I agree. I think the libertarian and green tickets did much better than the results show.

I don't buy Stein getting less than 1% of the national vote for a second.

I remember someone posting a conspiracy thread where they showed polls from phone apps that showed that Stein was actually beating Clinton massively, and not far behind Trump. The person theorized their plan was to swap Stein votes over to Clinton to steal the election that way.

I do. I decided to go with Gary because I'm very pro-vacc and Stein has a view in that regard I cannot agree with. I find her views very outlandish, while I saw real probability that the Libs could hit the 5% mark. I like some of her ideas but others are incredibly ridiculous to think they could come to fruition or be beneficial.

For what it's worth, she's not anti-vacc. She's very strongly pro-independent testing of vaccinations before they are administered to the public. In other words, don't let the pharma companies that make the vaccine fund the studies that test to see if the vaccines are safe and effective.

That's not outlandish at all.

Are there any other views of hers that you are against? Cause I'd bet you've been misinformed. The media did a subtle but effective smear job on her and her viewpoints this election season.

How about the part of the Green platform that wants to ban all synthetic chemicals

[deleted]

Didn't make it up, first section under Ecological Conversion or did you even read their platform? Bet you didn't know the Libertarian platform encourages the removal of civil rights protections in favor of "economic solutions".

As always, you are fucking wrong

Phase out most chlorinated and other synthetic petrochemicals and phase in natural, biodegradable substitutes.

Phase out synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and phase in organic agriculture.

Shut down waste incinerators, phase out landfills, and phase in full recycling.

Require manufacturers to be responsible for the whole life cycle of their products by taking back used packaging and products for re-manufacturing, reuse, or recycling.

Legalize industrial hemp as an ecological source for wood pulp, paper, cloth, lubricants, fibers, and many other products.

Again, not outlandish.

No it's not reasonable.

Care to elaborate as to why you don't believe it's reasonable? Do you not think we can get there, given our current technologies, or do you not think these are things we should be pushing towards in the first place? Just curious.

Two big things leap out at me First off, while I agree our agriculture needs some cleaning up if we go back entirely to organic we are not going to have any where near the yields we have now. Food prices will climb. Second is both mentions of recycling everything. While we do need more recycling with specific things in the US the problem is recycling is more energy intensive in many cases.

One of the problems this year's election was every party was their ideologies extremes.

I think HRC was far from the Democratic ideology's extreme. That's why I didn't like her- I wanted someone more left.

I disagree. HRC was the absolute epitome of the Democrats ideological extreme. You just might not agree with what the Democratic Party has become.

The Democrats aren't left anymore. They're centrist. They only seem left compared to the Republicans who have swung further to the right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

I think the main problem with the ideological extremes of every party, which I agree with you on, is that the people voting for their candidates have the expectations and/or the misunderstanding that these ideologies should be accomplished and achieved in 4-8 years.

Either because of such expectations, or perhaps it's partially the cause of such expectations, our political candidates' rhetoric leans heavily towards promising they can accomplish these goals during their time in office. Ultimately, this is why we're all left so disappointed every 4-8 years.

That's not what party platforms are for. They are not 4-8 year agendas to be accomplished if their candidate gets into office. They are long-term, multi-generational goals to work towards.

So no, we will not be able to go back to purely organic farming within the next 4-8 years. That doesn't mean it would be asinine to take strides to see what new technologies and/or methodologies we might be able to create to get us closer to that goal.

And yes, recycling is more energy intensive in many cases, but how do we get to a point where it's not? We start focusing on it now, and make whatever steps we can, whenever and wherever we can, in order to get us there.

So, in terms of a quick-fix, immediate results, automatic solutions kind of thing... yeah, sure, the Green Party's platform may seem a bit out of reach. But in that whole "planting trees whose shade we know we shall never sit in" sort of way... their platform isn't outlandish at all. It's just laying out the direction they'd like to work towards.

