[c3534l]

> You have to be patient for big cases like this

So in other words, no “verifiable“ proof at all, just rumors, hearsay, and unbacked assertions.

> Until then we have to trust the US intelligence community.

Sorry, no. Their success rate and overall trustworthiness is abysmal, let alone it's foolish to trust secret data even if it weren't the case.

[jejeuei73737]

You are out there every day pushing back against anonymous voting then?

Who voted for which candidate is secret and we rely on counts that aren’t broadcast live

[c3534l]

Anonymous doesn't mean secret. If the governor of Ohio says his people want Trump over Hilary, just trust him, you don't need to know how he knows would you? I mean, I don't trust unauditable electronic voting machines. I certainly wouldn't trust someone who couldn't even point to the machine he got his info from.

[linkregister]

Much of the voting system is an exercise of trust. The most reliable part of it, besides the fact that election officers are publicly known and accountable, is that officers from both parties oversee each voting center. Your trust is that the adversarial nature of the political parties will raise alarms if the ballots are tampered with.