The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts

[rightwinger]

The truth is if Hillary had won and had Trump requested a recount the libtards would be soiling themselves! Saying " it's a threat to democracy"

Roflmao.

Difference is....Trump rejected the results without knowing what they are. He condemned the process

Hillary questioning certain states based on exceptionally close votes is warranted





.

 

[toomuchtime_]

wo

The Democrats just haven't been able to come to grips with being such fuck ups, and they are inventing fantasies in order to deny reality.

If a recount showed Trump really didn't win.....wouldn't you want to know that?

If there really is a Santa, wouldn't you want to know about that? There simply is no rational basis for believing he didn't win.

Of course there is

Trump won Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan by approximately 10,000 -100,000 votes. Around one percent

Dont you want to know we got it right?

There is no reason to suspect they got it wrong, even Clinton's campaign lawyer said that.

I agree, there is no solid evidence showing the Russians hacked the electronic voting....there are some suspicious things like the electronic voting machines giving Hillary 7% less votes than ALL OTHER DISTRICTS with voting machines that had paper trails.... And the exit polling stating that Hillary won in those districts....they BOTH could logically be explained for other reasons than hacking...

but I suppose we would never know for certain unless they were checked....

According to Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias there is no solid evidence of anything that might change the outcome of the election.

'Elias said the campaign had “not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology.” But because of the margin of victory — and because of the degree of apparent foreign interference during the campaign — Elias said that Clinton officials had “quietly taken a number of steps in the last two weeks to rule in or out any possibility of outside interference in the vote tally in these critical battleground states.”'

Clinton campaign will participate in Wisconsin recount, with an eye on ‘outside interference,’ lawyer says

The 7% you are excited about can be explained by the fact that paper ballots are used in the cities, where you would expect a high Clinton vote, and electronic machines are used outside the cities where you would expect a lower vote for Clinton.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Stein has Hillary's arm up her ass.

Recounts only in states where Trump won.

She wants a recount in states that were very close. Do you know of any states that Hillary won by 1-2 percent?

Post#39 showed three Beast states with low total vote difference, but not by percentage.

You are comparing three states with over 50 electoral votes to three states with less than 10 with similar vote margins

I am willing to recount any close state to make sure we get it right.....aren't you?

How about a second recount to be sure the first recount got it right? Or a third recount etc. The point is there is no rational basis for believing whatever infractions or mistakes may have occurred would change the outcome. Don't believe me? Here's what Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias has to say:

'Elias said the campaign had “not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology.” But because of the margin of victory — and because of the degree of apparent foreign interference during the campaign — Elias said that Clinton officials had “quietly taken a number of steps in the last two weeks to rule in or out any possibility of outside interference in the vote tally in these critical battleground states.”'

Clinton campaign will participate in Wisconsin recount, with an eye on ‘outside interference,’ lawyer says

In other words, Clinton says the Russians did it.

If it is more accurate...why not?
Don't you want to get it right?

We have a month and a half to make sure

There is no reason to think we didn't get it right.

Btw, how many times do you wash your hands after going to the bathroom?

 

[rightwinger]

She wants a recount in states that were very close. Do you know of any states that Hillary won by 1-2 percent?

Post#39 showed three Beast states with low total vote difference, but not by percentage.

You are comparing three states with over 50 electoral votes to three states with less than 10 with similar vote margins

I am willing to recount any close state to make sure we get it right.....aren't you?

How about a second recount to be sure the first recount got it right? Or a third recount etc. The point is there is no rational basis for believing whatever infractions or mistakes may have occurred would change the outcome. Don't believe me? Here's what Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias has to say:

'Elias said the campaign had “not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology.” But because of the margin of victory — and because of the degree of apparent foreign interference during the campaign — Elias said that Clinton officials had “quietly taken a number of steps in the last two weeks to rule in or out any possibility of outside interference in the vote tally in these critical battleground states.”'

Clinton campaign will participate in Wisconsin recount, with an eye on ‘outside interference,’ lawyer says

In other words, Clinton says the Russians did it.

If it is more accurate...why not?
Don't you want to get it right?

We have a month and a half to make sure

There is no reason to think we didn't get it right.

Btw, how many times do you wash your hands after going to the bathroom?

Makes no sense

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The truth is if Hillary had won and had Trump requested a recount the libtards would be soiling themselves! Saying " it's a threat to democracy"

Roflmao.

Difference is....Trump rejected the results without knowing what they are. He condemned the process

Hillary questioning certain states based on exceptionally close votes is warranted





.

So states that have close elections should be recounted simply for that reason alone? My Lord, we are going to have to go through this every time a Democrat loses the presidency.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally"
Tweet/Donald Trump

So, what Stein/Clinton are trying to do is back up Trump's claim, being as he has zero evidence of his claim.
So, instead of bashing Stein/Clinton, you should be thanking them profusely, for trying to bring America together and to "Make America Great Again".

Really? So is the Clinton camp going to look for illegal votes as well? Nahhhhh, don't worry, it was just a joke.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Post#39 showed three Beast states with low total vote difference, but not by percentage.