Also, to get back to Jill Stein in particular, it's worth noting that none of these points were part of her campaign pledges.

Trump is on record saying vaccines cause autism. He isnt antivax but said we should give fewer over a longer duration, not a fuckload all at once.

the key is to not make them mandatory. dont people understand how expensive vaccines would be if they were mandatory? We are talking billions of dollars. You think your 1000 dollar a month obama care payments are a lot now? hold onto your butts....

I agree. I dont care if others wanna vaccinate but give me the option to choose when and what i get vaccinated against.

I was full-on expecting that Johnson would get at least 9% of the vote. For fuck's sake, he had been polling at 22% in New Mexico and been tied for second in the border states for a month prior to 11/8. I was calling bullshit on it to my Libertarian buddy and he wasn't surprised a bit; he said a lot of people were really upset and didn't vote. Apparently the week before the election Bill Weld decided it would be appropriate to endorse Hillary. Talk about campaign suicide... "We're not gonna win anyway, go vote for Clinton!" I hadn't heard about it, myself, but I had seen several months ago where Weld said he looked up to Merkel... They couldn't have been too serious about their campaign.

Isn't that the same polling we aren't supposed to trust because it's controlled? Or at the very least very wrong.

But probably people wanted to vote for him, but when it came down to it they decided they had to vote for Trump or Clinton.

Well, to a degree it's controlled. You can only fudge the numbers so much, right? I had no problem believing that he was polling that high in New Mexico - he is very liked there, where he served two terms as governor. But I don't know, your explanation certainly plays into it too- many people did inevitably think it better to vote for Clinton or Trump when it came voting time. I'm positive that Johnson's numbers dwindled because of Weld, though. I'm not a member of any of the groups he's in but all the Libertarian-minded people he had on Facebook were blowing up these groups because of how pissed off they were that Weld endorsed Clinton. Johnson lost a very significant amount of his supporters from that.

Since it isn't an actual vote, there's no harm in telling a pollster who you'd like to vote for, but on election day, if that person is polling very much in 3rd place, you'd be wasting your vote if you don't vote for one of the top two instead. So the difference is probably just people who realized he didn't have enough support to win and so they voted for someone else.

I told pollsters I was voting for Stein to drive her numbers up so she could potentially have a shot. I didn't end up voting for her when the election came because it was clear it wouldn't go anywhere.

I fully believe there was vote shaving from the 3rd party candidates.

maybe they decided they couldnt take Trumps votes so they long shotted it and tried to steal a small portion from each other candidate that was unnoticable in and of itself, but combined they thought they would get the victory? I dunno, i exist in a pretty right wing echo chamber.

If that happened, it happened for Trump. Clinton got almost the exact percentage the late polls said she would get, while Stein and Johnson were down and Trump was above his polling numbers.

while i dislike both clinton and trump, johnson and jill are pretty bad too... johnsons VP, weld, would of been the best out all of them incl their VPs. i dont know anyone who didnt vote for clinton and only saw 1 trump sign around my area. pretty sure 1 friend who fell for trumps memes would of voted for him if he had bothered to vote.

You gave no reason why Jill Stein is "pretty bad"

Yes, that is total crap. She was wildly unpopular . They're just feeding us that lie to foment division.

This is what people think when they live in certain social bubbles. Trump is also probably the most wildly disliked candidate to ever win a presidential election. There's 0 surprise about her winning the popular vote.

That's what the media wants you to believe. They also wanted you to believe she'd win the election with almost 100% certainty, but she didn't.

I think anyone who said that was an idiot. I thought she had the higher odds, but the assumption that the status-quo candidate with no enthusiastic backing would motivate enough people to vote and make her win the swing states, was stupid. That being said, I do not believe the strong Trump supporters outweigh those who don't like him, and I don't think that's even close.

I think anyone who said that was an idiot.

most of the media either laughed at or attacked anyone that even brought up the possibility that Trump might win.

