(11-28-2016 12:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(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.

Do you really believe that? or do you, maybe, consider they are only looking at states trump won for a hail mary?

After all Nevada has electronic voting and Nevada did not already recount. Michigan did both. The other difference is that Hillary won Nevada and Trump won Michigan.

They picked just enough EV's to change the election and no more.

MOV in PA : 80K
MOV in WI : 30K
MOV in MI : 10K
MOV in NV : 25K

If they had included even one or two blue states then the might be able to claim "really we just want to make sure everything is counted right"

Quote:

(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.

She already said that there is no guarantee they will use it all for recounts and that if there is left over money it will not be returned.

(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.

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

That's what you want it to be.

You just admitted in statement one that it was about changing votes and not about auditing the process.

Why not NH and NV with smaller/similar margins, or Arizona or Illinois where the voter rolls were already (arguably) compromised?

If it's really about auditing the process, why not do them all?

(11-28-2016 12:29 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  MOV in NV : 25K

But relative to state population, this margin is much larger than the other three.

(11-28-2016 12:29 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  If they had included even one or two blue states then the might be able to claim "really we just want to make sure everything is counted right"

But that's not the claim. The claim is that the votes in those three states may not be valid.

(11-28-2016 12:29 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  She already said that there is no guarantee they will use it all for recounts and that if there is left over money it will not be returned.

Even if she did, people can never do something different than what they said before?? I know a guy who might disagree ...

(11-28-2016 12:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You just admitted in statement one that it was about changing votes and not about auditing the process.

No I didn't. I said I guessed they selected those three states because they were the ones most likely to have been "under attack", so to speak. So it makes the most sense to spend your limited resources there.

It is worth noting that several counties in Wisconsin mysteriously inflated their Trump votes, to where they had thousands more votes for Trump than they had overall votes, and have already rolled back Trumps lead by close to 5,000 votes, all BEFORE a recount.

There is a recount being done in North Carolina where a Republican governor refuses to concede he lost, and he wants a recount. It is within the laws of the respective states. I don't really equate asking for a recount to be the same as saying the elections are rigged, as they are literally part of the law.

It can be futile in a lot of cases, and I don't think the idea here is to attempt to overturn the election. But I think the idea here is they are trying to cast some doubt, and make some of the electors, some who already feel Trump has reneged on some of his campaign promises, to flip their vote. I am not saying this is right, I think that is what they are aiming for. And at the least, finding some discrepancies combined with the loss of the popular vote, will make it impossible for Trump to claim a voter mandate, and will allow the establishment, on both sides, to keep him reigned in. I would not be surprised if both democrats AND Republicans donated to help the cause.

(11-28-2016 12:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  impossible for Trump to claim a voter mandate, and will allow the establishment, on both sides, to keep him reigned in.

I feel like the popular vote already proves that it's not a voter mandate.

And I do hope the establishment keeps him reigned in .... and impeaches him if/when he gets too far out of line.

Democrats sure are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that they lost the presidential election.

(11-28-2016 12:44 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Democrats sure are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that they lost the presidential election.

Because Saint Hillary was supposed to liberate the women from their unwanted babies with free abortions everywhere!

(11-28-2016 12:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 12:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  impossible for Trump to claim a voter mandate, and will allow the establishment, on both sides, to keep him reigned in.

I feel like the popular vote already proves that it's not a voter mandate.

And I do hope the establishment keeps him reigned in .... and impeaches him if/when he gets too far out of line.

He has already claimed one FWIW...

(11-28-2016 12:44 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Democrats sure are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that they lost the presidential election.

Hypothetical. Let's say some shenanigans are pulled, and come the electoral college vote, Trump doesn't get the majority, as some voters vote for someone else, and the top three vote getters are chosen by congress, as per the constitution. Are you suggesting Trump, or his supporters, would say "okay, that's the law," I will take the result, or raise holy hell?

Now mind you both are just exercising their rights as written in the state law, Same as the NC governor. Same as a few (much smaller) offices around the country. So what's the problem?

Trump represents too much change, too fast. If a window somehow opens up, I would not be surprised to see something happen whereby electors vote differently.

Yeah, some percentage of voters will be extremely pissed, and will have pitchforks in hand. Let them. They don't have the numbers.

(11-28-2016 12:49 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 12:44 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Democrats sure are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that they lost the presidential election.

Hypothetical. Let's say some shenanigans are pulled, and come the electoral college vote, Trump doesn't get the majority, as some voters vote for someone else, and the top three vote getters are chosen by congress, as per the constitution. Are you suggesting Trump, or his supporters, would say "okay, that's the law," I will take the result, or raise holy hell?

Now mind you both are just exercising their rights as written in the state law, Same as the NC governor. Same as a few (much smaller) offices around the country. So what's the problem?

Hillary Clinton Will Never Be President.

Can you picture LS typing that into his computer at 3am, the night that it is announced HRC is being given the presidency by Congress???

