Poll: Will the recounts be worth the effort?

[oreo]

Dumbass, I didn't say Republicans--I SAID DONALD TRUMP. You can bet your sweet ass, if Hillary Clinton won with a mere 100K accumulated votes coming out of 3 states, he would challenged it immediately, the accusations of voter fraud would have been flying all over the place, and he wouldn't have waited for cyber experts to review the vote to make those accusations. You know it, and I know it.

The one great thing about you leftists is how you can see into the future with your crystal ball. You have no idea WTF Trump would have done. But I assure you this: if they steal this election from him, there will be hell to pay down the road.

Well you Dumbass, Trump told us what he was going to do. When asked if he would concede the election if he lost, he stated he would have to look at the results first. Then he stated he wouldn't challenge the outcome of the race if he won.

You nor Trump have any room to argue or complain about this. Trump started it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This isn't a recount, a recount would only produce the same result. This is an audit of the votes cast, specifically out of electronic machines, specifically in Democrat counties, where the paper ballots were coming in strong for Hillary Clinton but the electronic machines in the same county or precincts were showing a 7% loss. That's what got everyone's attention, specifically the cyber experts.

By paper ballots, you mean the same ballots that the machines count? And if so, who was keeping track of these paper ballots in the first place?

Paper ballots are ones that go through an optical machine at the precinct or are mail-in ballots. Electronic machines are just like ATM machines, you punch buttons on the machines to cast your votes. This is where they're seeing the discrepancies. Ironically, it was Hillary Clinton that pushed for electronic machines back in 2000 after the debacle in Florida over the butterfly punch card ballots. There was a big discussion on how they could verify electronic machines accuracy and they came up with some kind of paper trail that will do that. So they will be looking at these paper trails that is somehow tied to these electronic machines to verify the vote count.
Recount granted in Wisconsin; same likely coming for Penn., Michigan

You didn't answer my question. Who was keeping track of paper ballots and comparing them to the voting machines? Or the better question, why?

As for your link, read the OP. It clearly states that it's next to impossible to get a recount in PA. You have to have evidence, it goes to court, and then it has to be decided that they will break the rules and allow a recount. But you have to come up with compelling evidence first before a court will even hear the complaint.

Well if they find evidence in Wisconsin, then Pennsylvania and every other state is not going to have a problem with doing an audit in their own states. If they refused--the shit would hit the fan in a very big way, all across this country.

If they find anything going on in Wisconsin, the U.S. Supreme court will be approached and will force any state that refused into doing an audit.

So you think this will happen overnight? This is going to take some time, and PA has a limit as to when you can have the case heard and a decision made on whether they will grant a recount or not. The Supreme Court can't override state laws.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mod Note: Some of you were spending too much commuting between these 3 similar threads.

Merged them. All started today...

 

[oreo]

I suppose the results of this poll are predictable. All the conservatives will of course say "no" because that kind of narrow-mindedness is expected from them and all the liberals will say vote either "yes" or "maybe".

I'm in the "maybe" camp. I wouldn't be surprised by the results either way. I am encouraged that independent experts believe fraud had occurred. If they were worth the effort, Jill Stein would become my hero. If they turn up with no significant change, it will be an embarrassment for both her and Hillary because Hillary has just announced she supports the recount. I suppose she doesn't have anything to lose.

It's not that, but you have millions of Americans out there, that watched Wiki-Leaks hack into supposedly secure government DNC databases to leak emails. You have 17 intelligence agencies saying many of these email leaks were coming from Russia. They never attacked the RNC. Millions of Americans watched FBI director, James Comey break long standing DOJ protocol, (after being warned not to send a letter to congress) and do it anyway, and after millions of people voted during those 7 days, believing that charges were imminent against Hillary Clinton. Then after 7 days Comey gave birth to a nothing burger. We have Huma, Clinton's aid that still states she has no idea how duplicates of her emails ended up on her husband's laptop, who is being investigated by the New York FBI office. Then to add insult to injury, the opposing candidate, Trump was campaigning on a rigged election, while describing how it could be done.

