GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - News Was the U.S. election hacked for Trump?

videosc · 11-09-2016, 10:05 AM

So let's say you have the ability to hack U.S. election results but of course you don't want to get caught. Would your best strategy be to run up huge numbers for whoever you wanted to win or would you purposely keep the results very close in certain "swing" states so as not to raise suspicion about a possible hacking? I mean, if almost every poll showed one person was set to win by 3 to 5 points and they lost by 10 or 20 points that would be suspicious, right? Most people would think something fishy was going on. But if the winning margin fell around the polls margin of error most people would just assume it was because of the supposedly "divided" electorate, accept the results and move on with their lives.

Now let's say the candidate who would benefit from the hacking knew about it in advance. In order to make sure no one suspected them, would a clever and quite frankly brilliant idea be to constantly claim the system is rigged in your opponents favor in the weeks leading up to the election, resulting in the media and almost everyone dismissing these claims as "un-American", "crazy" and a "threat to our democracy"? That way when you do win because of the hacking if anyone raised these conspiracy theories they would be the ones who look crazy and un-American.

I pose these questions because of a very interesting video I saw this week with Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert comic, who as some of you may know, famously predicted a Trump win in the summer of 2015. That was a fascinating article and its worth searching for, as is his latest video interview. In that video he talks about how relatively easy it would be to rig or hack a U.S. election. He poses the question that if you were a poll worker and Hitler was one of the candidates, would you do whatever you could to keep him out of power? Adams suggests that if enough Clinton voters thought Trump was Hitler it was reasonable to believe that certain people who had the ability to effect the election results might do something because they were convinced it was the "right" thing to do, stopping Hitler.

From looking at the election results and how close they were, plus the fact that every poll got it wrong, I have to wonder if Adams had it wrong... that it was the Trump poll workers that hated Clinton so badly they decided to do what they could to swing the results towards their guy.

OK, some of you may be ready to fit me for a tin-foil hat and I'll accept that. I'm just throwing all this out for discussion. Something about the election results just feels wrong. Was it individual right-wing poll workers in deep red counties doing what they thought was best for the country? Was it Russian hackers? Or was this a legit election after all? I guess we may never really know for sure.

11-09-2016, 10:05 AM
videosc Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 375	Was the U.S. election hacked for Trump? So let's say you have the ability to hack U.S. election results but of course you don't want to get caught. Would your best strategy be to run up huge numbers for whoever you wanted to win or would you purposely keep the results very close in certain "swing" states so as not to raise suspicion about a possible hacking? I mean, if almost every poll showed one person was set to win by 3 to 5 points and they lost by 10 or 20 points that would be suspicious, right? Most people would think something fishy was going on. But if the winning margin fell around the polls margin of error most people would just assume it was because of the supposedly "divided" electorate, accept the results and move on with their lives. Now let's say the candidate who would benefit from the hacking knew about it in advance. In order to make sure no one suspected them, would a clever and quite frankly brilliant idea be to constantly claim the system is rigged in your opponents favor in the weeks leading up to the election, resulting in the media and almost everyone dismissing these claims as "un-American", "crazy" and a "threat to our democracy"? That way when you do win because of the hacking if anyone raised these conspiracy theories they would be the ones who look crazy and un-American. I pose these questions because of a very interesting video I saw this week with Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert comic, who as some of you may know, famously predicted a Trump win in the summer of 2015. That was a fascinating article and its worth searching for, as is his latest video interview. In that video he talks about how relatively easy it would be to rig or hack a U.S. election. He poses the question that if you were a poll worker and Hitler was one of the candidates, would you do whatever you could to keep him out of power? Adams suggests that if enough Clinton voters thought Trump was Hitler it was reasonable to believe that certain people who had the ability to effect the election results might do something because they were convinced it was the "right" thing to do, stopping Hitler. From looking at the election results and how close they were, plus the fact that every poll got it wrong, I have to wonder if Adams had it wrong... that it was the Trump poll workers that hated Clinton so badly they decided to do what they could to swing the results towards their guy. OK, some of you may be ready to fit me for a tin-foil hat and I'll accept that. I'm just throwing all this out for discussion. Something about the election results just feels wrong. Was it individual right-wing poll workers in deep red counties doing what they thought was best for the country? Was it Russian hackers? Or was this a legit election after all? I guess we may never really know for sure.