Adventures in Recount
Well, we thought that a Republican finally won an election without the crybabies calling for a recount. Too soon. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate figures that she could pay off her campaign debts by recounting ballots in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and the Clinton campaign has joined in with them, according to Fox News;
The Clinton campaign joined the effort, despite Clinton having already conceded the race.
“Now that a recount is underway, we believe we have an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings to ensure that an accurate vote count will be reported,” Hillary for America attorney Marc Erik Elias said on Medium.
Stein, who got roughly 1 percent of the national vote, says she wants to make sure hackers didn’t skew the results in those swing states.
“We’re standing up for a voting system that we deserve,” Stein said Friday.
For their part, the White House stands behind the election results, according to Politico;
“We stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” a senior administration official told POLITICO late Friday.
“The federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyber activity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on election day,” the official added. “We believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective.”
The Left can never accept that it was their politics that defeated them at the polls – it’s always something else.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit
Hildabeast doesn’t want to give all that money back to her Arab investors.
And it’s tough to peddle influence when you have none.
Meanwhile, here in N.C., Gov. McRory is recounting an election that he (apparently) lost by less than 5000 votes and the lefties are calling it shameful behavior on his part (he is entirely within N.C. law to do so BTW).
Considering the widely reported voter fraud and all of the absentee ballots to be counted here I fully support a candidate of either party that lost by 5-6,000 votes calling for a recount. Considering the large military contingent in NC I think the absentee ballots may tip the scale back to Mcrory
I have been watching it as well 68.
I also agree with jonp in his assessment.
This goes way beyond a redux of “Sore Loserman”. I swear, they want to just continue to tear US apart.
Won’t it be hilarious if those recounts find more Trump votes?
Do not hold your breath. The left is quite skilled at manufacturing votes during a recount – or otherwise manipulating the result in their favor – if not watched closely.
Hondo has a point and here is why: I took a look at the type(s) of voting equipment used in Wisconsin and their recount procedures. WOW! is all I can say because it is going to be a drawn out nightmare with the distinct possibility of previously rejected absentee ballots being counted. Wisconsin is a paper ballot state that uses a variety of tabulators with some townships actually only hand counting ballots. They have a lot of the ES&S equipment I know well but some of the older stuff and one brand that I believe was susceptible to being programmed for fraud. While the election day paper ballot recount is straight forward enough, any election day electronic votes on American’s With Disabilities Act machines procedures present an opportunity for problems. They require the RTAL tapes to be cut up into individual ballots, then the slips mixed up and hand counted. The only good news here is these machines should not have gotten a lot of use. The bad news is how many cancelled or changed votes recorded on those tapes will be counted? The prime target is going to be rejected absentee ballots. I think they selected Wisconsin with the full knowledge of the magnitude of the task as a delaying tactic.
Not really, but it’d be an interesting result if those recounts give Trump a majority of the popular vote.
Funny how liberal recounts works they suddenly find votes for them out of thin air.
Let’s NOT forget the MN Senatorial election when Al Franken’s minions manufactured enough votes out of thin air for him to steal that election!
Oh, wait — am I to understand that bodaprez is thumbing his button nose at shrillary AGAIN????
Awwwwwww! That’s funnier than a porcupine in a bag of marshmallows!
Aside from that, there was no evidence of hacking in any of those three states, and I believe Michigan confirmed its final count on Friday.
H’rm…shoot down Shrillary’s Presidential bid out of spite; maybe lingering resentments left over from the 2008 Democratic nomination fight? Maybe?
Mmmmm…nah; I don’t think so. At least, I hope not. I mean, are they really that petty? Petty enough to put a Republican in the White House just to keep a rival Democrat from getting in? That’s just plain childish, imo.
I dunno. Rumor has it the Glorious Leader and Das Hildabeast REALLY hate eachother.
TOW, that is Felonia Von Pantsuit.
None of that, SI. He can’t stand her, so why would he do anything to support her in this ballot box boondoggle?
Stein is just letting the democraps manipulate her, nothing more. This is sheer nonsense, grasping at straws.
Here’s a good article on the subject.
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/11/23/vote-recount-pennsylvania/
Michigan just finalized its vote count. As the author of the article says,
More from Halderman:
I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.
The polls were wrong. That includes the exit polls and the pre-election polls. It’s hard for people to accept defeat when their expectations were that they would automatically win.
