Time will tell.
Wind will blow.
Why would Clinton pay for this recount? It’s an obvious scam. She’s crooked, not stupid.
You say that as if you think the ones employing that argument are unaware it’s a dishonest tactic.
What, if anything, is dishonest about seeking a recount and paying for it, in accordance with existing laws set up for exactly that purpose?
And if you were referring to something else, what was it?
Um, okay, how does the scam work? How does she get more money by pissing it away?
It’s pretty obvious at this point the Stein was just trying to extract money from dupes, for her own purposes. (Which don’t include an actual recount.)
She’s already missed the deadline for the Pennsylvania recount.
Do you guys even read the real news, or just jabber among yourselves here?
All because the popular vote does not determine the winner, it does not mean it does not exist…and that it has no use as a metric of anything.
That is sort of like saying that there is no such thing as the number of errors in a baseball game (or whatever other statistic you might want to think of) because that does not directly determine who wins or loses the game.
And, apparently Trump thinks it’s a metric or something or he wouldn’t go to such ridiculous lengths to claim that he won the popular vote.
Stein should release her donor list when Trump releases his tax returns and not before.
It doesn’t have to do with the recount. It’s a response to the popular vote misdirection. It’s irrelevant and acting as if it were relevant is misleading. We’re talking about the American electorate here. No need to confuse them.
All indications are the American electorate is plenty confused already, but in any case, if people are willing to donate to the effort, what’s the big deal? Best and worse case, nothing happens except Trump blusters, and he was blustering anyway.
I don’t think so. Conservatives are getting all hot and bothered about it because TinyHands tells them to. They got their panties in a twist over Hillary’s emails because they were told to. Conservatives get mad at the direction of their leaders, they’re incapable of independent thought.
Sure, you could say that the Republicans join in if they observe. Keep in mind that the Hillary campaign has done a great deal more than just observe -
Regards,
Shodan
Point taken.
Donald Trump lost by ~27,000 votes in Nevada, and less than 3,000 in New Hampshire. It would be a fair play for him to ask for recounts in those two states, wouldn’t it? If a recount could get NV and NH turned, that gives Trump a 10 electoral-vote cushion in case some Stein/Clinton recounts flip other states.
I just see it as kind of a arms race … “they” are asking for recounts, “we” have to as well. Because (1) who knows how their recounts will turn out, and (2) hey, “never too much data, right?”
Whatever. I have no problem with TinyHands asking for recounts. Hell, recount Illinois if he wants to pay for it. I wouldn’t mind a 50 state recount so we could get tons of data on how well the vote was tabulated on election night.
That’s a good way to look at things jshore … this should be a sticky are you a teacher? Did you write that?
I think the fact that Trump won the Republican Party’s nomination this year, over the strenuous objections of most conservative leaders, pretty much disproves this … theory.
I’m with this. The recounts are not going to change anything and Trump should just completely ignore the whole thing. But he’s Trump …
JugearS Obama’s reaction to the recount seems to be different than yours.
*WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.”
…In its statement, the administration said, “The Kremlin probably expected that publicity surrounding the disclosures that followed the Russian government-directed compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations, would raise questions about the integrity of the election process that could have undermined the legitimacy of the president-elect.”
…“Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” it added.*
Not hardly. They went bananas over Benghazi because they were told to be outraged over it. They masturbated about the emails because they were told to be outraged over it. So they picked a Nazi who channeled their inner demons in spite of the more sane elements of their party, it doesn’t make them any less like gullible sheep.
You don’t seem to be interested in a civil discussion, so I think I’ll bow out of this … whatever this has become.