So, is the US Presidential election actually over?

[cybrguy]

Many people are very unhappy with the results of the presidential election and the fact is that many people are looking for ANY way to avoid giving in to it. The behavior of the President elect and the choices he seems to be making (or not making) are not making it any easier for those unhappy with the results to just accept them and move on. Some of them are quite distressing to much of the public. Unfortunately, that doesn't make a bit of difference.

The most common area of resistance appears to be efforts to get the Electoral College to resist the will of the voters. I think this is a terrible idea, and while I appreciate that "keeping the voters from making a terrible mistake" is part of the responsibility of the EC, and why it is used to begin with, I don't think it makes sense or is a good idea to use the EC in this way. If folks want to rewrite the constitution that is fine, and there may be good arguments for doing so, but that isn't something we can do after an election takes place to change its current results. That is something that could only effect elections in the future, after the changes have been made.

But, there IS something going on that is very different, and could "LEGITIMATELY" change the election results, and that would be if it can be shown that election results were MANIPULATED in certain states that made the difference. That is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States
By Gabriel Sherman

Robbed?Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.

Last Thursday, the activists held a conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case, according to a source briefed on the call. The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.

According to current tallies, Trump has won 290 Electoral College votes to Clinton’s 232, with Michigan’s 16 votes not apportioned because the race there is still too close to call. It would take overturning the results in both Wisconsin (10 Electoral College votes) and Pennsylvania (20 votes), in addition to winning Michigan’s 16, for Clinton to win the Electoral College. There is also the complicating factor of “faithless electors,” or members of the Electoral College who do not vote according to the popular vote in their states. At least six electoral voters have said they would not vote for Trump, despite the fact that he won their states.

The Clinton camp is running out of time to challenge the election. According to one of the activists, the deadline in Wisconsin to file for a recount is Friday; in Pennsylvania, it’s Monday; and Michigan is next Wednesday. Whether Clinton will call for a recount remains unclear. The academics so far have only a circumstantial case that would require not just a recount but a forensic audit of voting machines. Also complicating matters, a senior Clinton adviser said, is that the White House, focused on a smooth transfer of power, does not want Clinton to challenge the election result. Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri did not respond to a request for comment. But some Clinton allies are intent on pushing the issue. This afternoon, Huma Abedin’s sister Heba encouraged her Facebook followers to lobby the Justice Department to audit the 2016 vote. “Call the DOJ…and tell them you want the votes audited,” she wrote. “Even if it’s busy, keep calling.”

Update: Halderman has elaborated on his claims in a Medium post published Wednesday morning.
--------------------------------

I am not particularly hopeful that this would change the election results, but I DO think it would be irresponsible to not pursue this and be certain that no manipulation has taken place. This IS a big deal, and if we were to find out after the election is certified that actual manipulation occurred it could create a HUGE constitutional crisis that is may be fairly simple to avoid.

Or, at least that is my opinion on the matter. If Donald Trump were not such a scary prospect for President it would be a lot easier to just accept what appears to have happened, but he isn't and it isn't...

Apparently Jill Stein may be willing to make the challenge in case Hillary and her camp may not want to...

 

[ghost]

If people think there is tension, and the country is divided now, they can't even imagine what it would look like if Hillary tried to challenge and overthrow the election results and get herself installed as the president. There would most likely be riots in the streets. Not some fake Soros funded "protests" and privileged college kids crying, real people furious in the streets... That would not be a pretty sight.

 

[TeeJay1952]

I think that sometimes when you do not get the result you were hoping for that it call for a rededication to principles and the cause you believe in.
In life you don't always win. When there is competition there is always a loser. Be mindful of how you treat the other end of equation because eventually you will be there.
It is a good thing that we don't always get what we want. It teaches us humility, graciousness, mindfulness and if we are smart an opportunity to listen to other ideas and cherry pick the good ones and reject the bad ones.

Beware the media telling you what it really means.

 

[HellsWindStaff]

If they recount, they need to do all the states not just three battleground states. To easy to rig lol but if they do them all I'm sure the slew of undocumented voters for Hillary won't look good. That's why focus on only those 3. I'm all for them recounting tho to be honest but all or nothing, not pick and choose convenience.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...rs_soros_bot_funding/?st=IVY24EG1&sh=7ce890f2

I saw this yesterday. Jill has earned more money on this, than her entire campaign as well. And this guy, predicted accurately. They hit their goal right when he said.