If there is any fraud going on anywhere, it is manipulating people into riots and destruction of property after the election results were announced, along with all the other things we’ve seen.
On the left side of the political fence, NO ONE saw Trump winning. They’ve been blindsided by their own stupidity and cupidity. They thought they had it in the bag, and they did not.
Furthermore, Clinton has already conceded and is out of the business. The lefties will just have to accept that fact like grownups.
No, I think he fully supports the recount but want’s to remain behind the scene to keep his hands off of it as usual.
Called this yesterday:
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=69109&cpage=2#comment-2927175
IMO Stein is being used – likely willingly – as a “stalking horse” by the Clintoons to try and overturn the results of the election. The “excess” after recount expenses are paid will be far above what’s needed to pay any campaign debts she might have (she doesn’t have many).
The terms “payoff” and “Soros money” come to mind for some reason.
Made the same point below. Didn’t see yours. I had an open cmt box, apparently for 10 minutes.
Soros… He’s nothing but a pseudo-Nazi with a deep checkbook. Look at any Western country going through a crisis, and that pompous little asshole is throwing money around through his “organizations” to stir the pot.
Here’s something from the New York Times.
The White House stands behind the election results. The Clinton campaign is NOT backing a recount. This is all BS. If it’s coming from Stein, she’s being manipulated and yes, that Nazi gasbag Soros comes to mind.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/us/politics/hacking-russia-election-fears-barack-obama-donald-trump.html?_r=0
Clinton got 232 electoral votes. Trump is shown as having 290, but actually received 306.
The three states in question have these results:
Wisconsin
Trump 47.9%, Clinton 46.9%, Johnson 3.6%
Pennsylvania
Trump 48.8%, Clinton 47.6%, Johnson 2.4%
Michigan – finalized 11/25/16
Trump 2,279,543
Clinton 2,268,839
Difference is 10,704 votes
Johnson 172,139
I guess the problem is that Michigan’s final vote total upsets people.
So, since Clinton’s campaign is not contesting anything and the White House is supporting the results of this election, who stands to benefit from the demand of a recount? Yeah, I think so, too.
When is that old Nazi gasbag going to kick the bucket and take his hellborn brood with him?
I guess Stein, and by extension, some dems, think they can maybe manufacture a city of 10,704 souls somewhere in Michigan, who will all vote dem? Otherwise, she’s saying that the dems in Wayne, Oakland, Genesee and Saginaw counties didn’t mark their ballots early and often enough.
I’ll bet that there’s a broken down DeSoto or AMC Rambler in one of those areas with about 11,000 ballots in a bunch of bags hidden in a trunk… all for Cankles McPantsuit.
Unless it was stolen, or burned by the yutes in the area.
BUT will they count the illegal aliens’ votes and the homeless that were bused from one precinct to another to vote as many times as they could?
I heard that there were 14 million illegals (probably nationwide) who were registered to vote. Another 2.5 million registered to vote in more than one state, 1.8 million dead people registered to vote. I could document this, but there is a company making voting machines that can be programmed to switch votes, and Soros is owner.
I just read that Stein’s “costs” keep rising, even though the recount fees are a fixed amount. Since she first started her fundraising, atty’s fees have gone up by 300%. She has exceeded the amount she needs to force recounts in multiple states but, by golly, she hasn’t stopped fundraising. One wonders where the excess will go. And all of this w/o a shred of evidence of illegality or any indication of ballot corruption. My only concern is that the money might be placed in #10 envelopes and delivered to key players in the states in which recounts are held. The image of certain election officials being fitted for orange jump suits some months from now, while Trump is in the White House, does hold a certain attraction for me.
The tears of their defeat will be even sweeter the second time around…I may need to get checked for diabetes.
This will just cement the final gasp of a deceased political career and even the libs will finally figure out she is and always has been an empty polyesther pantsuit.
This has moved into embarrassing territory.
“This has moved into embarrassing territory.” I agree that it has for normal people but, in this instance, Jill Stein is involved so embarrassment is not a factor. FORWARD!
So does this mean she’s also gonna pay for a recount in NH, where Trump was leading with 95 percent of the precincts counted, but ended up losing by 3000, or where Ayotte lost by less than 700?
Or California, home of over 3 million illegals? After all, the integrity of the election matter, right?
If she or Clinton had the courage of their convictions (yeah, I know) they’d demand a recount in all 50 states, or none at all.
