Bring it don't sing it.

Nothing will happen lap dogs. You have been bambazzoled. Hoodwinked.

Get off of Alex Jones web sites and Fox News. There's a reason no credible media outlet reported on it. Never has so much been made from so little.

Gaurantee nothing comes of it.

(11-27-2016 06:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Bring it don't sing it.

November 9, 2016. Out.

(11-27-2016 06:45 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Nothing will happen lap dogs. You have been bambazzoled. Hoodwinked.

Get off of Alex Jones web sites and Fox News. There's a reason no credible media outlet reported on it. Never has so much been made from so little.

Gaurantee nothing comes of it.

Odd that you'd say this in this thread.

Got to give credit where it is due.


That's really good Hambone........ really good.

(11-27-2016 06:45 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Nothing will happen lap dogs. You have been bambazzoled. Hoodwinked.

Get off of Alex Jones web sites and Fox News. There's a reason no credible media outlet reported on it. Never has so much been made from so little.

Gaurantee nothing comes of it.

Mods....does calling people lap dogs qualify as name calling?

The recount won't show anything. Obama has already said it's over let it be. See if it was 1000 votes or less, yea I'd say recount, the margin is too high. I read where someone stated there was 85k blank votes on the presidential race but other items were marked. It's possible 85k didn't want to vote for any candidate but wanted to vote on issues that directly affected them.

Why would the Russians hack the election and not give Trump the popular vote?

Occam's razor.

(11-27-2016 11:44 PM)gdunn Wrote:  The recount won't show anything. Obama has already said it's over let it be. See if it was 1000 votes or less, yea I'd say recount, the margin is too high. I read where someone stated there was 85k blank votes on the presidential race but other items were marked. It's possible 85k didn't want to vote for any candidate but wanted to vote on issues that directly affected them.

Its probable 85,000 thought they were both far too disgusting to vote for.

Maybe the idea isn't necessarily to check if Hillary actually won, but instead to check if there ends up being a significant change in the vote totals that warrant change to policy governing the voting process in each state!

Such a thing is certainly worth paying for and studying. Knowledge takes effort, ignorance is easy.

(11-28-2016 09:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Maybe the idea isn't necessarily to check if Hillary actually won, but instead to check if there ends up being a significant change in the vote totals that warrant change to policy governing the voting process in each state!

Why just these states then? Why not Virginia? Why not New Hampshire?

Michigan is a no computer voting state where the votes *WERE* recounted already. What't the point of recounting again?

Quote:Such a thing is certainly worth paying for and studying. Knowledge takes effort, ignorance is easy.

There is also the fact Jill Stein's campaign ended several million dollars in debt and her plea does not guarantee that this money will go to the recount.

Remember Al Frankin ? The Democrats worked miracle magic to come up with just enough recount votes to get His A$$ in to tip the balance of the Senate. Democrats are Witches & Warlocks I tell Ya !

(11-28-2016 10:32 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Remember Al Frankin ? The Democrats worked miracle magic to come up with just enough recount votes to get His A$$ in to tip the balance of the Senate. Democrats are Witches & Warlocks I tell Ya !

Oh, I remember..........

(11-28-2016 10:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 09:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Maybe the idea isn't necessarily to check if Hillary actually won, but instead to check if there ends up being a significant change in the vote totals that warrant change to policy governing the voting process in each state!

Why just these states then? Why not Virginia? Why not New Hampshire?

Michigan is a no computer voting state where the votes *WERE* recounted already. What't the point of recounting again?

Precisely.

Why not Arizona and Illinois where we know voter rolls were 'hacked' (a loose term at best, but that was the allegation) of Florida, where there have been issues before?

There also would be no 'urgency' to recount (as there is now) to address those issues. Those issues could be addressed next week, next month, next year... at a far lower cost. The reason this is so high a cost is that they have to certify the votes very quickly and this is a LEGAL challenge to the outcome, and not merely a review of the process. A University would take a couple hundred thousand dollars as a grant and produce an actual review of the process. This is NOTHING more than a hunt for votes.

This whole 'we just want to review the process' is a lie on its face. This wouldn't be the forum for that. This is a search for votes.