No Jill Stein, nor Hillary Clinton will be looking like a fool over this recount, because it's really not a recount. They are rightfully doing an audit, because in several of these counties, paper ballots were coming in very strong for Hillary Clinton, but the electronic voting machines in the same county were showing a loss of 7%. Over the past couple of weeks cyber experts have alerted them to this, and henceforth, Wisconsin will start the process later this week.

After all of the above--Americans are NOT CONFIDENT of the voting results. Trump won by a mere 100K accumulated votes in 3 battleground states, while Hillary Clinton is now leading him by more than 2 million popular votes.
Recount granted in Wisconsin; same likely coming for Penn., Michigan

If they don't do an audit in these states, it will only fuel the fire, that this election was rigged against Hillary Clinton, insuring that the majority of the population will not accept Trump as the legitimate President, nor will they ever trust our election system again.

And that is the main reason this is being done, regardless of the outcome. It is to restore confidence in our election system, after a very bitter, "hacked" campaign.

 

[oreo]

This isn't a recount, a recount would only produce the same result. This is an audit of the votes cast, specifically out of electronic machines, specifically in Democrat counties, where the paper ballots were coming in strong for Hillary Clinton but the electronic machines in the same county or precincts were showing a 7% loss. That's what got everyone's attention, specifically the cyber experts.

By paper ballots, you mean the same ballots that the machines count? And if so, who was keeping track of these paper ballots in the first place?

Paper ballots are ones that go through an optical machine at the precinct or are mail-in ballots. Electronic machines are just like ATM machines, you punch buttons on the machines to cast your votes. This is where they're seeing the discrepancies. Ironically, it was Hillary Clinton that pushed for electronic machines back in 2000 after the debacle in Florida over the butterfly punch card ballots. There was a big discussion on how they could verify electronic machines accuracy and they came up with some kind of paper trail that will do that. So they will be looking at these paper trails that is somehow tied to these electronic machines to verify the vote count.
Recount granted in Wisconsin; same likely coming for Penn., Michigan

You didn't answer my question. Who was keeping track of paper ballots and comparing them to the voting machines? Or the better question, why?

As for your link, read the OP. It clearly states that it's next to impossible to get a recount in PA. You have to have evidence, it goes to court, and then it has to be decided that they will break the rules and allow a recount. But you have to come up with compelling evidence first before a court will even hear the complaint.

Well if they find evidence in Wisconsin, then Pennsylvania and every other state is not going to have a problem with doing an audit in their own states. If they refused--the shit would hit the fan in a very big way, all across this country.

If they find anything going on in Wisconsin, the U.S. Supreme court will be approached and will force any state that refused into doing an audit.

So you think this will happen overnight? This is going to take some time, and PA has a limit as to when you can have the case heard and a decision made on whether they will grant a recount or not. The Supreme Court can't override state laws.

Apparently you were born after 2000--LOL. The U.S Supreme court did step in and slap around the Florida State Supreme court. Yes the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority if they feel that an election was rigged to demand all kinds of things. And as they did in Florida they react very quickly to those kinds of things.

As far as taking a long time, they are looking at the electronic voting machines in specific precincts where they see the vote totals out of wack compared to the paper ballots. And they will be looking at the paper trails of these electronic machines, because that is where the cyber experts have pointed too. So that shouldn't take long.

 

[Londoner]

This isn't a recount, a recount would only produce the same result. This is an audit of the votes cast, specifically out of electronic machines, specifically in Democrat counties, where the paper ballots were coming in strong for Hillary Clinton but the electronic machines in the same county or precincts were showing a 7% loss. That's what got everyone's attention, specifically the cyber experts.

By paper ballots, you mean the same ballots that the machines count? And if so, who was keeping track of these paper ballots in the first place?