Regarding EC this sums up my thoughts perfectly. Flawed argument as the entire campaign would be different.

I do think it's over tho tbh.

 

[lwien]

Not some fake Soros funded "protests" and privileged college kids crying, real people furious in the streets.

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that those on the left that oppose Trump and demonstrate that they oppose Trump, are not real people but those that would protest on the right are real people?

Is that what you're really saying??

Edit: I wonder how long this thread will stay open.

 

[cybrguy]

If they recount, they need to do all the states not just three battleground states

Given that the folks asking for the recount have to pay for it, it is unlikely that more states (other than the 3) will be recounted.

Edit: I wonder how long this thread will stay open.

Probably no longer than the recounts take, assuming they occur.
Honestly, I don't expect anything to change as a result of the recount, but I think it would be irresponsible to just ignore what they found. And that is basically what Halderman is saying...

EC certification is 12/19 I believe.

 

[cybrguy]

Pardon me for the double, but this is an interesting article. I think if we really intended to use the electors as designed by Hamilton, we would need to have a less partisan way to choose them. It is worth considering... for the future.

Should the Electors Choose Trump?
by Martin Longman
November 25, 2016 11:00 AM

Lawrence Lessig says that the Electoral College should select Hillary Clinton as our next president, which is not unreasonable on its face. The Electoral College serves two distinct purposes. One is that it creates dozens of distinct elections rather than one nationwide election. There are advantages to this. One advantage is that it’s easier to do a recount in one state than it would be to recount every ballot cast in the nation. Another advantage is that it forces candidates to do more retail politicking than they would do if they were only concerned with jacking up nationwide turnout. But this consideration is secondary.

There are also the actual Electors to consider and if Alexander Hamilton is to be believed, they only really exist to exercise their independent judgment.

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. –The Federalist Papers, No. 68​

We could have the votes assigned automatically based on the winner of each state or the winner of each congressional district, but that’s not how it was designed. The Electors exist to overrule the voters. That’s really their only purpose. So, if they think the voters have elected a narcissistic moron, they have the right to say “sorry, no” and cast their votes for someone else.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.-The Federalist Papers, No. 68​

We may not like them having that discretion and some states have passed laws that attempt to take that discretion away, but those efforts probably wouldn’t stand up in court. If we want to really take away their discretion, we need to amend the Constitution.

Lessig makes an argument based primarily on the fact that Clinton won the popular vote and that therefore denying her the presidency is destroying the idea of one person, one vote.

This is nonsense for the simple reason that the candidates would have run their campaigns completely differently if they were trying to win the popular vote instead of the Electoral College. They would have spent more time in Chicago and Los Angeles and a lot less time in North Carolina and Nevada. They would have runs ads in different places with different messages. The may have had entirely different messages and even some different policies.

No, we can’t blame Trump for winning according to the rules. Losing the popular vote in an interesting factoid, but it’s not a mark against his victory.

What Lessig should have argued is that the Electors should plainly judge Trump a menacing incompetent and reject him with extreme prejudice.

This is a justifiable argument in our current circumstances.

However, even this is not a slam-dunk case because it would cause immense civil unrest. It takes a certain arrogance and perhaps some unwarranted self-assurance to insist that you know that a Trump presidency will be worse than the problems that denying him the presidency would cause.

At the end of the day though, it’s a judgment call. And the Electors exist for precisely this reason, to make this kind of judgment.

Trump is already demonstrating his unfitness for office in many ways. He’s using unsecured phones, dabbling in nepotism, soliciting bribes, brazenly seeking to profit off his office, taking conflicts of interest to places we’ve never seen before, ignoring his intelligence briefings, settling lawsuits for defrauding people, making an anti-Semitic white nationalist his chief strategist and a raving Islamophobe his national security advisor, and his election was orchestrated in large part by Russian interference.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. –The Federalist Papers, No. 68​

Under this set of circumstances, it would be reasonable to overrule the verdict of the people.

But, let’s not pretend that it wouldn’t cause serious problems.

We’d be trading one kind of trouble for another.

Lessig could have made his case on the basis of this kind of choice, but he chose to talk nonsense about the popular vote.

The popular vote is a different debate. Maybe we want to do away with the Electoral College altogether. But that’s a matter for the future. Right now, we have Electors. And those Electors still have a choice to make on December 19th when they convene and vote.

I am sure that Trump will be their choice.

