• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What about a recount?

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Clinton is meeting with those who feel that there has been some real voter fraud taken place in at least three staates, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. If these three states went to Clinton as they were expected to do, then the results of the election would change AN example in one country in Wisconsin there were 31,000 ballets but the vote total showed 34000. There are questions why there is a 7% difference between electronic voting machines and the other methodes of voting. A difference larger than it should be and those are the machines that can be both hacked and the vote totals changed. Should there be a recount? If there is a recount and Clinton wins should she be the president elect or do you think it is tooo late in the game? Finally, will the GOP try and stop a recount either in court or physically like they did in Florida in the 2000 election?
 
independentusa said:
Clinton is meeting with those who feel that there has been some real voter fraud taken place in at least three staates, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. If these three states went to Clinton as they were expected to do, then the results of the election would change AN example in one country in Wisconsin there were 31,000 ballets but the vote total showed 34000. There are questions why there is a 7% difference between electronic voting machines and the other methodes of voting. A difference larger than it should be and those are the machines that can be both hacked and the vote totals changed. Should there be a recount? If there is a recount and Clinton wins should she be the president elect or do you think it is tooo late in the game? Finally, will the GOP try and stop a recount either in court or physically like they did in Florida in the 2000 election?
Click to expand...

Hillary lost, get over it. :roll:
 
I'd like to think Republicans wouldn't stand in the way of a statutorily-indicated recount, but I suspect they will. It seems obvious to me that if there is a reason to think a more accurate count would change the outcome, we should conduct one. I emphasize "more accurate," here, as that is the goal of any recount--to reduce and minimize error. It's at least logically possible that mistakes or fraud (with mistakes being much more likely) put Trump over the top.

However, at least as I understand the data, it's pretty unlikely that Clinton actually won the electoral vote. The mistake or fraud would have to be pretty massive. Again, could happen, but we ought to doubt it without pretty convincing reasons.

That said, I've wondered what Republicans will do if the electoral college has a change of heart and elects Clinton--especially if the electors from states without laws against "faithless electors" vote against the popular vote in their state or district. Now, to be clear, I don't think this will happen, but if it does, it'll be legal and will mean that Hillary becomes President. I wonder how many would stick to their "don't abolish the electoral college" views...
 
Last edited:
I have no opinion on the issue, just asking the questions.
 
According to democrats, there is no voter fraud.
 
independentusa said:
I have no opinion on the issue, just asking the questions.
Click to expand...

Right, which is why you are parroting the typical leftist historical revisionist line concerning the Bush/Gore 2000 race, lol. :rolleyes:
 
independentusa said:
Clinton is meeting with those who feel that there has been some real voter fraud taken place in at least three staates, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. If these three states went to Clinton as they were expected to do, then the results of the election would change AN example in one country in Wisconsin there were 31,000 ballets but the vote total showed 34000. There are questions why there is a 7% difference between electronic voting machines and the other methodes of voting. A difference larger than it should be and those are the machines that can be both hacked and the vote totals changed. Should there be a recount? If there is a recount and Clinton wins should she be the president elect or do you think it is tooo late in the game? Finally, will the GOP try and stop a recount either in court or physically like they did in Florida in the 2000 election?
Click to expand...

I think Clinton and her minions are picking their toes in Poughkeepsie!

See post #6....
 
independentusa said:
Clinton is meeting with those who feel that there has been some real voter fraud taken place in at least three staates, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. If these three states went to Clinton as they were expected to do, then the results of the election would change AN example in one country in Wisconsin there were 31,000 ballets but the vote total showed 34000. There are questions why there is a 7% difference between electronic voting machines and the other methodes of voting. A difference larger than it should be and those are the machines that can be both hacked and the vote totals changed. Should there be a recount? If there is a recount and Clinton wins should she be the president elect or do you think it is tooo late in the game? Finally, will the GOP try and stop a recount either in court or physically like they did in Florida in the 2000 election?
Click to expand...

No, the nightmare is over.
 
independentusa said:
Clinton is meeting with those who feel that there has been some real voter fraud taken place in at least three staates, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. If these three states went to Clinton as they were expected to do, then the results of the election would change AN example in one country in Wisconsin there were 31,000 ballets but the vote total showed 34000. There are questions why there is a 7% difference between electronic voting machines and the other methodes of voting. A difference larger than it should be and those are the machines that can be both hacked and the vote totals changed. Should there be a recount? If there is a recount and Clinton wins should she be the president elect or do you think it is tooo late in the game? Finally, will the GOP try and stop a recount either in court or physically like they did in Florida in the 2000 election?
Click to expand...


Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Results

 
No, there should not be a recount. Didn't see any "hanging chad's" being reported.:mrgreen:

It is time for us to move on.
 
independentusa said:
Clinton is meeting with those who feel that there has been some real voter fraud taken place in at least three staates, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. If these three states went to Clinton as they were expected to do, then the results of the election would change AN example in one country in Wisconsin there were 31,000 ballets but the vote total showed 34000. There are questions why there is a 7% difference between electronic voting machines and the other methodes of voting. A difference larger than it should be and those are the machines that can be both hacked and the vote totals changed. Should there be a recount? If there is a recount and Clinton wins should she be the president elect or do you think it is tooo late in the game? Finally, will the GOP try and stop a recount either in court or physically like they did in Florida in the 2000 election?
Click to expand...