Paper ballots are ones that go through an optical machine at the precinct or are mail-in ballots. Electronic machines are just like ATM machines, you punch buttons on the machines to cast your votes. This is where they're seeing the discrepancies. Ironically, it was Hillary Clinton that pushed for electronic machines back in 2000 after the debacle in Florida over the butterfly punch card ballots. There was a big discussion on how they could verify electronic machines accuracy and they came up with some kind of paper trail that will do that. So they will be looking at these paper trails that is somehow tied to these electronic machines to verify the vote count.
Recount granted in Wisconsin; same likely coming for Penn., Michigan

You didn't answer my question. Who was keeping track of paper ballots and comparing them to the voting machines? Or the better question, why?

As for your link, read the OP. It clearly states that it's next to impossible to get a recount in PA. You have to have evidence, it goes to court, and then it has to be decided that they will break the rules and allow a recount. But you have to come up with compelling evidence first before a court will even hear the complaint.

Ray, Podesta apparently said that PA was out of reach but that Wisconsin had genuinely odd patterns (that may or may not indicate tampering). Clinton is joining the Green Party in all three states because they'd rather be in the room than not.

Given that PA is genuinely out of reach, this means that the only thing that can come from this is a renewed effort to tighten electronic-only voting districts.

In reality, the election system is a joke. There are technological and administrative gaps that allow for shenanigans from anyone with an agenda. Look at Florida 2000. We put a man on the moon but the most important office on planet earth depended on hanging chads? How did we permit such an insane technological lapse at the point where technology was most needed?

There is a lot of work to be done, but we should try to fix this stuff after Trump takes office, IMHO.

 

[beagle9]

I suppose the results of this poll are predictable. All the conservatives will of course say "no" because that kind of narrow-mindedness is expected from them and all the liberals will say vote either "yes" or "maybe".

I'm in the "maybe" camp. I wouldn't be surprised by the results either way. I am encouraged that independent experts believe fraud had occurred. If they were worth the effort, Jill Stein would become my hero. If they turn up with no significant change, it will be an embarrassment for both her and Hillary because Hillary has just announced she supports the recount. I suppose she doesn't have anything to lose.

It's not that, but you have millions of Americans out there, that watched Wiki-Leaks hack into supposedly secure government DNC databases to leak emails. You have 17 intelligence agencies saying many of these email leaks were coming from Russia. They never attacked the RNC. Millions of Americans watched FBI director, James Comey break long standing DOJ protocol, (after being warned not to send a letter to congress) and do it anyway, and after millions of people voted during those 7 days, believing that charges were imminent against Hillary Clinton. Then after 7 days Comey gave birth to a nothing burger. We have Huma, Clinton's aid that still states she has no idea how duplicates of her emails ended up on her husband's laptop, who is being investigated by the New York FBI office.

No Jill Stein, nor Hillary Clinton will be looking like a fool over this recount, because it's really not a recount. They are rightfully doing an audit, because in several of these counties, paper ballots were coming in very strong for Hillary Clinton, but the electronic voting machines in the same county were showing a loss of 7%. Over the past couple of weeks cyber experts have alerted them to this, and henceforth, Wisconsin will start the process later this week.

After all of the above--Americans are NOT CONFIDENT of the voting results. Trump won by a mere 100K accumulated votes in 3 battleground states, while Hillary Clinton is now leading him by more than 2 million popular votes.
Recount granted in Wisconsin; same likely coming for Penn., Michigan

If they don't do an audit in these states, it will only fuel the fire, that this election was rigged against Hillary Clinton, insuring that the majority of the population will not accept Trump as the legitimate President, nor will they ever trust our election system again.

And that is the main reason this is being done, regardless of the outcome. It is to restore confidence in our election system, after a very bitter, "hacked" campaign.

. One question to you, were the wiki-leaks releases false or true ???????????? If true in which they were, your Hillary should be in jail. Now what were you saying about trusting the system again ??? Wiki-leaks installed that trust again, because we found out the dam truth about the corrupt Hillary Clinton campaign. Thank you wiki-leaks.