You are comparing three states with over 50 electoral votes to three states with less than 10 with similar vote margins

I am willing to recount any close state to make sure we get it right.....aren't you?

How about a second recount to be sure the first recount got it right? Or a third recount etc. The point is there is no rational basis for believing whatever infractions or mistakes may have occurred would change the outcome. Don't believe me? Here's what Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias has to say:

'Elias said the campaign had “not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology.” But because of the margin of victory — and because of the degree of apparent foreign interference during the campaign — Elias said that Clinton officials had “quietly taken a number of steps in the last two weeks to rule in or out any possibility of outside interference in the vote tally in these critical battleground states.”'

Clinton campaign will participate in Wisconsin recount, with an eye on ‘outside interference,’ lawyer says

In other words, Clinton says the Russians did it.

If it is more accurate...why not?
Don't you want to get it right?

We have a month and a half to make sure

There is no reason to think we didn't get it right.

Btw, how many times do you wash your hands after going to the bathroom?

Makes no sense

Actually, that's the only thing that does make sense: OCD is written all over your posts.

 

[rightwinger]

The truth is if Hillary had won and had Trump requested a recount the libtards would be soiling themselves! Saying " it's a threat to democracy"

Roflmao.

Difference is....Trump rejected the results without knowing what they are. He condemned the process

Hillary questioning certain states based on exceptionally close votes is warranted





.

So states that have close elections should be recounted simply for that reason alone? My Lord, we are going to have to go through this every time a Democrat loses the presidency.

Why not?
Don't you want to be sure it is right?

 

[rightwinger]

You are comparing three states with over 50 electoral votes to three states with less than 10 with similar vote margins

I am willing to recount any close state to make sure we get it right.....aren't you?

How about a second recount to be sure the first recount got it right? Or a third recount etc. The point is there is no rational basis for believing whatever infractions or mistakes may have occurred would change the outcome. Don't believe me? Here's what Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias has to say:

'Elias said the campaign had “not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology.” But because of the margin of victory — and because of the degree of apparent foreign interference during the campaign — Elias said that Clinton officials had “quietly taken a number of steps in the last two weeks to rule in or out any possibility of outside interference in the vote tally in these critical battleground states.”'

Clinton campaign will participate in Wisconsin recount, with an eye on ‘outside interference,’ lawyer says

In other words, Clinton says the Russians did it.

If it is more accurate...why not?
Don't you want to get it right?

We have a month and a half to make sure

There is no reason to think we didn't get it right.

Btw, how many times do you wash your hands after going to the bathroom?

Makes no sense

Actually, that's the only thing that does make sense: OCD is written all over your posts.

?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree, there is no solid evidence showing the Russians hacked the electronic voting....there are some suspicious things like the electronic voting machines giving Hillary 7% less votes than ALL OTHER DISTRICTS with voting machines that had paper trails.... And the exit polling stating that Hillary won in those districts....they BOTH could logically be explained for other reasons than hacking...

but I suppose we would never know for certain unless they were checked....

You know, that's kind of the same argument we've made for Voter-ID; that you don't know if something is wrong until you make sure it doesn't happen. But the left told us that was an excuse. If you don't see it, it's not worth taking the extra effort to find out. It's racist. If you don't see it right in front of your eyes, it never really happens.

But because it's Hillary, even with no evidence, we can't leave one stone unturned. Circumstantial evidence? Sure, exit polling, ballots not matching the machines in small samples. But we've had countless stories of more people voting than were registered, places that didn't have one Romney vote across the country, California which registers people to vote when they get their drivers licenses, places that had nearly a 100% turnout.

Forget that. Unless we can prove people are voting illegally, just keep the system the way it is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why not?
Don't you want to be sure it is right?

Oh, and if the shoes were on the other feet, I'm sure you'd be so supportive of Trump doing a recount.

Well if we are going to have to go through this every time a Democrat loses, then why use machines at all? Just hand count the entire country every election. Sure, we may not know who the winner is for weeks or months, but like you said, we want to be sure it's right.

 

[rightwinger]

Why not?
Don't you want to be sure it is right?

Oh, and if the shoes were on the other feet, I'm sure you'd be so supportive of Trump doing a recount.

Well if we are going to have to go through this every time a Democrat loses, then why use machines at all? Just hand count the entire country every election. Sure, we may not know who the winner is for weeks or months, but like you said, we want to be sure it's right.

I objected to Trump declaring our election system invalid without seeing the results

I have never objected to recounts in individual states where the end results could be changed

Why would you object to getting it right?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

According to Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias there is no solid evidence of anything that might change the outcome of the election.

'Elias said the campaign had “not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology.” But because of the margin of victory — and because of the degree of apparent foreign interference during the campaign — Elias said that Clinton officials had “quietly taken a number of steps in the last two weeks to rule in or out any possibility of outside interference in the vote tally in these critical battleground states.”'

Clinton campaign will participate in Wisconsin recount, with an eye on ‘outside interference,’ lawyer says

The 7% you are excited about can be explained by the fact that paper ballots are used in the cities, where you would expect a high Clinton vote, and electronic machines are used outside the cities where you would expect a lower vote for Clinton.

