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.
While she raised an impressive amount she didn't raise enough to count multiple states. And in the end, I already discussed this. How do you lose?
She finds nothing and we can rest easy. She finds fraud and you have a legitimate argument for stricter voter I.D. requirements.
Except she's not actually willing to use that money to hold a recount as promised. Indeed, she could've spent $1 million on a bond to secure a PA statewide recount, but didn't and is instead choosing to file a federal lawsuit despite the fact that she has no standing (her injury isn't particularized/individualized enough as any plausible change in votes during recount wouldn't make her the winner). But I guess the theatrics of making it look like she's "trying" will win her brownie points. She definitely raised enough money to secure the bond needed to recount PA statewide; the fact that she's not coughing up the dough says everything.
Moving on, I repeat that she could easily ask for recounts in close HRC states now (and even mount a fundraising drive to help it happen). If she didn't/doesn't raise enough money to make those recounts happen, then there's nothing lost. But the fact that she's not even trying exposes her as an ideological/leftist hack.
To close: if that's going to be the argument (i.e. how do you lose?), that same argument can be applied to each and every state. But, yet, she's only asking for recounts in close Trump states based on a theory with zero supporting evidence. The fact that she has a finite amount of money doesn't preclude her from asking for recounts in other states or from seeking to raise even more money. But, again, her recount strategy is about overturning Trump's victory (not about ensuring the integrity of the election), regardless of how much she claims otherwise.
Except she's not actually willing to use that money to hold a recount as promised. Indeed, she could've spent $1 million on a bond to secure a PA statewide recount, but didn't and is instead choosing to file a federal lawsuit despite the fact that she has no standing (her injury isn't particularized/individualized enough as any plausible change in votes during recount wouldn't make her the winner). But I guess the theatrics of making it look like she's "trying" will win her brownie points. She definitely raised enough money to secure the bond needed to recount PA statewide; the fact that she's not coughing up the dough says everything.
I discussed this already also. She can cough up the dough but could the guy running for statewide office? Yes, she can afford it but is saying she can not. What price do we place on fair and above board elections?
It's going to be OK as long as you pick a proponent you know that could never raise enough for a challenge?
Quote:
Moving on, I repeat that she could easily ask for recounts in close HRC states now (and even mount a fundraising drive to help it happen). If she didn't/doesn't raise enough money to make those recounts happen, then there's nothing lost. But the fact that she's not even trying exposes her as an ideological/leftist hack.
The state does not matter.
Quote:
To close: if that's going to be the argument (i.e. how do you lose?), that same argument can be applied to each and every state. But, yet, she's only asking for recounts in close Trump states based on a theory with zero supporting evidence. The fact that she has a finite amount of money doesn't preclude her from asking for recounts in other states or from seeking to raise even more money. But, again, her recount strategy is about overturning Trump's victory (not about ensuring the integrity of the election), regardless of how much she claims otherwise.
She has all the evidence in the world that we are putting a price on fair elections.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,510,291 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daywalk
Never liked her! If Johnson and her did not show up on the ballot in PA MI WI hillary would have won!!!
Yeah.....just keep trying to shift that blame. It's your and other Hillary supporters fault that you nominated someone who couldn't win the electoral college.
Again.
IT YOUR FAULT!!!!!! Now live with the consequences and try to learn from this experience.
Most who voted third party would have left their ballot blank rather than voting for either Orange Drumpf or the Wicked Witch of New York. The biggest driving factor in the success of third parties was the fact that Hillary and Donald were just awful candidates.
What few Johnson voters could have been talked into voting for the duopoly are fairly split, but Conservative leaning. About 60% would have gone Trump and 40% Hillary. Jill Stein's would have been more like 80%/20% in Hillary's favor. Math it out and the third parties had zero impact. They did not steal the election from either candidate. You could make a pretty strong argument that they hurt Trump more than they hurt Clinton when you factor Evan McMullin in.
The most deplorable thing about this kind of thinking is the resulting demonization of third parties. The Republicans and Democrats are both so hopelessly out of touch with Americans that it's just sad, but Americans have bought into this idea that "If you don't vote for one of the two of us, you're a bad person!" It is impossible for any two parties or clubs of ideology to accurately represent everyone. This is why most nations have six or more strong political parties. The fact that we do not is just one of those bizarre broken things about American politics. Rather than voting for "the lesser of two evils" I got to vote for somebody I really and truly believed in. It felt wonderful!! Shame on you and everyone else for saying that I'm wrong for it!!
I'm glad you got to vote for someone you believed in, too. Seriously.