 

[oreo]

This isn't a recount, a recount would only produce the same result. This is an audit of the votes cast, specifically out of electronic machines, specifically in Democrat counties, where the paper ballots were coming in strong for Hillary Clinton but the electronic machines in the same county or precincts were showing a 7% loss. That's what got everyone's attention, specifically the cyber experts.

By paper ballots, you mean the same ballots that the machines count? And if so, who was keeping track of these paper ballots in the first place?

Paper ballots are ones that go through an optical machine at the precinct or are mail-in ballots. Electronic machines are just like ATM machines, you punch buttons on the machines to cast your votes. This is where they're seeing the discrepancies. Ironically, it was Hillary Clinton that pushed for electronic machines back in 2000 after the debacle in Florida over the butterfly punch card ballots. There was a big discussion on how they could verify electronic machines accuracy and they came up with some kind of paper trail that will do that. So they will be looking at these paper trails that is somehow tied to these electronic machines to verify the vote count.
Recount granted in Wisconsin; same likely coming for Penn., Michigan

You didn't answer my question. Who was keeping track of paper ballots and comparing them to the voting machines? Or the better question, why?

As for your link, read the OP. It clearly states that it's next to impossible to get a recount in PA. You have to have evidence, it goes to court, and then it has to be decided that they will break the rules and allow a recount. But you have to come up with compelling evidence first before a court will even hear the complaint.

Ray, Podesta apparently said that PA was out of reach but that Wisconsin had genuinely odd patterns (that may or may not indicate tampering). Clinton is joining the Green Party in all three states because they'd rather be in the room than not.

Given that PA is genuinely out of reach, this means that the only thing that can come from this is a renewed effort to tighten electronic-only voting districts.

In reality, the election system is a joke. There are technological and administrative gaps that allow for shenanigans from anyone with an agenda. Look at Florida 2000. We put a man on the moon but the most important office on planet earth depended on hanging chads? How did we permit such an insane technological lapse at the point where technology was most needed?

There is a lot of work to be done, but we should try to fix this stuff after Trump takes office, IMHO.

Pennsylvania will not be out of reach if they find anything at all in Wisconsin. This will move onto other states, like Florida and North Carolina. In fact I doubt any state would be exempt, if electronic voting machines have been manipulated.

This country would never stand to just opt in a President that clearly didn't win. As far Florida, those votes were counted several times by media sources, and Al Gore never once came out ahead. It was a close one, but Gore never won the Florida vote in 2000.

 

[beagle9]

This isn't a recount, a recount would only produce the same result. This is an audit of the votes cast, specifically out of electronic machines, specifically in Democrat counties, where the paper ballots were coming in strong for Hillary Clinton but the electronic machines in the same county or precincts were showing a 7% loss. That's what got everyone's attention, specifically the cyber experts.

By paper ballots, you mean the same ballots that the machines count? And if so, who was keeping track of these paper ballots in the first place?

Paper ballots are ones that go through an optical machine at the precinct or are mail-in ballots. Electronic machines are just like ATM machines, you punch buttons on the machines to cast your votes. This is where they're seeing the discrepancies. Ironically, it was Hillary Clinton that pushed for electronic machines back in 2000 after the debacle in Florida over the butterfly punch card ballots. There was a big discussion on how they could verify electronic machines accuracy and they came up with some kind of paper trail that will do that. So they will be looking at these paper trails that is somehow tied to these electronic machines to verify the vote count.
Recount granted in Wisconsin; same likely coming for Penn., Michigan

You didn't answer my question. Who was keeping track of paper ballots and comparing them to the voting machines? Or the better question, why?

As for your link, read the OP. It clearly states that it's next to impossible to get a recount in PA. You have to have evidence, it goes to court, and then it has to be decided that they will break the rules and allow a recount. But you have to come up with compelling evidence first before a court will even hear the complaint.

