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.
The deadline, per state law, for requesting a recount in NH was the Friday following the election. I believe the deadline for MN has passed as well.
The timing and the specific targeting of these recounts is very smart on the part of the backers behind Stein's effort. I would not be as dismissive about this whole thing as many people seem to be right now. You have to remember that with the exception of Florida, where judges stepped in to stop the process, democrats have not lost a recount in a long time. They know how to do this. Don't forget how Al Franken won his senate seat.
The timing and the specific targeting of these recounts is very smart on the part of the backers behind Stein's effort. I would not be as dismissive about this whole thing as many people seem to be right now. You have to remember that with the exception of Florida, where judges stepped in to stop the process, democrats have not lost a recount in a long time. They know how to do this. Don't forget how Al Franken won his senate seat.
This could get real ugly. Someone posted a link in another thread that said Hillary is now going to participate in the recount efforts. I think the margin is too large to overcome but who knows? I would bet that whatever happens the whole thing will end up in court. What makes it potentially interesting is that the Supreme Court could split.
You think Stein is being 100% transparent and forthright in wanting recounts to ensure fair elections and not favor one candidate?
Her opinions on both Trump and Clinton are well documented. She doesn't like either one. And you need to understand that Stein is not your typical Presidential candidate. She's managed to remain an idealist. As I said, I don't agree with her much politically, but I admire her character.
Quote:
#1 She opposes an audit where they would cross check to make sure voters were legal voters.
The typical liberal position is that everybody in the country should get to vote regardless of legal status. Nobody should be surprised that she's not looking for illegal voters.
Quote:
#2 She will not support recounts in New Hampshire or Minnesota (that Hillary narrowly won).
Because nobody would donate any money to recount those states. I made that point in my post. Sorry you didn't read it.
Quote:
#3 She can't cite any specific reason why the vote may have been tampered with in PA, WI, and MI.
That's because her reasons, which I pointed out, wouldn't play very well if she were to be upfront about them
Quote:
#4 She can't promise that all of the money raised will go to recounts.
True, because there's no guarantee that the recounts will be granted. Donors are giving to a campaign to restore integrity to the election process. The specific goal is to conduct recounts in these three states, and that's where the money will be used first if they are allowed. If they aren't it will be used in other ways to try to attain the larger goal of accurate balloting.
Quote:
#5 Her being sharp doesn't mean she is being forthright on this...this apparently may shock you...smart people lie too!
As I said, she's essentially tricking Clinton supporters into giving her money to accomplish her goal by allowing them to assume there's a chance that Hillary will end up winning, and she's doing it in such a way that nobody can claim she's trying to mislead them. Brilliant.
Jill Stein is the one calling for the recounts, she's was the Green Party candidate this time around. Her stated goal - and I believe she's being honest here - is that she wants to make sure elections are conducted with transparency and integrity.
But just saying that much makes it obvious that she is a liar and just being a proxy for Hillary so Hillary doesn't have to play the role of sore loser -- at least not directly. If she was interested only in transparency and integrity, she would have at least mentioned New Hampshire and Minnesota. The fact that she never even mentions them tells you everything you need to know.
Anyone with a brain in their head can see what she's really about and that her stated reason is a flat out lie.
As I said, she's essentially tricking Clinton supporters into giving her money to accomplish her goal by allowing them to assume there's a chance that Hillary will end up winning, and she's doing it in such a way that nobody can claim she's trying to mislead them. Brilliant.
I'm claiming she's misleading them and anybody else who gives any money to this ridiculous cause. If you're not recounting every state, you're being dishonest. When you're only investigating states the Democrats lost narrowly, it is quite clear that you're heavily favoring one side over the other.
Jill Stein is just making herself look like Hillary's hand puppet and that does not bode well for her ever running for office again.
Let's just recount the whole US. Still won't change the outcome.
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.
*