Based on what Alexander Hamilton intended, I am not at all sure that Trump should be their choice.

 

[CarolKing]

There should always be close scrutiny regarding elections, the more the better. Not sure if they will end up changing and getting away from the archaic way the Electorial College operates. I would like to see the popular vote but that's just me and my own opinion.

Clinton is leading by 2 million votes. That really doesn't change the results only that the majority wanted the other person. There are states with extra voter's restrictions in 2016.

Von Trump is making me really nervous how he's going about governing so far with some of his appointments. Mitt Romney seems actually moderate and doesn't look so bad as he did in 2012. I'm rooting for him for Secretary of State job verses the Grimm Reaper Guilliani. Maybe General Petraeus?

The secretary of Education job has been given to a person who's children never attended public schools. Betsy DeVos will dismantle schools whether or not they are successful or not. With Hillary she would have at least put someone in that actually would have known what they were doing. A person that had actually some form of educational experience.

Trump is a clusterfuck. There needs to be an investigation regarding the Russians and their manipulation of this election. Putin wanted Trump and that's who we got. It's really scarey I think.

Now the American tax payer will be paying Trump rent. It's fucking insane. Trump'a wife and kid need to move to WA D.C. Melanie Trump doesn't have any interest in a job as First Lady. The job will interfear with her time raising a young boy, gym time and getting her nails done. Not necessarily in that order.

Everyday this whole thing just gets worse the damage that a terrible president can do sometimes never can be fixed. This is definetly a big deal and not a joke. Von Trump is a joke.

It's amazing how we see things so differently in various areas of the U.S.

Media do your job.

 

[HellsWindStaff]

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that those on the left that oppose Trump and demonstrate that they oppose Trump, are not real people but those that would protest on the right are real people?

Is that what you're really saying??

Edit: I wonder how long this thread will stay open.

He is kind of saying this. It's no secret that Soros and Co have funded "#NeverTrump" so while they are "real" people in the sense they aren't robots lol and some genuine real protestors, there are swaths of people paid to be there and protest. Do they really care or do they want the paycheck? Why is he paying them...

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ney-funding-anti-trump-leftist-protest-riots/

I actually found ads around me too on CL, considered going to get a bit of extra cash. Still may, 15 an hour to stand around and protest isn't a bad deal (same rate around me too) and can go after work....plus then I could just relay this info with pay stubs lol so 15 dollars an hour to double agent is kind of a swell deal

But I have faith this thread will remain open.

@cybrguy the fact they want to only raise money for those states seems suspect. Plus the money coming in from overseas for the recount lends creedance to Soros influence. But I do just find it all amusing when stepped back. I don't think anything will come of it regardless but people won't let it either if it ever got pushed to that final hour.

I member! and this was wholeheartedly expected to be honest so I assume this will all blow over soon enough. Trump honestly, quite smart saying "we'll see" during that debate, the grave dug itself as the media/left imposed a set of standards that they themselves couldn't follow. It's done and done. The world moves along and while this will be talking point like I said I don't think this will amount to anything.

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

Jill Stein formally filed in Wisconsin today.

You can donate. They have $5.3 M and need $7 M for all three states.

 

[HellsWindStaff]

Jill Stein formally filed in Wisconsin today.

You can donate. They have $5.3 M and need $7 M for all three states.

Already said this but another website I know red state schmed state but I'm really posting this so if you feel the need to donate save your cash guys! It will hit. It finalized the money needed around 6pm exactly when that guy said (4-6 regarding actual donations with an approximate of 6:10)

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=50879

To be honest I find this whole thing kind of disgusting. What the actual fuck? They couldn't rig it but still trying....foreign nationals like Soros scare me infinitely more than faux Russia scares. It's been debunked so many times over yet you'll still see it, where is it even coming from?

The world is honestly scary. The 1984 levels of censorship really disturbs me. It's really weird to me; for years I denounced "conspiracy" theories of all types to be very weak be it 9/11 to politics to anything else, but......I seen too many examples proven correct regarding the bag against Trump to really disregard it.