Ray, Podesta apparently said that PA was out of reach but that Wisconsin had genuinely odd patterns (that may or may not indicate tampering). Clinton is joining the Green Party in all three states because they'd rather be in the room than not.

Given that PA is genuinely out of reach, this means that the only thing that can come from this is a renewed effort to tighten electronic-only voting districts.

In reality, the election system is a joke. There are technological and administrative gaps that allow for shenanigans from anyone with an agenda. Look at Florida 2000. We put a man on the moon but the most important office on planet earth depended on hanging chads? How did we permit such an insane technological lapse at the point where technology was most needed?

There is a lot of work to be done, but we should try to fix this stuff after Trump takes office, IMHO.

Pennsylvania will not be out of reach if they find anything at all in Wisconsin. This will move onto other states, like Florida and North Carolina. In fact I doubt any state would be exempt, if electronic voting machines have been manipulated.

This country would never stand to just opt in a President that clearly didn't win. As far Florida, those votes were counted several times by media sources, and Al Gore never once came out ahead. It was a close one, but Gore never won the Florida vote in 2000.

. Answer the question, were the wiki-leaks information legitimate?? If so then Hillary is not qualified to become president, so all of this is worthless. How come you crats are looking for one-sided criminal behavior, but ignoring Hillary's criminal behavior???

 

[Jackson]

Actually, this business about Stein collecting millions for a POSSIBLE recount is funny. Speculation is that she never intended to do a recount and she would start with at least 7 million in the coffers for another election run in 2020. Now that Clinton has signed on, Stein will HAVE TO go through a recount! LMAO!

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/.../25/recount-would-have-move-quickly/94417686/

 

[beagle9]

Actually, this business about Stein collecting millions for a POSSIBLE recount is funny. Speculation is that she never intended to do a recount and she would start with at least 7 million in the coffers for another election run in 2020. Now that Clinton has signed on, Stein will HAVE TO go through a recount! LMAO!

. I think Hillary and Stein are in bed together on this.

 

[Londoner]

By paper ballots, you mean the same ballots that the machines count? And if so, who was keeping track of these paper ballots in the first place?

Paper ballots are ones that go through an optical machine at the precinct or are mail-in ballots. Electronic machines are just like ATM machines, you punch buttons on the machines to cast your votes. This is where they're seeing the discrepancies. Ironically, it was Hillary Clinton that pushed for electronic machines back in 2000 after the debacle in Florida over the butterfly punch card ballots. There was a big discussion on how they could verify electronic machines accuracy and they came up with some kind of paper trail that will do that. So they will be looking at these paper trails that is somehow tied to these electronic machines to verify the vote count.
Recount granted in Wisconsin; same likely coming for Penn., Michigan

You didn't answer my question. Who was keeping track of paper ballots and comparing them to the voting machines? Or the better question, why?

As for your link, read the OP. It clearly states that it's next to impossible to get a recount in PA. You have to have evidence, it goes to court, and then it has to be decided that they will break the rules and allow a recount. But you have to come up with compelling evidence first before a court will even hear the complaint.

Ray, Podesta apparently said that PA was out of reach but that Wisconsin had genuinely odd patterns (that may or may not indicate tampering). Clinton is joining the Green Party in all three states because they'd rather be in the room than not.

Given that PA is genuinely out of reach, this means that the only thing that can come from this is a renewed effort to tighten electronic-only voting districts.

In reality, the election system is a joke. There are technological and administrative gaps that allow for shenanigans from anyone with an agenda. Look at Florida 2000. We put a man on the moon but the most important office on planet earth depended on hanging chads? How did we permit such an insane technological lapse at the point where technology was most needed?

There is a lot of work to be done, but we should try to fix this stuff after Trump takes office, IMHO.