Except the polls were cooked as hell, towards the end they were around D+10.

Skewing the polls on purpose would make no sense, and would not help anyone. I've talked about this a lot in other threads, and why Trump won despite her being up. I've seen no reason to believe that the majority of our country loves Trump.

Also, FYI, democrats often have slight overrepresentation in polling for a reason. Which is that there are slightly more people who identify as democrats than republicans. Equal representation of parties in polling would not be representative of the country.

Skewing the polls on purpose would make no sense

Unless you wanted to steal an election and make it look like you weren't stealing an election.

Also, FYI, democrats often have slight overrepresentation in polling for a reason. Which is that there are slightly more people who identify as democrats than republicans.

Simply incorrect.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Hillary's only real reach to "steal" an election was with her establishment backing and support/insiders in the media. She didn't, and feasibly couldn't, actually steal the votes. Which is especially proven by the fact that we currently have President Trump.

And what? That polling proves my point. Democratic affiliation is consistently higher than republican.

She didn't, and feasibly couldn't, actually steal the votes

And yet, there is massive statistical variance between polling data and results in the Democrat primaries, which everyone ignores.

Democratic affiliation is consistently higher than republican.

Read the whole dataset. It varies, and is rarely more than a few points more for one party or the other.

The problem, in my opinion, with polling during this election year is the faith in the term "likely voters", when we have deeply hated candidates, unexciting candidates, and candidates primarily backed by the least likely demographics to show up to vote.

Since 2014, there are only 3 samples out of about 40 that put republicans ahead, and only 7 in the "leaners" group. Altogether, democrats are ahead by at least a few points. You can't look at a couple outliers and call it even.

Also, to touch on that D+10 instance you're talking about, that's just going to happen sometimes, particularly when democrats have a larger percentage in the country. But that's why we primarily rely on aggregate polling (I don't like when the media freaks out about single polls toward either side).

Some of these polls, like this one, are not made to have participants screened and create accurately representative samples of party demographics. It's just random polling, with sample size justifying its accuracy. That can swing many different ways. It's hardly evidence of manipulation, and even if they wanted to do that, they could have falsified data to show Hillary polling higher with independents and republicans. You can disagree with their methodology, but they're showing you what it is.

The nonresponse rate accounts for the inaccuracies of polls as of late. While they're still selecting a sample of, say, 1000 people, today they have to go through twenty times that to find people who actually are willing to answer. And what are people who answer likely to be? People with strong political ideologies. Most Trump voters were in the middle but ended up swaying towards him. So it makes sense that Hillary supporters would be overrepresented in the polls- because they actually answered them.

Or Trump cheated. That's a possibility as well.

Then why isn't Hillary in court contesting it? She'd have to know if this was a large variation from their internal polling.

Because polls being different from results are not enough to get you into a court. Even exit polls showing her winning NC, PA, FL, and WI isn't enough. They are a pretty strong indicator that it was rigged in Trumps favor though.

That is PLENTY to get you into court for a recount. This was 2-3 standard deviations from the (fake) polling published by hoax news outlets like CNN et. al.

It really isn't. It has happened before, although never quite on this scale, and never ended in court. The only election to end in court was FL in 2000 and that was over how to conduct a recount. Michigan is probably close enough to get a recount but that won't change the final result, so they probably won't ask for it.

I think you know why they don't want recounts.

Look at George Soros and his connections to voting machines.

They want recounts, but there aren't enough close states to change the result.

lol

[deleted]

No, I completely agree with that. She had almost 0 enthusiasm for her outside hardcore feminist groups and super establishment guys. Her campaign was basically "maintain status quo, Trump is bad".

But Trump is also so deeply disliked throughout the country. I have a big social circle across many cities and states, and the few Trump voters I know still think he's a moron. This was a unique election in which we had some of the worst candidates imaginable. I wouldn't see it as a surprise by any means that the hate against Trump is bigger than Hillary's unpopularity.