1% chance of nom. Never winning polls. Misconstruing billy bush tapes ("when your a celebrity they let you do it" implicitly implies consent so why did media say otherwise?) Soros group funding protests. We said on reddit how the administrators of site curbed TD posts and that bias has also just been proven true. Aaron Black going to incite violence at Trump rallies and spotted at never trump events. Wolf blitzer colluding with HC. Big Donna too. Rape accusations that dropped like flies. Never winning by all media pundits. Cucks like John Oliver and Trevor Noah pushing false narrative and implying their way is right and the opposite perspective deserves to be laughed at. DNC against Bernie. Russia hacks proven false yet paraded as truth. White nationalism being some "scary term" despite being either white or a nationalist, singularly isn't scary. Not sure if media knows what nationalist means.....media refusal to acknowledge Trump being first to not have to evolve on LGBT. Media spouting nonsense about swamp not draining with more half truths and speculation parlayed as in the book fact. The whole "white lash" bs Van Jones said paraded as fact. Don Lemon just period sorry I think he's such a dweeb and low hanging fruit. This is all off my head lol collusion and corruption is real; it probably comes across as tinfoil and I'm aware but Much had been verified by the leaks or elsewhere.

I saw a CNN article saying WL is fake news along with some other right leaning sites...specifically right leaning sites...that feeling when fake news reports fake news I guess.... Do people not know certificates and rsa keys?

Scary. Time and time again evidence supports the wool on eyes but it's never talked about and that scares the piss out of me. More than most things. Getting off topic but for all the fear I've seen of a Trump presidency the levels of censorship and bias honestly really bothers the fuck out of me and really makes me wary of things to come. This game has seemingly just begun now that he won....

 

[Krazy]

"Its rigged!"

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

Already said this but another website I know red state schmed state but I'm really posting this so if you feel the need to donate save your cash guys! It will hit. It finalized the money needed around 6pm exactly when that guy said (4-6 regarding actual donations with an approximate of 6:10)

Unsure exactly what this quote means, but it appears that donations are still needed. Apparently, the cost of the recounts (or part of them) must be paid up front.

What's wrong with recounting a close election? The loss of the popular vote clearly indicates a lack of confidence in the president elect. The leak of emails from the Democratic National Committee and the false news reports originating from Russian sites constitute tampering attempts which should be investigated, if only to ensure the integrity of future elections. Remember, enemies of the US were quick to celebrate the election results. The recount will likely focus some attention on these legitimate concerns.

Psychologically, some who oppose the president-elect may be still be in denial, the first stage of grief. However, we can accept the result of the election psychologically while we continue to question it. Supporters of the recount and investigation need to be realistic in their expectations. We must also remember that the president-elect came very close to winning the popular vote. The concerns of his supporters are ignored at our peril.

 

[HellsWindStaff]

I'm fine with recounting, do it all or don't do it period tho is my opinion. Pick and choose mentality lost you the election. So let's be all inclusive eh? Guess we can still donate to other states. Would love to see CA. You won't want a recount showing she cheated and still lost would you? That's would it would show if we did this overall. I agree that a reversal would cause much chaos tho. But won't happen.

All bonus money for this recount initiative goes right to Jills pocket too.....

That quote references that a guy said hours earlier when the needed amount would hit. A Soros bot was donating....Unless you actually believe 163,000 came in every hour from real folks.....weird how accurate he predicted though and weird that amount comes in at 2 am 3 am, 4 am, etc. never slowed down. You believe that's legit? I simply said save your money it will hit the amount needed in due time with the bot. And it did.

What false news reports from Russian sites? Sorry, I disregard most anything regarding Russia fear now a days. Proven liars will lie. You'd be dumb to believe CNN, and that's not meant as an insult but just proven that they are biased as all fuck. So take what they say with salt. tablespoons. But just unsure what you are taking about.

There isn't really anything wrong with it, other than the fact you guys preached about how the election results needed to be accepted. Now? You don't accept them. Liberal hypocrisy is/will be the death of your party. No one takes pick and choose mentality seriously other than people seriously cucked into their beliefs who can actually stomach that pick and choose mentality. Bernie bros don't. Trump supporters don't. Etc. only the regressive left uses such tactics. It is what it is.

This is a direct threat to democracy. Hillary said so. So......? How else should I take it? Please save the raiotonale for how when she said that it was "different" as it is again, pick and choose hypocrisy of when it's conveienent to you group. It's not different take it for what it is.

Move on from stages of grief! It will all be ok. Trumps America will be great and is already moving along. Other than the protestors sponsored by Soros funded groups, most have moved on.

The real scary thing is how in the bag people are. That scares me more than any Russian BS. When you have Don Lemon and Co saying false things as fact, that's an issue.