This has more to do specifically with a set of states where some computer scientists found what they feel is evidence of fraud:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/
But other people disagree with that analysis:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/
I think both sides should seek to challenge when a plausible case of fraud exists and the outcome was unexpected based on history and polling. As for someone losing then winning, like in NH, it really depends on where those last 5% of the precincts are – often times the larger cities, which lean Democratic, take longer to tally, so they report in later, and thus a D surge isn’t unheard of.
From your link to CNN(?), “Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs to be looked at by an independent review”. Uh, no, there is no evidence, by their own admission, that any hacking took place. Hillzy underperformed in dem strongholds in Michigan, that’s why she received less votes.
Just one for instance, she showed up in Ottawa County on election eve, to visit a state university. It was a waste of time, effort and money. Ottawa County is either the most conservative county in the state, or in the top two. She got thumped 2 to 1 in the popular vote. She drew 4000 people to that venue. Trump was in Grand Rapids the same day, he drew double what she did.
And, checking the county map, she lost Saginaw County, unheard of for an R presidential candidate to carry that county.
Just an FYI, CNN is probably no more reliable than Snopes.
Yes, I definitely wrote that too fast and was loose with the wording – I should’ve said they feel there is an indication of anomalous results, not evidence of fraud. (Or, there is the potential of fraud – and voting anomalies deserve some investigation, even if only to ensure we close whatever vulnerabilities exist.)
And of course a statistician would not have any evidence of a hack attack. But, again, that’s not the same as saying one didn’t happen.
All that said, I still find it unlikely. And yes, Clinton lost because she was a poor candidate and ran a lackluster campaign. But even had she won, if considerable statistical anomalies existed in certain counties, I’d want them investigated.
You just said the magical word…IF.
And yet nobody will go on the record claiming there was malfeasance, aside from a fringe nutjob and an unindicted felon.
Give Hillary credit for getting someone to do her dirty work again. And the fact it took 15 days for MI to certify their results should tell them they did everything to generate as many “correct” votes as possible.
Even if MI was overturned, to get that, WI, and PA overturned? Not happening.
Odd that the only states the “experts” think are worth a look are those that Clinton lost.
I would love to see a Kalifornia recount! Altogether, I think Trump won the popular vote nationwide.
In case you guys are worried about the electoral college, some states have faithless elector laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
and there is also this article:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/could-electoral-college-elect-clinton/
Given the importance of valid elections, I have zero problems with this. A few computer scientists have shown some statistics that seem to indicate flaws in the result tallies in these places. While I personally find that scenario unlikely, we do know of hacks targeting election systems, so why not rule it out? Ultimately it’s better for the nation to remove any doubt about the validity of the election.
I think it’d be utter chaos if anything was found to be amiss that might change the results, but that’s unlikely.
Sure they’re just “upholding the integrity of the process”, LC.
Just like Gore did in 2000 – in only 4 counties, while opposing a statewide recount and pulling out all the stops to prevent military absentee ballots from being counted. Or like Franken’s supporters did in MN in 2008 – when a bag of “missing” votes from a predominantly Democratic precinct was reportedly discovered in the trunk of a car quite late, and enough felons were documented to have voted to have changed the election’s outcome. And don’t get me started on the most blatant of them all: the Texas Democratic Senatorial primary in 1948.
I do not trust the Democratic party one whit when it comes to election recounts. They are quite skilled at “finding” votes that previously didn’t seem to exist. And the methods used to “find” those votes generally stink like rotting fish.
My favorite voting story is one from one of the national elections in the past twelve years where there were several voting precincts that reported more votes than they had adult residents in the precincts. Of course the votes were overwhelming for the Demorat candidates; or the precincts which voted 99% for Obama, just like the elections in Communist paradise countries.
