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.
It could be called hypocrisy though the count sounds harmless. No one thinks it will change the result. That said, in North Carolina, Republicans have approved a recount even though the difference is higher than required. The rationale was "to restore confidence in the voters". So which is it? Recounts are good in order to restore confidence? Or bad and wreaking of hypocrisy? Because I remember an election in 2000 where Republicans went to the Supreme Court to stop a recount. I've never thought recounts were a bad thing and I say that on both sides. It's just a recounting. The result should still be the same.
It could be called hypocrisy though the count sounds harmless. No one thinks it will change the result. That said, in North Carolina, Republicans have approved a recount even though the difference is higher than required. The rationale was "to restore confidence in the voters". So which is it? Recounts are good in order to restore confidence? Or bad and wreaking of hypocrisy? Because I remember an election in 2000 where Republicans went to the Supreme Court to stop a recount. I've never thought recounts were a bad thing and I say that on both sides. It's just a recounting. The result should still be the same.
So you agree that when Hillary said that if Trump questioned the result it would be threatening democracy? What else is a recount?
It could be called hypocrisy though the count sounds harmless. No one thinks it will change the result. That said, in North Carolina, Republicans have approved a recount even though the difference is higher than required. The rationale was "to restore confidence in the voters". So which is it? Recounts are good in order to restore confidence? Or bad and wreaking of hypocrisy? Because I remember an election in 2000 where Republicans went to the Supreme Court to stop a recount. I've never thought recounts were a bad thing and I say that on both sides. It's just a recounting. The result should still be the same.
Sigh, once again we have to spell out the hypocrisy.
Remember what Hillary said about Trump accepting the results of the election? She used the word "horrifying".
And now that she lost, she's not accepting them. She hopped on to Jillary Stein's little stunt well before Stein was done collecting money, so spare us the so called "confusion".
And now that she lost, she's not accepting them. She hopped on to Jillary Stein's little stunt well before Stein was done collecting money, so spare us the so called "confusion".
This is the candidate that the democrats ran? This two faced piece of filth? There's not enough closets big enough to house her skeletons. Granted she did have to collide with the DNC to get the nomination. The democratic party is a sham.
It could be called hypocrisy though the count sounds harmless. No one thinks it will change the result. That said, in North Carolina, Republicans have approved a recount even though the difference is higher than required.
That's not true.
Under North Carolina law, Mr. McCrory can demand a statewide recount if he trails by 10,000 votes or fewer once all 100 counties have certified their vote totals. Four counties had not yet certified their totals on Wednesday night. The ruling kept hope alive for Mr. McCrory, who, by the unofficial state count, trailed by 10,257 votes as of Wednesday night.
The rationale was "to restore confidence in the voters". So which is it? Recounts are good in order to restore confidence? Or bad and wreaking of hypocrisy? Because I remember an election in 2000 where Republicans went to the Supreme Court to stop a recount. I've never thought recounts were a bad thing and I say that on both sides. It's just a recounting. The result should still be the same.
A recount of one county for the Governor. "to recount votes from five early voting sites and one regular voting site that had been troubled by a software problem that forced election officials there to enter results manually."
He is only saying what every person not blinded by their disgust that Trump was elected is saying. We live in a video age, it's hard to claim the other person is the confused one these days.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Don't bother correcting that poster, he posts a lot of stuff that's untrue.
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.