Just sitting there ... with MS Word open to a blank document, on line 15,000. Bold font, underlined, size 28.


Wearily punching it in, one finger at a time.

(11-28-2016 12:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Trump represents too much change, too fast. If a window somehow opens up, I would not be surprised to see something happen whereby electors vote differently.

Yeah, some percentage of voters will be extremely pissed, and will have pitchforks in hand. Let them. They don't have the numbers.

If 38 or more electors vote differently than their state voted (or district in the case of Maine and Nebraska), you will see civil unrest rise to the level of real live armed insurrection. Not joking. People will take to the streets and they won't be packing banners and signs.

(11-28-2016 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Can you picture LS typing that into his computer at 3am, the night that it is announced HRC is being given the presidency by Congress???

Just sitting there ... with MS Word open to a blank document, on line 15,000. Bold font, underlined, size 28.


Wearily punching it in, one finger at a time.

Actually, I am just copy and pasting Hillary Clinton Will Never Be President.

(11-28-2016 01:01 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 12:49 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 12:44 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Democrats sure are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that they lost the presidential election.

Hypothetical. Let's say some shenanigans are pulled, and come the electoral college vote, Trump doesn't get the majority, as some voters vote for someone else, and the top three vote getters are chosen by congress, as per the constitution. Are you suggesting Trump, or his supporters, would say "okay, that's the law," I will take the result, or raise holy hell?

Now mind you both are just exercising their rights as written in the state law, Same as the NC governor. Same as a few (much smaller) offices around the country. So what's the problem?

Hillary Clinton Will Never Be President.

That is not what I asked. I asked you a direct question. You don't seem to want to answer, which seems to be an answer in and of itself.

(11-28-2016 01:06 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Actually, I am just copy and pasting Hillary Clinton Will Never Be President.

Oh... nevermind

(11-28-2016 01:06 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  If 38 or more electors vote differently than their state voted (or district in the case of Maine and Nebraska), you will see civil unrest rise to the level of real live armed insurrection. Not joking. People will take to the streets and they won't be packing banners and signs.

Let them. They don't have the numbers.

Not enough people will be willing to sacrifice their lives for Donald Trump.


Doesn't that make sense?? You're willing to die ..... for Donald Trump?? No. Come on.

(11-28-2016 01:06 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Actually, I am just copy and pasting Hillary Clinton Will Never Be President.

LOL

(11-28-2016 12:49 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 12:44 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Democrats sure are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that they lost the presidential election.

Hypothetical. Let's say some shenanigans are pulled, and come the electoral college vote, Trump doesn't get the majority, as some voters vote for someone else, and the top three vote getters are chosen by congress, as per the constitution. Are you suggesting Trump, or his supporters, would say "okay, that's the law," I will take the result, or raise holy hell?

Now mind you both are just exercising their rights as written in the state law, Same as the NC governor. Same as a few (much smaller) offices around the country. So what's the problem?

Surely you understand that if there was 'cheating' in these three states, that there was likely 'cheating' in 47 others as well, right? I think they'd raise holy hell because of the inconsistency of the application of this 'new' standard for counting votes. Either decide up front what the rules are and live by them, or open everything up to scrutiny. SELECTIVE scrutiny is the problem

The rules upfront were: hold the vote under these circumstances, specified processes for recounts if the margins are 'this close'. That's all been done. The current process being undertaken has presented no evidence of hacked e-votes... so deciding now to have a DIFFERENT process for recounts (i.e. I'm fine with Wisc deciding to audit the machine votes, but not a manual recount) is wrought with potential for fraud or manipulation that far exceeds the ability to fraudulently make someone else's specific ballot not scan properly.

(11-28-2016 12:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Trump represents too much change, too fast. If a window somehow opens up, I would not be surprised to see something happen whereby electors vote differently.

Yeah, some percentage of voters will be extremely pissed, and will have pitchforks in hand. Let them. They don't have the numbers.

Actually they do, since such a decision reflected by and through Congress has the same weighting as the Electoral College. In fact it's greater as DC has no votes in Congress. Republicans also hold a majority of the states, so there is that on top of it.

(11-28-2016 01:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 01:06 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  If 38 or more electors vote differently than their state voted (or district in the case of Maine and Nebraska), you will see civil unrest rise to the level of real live armed insurrection. Not joking. People will take to the streets and they won't be packing banners and signs.

Let them. They don't have the numbers.

Not enough people will be willing to sacrifice their lives for Donald Trump.


Doesn't that make sense?? You're willing to die ..... for Donald Trump?? No. Come on.

(11-28-2016 01:06 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Actually, I am just copy and pasting Hillary Clinton Will Never Be President.

LOL

Let them, indeed.

It would potentially be horrific.

(11-28-2016 01:07 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  That is not what I asked. I asked you a direct question. You don't seem to want to answer, which seems to be an answer in and of itself.

I don't need anyone to tell me my required response. Especially to a off the wall question about your wild Electoral College conspiracy.