I'm now under the impression that this is not about the election, but a way to move a lot of money around.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The truth is if Hillary had won and had Trump requested a recount the libtards would be soiling themselves! Saying " it's a threat to democracy"

Roflmao.

Difference is....Trump rejected the results without knowing what they are. He condemned the process

Hillary questioning certain states based on exceptionally close votes is warranted





.

So states that have close elections should be recounted simply for that reason alone? My Lord, we are going to have to go through this every time a Democrat loses the presidency.

Why not?
Don't you want to be sure it is right?

All rational intelligent people are sure.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I objected to Trump declaring our election system invalid without seeing the results

I have never objected to recounts in individual states where the end results could be changed

Why would you object to getting it right?

He said he would wait until he saw the results to make that judgement. The least you clowns can do is correctly cite him.

And if this is about "getting it right" why no recounts in Maine, New Hampshire, Delaware and Minnesota?

 

[toomuchtime_]

How about a second recount to be sure the first recount got it right? Or a third recount etc. The point is there is no rational basis for believing whatever infractions or mistakes may have occurred would change the outcome. Don't believe me? Here's what Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias has to say:

'Elias said the campaign had “not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology.” But because of the margin of victory — and because of the degree of apparent foreign interference during the campaign — Elias said that Clinton officials had “quietly taken a number of steps in the last two weeks to rule in or out any possibility of outside interference in the vote tally in these critical battleground states.”'

Clinton campaign will participate in Wisconsin recount, with an eye on ‘outside interference,’ lawyer says

In other words, Clinton says the Russians did it.

If it is more accurate...why not?
Don't you want to get it right?

We have a month and a half to make sure

There is no reason to think we didn't get it right.

Btw, how many times do you wash your hands after going to the bathroom?

Makes no sense

Actually, that's the only thing that does make sense: OCD is written all over your posts.

?

If you want to recount the votes despite the fact there is no reason to believe they aren't right, then you probably want to wash your hands over and over to be sure you got all the germs. That's what obsessive compulsive people do.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

The truth is if Hillary had won and had Trump requested a recount the libtards would be soiling themselves! Saying " it's a threat to democracy"

Roflmao.

 

[rightwinger]

The truth is if Hillary had won and had Trump requested a recount the libtards would be soiling themselves! Saying " it's a threat to democracy"

Roflmao.

Difference is....Trump rejected the results without knowing what they are. He condemned the process

Hillary questioning certain states based on exceptionally close votes is warranted





.

So states that have close elections should be recounted simply for that reason alone? My Lord, we are going to have to go through this every time a Democrat loses the presidency.

Why not?
Don't you want to be sure it is right?

All rational intelligent people are sure.

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally," Trump said during a Sunday afternoon tweet storm.


Even Trump is claiming the results are in question

Let's recount to make sure

 

[Shrimpbox]

Democrats are just genetically incapable of relinquishing power. Let's transpose the popular vote argument on another election. So when Ross Perot and George bush got more votes,than bill Clinton, then he was apparently an illegitimate president. Not one case of vote manipulation has been reported in any of the three states but for some reason we need a recount. As the case in Minnesota with al Frankenstein shows, recounts always favor the democrats because they can manufacture votes on demand, as they showed when they created enough new voters to give franken a three hundred vote win.

As has already been stated, this is just a move to continue the mad cow obstructionalism of the Dems. There is no way they could lose according to the press, the party, the students, and the elites. They are so smart they can never be wrong. They will continue their divisive and corrosive attacks because like trump voters understand, democrats do not care about their country, they only care about power and ideology. Jill steins recount war chest is totally funded by Hilary fat cats. The longer liberals and democrats disrespect the process and the country, the faster they will descend into irrelevance. Claiming,they are just taking the high road is laughable.would you all please hurry up and get through your phase of denial.

Bill Clinton won the popular vote...so did Hillary

You just can't fix stupid right winger.

United States presidential election, 1992 - Wikipedia

My point was that more people voted against bill clinton(bush plus Perot votes) than voted for him. Therefore the present day argument that trump,is illegitimate because he did not win the popular vote would,disqualify Clinton also.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The truth is if Hillary had won and had Trump requested a recount the libtards would be soiling themselves! Saying " it's a threat to democracy"

Roflmao.

Difference is....Trump rejected the results without knowing what they are. He condemned the process

Hillary questioning certain states based on exceptionally close votes is warranted





.

So states that have close elections should be recounted simply for that reason alone? My Lord, we are going to have to go through this every time a Democrat loses the presidency.

Why not?
Don't you want to be sure it is right?

All rational intelligent people are sure.

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally," Trump said during a Sunday afternoon tweet storm.


Even Trump is claiming the results are in question

Let's recount to make sure

Sounds like you're saying you want to recount the California vote to see how many illegal immigrants voted in California. After all, there are 2.67 million illegals in California, so it may turn out Trump is right. We'll never know for sure unless we recount and verify all the votes, right?