 2006 to 2010 yet did nothing to change the system I wonder why? The dems controlled both Houses of Congress pretty much continually from 1952 to 1992, yet never once floated an amendment to do away with the electoral college. Obama never called for it, Hillary never called for and no dem did either UNTIL they lost this time.

 

[Dschrute3]

Anything to deflect and not acknowledge his Party's awful corruption. Wikileaks merely revealed just how corrupt the Democratic Party really is. It's one of the most corrupt institutions on earth. Now they're just desperate to distract people from realizing that. Hence the Russia/Trump witch hunts. They're still refusing to acknowledge and address their Party's awful corruption. This is just a misdirection trick. But it's ok, Trump's coming. He's gonna clean house.

 

[peabody]

I don't buy this "Fake news" and Russian manipulation narrative that the Dems and the MSM are pushing. Sure, there may have been some fake news pushed out by Russia and maybe they even hacked the DNC servers. But to say this was so prevalent that it threw the election for Trump, sounds like bullshit to me. In addition, they have provided no real proof of Russian manipulation, only their assurances and "unnamed sources".

The question then is why are they pushing this whole Russian manipulation thing so hard all of a sudden? What is their goal? It won't put Clinton in the White House and it won't discredit Trump anymore than they have tried already.

The most logical answer to me is that they want to push for censorship of the news. The MSM was purchased over the years by six giant corporations who thought they could use it to sway public opinion. But they didn't anticipate so much competition from the likes of Facebook, Twitter and independent news sites like Truth Dig and the Drudge Report, among others.

CNN / MSM and their corporate owners can no longer shape public opinion the way they used to and so now they are demanding that something be done about "Fake news". And "Fake news" is most likely whatever news they either don't want you to know about or that doesn't fit within their bullshit narrative.

 

[jc456]

I don't buy this "Fake news" and Russian manipulation narrative that the Dems and the MSM are pushing. Sure, there may have been some fake news pushed out by Russia and maybe they even hacked the DNC servers. But to say this was so prevalent that it threw the election for Trump, sounds like bullshit to me. In addition, they have provided no real proof of Russian manipulation, only their assurances and "unnamed sources".

The question then is why are they pushing this whole Russian manipulation thing so hard all of a sudden? What is their goal? It won't put Clinton in the White House and it won't discredit Trump anymore than they have tried already.

The most logical answer to me is that they want to push for censorship of the news. The MSM was purchased over the years by six giant corporations who thought they could use it to sway public opinion. But they didn't anticipate so much competition from the likes of Facebook, Twitter and independent news sites like Truth Dig and the Drudge Report, among others.

CNN / MSM and their corporate owners can no longer shape public opinion the way they used to and so now they are demanding that something be done about "Fake news". And "Fake news" is most likely whatever news they either don't want you to know about or that doesn't fit within their bullshit narrative.

Democrats are the leaders of fake news, the hypocrisy continues daily.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Obama orders review into Russian hacking of 2016 election
Obama orders review into Russian hacking of 2016 election - CNNPolitics.com

But Trump will stop it when he takes office. Gotta protect Putin...

See my post in Current Events on Obama's DHS hacking into Georgia's Voter Database.

 

[Auld Phart]

What is their goal?

 

[Clementine]

A supposedly private investigation, no proof offered, and was supposedly leaked to liberal media. Yea, real believable! I think this is a scam by the real fake media to counter the actual fraud found in the Michigan election where votes for Hillary were counted numerous times each. A box of votes that were supposed to add up to 306 held only 50 ballots. Wonder where else that problem existed. I guess we won't know since Stein didn't request recounts anywhere else. The lib media isn't even bothered by the rampant discrepancies in Michigan results.

Funny how this "investigation" happened so fast when Hillary still hasn't turned everything over from her days as Sec of State. The administration never gave a shit about what took place in Benghazi and every other scandal remains unsolved.

And we are supposed to believe this when we don't have any official statements, just a story by Fakington Post.

 

[jc456]

A supposedly private investigation, no proof offered, and was supposedly leaked to liberal media. Yea, real believable! I think this is a scam by the real fake media to counter the actual fraud found in the Michigan election where votes for Hillary were counted numerous times each. A box of votes that were supposed to add up to 306 held only 50 ballots. Wonder where else that problem existed. I guess we won't know since Stein didn't request recounts anywhere else. The lib media isn't even bothered by the rampant discrepancies in Michigan results.

Funny how this "investigation" happened so fast when Hillary still hasn't turned everything over from her days as Sec of State. The administration never gave a shit about what took place in Benghazi and every other scandal remains unsolved.

And we are supposed to believe this when we don't have any official statements, just a story by Fakington Post.

Yep the leaders of fake news, demsturds