If only the Dems would donate the millions they are wasting on this recount to actually help people for a change.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-...icult.html

As Stein points out herself in a video posted on Sunday, initiating a statewide recount of Pennsylvania’s vote is “especially complicated.” Unlike Wisconsin, Stein can’t simply file a direct request for a recount, leaving just two paths for a potential statewide audit.

Stein could appeal the election results in court, but would have to present evidence that election fraud was probable in Pennsylvania. According to a spokeswoman from the Department of State, the deadline to file a lawsuit is today.

While Stein is essentially alleging that errors, tampering or hacking had occurred to affect outcomes in the three states, even computer scientists who recommended a recount to rule out tampering have gone to great lengths to make it clear there is no proof of hacking or fraud in the election results.

So instead, Stein is promoting an “especially complicated” voter-initiated recount effort that involves three voters in every precinct or election district in Pennsylvania submitting a notarized affidavit to the clerk in their individual election districts.

According to the Department of State, there were 9,163 voting precincts in Pennsylvania during the 2016 election. So Stein would need over 27,000 voters to file notarized affidavits, but it's unclear if that avenue is even still available.

According to Wanda Murren, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of State, the deadline for a voter-initiated recount was Monday, Nov. 21. That would make a lawsuit the only remaining option for initiating a statewide recount.

Complicating any recount effort is the fact that Pennsylvania is one of 15 states that use electronic voting machines that don't have a paper-backed audit.

“The nightmare scenario would be if Pennsylvania decides the election and it is very close," Lawrence Norden, an expert on voting machines, told the Los Angeles Times prior to the election. "You would have no paper records to do a recount.”

Even if Stein were able to overcome the odds and initiate a statewide recount, it’s doubtful Clinton would be able to overcome Trump’s 70,638 lead in Pennsylvania. From 2000 and 2015, the outcome of the election was changed in just three of 27 elections, according to FairVote, a nonpartisan electoral reform group that researches elections. The largest swing occurred in Florida in 2000, when 1,247 voters for George W. Bush were flipped to his opponent, Al Gore, which wasn’t enough to overturn the state’s results.
-- philly.com

ALL SALES FINAL - NO REFUNDS OR EXCHANGES

(11-28-2016 10:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Why just these states then? Why not Virginia?

I guess these three are the most likely to show significant change.

(11-28-2016 10:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Michigan is a no computer voting state where the votes *WERE* recounted already. What's the point of recounting again?

To see if there ends up being a significant change in the vote totals that may warrant discussion on changes to policy governing the voting process in those states.

(11-28-2016 10:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  her plea does not guarantee that this money will go to the recount.

I'm sure it all will, and if not that she'll give the remainder back.

(11-28-2016 11:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is a search for votes.

That's what you want it to be.

(11-28-2016 11:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 10:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Why just these states then? Why not Virginia?

I guess these three are the most likely to show significant change.

Based on what? Surely a centrist like you realizes that a 20K hillary Margin in Nevada could be just as likely.

Quote:

(11-28-2016 10:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Michigan is a no computer voting state where the votes *WERE* recounted already. What's the point of recounting again?

To see if there ends up being a significant change in the vote totals that may warrant discussion on changes to policy governing the voting process in those states.

Michigan *WAS* already counted twice...

Quote:

(11-28-2016 10:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  her plea does not guarantee that this money will go to the recount.

I'm sure it all will, and if not that she'll give the remainder back.

This shows how uninformed you are. She has already said the money won't be returned if it's not used on recounts.

Quote:

(11-28-2016 11:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is a search for votes.

That's what you want it to be.

Occam's razor

(11-28-2016 12:03 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  a 20K hillary Margin in Nevada could be just as likely.

I didn't make the decision. I guess they figured it was less likely.

(11-28-2016 12:03 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  She has already said the money won't be returned if it's not used on recounts.

If this ends up being the case, I don't agree with it. My guess is that when it actually comes to it, it will all be spent on the recount or returned.

(11-28-2016 12:03 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Occam's razor

Indeed -- my hypothesis has fewer assumptions.

(11-28-2016 12:03 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 11:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why just these states then? Why not Virginia?

I guess these three are the most likely to show significant change.

a 2,732 vote margin in nh is likelier ...

FISHING EXPEDITION