My brother, who's about as left wing liberal as they come, had some interesting thoughts about voting for third party candidates when you know there isn't a prayer of a chance that candidate will get enough to win, the waste of a vote vs. speaking your voice and voting for a candidate you believe in, even when you know that candidate can't win.
He was a Sanders supporter, and was beyond disgusted with the Democrat party when he saw how they cheated Sanders out of primary votes, and all the underhanded tricks to ensure Hillary's nomination. He doesn't like Hillary and said he'd never v ote for her, and Trump-well he was on board with the rest of his liberal friends with the name calling, bashing and spreading the anti-Trump talking points-I guess that is a requirement for a liberal in good standing??
So he told me he planned to vote for Jill Stein, and he did. He told me that since he lived in a state that would go to Hillary regardless of how he voted (NY), he felt free to vote for Jill Stein, as it didn't really matter how he voted. He said that if he lived in a swing state (like FL), he would have held his nose and voted for Hillary since he could never vote for a Republican, and Trump? Not a snowball's chance in he!!.
I've covered this. She knows that is where the money is at. Who is going to donate to recount New York? No one.
Or she is smarter than everyone. What if we recount Pennsylvania and we find an extremely low fraud rate?
Damn, there goes the argument for more restrictions on voting rights, eh?
If you think there is a massive amount of illegal votes cast, why would you not support her? If we discover a large number of fraudulent votes, the argument for I.D.s grows stronger.
Where is the problem here?
A recount is not an investigation into voter fraud.
Requiring an ID to vote is not more a restriction to voter's rights, than requiring an ID to purchase a firearm. You can't say it's ok to require an ID to exercise one right, then say it infringes on another right to require an ID.
Except she's not actually willing to use that money to hold a recount as promised. Indeed, she could've spent $1 million on a bond to secure a PA statewide recount, but didn't and is instead choosing to file a federal lawsuit despite the fact that she has no standing (her injury isn't particularized/individualized enough as any plausible change in votes during recount wouldn't make her the winner). But I guess the theatrics of making it look like she's "trying" will win her brownie points. She definitely raised enough money to secure the bond needed to recount PA statewide; the fact that she's not coughing up the dough says everything.
Moving on, I repeat that she could easily ask for recounts in close HRC states now (and even mount a fundraising drive to help it happen). If she didn't/doesn't raise enough money to make those recounts happen, then there's nothing lost. But the fact that she's not even trying exposes her as an ideological/leftist hack.
To close: if that's going to be the argument (i.e. how do you lose?), that same argument can be applied to each and every state. But, yet, she's only asking for recounts in close Trump states based on a theory with zero supporting evidence. The fact that she has a finite amount of money doesn't preclude her from asking for recounts in other states or from seeking to raise even more money. But, again, her recount strategy is about overturning Trump's victory (not about ensuring the integrity of the election), regardless of how much she claims otherwise.
I'm glad you got to vote for someone you believed in, too. Seriously.
My brother, who's about as left wing liberal as they come, had some interesting thoughts about voting for third party candidates when you know there isn't a prayer of a chance that candidate will get enough to win, the waste of a vote vs. speaking your voice and voting for a candidate you believe in, even when you know that candidate can't win.
He was a Sanders supporter, and was beyond disgusted with the Democrat party when he saw how they cheated Sanders out of primary votes, and all the underhanded tricks to ensure Hillary's nomination. He doesn't like Hillary and said he'd never v ote for her, and Trump-well he was on board with the rest of his liberal friends with the name calling, bashing and spreading the anti-Trump talking points-I guess that is a requirement for a liberal in good standing??
So he told me he planned to vote for Jill Stein, and he did. He told me that since he lived in a state that would go to Hillary regardless of how he voted (NY), he felt free to vote for Jill Stein, as it didn't really matter how he voted. He said that if he lived in a swing state (like FL), he would have held his nose and voted for Hillary since he could never vote for a Republican, and Trump? Not a snowball's chance in he!!.
A recount is not an investigation into voter fraud.
It is where you start.
Quote:
Requiring an ID to vote is not more a restriction to voter's rights, than requiring an ID to purchase a firearm. You can't say it's ok to require an ID to exercise one right, then say it infringes on another right to require an ID.
I couldn't agree more. Are you the one saying it is?
Never liked her! If Johnson and her did not show up on the ballot in PA MI WI hillary would have won!!!
Of course she would have..LOL. There is/was nothing that could have saved the wicked witch, she had no chance running against a real leader.
The real winner of the election was.... AMERICA..!!!
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.