[deleted]

Haha not really tbh. I grew up in rural, very red Pennsylvania, went to college in a big city, and now work in real estate (a mostly right-leaning profession)

Yup, neither is good for us. 😓 We all lose. Again. Lol. Fuck!

She had almost 0 enthusiasm for her outside hardcore feminist groups and super establishment guys

Yes, but many people unenthusiastically voted for her. I know very few people who voted for Trump, but I'm not ignorant enough to assume that my professional and social circles represent the country as a whole. In fact, I don't think I've ever met someone from the dakotas.

That said- if there was any significant malfeasance at the polls (and at my polling station it would have been easy to vote several times- the books were out, the booths were open and nobody was really checking anything), I would suspect it was by the dems in the swing states. I feel like the republican apparatus didn't have enough of a dog in this fight, this time around.

I thought Stein would have got a lot more

Me too, but everyone is a political expert. People are legitimately brainwashed in to voting for who they think is going to be the winner as opposed to who they think will be the best.

I live in a progressive area in Massachusetts. People would think they would push for 3rd party but everyone was gungho for Hillary. Everyone I talked to or that my wife talked to all said it would be a wasted vote (surprise, surprise...)

Most people I interact with on a daily basis (clients, friends, family) are living within their own (buzz term coming !) Echo chamber. They don't seek out alternative news because it's conspiracy.

More people are waking up but there's still so much work to do. People still buy into the lesser of two evils schtick. So I don't doubt hillary won the popular vote. But at the end of the day the game is rigged anyway.. so....

Edit: a word

Certainly, the notion that she got the popular vote is yet another deception. It put pressure on Trump to accept people into his cabinet who will compromise him and lead him back into the fold as they see it.

It's irrelevant whether she won the popular vote. Were it the popular vote that matters, they both would have campaigned differently, and the outcome would have been different. Just because Trump didn't win the popular vote doesn't mean that he couldn't have.

Good point I'm glad you wrote this.

Stein at 1% seems low to me too, but I will say that we have absolutely no way of knowing if ANY of these numbers has ANY basis in reality.

And this is a big problem.

Paper votes hand counted... it is time

Doubtless, the Democrats rigged the vote as much as they possibly could. Likely hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of votes either nullified, or flipped to their candidate, or ballot boxes stuffed, or non-Hillary voters prevented from voting, etc.

It just wasn't enough. The backlash was that massive.

I'm sure you can show evidence of millions accounts of voter fraud to me if you have the time :)

Google is your friend. Educate yourself.

There is no popular vote. Rich, powerful, organized criminals choose the president. The rest is empty pomp and circumstance.

I get the feeling the Democrats won many large urban centers quite overwhelmingly. It's consistent with many past years. I haven't seen any evidence of widespread ballot rigging yet. Florida would be the place I'd focus any investigation as it would be the epicenter if rigging was going on.

Indeed, Democrats always get the large coastal urban areas... then ask why we have an Electoral College lmao. Some people don't like being ruled by a handful of huge cities, sry.

Doesn't that unfairly give a ruling vote to a increasingly small rural community though? We have the same issue here in Canada where the vast majority of the population is urban, but rural ridings tend to represent much smaller populations. Not saying rural voters shouldn't have a voice but isn't it somewhat unfair that their vote would be worth more than an urban voters?

[deleted]

At the time it did, today that would really just mean restricting the vote to the rich or to people who inherited their land, which I don't think is a good alternative.

edit: also those outside cities obviously where land is a lot cheaper. It would just mean city dwellers like me would have to purchase land out in the middle of nowhere to get the right to vote.

Lol pretty sure by land he meant like a fuckin house at least

So did I, the average house here in Toronto is generally over a million dollars. It would be cheaper to buy a few acres somewhere than own a house here.

