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.
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.
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?
How do I lose? I don't. However, the taxpayers of Michigan and Pennsylvania are going to lose as they will have to pay for her little fishing expedition.
I would have far less issue with her recount if New Hampshire, the second closest state by percentage, was also on the recount list since this is clearly not about her winning the state instead of who did. It just looks like she is being a stooge for Hillary or attention seeking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
She finds nothing and we can rest easy. She finds fraud and you have a legitimate argument for stricter voter I.D. requirements.
With a recount they aren't looking for fraud, they are literally only recounting the votes. They aren't checking if dead people, non-citizens, or other ineligible individuals voted. That requires a different type of audit.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Stein raised $7million for the recount, and now says there is not enough money to pay the $1million bond for the recount in Penn.
I'm just curious if any of those who voted for her has changed opinions about her or not. Would you still vote for her next time if she runs again?
I am no fan of hers, but this is just the outrage du jour. As she has explained, the $7m can ONLY be used for a recount. It CANNOT be used for the bogus bond reason concocted by PA.
Aside from this, she has no traction, and this whole crusade is just a waste of everyone's time.
I am no fan of hers, but this is just the outrage du jour. As she has explained, the $7m can ONLY be used for a recount. It CANNOT be used for the bogus bond reason concocted by PA.
Aside from this, she has no traction, and this whole crusade is just a waste of everyone's time.
That bogus bond is part of the recount cost and is significantly less than it will end up costing the taxpayers of Pennsylvania.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
How do I lose? I don't. However, the taxpayers of Michigan and Pennsylvania are going to lose as they will have to pay for her little fishing expedition.
She has to come up with some big bucks here. I'll count Pa for a million dollars.
Quote:
I would have far less issue with her recount if New Hampshire, the second closest state by percentage, was also on the recount list since this is clearly not about her winning the state instead of who did. It just looks like she is being a stooge for Hillary or attention seeking.
With a recount they aren't looking for fraud, they are literally only recounting the votes. They aren't checking if dead people, non-citizens, or other ineligible individuals voted. That requires a different type of audit.
Wisconsin argued that dead people did vote and people did vote illegally BUT those votes were already caught. I imagine any recount would take the same things into account.
So........if there is nothing but a very small discrepancy (which is generally the case) what does that tell us? That the call for added restrictions to vote is over blown? Is this why people are upset? It will harm their argument in demonizing people?
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!!
The only thing wrong about voting your conscience is 1- At this point in time a 3rd party candidate isn't going to win as president & 2 - it can backfire & cause your least desirable candidate to win . I guess if you really don't have a preference between the 2 major party candidates # 2 wouldn't matter to you .
I thought Bush 41 was doing a reasonable job but I voted my conscience [ right or wrong ] & voted for Ross Perot . Enough people did the same & gave the presidency to Bill Clinton . I know a lot of people think Bill is the best thing since sliced bread but I'm not one of them & would much rather have had Bush 41 again .
Stein is questioning the integrity of the election results , I believe in requiring a photo ID & more stringent voter identification requirements . I also don't believe the argument that it would disenfranchise minority voters & I also believe dead people & such should be cleaned from the rolls .
Last edited by Logan Savage; 12-05-2016 at 08:57 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.
