Legitimacy

[Fledermaus]

I am NOT debating the judges.I am debating you and your claims. So where in the recount law is the support for the actions of the judges canceling and aborting the recounts?

Reread the references for comprehension rather than response.

If you have questions about the JUDGES decisions ask the JUDGES.

CLUE: No standing in one case, multiple reasons in the other.

 

[Fledermaus]

And what that the reasons the Michigan court cited? Not according not you and your earlier source.

Refer to Post #66.

Read for comprehension rather than response.

Where in the Michigan recount law does it say anything about that?

Ask the judges.

Refer to Post #66.

Read for comprehension rather than response.

It is pretty obvious that any candidate who requests a recount believes a mistake has been made. If not, they would never ask for it.

What mistake was made?

 

[Fledermaus]

And what that the reasons the Michigan court cited? Not according not you and your earlier source.

Where in the Michigan recount law does it say anything about that?

It is pretty obvious that any candidate who requests a recount believes a mistake has been made. If not, they would never ask for it.

From the link you ignored.


That court concluded Stein was not an aggrieved party since she had no reasonable chance of winning by virtue of the recount. In federal court, Stein counter-argued this was a "distorted interpretation" of the law and that it was within her constitutional right to have the recount.

"Rather, Plaintiffs' asserted right to a recount is just a restatement of her right to participate in a fair election, free from tampering or mistake. But, to date, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury," read Goldsmith's order.

 

[haymarket]

Reread the references for comprehension rather than response.

If you have questions about the JUDGES decisions ask the JUDGES.

CLUE: No standing in one case, multiple reasons in the other.

I am NOT debating judges. I am debating you who defended the dismissal of the recounts stating there were solid reasons for it.

 

[haymarket]

From the link you ignored.


That court concluded Stein was not an aggrieved party since she had no reasonable chance of winning by virtue of the recount. In federal court, Stein counter-argued this was a "distorted interpretation" of the law and that it was within her constitutional right to have the recount.

"Rather, Plaintiffs' asserted right to a recount is just a restatement of her right to participate in a fair election, free from tampering or mistake. But, to date, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury," read Goldsmith's order.

Where in the recount law does it say that?

 

[haymarket]

Refer to Post #66.

Read for comprehension rather than response.



Ask the judges.

Refer to Post #66.

Read for comprehension rather than response.



What mistake was made?

Any error in an election count is a mistake. And one does not know that until one recounts. I would think that is obvious.

 

[Fledermaus]

Any error in an election count is a mistake. And one does not know that until one recounts. I would think that is obvious.

I think it is obvious now you don't care the reasons.


But, to date, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury," read Goldsmith's order.

 

[Fledermaus]

Where in the recount law does it say that?

Reading comprehension fail.

But, to date, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury," read Goldsmith's order.

 

[haymarket]

I think it is obvious now you don't care the reasons.


But, to date, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury," read Goldsmith's order.

In 2010 I went through a recount in Michigan under Michigan law for a state representative race which I was campaign manager. We found many mistakes---- during the recount. Unless that recount had been conducted - no mistakes could be claimed in advance.

How do you know a mistake has happened in the election results unless you recount them?

 

[Fledermaus]

In 2010 I went through a recount in Michigan under Michigan law for a state representative race which I was campaign manager. We found many mistakes---- during the recount. Unless that recount had been conducted - no mistakes could be claimed in advance.

How do you know a mistake has happened in the election results unless you recount them?

You do know the recount began. Right?

And during the recount did they find enough to warrant the recount continuing? No.

Add to the the status of Stein renders the point moot.

SHE HAD NO STANDING.

Lawsuit fail.

 

[ataraxia]

If Putin's meddling in the US election tipped the scale in favor of Trump, does not that make Trump's presidency questionable?

Why is Trump so eager to downplay that possibility?

Yes you at this point it's not hacking into the voting machines. That is only a very remote possibility. The issue is more whether the Russians can use the fact that they may have helped Trump or other damaging information on tromp to blackmail him into doing whatever they want. Basically the question is whether Trump made a deal with the devil, and now has to pay them back.

If Trump thinks he's the master of the art of the deal, was he so presumptuous as to think he could make a deal with the devil himself and survive it?

 

[haymarket]

You do know the recount began. Right?

And during the recount did they find enough to warrant the recount continuing? No.

Add to the the status of Stein renders the point moot.

SHE HAD NO STANDING.

Lawsuit fail.