rgr769: if you’ve never read it, you should read Robert Caro’s Means of Ascent. It’s the 2nd volume in his multi-volume bio of LBJ. It documents, in detail, how LBJ and his people outright stole his 1948 Democratic Senate nomination. The titles of two chapters alone pretty much tell the story of what happened and how: “The Stealing” and “Lists of Names”. LBJ was literally “saved by the bell” during the aftermath. His opponent took the matter to court, and Federal investigators were opening ballot boxes to determine what had actually happened. Johnson’s lawyers were simultaneously petitioning one of the Supreme Court justices for a court order halting that investigation. The investigators had opened about half of the ballot boxes from one county (Duval County, run by the notorious George Parr) when the courthouse phone rang. The call was notification that a SCOTUS justice had indeed issued an order halting the investigation. They had yet to open the ballot box from Precinct 13 from Duval County. It’s pictured here – in the possession of Johnson’s political allies in Duval County: Per eyewitness testimony, the box pictured in that photo was not present in court on the day the ballot boxes were being opened. Its whereabouts and final disposition have never been determined. Ditto for all three original copies of the official tally sheets prepared during ballot counting. Those were known to exist, because they had been examined by supporters of LBJ’s opponent prior several days prior to the commencement of the Federal investigation. In the final tally, LBJ “won” the statewide Senate primary by 87 votes, giving rise to his satirical nickname “Landslide Lyndon”. In the box pictured above, the final tally included 202 more votes than originally reported – all but 2 of which were for LBJ. The additional votes were all observed to have been at the end of the tally sheet, all in the same handwriting – and in alphabetical order. The “additional” votes for LBJ included people known to be dead and some individuals who were not physically in town while the polls were open on… Read more »
I didn’t say that’s why they’re doing it, I said that’s why I support it.
Of course the political parties are going to push for anything that favors them; that’s a large part of what’s wrong with the parties themselves. But we should all be apolitical when it comes to potential issues with the vote count.
“While I personally find that scenario unlikely, we do know of hacks targeting election systems, so why not rule it out?” The Federal gov’t–the one whose executive branch is run by that progressive tyrant B. Hussein Obama–ruled preciselt THAT out. Do you think they’re in cahoots with Trump. Chances are that if there is tomfoolery found, it will be the Dems who are responsible for it. They have a deserved reputation for cheating. Hondo provided one instance but there are many others. (e.g., JFK won election by cheating.)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you don’t always believe the government, do you?
They have to say that; throwing doubt into the election system wouldn’t do anyone any good. I don’t think they’re in cahoots with President-elect Trump, no, but when the director of the NSA says that a nation-state is seeking to influence our elections, and we detect possible statistical quirks in election results, it’s just smart to ensure the results are valid.
And that applies equally to Democrats doing it. Give a plausible scenario where election results don’t look statistically valid, and look into the cause. It doesn’t matter if the primary culprit aligns with Rs or Ds – just secure the system. That’s more important than either party.
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but you don’t always believe the government, do you?” Rare is the instance in which I do, but Dems inherently trust the gov’t, so much so they want to expand it, seemingly w/o limitation. Thus, I thought that YOU trusted government. As for the fed gov’t’s role in the recounts, it has none, but it did assure that there was no hanky panky from hackers, Russian or otherwise. Like I wrote, I expect that a recount will change nothing for Wide Load and, as far as I know, the hacking aspect is not part of this effort. That is, there will not be computer wizards monkeying around with the states’ voting systems. There will be–literally–a recount of logged votes.
The states conducted the election and no state raised a red flag regarding the process. If reassurance was needed, I suppose recounts would be automatic, but they are not. Arguably, this recount effort, targeting certain states to the exclusion of others for purely political purposes, actually undermines the confidence we generally have in the system because a recount carries the implication that something is amiss. So, while you, LC, took the Stein road—hey, let’s ensure the process was fair—that road suggests the process was unfair. If there’s smoke, certainly check for fire. If there’s not, don’t.
This is nothing more than FL-2000, repeated on a national scale.
To wit: “Well, let’s have a recount. But only here, here, and here – where we think we might be able to rig the game in our favor by manufacturing enough votes to matter. But we only want a recount in those three states. Everything else is OK.”
If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s exactly what the DNC pulled in Florida in 2000 to try to steal the 2000 Presidential election. Except if memory serves, they wanted recounts in 4 counties vice 3. And they specifically did NOT want a statewide recount, because that would expose the DNC’s systematic efforts to disenfranchise military absentee voters via repeated technical objections to their absentee ballots.
In view of the fact that is it ONLY three states with big EV counts, and only three of many that Clinton lost, the appropriate thing to do is order a recount of ALL STATE TOTALS.
It’s only fair, right? After all, Trump was ahead with 95% of the vote in NH and then suddenly, it went to Clinton. I’d order a recount post-haste on that one and on Washington, too, because two electoral voters have said they will NOT vote for her.