 

[CarolKing]

Most of the Trump voters made $72,000 a year, that surprised me.

Trump should have been stopped with the birther stuff, telling folks that Obama wasn't an America citizen, pure and simple a racist statement that he kept on telling until a few months ago. The media should have pointed out the lies and had taken responsibility.

I'm interested in climate change and the environment. We need to be working on clean energy. I didn't realize there are only 75,000 coal miners in America. That surprised me too. The Paris Agreement needs to stand and Trump needs to leave it alone. Hopefully he will rethink such a stupid decision to get rid of it. Energy jobs is what we need, not continuing the dirty energy of the past.

Whether or not Trump was making up lies or they were out right lies, it didn't matter with the people that were voting for him.

Any election needs to have close supervision and scrutiny always. Not just this election but all elections. If mistakes were made or the results were messed with, folks need to know their vote counts. The election was close. Clinton has won 2 million votes more than Trump. This is a close election in my mind. What's wrong with making sure the results are correct? I will assume Trump will probably keep the presidency but you never know.

Back in 2000 the Florida election was horrendous. Gore should have challenged that election but he was being the bigger man. Not always a good move. We saw what happened with a Bush presidency. What a difference a different president could have been for this country.

The recount in the three states are within the parameters of state law, time was running out for them to act.

I edited my original post. I want this thread to stay open.

 

[cybrguy]

Despite successful fundraising effort, recount of Pennsylvania remains unlikely
Updated: November 28, 2016 — 10:45 AM EST

by Rob Tornoe, Staff Writer @RobTornoe
After successfully launching a recount of election results in Wisconsin, Green Party candidate Jill Stein is now setting her sights on Pennsylvania.

As of Monday morning, Stein has raised $6.2 million dollars, covering the costs of recounts in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and is close to her total goal of $7 million goal to cover recount costs in Michigan.

But when it comes to the Keystone State, it turns out raising the money might have been the easiest step.

As Stein points out herself in a video posted on Sunday, initiating a statewide recount of Pennsylvania’s vote is “especially complicated.” Unlike Wisconsin, Stein can’t simply file a direct request for a recount, leaving just two paths for a potential statewide audit.


Stein could appeal the election results in court, but would have to present evidence that election fraud was probable in Pennsylvania. According to a spokeswoman from the Department of State, the deadline to file a lawsuit is today.

While Stein is essentially alleging that errors, tampering or hacking had occurred to affect outcomes in the three states, even computer scientists who recommended a recount to rule out tampering have gone to great lengths to make it clear there is no proof of hacking or fraud in the election results.

President-elect Donald Trump continued to slam the recount effort over the weekend, calling it a “scam” and declaring “nothing will change.” Marc Elias, general counsel for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, said the Clinton campaign agrees with the recount in “principle,” but also wrote that “we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology."

So instead, Stein is promoting an “especially complicated” voter-initiated recount effort that involves three voters in every precinct or election district in Pennsylvania submitting a notarized affidavit to the clerk in their individual election districts.

According to the Department of State, there were 9,163 voting precincts in Pennsylvania during the 2016 election. So Stein would need over 27,000 voters to file notarized affidavits, but it's unclear if that avenue is even still available.

According to Wanda Murren, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of State, the deadline for a voter-initiated recount was Monday, Nov. 21. That would make a lawsuit the only remaining option for initiating a statewide recount.

Complicating any recount effort is the fact that Pennsylvania is one of 15 states that use electronic voting machines that don't have a paper-backed audit.

“The nightmare scenario would be if Pennsylvania decides the election and it is very close," Lawrence Norden, an expert on voting machines, told the Los Angeles Times prior to the election. "You would have no paper records to do a recount.”

Even if Stein were able to overcome the odds and initiate a statewide recount, it’s doubtful Clinton would be able to overcome Trump’s 70,638 lead in Pennsylvania. From 2000 and 2015, the outcome of the election was changed in just three of 27 elections, according to FairVote, a nonpartisan electoral reform group that researches elections. The largest swing occurred in Florida in 2000, when 1,247 voters for George W. Bush were flipped to his opponent, Al Gore, which wasn’t enough to overturn the state’s results.

 

[His_Highness]

The five stages of grief are: Denial and Isolation, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance.

I consider myself lucky .... I went straight to depression and then shortly followed with acceptance.

Where does the recount fit? Bargaining?