I have asked several times and you have FAILED to provide the language of the law which states that is a necessity to have a recount.

 

[Fledermaus]

I have asked several times and you have FAILED to provide the language of the law which states that is a necessity to have a recount.

What part of "But, to date, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury," read Goldsmith's order. " do you not understand?

What language would you like it translated to?

SHE HAD NO STANDING... What language would you like that translated to?

 

[faithful_servant]

If Putin's meddling in the US election tipped the scale in favor of Trump, does not that make Trump's presidency questionable?

Why is Trump so eager to downplay that possibility?

Why are all you liberals so bent on doing anything that allows you to hate Trump???

 

[haymarket]

What part of "But, to date, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury," read Goldsmith's order. " do you not understand?

What language would you like it translated to?

SHE HAD NO STANDING... What language would you like that translated to?

How does one present evidence of a mistake BEFORE the recount can examine if mistakes occurred?

 

[Fledermaus]

How does one present evidence of a mistake BEFORE the recount can examine if mistakes occurred?

Reread Post #85 for comprehension rather than response.

The question is moot.

SHE HAD NO STANDING.

 

[haymarket]

Reread Post #85 for comprehension rather than response.

The question is moot.

SHE HAD NO STANDING.

She was a candidate on the ballot who filed for recount and was paying for it. The law says nothing about anything more than that. I gave you the law. I asked you to find the reasons in it you gave. You could not do so and you cannot do so now.

Now its becoming very very clear why you bobbed and weaved , dodged and evaded for over ten days trying mightily NOT to show any actual evidence.

 

[Fledermaus]

She was a candidate on the ballot who filed for recount and was paying for it. The law says nothing about anything more than that. I gave you the law. I asked you to find the reasons in it you gave. You could not do so and you cannot do so now.

Now its becoming very very clear why you bobbed and weaved , dodged and evaded for over ten days trying mightily NOT to show any actual evidence.

She had no standing.

No standing.

As in "had no standing".

In addition... "Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury"

She lost.

Live with it.

 

[haymarket]

She had no standing.

No standing.

As in "had no standing".

In addition... "Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury"

She lost.

Live with it.

Where in the law I provided for you does it provide grounds to disqualify her on that basis?

 

[Fledermaus]

Where in the law I provided for you does it provide grounds to disqualify her on that basis?

No comprende NO STANDING?

 

[haymarket]

No comprende NO STANDING?

Where in the law I provided you with does it state that ? Stein was a candidate on the ballot who filed for recount and was paying for it. The law says nothing about anything more than that. I gave you the law. I asked you to find the reasons in it you gave. You could not do so and you cannot do so now.

Now its becoming very very clear why you bobbed and weaved , dodged and evaded for over ten days trying mightily NOT to show any actual evidence.

 

[Fledermaus]

Where in the law I provided you with does it state that ? Stein was a candidate on the ballot who filed for recount and was paying for it. The law says nothing about anything more than that. I gave you the law. I asked you to find the reasons in it you gave. You could not do so and you cannot do so now.

Now its becoming very very clear why you bobbed and weaved , dodged and evaded for over ten days trying mightily NOT to show any actual evidence.

No standing means no standing.

As in no standing.

It is an established concept that does not need to be part of the election law.

NO STANDING.

 

[haymarket]

No standing means no standing.

As in no standing.

It is an established concept that does not need to be part of the election law.

NO STANDING.

The Michigan law gives any candidate standing who was on the ballot and paid the fee for a recount. You stated that the judges threw it out because she could not win the election even if the recounts proceeded.


from your own post 66

That court concluded Stein was not an aggrieved party since she had no reasonable chance of winning by virtue of the recount.

Where in the law does it say that is the standard for a recount?

 

[Fledermaus]

The Michigan law gives any candidate standing who was on the ballot and paid the fee for a recount. You stated that the judges threw it out because she could not win the election even if the recounts proceeded.


from your own post 66



Where in the law does it say that is the standard for a recount?

No standing is an accepted legal concept.

It deos not have to be written into election lae.

 

[haymarket]

No standing is an accepted legal concept.

It deos not have to be written into election lae.

The law gives standing to any candidate who was on the ballot for that office.

And if we all can get back on the issue of the thread topic - LEGITIMACY - today Congressman John Lewis of Georgia - one of the most highly respected and beloved members of Congress and a civil rights icon and hero - publicly announced to the nation that he now believes Trump is not legitimate as president of the USA.

This is a great voice added to the issue and this claim will only increase in volume over the weeks and months ahead.