I’m for fair and verifiable election results – I think any statistical irregularities should be investigated.
I don’t like Clinton, and god forbid anything actually changed the election because that would unleash all sorts of uncertainty and misery upon the American public, but I think that voting is one of the most important things we do. We should ensure it’s done right.
As for the 95% of the vote in NH thing, like I said before, often times (this is from observation, not a statistical analysis) it seems larger precincts take longer to count and report votes. And they lean Democratic. If the difference at any given point in time jumps by an unreasonable amount, it deserves to be looked into. But it’s entirely plausible for that to happen.
(For example, Florida had that issue – Broward was only reporting a small percentage of results while Florida was 98% done – but that 2% was going to break 60/40 or so for Clinton, so she’d catch up a bit. At the same time, it was too little too late.)
If the analysis of NH doesn’t bear that out, I’m all for looking into it as well.
Those “statistics” would rely on the polls, which were shown to be FUBAR. So, unless those computer scientists can show that every voter in one or more precincts told them how they voted and they came up with facts that the results were skewed, they really have nothing to base this on.
Funny how these “scientists” were nowhere to be found in 2012 when 59 precincts in Philly got exactly ZERO votes for Romney.
I actually haven’t yet read the report by the scientists, so I’m talking from the hip. I’d argue that using the polls as a baseline is flawed, yes, but using the polls plus the national average by which Trump beat them is plausible. It doesn’t account for regional differences, though.
For example, if Clinton underperformed by 5% nationally and 3.7% in WI, well, you have a hard case to make for potential issues with the vote count. If she underperformed in WI by 8%, that’s a different story – underperforming by such a degree beyond the average, in a tradtionally Democratic area, is considerably less likely to happen ‘naturally’.
That doesn’t mean there is fraud, but I think it deserves consideration vs. immediate dismissal.
There is this, from the Detroit Free Press, “Earlier in the night, a look at a majority of key precincts across the state by the Free Press’ political analyst (James) Kiska indicated that Clinton would win, maintaining a seventh-straight presidential cycle in which the Democrats were expected to hold Michigan. The Free Press called the state on the basis of that analysis, though at 3 a.m. the final votes hadn’t been tallied”. This is what Stein, Soros and Klintoon are basing their recount hopes on.
This is the heart of the article, “Results from 80 key precincts showed Clinton with a slight lead and only slightly underperforming President Barack Obama’s margin of victory in those same precincts four years ago”. Those “80 key precincts” were likely in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties. http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/08/michigan-election-results-presidential-voting-trump-clinton/93470116/
I forgot to add, the reason for the idea of recount seems to be the dems won seven straight presidential contests in Michigan, and Kiska relied on polling data only from 80 precincts. Exit polls are notoriously unreliable, yet the media clings to them when it reinforces their bias.
I was able to contribute to exit poll unreliability one year. As I exited the polling building, I was approached by a fellow who ID’ed himself, looked the part, and asked me questions. Every answer I gave him was a lie. True story.
So they expected to win based on polls and past history, and it didn’t happen that way? Wow. If that is not the stupidest thing I have ever heard of, it comes close.
It actually is the stupidest thing I have heard of.
Think about it, the Freep called Michigan for Hillzy von Klintoon, based on what was said by many people who absolutely loathe the MSM, and in Michigan, the Detroit Free Press in particular.
The polls closed at 8, that means the doors were locked to prevent any more people from entering. Many places still had voters in line to vote, and I’m pretty sure those 80 precincts were well represented in that category. Then the machines, or ballots, depending, had to be taken to election headquarters and the counting had to be started. There’s no way they got more than 1% of the votes counted by the time Kiska pulled that wild hare out of his ass.
Well, this is Infowars’ latest video, in two parts, regarding Stein’s demand for recounts in those three states, due to some undefined computer anomalies… that haven’t been verified by anyone… and one of those states does not use electronic voting machines, and there is no connection to the internet….
But see for yourself, and use your own judgment. It’s two parts, with a commercial in between, so be patient. And he’s correct: we need to be concerned, about Stein’s demands, and about the cash she’s raised so quickly.
https://youtu.be/wfvZQUIA37U
In case anyone does not understand why it’s those three states, as Alex Jones doesn’t get it, either, here’s the reason.
Trump got 306 electoral votes.
Clinton got 232 electoral votes.
The total available is 538 EV.
Michigan has 16 EV.