Then move. You're probably a liberal since you live in Toronto, the most degenerate place on earth. But hey, your right, some places are incredibly expensive so let's just disregard the landowner thing and compromise on who should be able to vote, right? Firstly, judging by the IQ gap between whites and other races, the pedophilia and other crime issues with LGBT's, and the conformity of women, I'd be happy if only straight white men were allowed to vote. That's how we got Andrew Jackson and all the other great presidents. (AND also how we got the next great, Trump. Lolll)

How do people who don't own land not have a stake in the country? Do they not still pay taxes? Are they not still affected by the laws passed by congress? The first 9 elections had turnouts as a percentage of the total population of about 2%. It was a democracy of the rich white men.

If they tried to go back to that today someone would probably start selling 1 sq foot parcels of rural or desert land for a dollar.

[deleted]

There were no federal property taxes. Federal income was from tariffs and excise taxes.

Poor people in cities have a very low chance of ever owning land. In cities like NY or Miami less than 30% of people own their residence.

No. The Electoral College is divided fairly by population. Less rural voters means more weight should be attached to the vote. Urban voters have more of a collective voice and a huge amount of Electors. I could say the same about places like California in LA/SA and New York. In states with mega-cities, rural voters have to abide by the overwhelmingly liberal state legislatures. That is a vote being unfair. Not the average liberal pseudo intellectual in cities who consistently vote Democrat time & time again for presidential elections. Well, California since 1965.

Florida, Pennsylvania, even Texas the machines were being weird (I'm not sure that was fraud because there's no need to try and rig Texas).

Ohio is another one. In fact, the Republicans rigged it twice and got away with it once. The 2nd time, I'll never forget the look on Karl Rove's face when they called Ohio for Obama in 2012.

Bush's Brain!

'Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!"

http://www.infowars.com/report-three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

3 million illegals suspected as to casting votes

The methodology used to come up with 3 million illegals voting is very suspect. It would be nice to have a real study of a sample district to see how much it happens in a place like California.

You have to remember that only 57% of eligible voters even voted, add to that that the eligible voter pool is only about 230 million out of a total population of 320 million.

I have no problem believing that 70 million people support Clinton, its still a minority of the country but it creates this illusion that she won the popular vote. She had a slightly higher percentage of the 40% of the population that actually voted. Hell more people in the US don't have the right to vote (non-citizens, underage, ex-cons) than voted for Clinton.

Likewise third party supporters were less likely to go out and vote since they knew their vote wouldn't change the overall election results.

Also of note, a lot of people can vote democrat without being pro-Clinton.

California voter here, voted Johnson. My state goes democrat no matter what, I always vote for who I actually want and not who has the better chance. The whole, "every vote counts" thing only matters in battle ground states, people living anywhere else should not feel compelled to settle for a shitty main stream candidate as their vote won't change your state's outcome as a whole. What it will do though is show the establishment that more people are dissatisfied and are turning to 3rd parties.

I agree completely, I'm Canadian but have regularly voted for the party that best represents my point of view regardless of their chances of winning. That's the whole point of a functional democracy.

Especially with all the talk about not voting or voting 3rd party being a vote for Trump.

I bet there were a lot of people that bought into that and reluctantly voted straight ticket Democrat despite not supporting Clinton.

The argument for Clinton over Trump post election is absolutely ridiculous. If people are going to protest and riot to block Trump, Clinton better not be the solution.

My county is full-on red; I've seen plenty of Trump signs and one guy downtown has an elaborate setup depicting missiles and shit, "TRUMP 2016" emblazoned on the sides. I've seen many Johnson signs, maybe 10-20, and 1 Hillary sign. It said "Hillary for prison." Hillary won in my county nearly 64% to 32%. Bullshit. No one here voted for her, at least not that many.

Trump had a lot of people genuinely interested in electing him, and those people put out signs. People who don't like either candidate, but just prefer one to the other, aren't going to put out signs.