Pennsylvania will not be out of reach if they find anything at all in Wisconsin. This will move onto other states, like Florida and North Carolina. In fact I doubt any state would be exempt, if electronic voting machines have been manipulated.

This country would never stand to just opt in a President that clearly didn't win. As far Florida, those votes were counted several times by media sources, and Al Gore never once came out ahead. It was a close one, but Gore never won the Florida vote in 2000.

. Answer the question, were the wiki-leaks information legitimate?? If so then Hillary is not qualified to become president, so all of this is worthless. How come you crats are looking for one-sided criminal behavior, but ignoring Hillary's criminal behavior???

If Reagan wasn't imprisoned for supplying Iran with weapons and running an illegal, off-the-books war in Central America, than Clinton won't be imprisoned for run-of-the-mill campaign planning and admittedly pathetic Wall Street speeches or using private email, which is more common in Gov't than you've been lead to believe.

Are you being fooled by the rightwing press? I don't know, but ask yourself this: why don't you know how many times Bush and the GOP House/Senate raised the debt ceiling? Why don't you know that Bush's first iteration of his wire-tapping program was anti-Constitutional?

Once you realize that only partisan information reaches your orbit, you'll start to question why you think that everything the Left does is illegal and everything the Right does isn't.

FYI: many of us on the Left are glad Hillary is gone. We think the Clinton's stole the primary from Bernie. And we think that Bernie could have done better with the rust belt working class. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but you seem as partisan as your opponents. I could be wrong.

 

[Care4all]

people believed the Supreme Court handed the election, to George w Bush.

And then those same "people" in the "US" media did a recount, and not only did W win, he GAINED VOTES... proving the DEMS CHEATED...

USATODAY.com - Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

" Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes,"



and that is the fun part about RECOUNTS - they always out the DEMS for the CHEATERS they are!!!

Well, Al Gore was still the candidate that Floridians picked as their President in 2000.

All Gore got 5000 plus votes on the butterfly ballot from Floridians that were given to Pat Bucanan....

THIS is why he won the exist polls....the polling by the media was not bad, Gore really was the citizens voting choice...

It was a horrible election, by the SC, and Katherine Harris, and all the mayhem, not the voters in Florida......they had one clear choice, they voted for Gore by thousands more votes than Bush got, only they were not counted.....

It was a very disturbing recount and election, for certain, on both sides of the aisle!!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This isn't a recount, a recount would only produce the same result. This is an audit of the votes cast, specifically out of electronic machines, specifically in Democrat counties, where the paper ballots were coming in strong for Hillary Clinton but the electronic machines in the same county or precincts were showing a 7% loss. That's what got everyone's attention, specifically the cyber experts.

By paper ballots, you mean the same ballots that the machines count? And if so, who was keeping track of these paper ballots in the first place?

Paper ballots are ones that go through an optical machine at the precinct or are mail-in ballots. Electronic machines are just like ATM machines, you punch buttons on the machines to cast your votes. This is where they're seeing the discrepancies. Ironically, it was Hillary Clinton that pushed for electronic machines back in 2000 after the debacle in Florida over the butterfly punch card ballots. There was a big discussion on how they could verify electronic machines accuracy and they came up with some kind of paper trail that will do that. So they will be looking at these paper trails that is somehow tied to these electronic machines to verify the vote count.
Recount granted in Wisconsin; same likely coming for Penn., Michigan

You didn't answer my question. Who was keeping track of paper ballots and comparing them to the voting machines? Or the better question, why?

As for your link, read the OP. It clearly states that it's next to impossible to get a recount in PA. You have to have evidence, it goes to court, and then it has to be decided that they will break the rules and allow a recount. But you have to come up with compelling evidence first before a court will even hear the complaint.

Ray, Podesta apparently said that PA was out of reach but that Wisconsin had genuinely odd patterns (that may or may not indicate tampering). Clinton is joining the Green Party in all three states because they'd rather be in the room than not.

Given that PA is genuinely out of reach, this means that the only thing that can come from this is a renewed effort to tighten electronic-only voting districts.