 

[Tranquility]

Just as no one should have cared about Trump's claim he would wait and see as to if he would accept the election, no one should care about the recount either. Both (All?) sides already had money and lawyers in their budgets just for this very thing. It is a part of the process. Statistically? There is no chance of a change. Realistically? There is a theoretical chance the states will take longer than the Constitution allows to submit their votes and denying Trump the election for not getting 270 votes in the electoral college. I believe it reverts to the House (P) and the Senate (VP) in that case. Not really going to change anything, but it might.

(Stein may have already missed the PA deadline.)

 

[ghost]

True.

Imagine if Hillary would have won and the Trump supporters had then got millions of dollars in funding sent to them by some foreign anti-Hillary entity, say the Russians, to protest and riot in the streets....and the were sent several millions more to contest the results and have a recount effort... The Left would absolutely completely lose their shit! (and would most likely turn extremely violent)

Its always fun to look at things from both sides...

 

[cybrguy]

Why Have a Recount?
by Martin Longman
November 28, 2016 12:14 PM

Richard Baehr at American Thinker had a nice conspiracy theory going until someone pointed out that its key premise is flawed. Baehr tried to advance the idea that the Democrats and Jill Stein are participating in recounts of the vote in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin in the hope that the process will not be completed in time for slates to be chosen in those states for the Electoral College. This would, the theory originally went, deny Donald Trump and Mike Pence 270 electoral votes and throw the presidential election to the House and the the vice-presidential election to the Senate.

And, what would be the point of doing this?

If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it? The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.​

He had to update his post to acknowledge that the 270 vote requirement rests on there being 538 votes. If there are fewer votes, then the number required for a majority goes down. In other words, even if Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin don’t convene to vote because they can’t agree on who is authorized to vote, Trump will still win a majority of all the votes actually cast, assuming there aren’t a lot of faithless electors. The House and Senate would not need to get involved.

Still, is it possible that the primary motivation behind paying for these recounts is to delegitimize and thereby weaken Trump?

I see no evidence for that. To begin with, the states weren’t selected arbitrarily. They were selected at the suggestion of a small group of computer scientists and election lawyers who noticed anomalies in the votes in those three states and contacted the Clinton campaign to register their concerns and encourage them to call for an audit. If you want to understand the broader concerns better, Prof. J. Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan wrote about them recently. You can read more about how an election could be hacked from MIT Professor Ron Rivest and Philip Stark, the associate dean of mathematical and physical sciences at the University of California, Berkeley. In the case of the three states, there was a discrepancy between how well Trump did in precincts without paper ballots and how he did in precincts that have them. That discrepancy could easily be explained by other factors than hacking, and it was probably a mistake to take that ball and run with it. In fact, part of their message is that a professional hacking job would not be detectable in precincts that lack paper ballots. So, recounting those precincts is basically a misunderstanding of the threat.

Still, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin are three states where Trump won by relatively narrow margins despite polling that consistently predicted he would lose. In fact, Michigan isn’t scheduled to certify Trump’s victory until this afternoon, and his margin currently sits at 10,704 out of 4,799,284 ballots cast.

The Clinton campaign initially showed little inclination to force a recount, but they will participate now that Green Party candidate Jill Stein has raised the money and signed the required papers to make them happen. If there is some secret collusion between the two campaigns, it is well-disguised. In fact, Jill Stein continues to trash Clinton on a semi-regular basis, including for not seeking the recounts herself.

Stein may be motivated by a desire for attention or to raise money for the Green Party, but those interests don’t intersect with Clinton’s interests.

Now, a hand recount could detect systematic hacking of machines that tabulate paper ballots, even if the hacking code self-destructed after use. If there’s a pattern of Clinton losing (and Trump gaining), say, ten out of a hundred votes in precinct after precinct, that will be trace evidence of what occurred.

The possibility of this happening is the reason election experts think there should always be paper ballots that can be recounted and that audits should be a standard part of all elections, without any party having to request or pay for them.

If nothing like this is found, that will add legitimacy to the election rather than subtracting from it. If evidence is found then the effort would be self-evidently justified.

Of course, I have no idea what would happen then, but it would at least motivate people to demand paper ballots and routine audits in the future. This is clearly what motivated the computer scientists and election lawyers who raised their concerns with the Clinton campaign. It’s less clear that it’s the primary motivator for Stein. The only motivation I see for Clinton is that they feel quite correctly that they ought to have people present during recounts even if they didn’t call for them and don’t expect to benefit from them.