Same here. Except that a large number of Trump supporters I came across weren't registered to vote or just didn't.

I can't speak for Hillary supporters because it's already such a small pool in my area.

It certainly doesn't help that illegals can vote here in California.

There are 30 different accepted forms of "identification".

https://www.rockthevote.com/get-informed/elections/voter-id-requirements/state/

She did not win the popular vote.

took a day off from my tech job and volunteered as an election clerk in california. had 0 illegals at the precinct. in fact the only odd one was someone in town visiting from long beach county wanting to vote. we let him do provisional to not hold the line and our officer wasnt 100% about the situation but unfortunately, likely wont count.

i also have some family who are undocumented. none of them voted...

Team Clinton definitely engaged in election fraud. But in the wrong states. Just like generals fight the last war, their strategists would have been using out-dated data. The level of anger and willingness to try new approaches hasn't been seen since the 60's. Even then, no anti-establishment candidate gained traction; nor was social communication as pervasive and instantaneous.

Team Clinton probably put their resources in the wrong states. Their strategists fought the 2012 election. They assumed or convinced themselves R's wouldn't have a candidate much more inspiring than Romney.

I also wonder if there is a case for whether she "overdid it" or not. CTR was so omnipresent and grasping. Her message offered nothing, and in the end of her campaign they realized the negative ads weren't working. All of this with the attitude that she was the heir apparent, and her win was already a fact. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall."

Bernie Sanders said on CBS that a reason she lost is that they only campaigned in 15 states. He believes someone running for president should run a 50 state campaign.

I know this is /r/conspiracy but she did win the popular vote, entirely because of California, which should surprise no one.

My anecdote of living in Milwaukee which was one of the few Democrat counties in Wisconsin this election:

I never once saw a Clinton yard sign and I think maybe saw one or two bumper stickers. Trump? Many yard signs.

I know that's such a small thing to note bit I can't remember ever an election where I didnt see both candidates.

Clinton was by far unpopular. So I'm sure she was voted for by diehard Democrats but I don't think that they were as energetic for her as others were for Trump.

Why not? Blue states have a much higher population density than Red states.

So... what supporting evidence do we have of that?

OP put some extra question marks after "Stein 1%", and some extra vowels in the word please. What more do you need?

I think this whole elections could have been avoided. We should just have asked you what the results are and be done with it.

Sorry but this is retarded. If her campaign could steal votes from Stein why the fuck not from Donald?

This sub upvoted shitty content somewhat regurlarly, but this is a new low. Trumpets must be taking over this, it´s the only way a post this dump was made and upvoted.

I voted for Stein, but even though I'm surrounded almost exclusively by liberals in a large Californian city, none of them voted for her, so I'm not so sure she got more than 1%.

Probably but the issue in my mind is that we are about to be punished for not complying with the wishes of the elites. We'll be baited into killing each other so that they can ensure we reject populism.

Had it somehow been Bernie I think they would have done it too.

Thankfully it seems Bernie sees this coming and has already been in public talking about fighting back against the attempts to divide us.

If they were cheating the election, wouldn't they have been able to get her to win? I can believe with the way third parties are treated that Jill didn't get many votes - even people that would have voted for her were possibly pressured to vote Hillary as an anti-Trump vote.

I'd say at LEAST 5-10 million of HRC voters are illegals clawing at the tablecloth underneath them that is being yanked away.

I agree.

Ohio voter here. Voted for Clinton when news said trump was winning. I was going to vote stein. I'm not the only one.

Soros owns the voting machines, and he funded the riots. It was all a ploy to get people to riot. If she didn't "win" the popular vote they would have no argument whatsoever.

3 million votes were cast by illegal immigrants and they think they won the popular vote lol

I wonder how many fraudulent votes were cast for Clinton? I can't help but feel measures were taken to hand Hillary the election, but they underestimated the Trump support and/or the "rigged election" talking points, spooked the establishment.