No, not unless you want the Nation to splinter.
 
independentusa said:
Clinton is meeting with those who feel that there has been some real voter fraud taken place in at least three staates, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. If these three states went to Clinton as they were expected to do, then the results of the election would change AN example in one country in Wisconsin there were 31,000 ballets but the vote total showed 34000. There are questions why there is a 7% difference between electronic voting machines and the other methodes of voting. A difference larger than it should be and those are the machines that can be both hacked and the vote totals changed. Should there be a recount? If there is a recount and Clinton wins should she be the president elect or do you think it is tooo late in the game? Finally, will the GOP try and stop a recount either in court or physically like they did in Florida in the 2000 election?
Click to expand...

ashurbanipal said:
I'd like to think Republicans wouldn't stand in the way of a statutorily-indicated recount, but I suspect they will. It seems obvious to me that if there is a reason to think a more accurate count would change the outcome, we should conduct one. I emphasize "more accurate," here, as that is the goal of any recount--to reduce and minimize error. It's at least logically possible that mistakes or fraud (with mistakes being much more likely) put Trump over the top.

However, at least as I understand the data, it's pretty unlikely that Clinton actually won the electoral vote. The mistake or fraud would have to be pretty massive. Again, could happen, but we ought to doubt it without pretty convincing reasons.

That said, I've wondered what Republicans will do if the electoral college has a change of heart and elects Clinton--especially if the electors from states without laws against "faithless electors" vote against the popular vote in their state or district. Now, to be clear, I don't think this will happen, but if it does, it'll be legal and will mean that Hillary becomes President. I wonder how many would stick to their "don't abolish the electoral college" views...
Click to expand...

rocket88 said:
Right, there is obviously no fraud if a Republican wins.
Click to expand...


After months of saying that Donald Trump would be a sore loser, you are now all appearing to be sore losers. :doh
 
independentusa said:
Clinton is meeting with those who feel that there has been some real voter fraud taken place in at least three staates, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. If these three states went to Clinton as they were expected to do, then the results of the election would change AN example in one country in Wisconsin there were 31,000 ballets but the vote total showed 34000. There are questions why there is a 7% difference between electronic voting machines and the other methodes of voting. A difference larger than it should be and those are the machines that can be both hacked and the vote totals changed. Should there be a recount? If there is a recount and Clinton wins should she be the president elect or do you think it is tooo late in the game? Finally, will the GOP try and stop a recount either in court or physically like they did in Florida in the 2000 election?
Click to expand...

I love this.

The people who swear we do not need ID because there is no voter fraud in this country are now claiming voter fraud because they lost.

It just doesn't get any better than this.

Talk about eating crow.
 
Last edited:
truthatallcost said:
After months of saying that Donald Trump would be a sore loser, you are now all appearing to be sore losers. :doh
Click to expand...

They are the ones who believe there are no losers and everybody gets a trophy people. They have never learned to accept reality.
 
Voter fraud does exist and it is now patriotic to criticize a president. The left has suddenly seen the light. I wonder why?
 
independentusa said:
Clinton is meeting with those who feel that there has been some real voter fraud taken place in at least three staates, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. If these three states went to Clinton as they were expected to do, then the results of the election would change AN example in one country in Wisconsin there were 31,000 ballets but the vote total showed 34000. There are questions why there is a 7% difference between electronic voting machines and the other methodes of voting. A difference larger than it should be and those are the machines that can be both hacked and the vote totals changed. Should there be a recount? If there is a recount and Clinton wins should she be the president elect or do you think it is tooo late in the game? Finally, will the GOP try and stop a recount either in court or physically like they did in Florida in the 2000 election?
Click to expand...

If there is factual voter fraud on such a level that it would result in Hillary winning then she should be President Elect. I think she is worse than the train wreck that is Trump but that's how the democratic process works. I mean, I utterly despise her so very much but that doesn't matter, at the end of the day.
 
Fishking said:
If there is factual voter fraud on such a level that it would result in Hillary winning then she should be President Elect. I think she is worse than the train wreck that is Trump but that's how the democratic process works. I mean, I utterly despise her so very much but that doesn't matter, at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

If....for such a small word, a world of possibilities

Any proof of this so called fraud?

No....

If, and there is that word again, there was, Hillary and her staff would be all over this like White on rice

She knows it is wishful thinking from a few zealots....she lost

Get on with your lives
 
gdgyva said:
If....for such a small word, a world of possibilities

Any proof of this so called fraud?

No....

If, and there is that word again, there was, Hillary and her staff would be all over this like White on rice

She knows it is wishful thinking from a few zealots....she lost

Get on with your lives
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're problem is. The question is posed as a hypothetical and it should be treated as such. It's ridiculous to come into a thread, reject the premise of the OP (as long as it's valid), and then **** all over the place, like what is happening here. In other words, how would you want it treated if there was confirmed, factual, voter fraud on a level that would change the results?

Oh...and I hate Hillary way worse than Trump so I have nothing to "get over".
 
Fishking said:
I don't know what you're problem is. The question is posed as a hypothetical and it should be treated as such. It's ridiculous to come into a thread, reject the premise of the OP (as long as it's valid), and then **** all over the place, like what is happening here. In other words, how would you want it treated if there was confirmed, factual, voter fraud on a level that would change the results?

Oh...and I hate Hillary way worse than Trump so I have nothing to "get over".
Click to expand...

My problem is stuff like this is keeping people out there from accepting the fact that Trump is our next president

As long as crap like this keeps flowing, people will keep hoping that their savior Hillary will somehow be anointed

It isn't going to happen....there is no proof of fraud....and these type of stories are fanning the flames

We have riots, marches, protests.....we need to get that crap stopped and get back to our lives

As long as there is an iota of hope, and crackpot stories and theories like this, that just won't happen

Understand? I hope so....:peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom