Sure, sounds good to me, if someone wants to do that then more power to them. The worst that could happen is that we get a more accurate count.
Then let's recount all the states where Hillary barely won.
And there was not one fraudulent vote cast for Clinton? Typical D my sh*t don't stink attitude. You do realize that their are allegations of fraud in Nevada, right? Isn't one of the D pet lines, 'the seriousness of the charge demands that we investigate this'? Wouldn't it be prudent and 'fair' to look into this due the the seriousness of the allegations? You don't want there to be lingering doubts of possible voter disenfranchisement, do you? Aren't you all about fairness?
For the record, I have NO clue if the Nevada allegations have a nanogram of credibility. I'm just using the 'reasoning' that's fueling the current recount in the 3 states.
What's really pathetic is that even now illary can't / won't just own up to not liking the results of the election and demanding a recount. She's having Stein carry the water for her.
She lost. Get over it.What's really pathetic is that even now illary can't / won't just own up to not liking the results of the election and demanding a recount. She's having Stein carry the water for her.
See I don't mind this because I want the truth known. I find it hilarious that Trump and many of his supporters have been saying all along that it's rigged but then don't want a recount. Hey let's recount California too. He said millions of illegal votes happened so let's see.
I have no idea if any fraudulent votes were cast for Clinton but I do know that all available evidence indicates that there was not a meaningful level of fraud in this election or any other. You're so excited to find hypocrisy in people that you missed the entire point of my post, which is that there's exactly as much evidence for massive fraud in support of Trump as there is for massive fraud in support of Clinton. ie: zero. If you're going to take Trump's charges seriously despite there being no evidence for them then you have to take all evidence free accusations seriously.
So yes, I'm all about fairness! I hope you are too.
There doesn't need to be any reasoning for a recount if it's allowed by law. Who cares?
This is part of it, another VERY big part is the excessive incarceration rate, and the fact that many people lose voting rights when they are in prison, on parole, and even sometimes after they have finished serving their time.The true rigging is the gerrymandering and trickle down effect that causes. NC is getting the banhammer dropped on it for it's gerryrigging. They are going to need to redraw their state maps and re-vote. The rigging that provided resulted in a huge impact on voting access and availability. It won't show up in any recount or audit.
I think the issue was that he said that without any evidence of irregularities.I didn't miss your point, just didn't have time to address it. I'm not speaking specifically to you as you're being pretty neutral in this regard. I will though, stand by my claim about certain people being hypocrites - the ones who slammed Trump's comment about contesting the election if he lost who are now happily contesting the election. I get that many are upset over the results; all well and good. But don't slam someone for claiming they'd dispute the results, that it's a danger to our democracy, and then advocate doing the same now that their side lost. And if the allegations of people trying to intimidate (and even threaten) electors to change their vote are true, that's absolutely abhorrent; and I'd say the same if Hillary won.
I could say more, but real life is getting in the way. I still maintain that Jill's efforts are (in no small part) a ploy to raise money.
I think the issue was that he said that without any evidence of irregularities.
I'm good with recounting the whole country. However, weren't those the states that the statisticians said there appeared to be a problem? Don't get me wrong I think Jill is doing it hopefully to help Hillary, but she might at least have the appearance of cover.I understand that. As I said, my beef isn't with esky on this one. My complaint is the states that Jillybean picked where (if she was truly concerned about possible fraud) she'd also have challenged NH, NV, and CO. That's they hypocrisy that bothers me over and above the scamming people for money. She has a nice retirement fund now.