Even if she did have popular vote, records show that there were fewer registered Democrats that voted this election. It's almost like they got cocky and felt they couldn't lose... Problem is, if you don't vote, you have no right to complain.

there is a 0% chance HRC won the popular vote. If Donald Trump had lost do you know all people would be doing is showing example after example of election fraud on Nov 8th. I live in Philly and there was so many reports it was insane.

In Florida they got caught filling out the ballots in the back. That is literally just one person we happens to catch. Think about the couple hundred thousand we didn't catch.

They tried but the rigging just wasn't enough. They were not expecting Trump to win by a landslide.

I think that the Trump side just cheated "better" and did not get caught.

Not sure if serious...

You don't even have something that resembles evidence of fraud that benefits Trump..meanwhile you could make a court case against the left.

You could make a court case against in a few individual small scale cases that did not influence the outcome at all. The fraud for Trump looks a lot more like large scale election fraud.

The Democrats would not let Republicans poll watchers into the building who were legally supposed to be? How do you know how small scale that is? In Florida they were in the backroom filling out ballots. Those are just the people who got caught.

With all due respect, you have given ZERO examples of anything related to election fraud. Are you saying the Republicans put fake votes in to the system? Yeah because it didn't appear that Trump had any momentum at all in his last week. Let's also ignore the Reuters poll that had him up by 6% the morning of the election.

I provide examples and you say it is small scale. While you provide no examples and call it large scale.

The Trump side also had Russian intelligence services remotely monitoring the election for signs of fraud.

That's the beauty of the electoral college. It was designed that the popular vote didn't set up a president like Hitler that won the popular vote. Founding fathers win again.

The electoral college was put in place to prevent unqualified demagogues like Trump from becoming president. The founding fathers win if he does not become president.

You honestly believe that crap? North Koreas leadership always wins the popular vote. Saddam Hussein always won the popular vote. All dictators win the popular vote. Next you'll argue the popular vote was good for the Phillipines. Do you see the logic of the popular vote?

All presidents except four also won the popular vote. Winning the popular vote does not make you a dictator.

I do believe "that crap" because that is what the founding fathers said and wrote.

Be pissed at them for not getting Clinton into office then.

The electoral college has been largely ceremonial for over a century now. If they decided to do something now it would be hugely controversial. I prefer to be pissed at the idiots who voted for him, particularly the Berniebros who voted for him out of spite.

Guess she shouldn't have fixed the election. Colin Powell called it when he said her hubris would be her undoing.

She didn't fix the election. They are just sore losers, and they decided to fuck the country because of it.

I can't have this conversation anymore. I can't get to your level and your experience will trump me. ^{edit spelling}

Enjoy your fantasy world...

Yeah...Trumps president and nothing changes that. Enjoy your therapy puppy

http://yournewswire.com/lawsuit-finds-millions-of-uncounted-bernie-sanders-ballots/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-08/how-californias-primary-was-rigged-against-independent-voters

That's why she didn't ask for a recount in close states - they would've found the fraudulent votes.

I found it easier to believe Harambe got 15k votes (he didnt) than Clinton getting anywhere near what we are told she got.

Agreed. I've very concerned about her (and Soros) stealing the electoral college -- backed by the DOJ, FBI, & CIA, who's gonna stop 'em?

December 19.

How and where do they conduct exit-polls anyway? Is there a more effective way to verify after the fact?

Meta:

If the information broadcast to the public has the ability to signficantly influence the perception of something important, then that information will be gamed.

Therefore, do not trust the exit polls, the polls, the result of the vote, etc. Be very cynical: your mental health requires it.

Seconded. I think trump should have investigation even if he won

She got almost exactly what the polls said she would. The weird part is how all the undecideds and losses from Stein and Johnson all went to Trump. If there was any cheating it was for Trump.

I think that the Trump side just cheated "better" and did not get caught.

They want recounts, but there aren't enough close states to change the result.