In reality, the election system is a joke. There are technological and administrative gaps that allow for shenanigans from anyone with an agenda. Look at Florida 2000. We put a man on the moon but the most important office on planet earth depended on hanging chads? How did we permit such an insane technological lapse at the point where technology was most needed?

There is a lot of work to be done, but we should try to fix this stuff after Trump takes office, IMHO.

Believe it or not, those punch card ballots were more accurate than what we are using today. If not for crybaby Gore, many would still be using them.

 

[EverCurious]

Alaska still uses paper bubble ballots. Of course most of us slap down our photo ID's so the folks can find our names without us having to spell them out. I was laughing at our voting area this year because everyone in the place had their ID's out (mostly military id's as that's the population we have in my city) As we were walking in my husband (who's a vet) said we should thank each one of them (cause the car in front of us had a vet plate too) and I made the comment that we'd be better off to thank the entire room because 90% were military -- and so we did

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Apparently you were born after 2000--LOL. The U.S Supreme court did step in and slap around the Florida State Supreme court. Yes the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority if they feel that an election was rigged to demand all kinds of things. And as they did in Florida they react very quickly to those kinds of things.

As far as taking a long time, they are looking at the electronic voting machines in specific precincts where they see the vote totals out of wack compared to the paper ballots. And they will be looking at the paper trails of these electronic machines, because that is where the cyber experts have pointed too. So that shouldn't take long.

Obviously you are confused about the Gore race.

Yes, Gore got his buddies on the Florida SC to create new laws just for him. That's why the US Supreme Court stopped it. In Florida, all ballots had to be certified in seven days no if's and's or but's about it. If you want to do a recount, fine, have it done in seven days.

Gore's buddies decided they didn't like that law, so they suspended it so Gore could take all the time he needed. More than that, they originally allowed him to count his districts only which was another violation of Florida law; recounts have to take place in both Democrat and Republican districts equally. If you want to recount three districts in Democrat areas, you have to do recounts in three Republican areas as well.

Since you didn't learn anything from that race, allow me to tell you why it was stopped: A Supreme Court only does one thing, and that's interpret the law--not create new ones on the bench. That's called Judicial Legislation and you can't do that in this country.

So hoping the Supreme Court will create new laws for Pennsylvania is just a pipe dream. It won't happen because that's not what they do. If PA courts do the same as Florida, that will be stopped as well. PA has their own laws, and all judges can do is make sure the those laws are enforced (whatever the laws are).

 

[Mac1958]

This may have already been pointed out in this thread, but I'm not going to bother looking.

Robin Williams once starred in a movie called Man of the Year, in which he played a teevee talk show host who ran for President as a lark and somehow won. It was later revealed that the voting machines were rigged and he had to resign.

I'm not making a political point with that, other than this is a little eerie.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

 

[yiostheoy]

I suppose the results of this poll are predictable. All the conservatives will of course say "no" because that kind of narrow-mindedness is expected from them and all the liberals will say vote either "yes" or "maybe".

I'm in the "maybe" camp. I wouldn't be surprised by the results either way. I am encouraged that independent experts believe fraud had occurred. If they were worth the effort, Jill Stein would become my hero. If they turn up with no significant change, it will be an embarrassment for both her and Hillary because Hillary has just announced she supports the recount. I suppose she doesn't have anything to lose.

Chuck Todd asked this very same question this morning (11/27/2016) on Meet The Press.

I guess everybody is wondering if Russia hacked our election?

 

[yiostheoy]

This may have already been pointed out in this thread, but I'm not going to bother looking.

Robin Williams once starred in a movie called Man of the Year, in which he played a teevee talk show host who ran for President as a lark and somehow won. It was later revealed that the voting machines were rigged and he had to resign.

I'm not making a political point with that, other than this is a little eerie.

Well he's dead now.

Presumably died of AIDS but the family hushed it up.