Now, it would be understandable for Trump and his team to worry that this is all an effort to call their victory into question and delegitimize him. But he’s the one who took to Twitter this weekend to argue that the only reason he is behind in the popular vote is because millions of people voted illegally. That’s not only delusional, but it does more to undermine faith in the fairness of our elections than asking for a recount. Since Trump presumably wants to seek reelection without facing millions of illegal votes cast mostly against him, he should be calling for an audit himself if he really believes his own nonsense.

I don’t know what he believes, but he’s pretty aggressively delegitimizing both his election and himself without any help from Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton. Their efforts are more likely to legitimize Trump than not, and are certainly better for that purpose than doing nothing.

Unless, of course, there’s something the recounts are going to find that will truly call the election into question.

As I’ve already said, precincts without paper trails cannot be properly audited and the integrity of their counts can never be verified. So, I wouldn’t expect to find anything conclusive in a recount of those precincts. All that will accomplish is to make sure that election workers can use a calculator correctly. Of course, sometimes they can’t, and sometimes their stubby fingers seem to always err on the side of helping Trump.

Personally, I welcome the recounts, as flawed as they are, because they should be routine and because they’ll either find nothing which will bolster confidence in the result or they’ll find something that should lead to reforms and more secure elections in the future. It’s win-win, to me.

What I don’t believe is that it’s all part of some strategy to throw the election to Congress and make Trump look like a chump.

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

Still, is it possible that the primary motivation behind paying for these recounts is to delegitimize and thereby weaken Trump?

So what if it is? The president-elect clearly intends to hide behind the letter of the law when he profits by it. By refusing to divest himself of his business empire, he is already profiting personally from his election. Does anyone seriously doubt he will use US foreign policy as an instrument to further enrich himself?

A minority president backed by both houses of Congress, and soon the Supreme Court, wants to force unpopular policies on the majority of people who do not support him. At the same time, he gives every indication that he will entrench corruption at the highest levels of government. His opponents must act quickly and decisively to resist while they still can.

The president-elect killed the decorum previously associated with high office in the US. Why should his opponents continue to be hobbled by it?

What false news reports from Russian sites?

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

Considering the earlier DNC hack, it's perfectly reasonable to be concerned that Russia influenced the US election and to want that possibility investigated by Congress. If such an investigation uncovers ties to the president-elect's campaign, we may yet have a chance to awake from this nightmare early in his administration.

Where does the recount fit? Bargaining?

New ideas about grief focus on three stages - denial, anger, and acceptance. If people are feeling grief, it's important they understand that. It may seem surprising that election results can inspire real grief, but it's a healthy and admirable reaction. Problems can arise when we allow ourselves to be motivated by feelings we don't yet understand.

 

[cybrguy]

I hate to be a killjoy, but I think we better stay on the recount if we want this thread to stay open. I have all kinds of things I would like to say that I have been keeping to myself for the threads sake.
Now, should the recount be killed or completed than that's a different kettle of fish. Short of that, tho, this is a good place to have to keep up on the recounts progress so I think it serves up to keep it open.

 

[ghost]

it's perfectly reasonable to be concerned that Russia influenced the US election

Meh....not necessarily

Hillary has been pushing for war with Russia for the last decade, and blames literally everything on them to try to back/justify her psychotic lust for WWIII, and obviously 90% of the media are hacks and left wing shills who echo and parrot back whatever it is she wants them to.

That's not to say Russia didn't do anything, but whenever Hillary and her cabal blame Russia for something, I have to just assume they are lying.

 

[grokit]

FROM THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT...
There’s No Evidence Our Election Was Rigged
We had more than 1,000 people watching the vote on Election Day. If millions of people voted illegally, we would have seen some sign of it.
https://www.propublica.org/article/theres-no-evidence-our-election-was-rigged

otoh...

Donald Trump is making a strong case for a recount of his own 2016 election win
Republicans and Democrats react to the announcement that Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to join a vote recount in Wisconsin initiated by former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-for-a-recount-of-his-own-2016-election-win/

also/edit:
Jill Stein Raised More Money for Her Recount Effort Than She Did During the Election
The former Green Party candidate is on pace to double her campaign donations

 

[lwien]

....justify her psychotic lust for WWIII...

So lets see how far over the top we can take this conversation, eh?