Wisconsin has 10 EV.
Pennsylvania has 20 EV.
In the other states where the win margin was small, there seems to be no quibbling. Clinton did not win in the three states in question. They all have large enough EVs available to turn the election over to Clinton if they are ALL given to her.
Do the math. It’s that simple.
And yes, InfoWars is right: we should be concerned. None of this is cast in stone. There is a movement underway, including a GoFundMe page, to get the Electoral Voters to jump the fence and go over to Clinton. I kid you not. This report is from The Inquisitor, so I don’t know how reliable it is, but here you go.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3748302/electoral-college-map-update-one-electoral-college-member-sues-to-become-faithless-elector-how-to-contact-electoral-college-the-right-way/
Hmmmm….
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/the_democrats_real_strategy_in_launching_recounts.html
“The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters. If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232. No one hits 270.
Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time this happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.
If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it? The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.”
One last thing: the idiocy behind this desperate scramble is based on the idea that if shrillary gets into the White House, everything will be just hunky dory, right?
Well, it won’t be. She made all sorts of campaign promises. They are worthless. She won’t keep any of them. She is only in it for herself and nothing else.
But they are just stupid enough to believe that she gives a crap about them. Yeah, so did Xerxes the God-king as long as he didn’t know who you were.
Well, if H. Wideload Clintoon does get those three states to flip, and the Electoral College votes to make her president, there is still the House of Representatives vote to certify their vote. I wonder if, by that time, enough Republicans would have gotten a spinal transplant to refuse to certify the EC vote? Would they have the stones to stand up and say, not only no, but Hell NO!!!!!
I don’t hold out a lot of hope for that scenario.
It would be time to lock and load. Thankfully, the other side is unarmed–as a matter of principle.
One of the most amazing and wonderful thing about American politics is the routinely peaceful transition of power after elections.
If enough people become convinced that elections are stolen versus fair, if wide swaths of territory feel they no longer have a say, this could all come to an abrupt and spectacular halt.
The last time a large segment of America felt the loss of control, the -potential- for -future- loss of control, we wound up with the four bloodiest years of warfare in our history, and scars and fault-lines that remain to this day.
We now see key figures (Saunders) and whole parties (Green) corrupted by the Clinton Machine, bent to the will of one would-be Leader.
If cooler heads do not prevail, we could see another upheaval. That would probably be the end of the Republic. Keep firmly in mind that some folks are Ok with that, if they cannot get -their- Leader annointed.
Not certain how many others have already opined something similar to this, so bear with me if this is a repeat. Or something.
When I first heard about the so-called controversy about the results from electronic balloting, I wondered if the outcome really will yield the results those whining the loudest about it (aka the ones making up the controversy) are hoping to see. The reported results supposedly show more Trump votes than from areas with other than electronic vote totals. We are led to believe that it is suspicious that Trump won, or that the totals were unexpectedly close. We are supposed to believe that it could not be an honest total. Just because “they” say so.
Let’s suppose for the moment that it really is more difficult to skew the results in electronic voting than from the traditional means of calculating vote totals. These recount efforts may just prove the efficacy of electronic voting and also show just how wide spread fraudulent voting remains around the country where other than electronic voting remains in place. Wouldn’t that be a hoot and a half?
Get out the popcorn. This could the most entertainment we’ve had in decades.
Yes, it would be a hoot. I would laugh myself into asphyxiation over it, but until this is settled, I’m taking the wait-and-see stance.
When the left wins, it was a fair election.
When the right wins, the left screams voter fraud.
Let’s recount every fucking vote cast in every state for every office. The left may not want to open that can of worms.
Cocksuckers, oh and first place losers to boot.
Yes, let’s count and recount every single vote, in every state, every county, and every precinct.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I have seldom seen such a bunch of overgrown, childish, spoiled brats in one enormous crass, stupid group. It must be a terrible thing to realize that no, life is not fair and you do NOT always get what you want, just because you want it and just like that.
Somebody let me know when they grow the EFFF up, please!
I’ll add to that that when the Right thought it was going to lose, it talked quite a bit about rigged elections, too.
In my opinion, the best way to handle that is to ensure there is faith in the process by investigating any plausible issues. Regardless of which side they favor. Some people still won’t accept the ‘recounted’ votes, and they’ll whine even louder, but most people will and that’s better than letting plausible issues fester in the public consciousness, I think.