Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is so wrong with wanting to know for sure that there was no problem with the election?
#1 They won't recount close Hillary victories like New Hampshire, Minnesota and Nevada.
#2 They are refusing an audit to look for illegal voters.
#3 They have no evidence of fraud and were duped by false claims that there was a disparity between paper and electronic ballots.
If Hillary truly wanted to ensure a fair election as you falsely imply, she would have advocated for #1 and #2. And then apologized to Trump for blasting him on saying the election could be rigged, but then hypocritically imply that it was without evidence as Hillary has done.
Here's the trick. The recount in WI begins now (10 electoral votes) Michigan (16 electoral votes)
They need PA (20 electoral votes) to bring Trump under 270. The first two are close enough
to be manipulated easily. However Trump won PA by over 70 thousand votes. If that is overturned,
it would be very suspicious and a tall order for Dems to achieve.
They can start the recounts then the lawyers can delay the counts causing the electors to not be allowed to vote
on the 19th of December. Then HRC and Trump would be disqualified. What then, folks.
Hillary Rodham Clinton 'conceding' the election results November 9th is not legally binding.
We must recall that, technically, Donald John Trump is the "presumptive President-Elect". The reason is simple: to date, all we have is the popular vote results, which, oddly, Ms. Clinton seems to have won. The Electors do not meet, in their respective state capitals, until December 19h. Only upon the casting of those 538 votes will Mr. Trump be the 'President-Elect'.
As I have stated elsewhere, I have no doubt that the electors will vote in accordance with their state's popular vote result. If it makes people like Jill Stein feel better to recount some votes, so be it.
Of course, anytime a huge number of votes are recounted, the final results will vary slightly (see Florida in 2000).
Part of this effort (to contest the results in a few states) is due to Mr. Trump's repeated assertion that the election is 'rigged', combined with the undoubted attempts by Wikileaks (and those that supplied the stolen emails) to influence the election. I can see where some would think that if the hackers were able to so easily break into the DNC and such, perhaps they could have hacked some election devices, and so subtly changed some results.
If an investigation finds that there was no hanky panky, then many will feel better (hopefully) about accepting the results.
If Clinton pisses Trump off, he might just go after her criminal ass, after all. She needs to fade into the sunset and like an old, sick dog, find a tree to die under.
Stay classy, Republicans.
I love how you all still call Hillary "a criminal", even though she's been investigated endlessly and no charges have ever been brought up against her.
Hillary Rodham Clinton 'conceding' the election results November 9th is not legally binding.
We must recall that, technically, Donald John Trump is the "presumptive President-Elect". The reason is simple: to date, all we have is the popular vote results, which, oddly, Ms. Clinton seems to have won. The Electors do not meet, in their respective state capitals, until December 19h. Only upon the casting of those 538 votes will Mr. Trump be the 'President-Elect'.
As I have stated elsewhere, I have no doubt that the electors will vote in accordance with their state's popular vote result. If it makes people like Jill Stein feel better to recount some votes, so be it.
Of course, anytime a huge number of votes are recounted, the final results will vary slightly (see Florida in 2000).
Part of this effort (to contest the results in a few states) is due to Mr. Trump's repeated assertion that the election is 'rigged', combined with the undoubted attempts by Wikileaks (and those that supplied the stolen emails) to influence the election. I can see where some would think that if the hackers were able to so easily break into the DNC and such, perhaps they could have hacked some election devices, and so subtly changed some results.
If an investigation finds that there was no hanky panky, then many will feel better (hopefully) about accepting the results.
Do tell us how paper ballots were hacked in Michigan and how electronic voting machines not connected to the internet were altered by Russian hackers supposedly loyal to Trump.
I love how you all still call Hillary "a criminal", even though she's been investigated endlessly and no charges have ever been brought up against her.
Did you really expect charges with her being the Democratic candidate for POTUS and the White House controlling the AG ?
Don't you think it would be less embarrassing for you simply to have typed "I don't have any idea what I'm talking about, and have no clue about the issue in question. Someone please explain to me why Hillary has agreed to support the recount because I'm too lazy to pick up a newspaper and read it myself."?
Personally, I think that would have been a lot less embarrassing for you. But then again, it's not my problem, it's yours.
You can't seriously think a Trumpist would read a newspaper.
I hear "the media" is totally untrustworthy because "they were wrong about the election" so only selected sources (and the others, too when it's convenient) are safe to view.
It's only true if it confirms their preconceptions, or if Trump tweets it.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that the recount will have to be completed by a Dec. 13 federal deadline, putting the state at risk of having its 10 electoral votes go uncounted if it's missed.
Perhaps that is the goal - to take away as many electoral votes as possible?
However, in light of the rest of the report:
Green Party officials say the recount is about checking the integrity of the voting process, not about whether Trump won or lost.
"We are not doing this to the benefit of one candidate over the other," said national party official and Milwaukee activist George Martin. "We're doing this for the benefit of the American public. So that we can trust our votes are counted."
Yes, the activist George Martin says, it's for the people. Like just about everything, when needing a reason, is "for the children."
I think you are on to something...... The talk has been to replace Trump & Clinton with Mr. Kasich.
It will be 1860 all over again......
Last edited by Pawporri; 11-27-2016 at 07:50 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
