Why Is Trump afraid of a Michigan recount?
The Trump campaign filed a legal petition Thursday to stop Michigan’s presidential recount, saying Jill Stein has no chance of winning and no grievance, and there’s no way that a hand count can be done before the Electoral College meets on December 19. “Despite being a blip on the electoral radar, [Green Party nominee] Stein has…
24 responses to Why Is Trump afraid of a Michigan recount?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Red Eye Robot December 2nd, 2016 at 08:35
Steins recount will cost the state of michigan between $10 million and $12 million for a state wide recount. No matter what happens Jill Stein will not be declared winner of Michigans electoral votes. What Stein is trying to do is the equivalent of suing a drunk driver because she witnessed an accident he caused. But its even worse, There was no drunk driver and no accident. Michigan’s voting machines can’t be hacked because you can’t hack a pen and paper. At the polls, the ballot boxes scan the serial number on the ballot to insure the contents match the ballot log. That ballot box is sealed with tamper proof tape and a lock. The ballot boxes are taken to the county offices, They are opened in front of witness’ and the ballots are optically scanned. The results are witnessed and totals are reported. At no time is this system ever connected to the internet. The author mentions under counted ballots where no president choice was made, being double. The clear implication is chicanery. It completely ignores these were 2 of the most disliked candidates in history. It completely ignores that hillary lost michigans primary even though she was expected to win. Michigan Democrats didn’t want to vote for hillary. Michigan conservatives didn’t like trump Many did not mark the president portion of the ballot.
fahvel December 2nd, 2016 at 12:50
you are as chkn sht as the orange maggot. Go ahead, count by hand and then reap all the benefits if there any.
Glen December 2nd, 2016 at 13:45
There’s no need for such language. It is entirely possible to demolish the argument without being disrespectful.
The fact that the “other side” isn’t being respectful, and is using such language, shouldn’t matter. Be better than them.
Red Eye Robot December 3rd, 2016 at 05:03
Can we get the $10 million bucks from you?
Glen December 2nd, 2016 at 13:43
Nobody has claimed rigging of electoral machines.
Perhaps this will be easier if I just link to an article that explains it exceptionally well:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38553-the-no-bs-inside-guide-to-the-presidential-vote-recount
It’s not the possibility of hacking that is the concern, but abuse of the system by partisan officials (the states that “turned red” were all states with Republicans in control of the electoral system).
It can happen three ways:
1. Provisional votes made by those who really were legitimate, but were incorrectly removed from the electoral rolls by a Republican campaign to have people removed as “voting in multiple states” (even though those people were just people with relatively common names like “James Brown”… and almost all of them were minorities). These votes were often rejected outright, even though those people had every reason to expect to be on the roll, and legitimately voted.
2. Votes that the counting machines (which scan paper ballots) interpreted as being either over-votes or under-votes, mostly due to old, dodgy machines (which are mostly found in poor urban areas, where many minorities live) misreading the ballot, and the results simply rejected. Visual inspection by real people can correct these issues.
3. Absentee/mail-in ballots rejected for nonsensical reasons – many such ballots end up being discarded without due examination first. And because these ballots aren’t “secret” as regular ballot-box ballots are, it’s much easier to intentionally reject significant numbers in favour of certain candidates, etc.
Nobody is specifically claiming that any of these specifically happened. But they are calling for recounts in certain states due to the reasonable possibility of such issues resulting in a different result from the “real” one.
And Jill Stein is like someone who observes a car accident, and calls the police to let them know about it. Your analogy to “suing” makes no sense, as she gets nothing out of it if she “wins”.
But then, the right wing tends to only ever think about what they can get from things, not what is *right* (ironically enough). So I’m not surprised that the idea that Jill Stein might want to ensure that the voice of the people is heard correctly, and might pay the cost of it herself (with the help of her supporters), is foreign to you.
The Original Just Me December 3rd, 2016 at 03:38
OR, Pre-programing the Electronic Vote counting machines to a Percentage win for Who Ever.
Red Eye Robot December 3rd, 2016 at 05:07
What was the accident Jill stein observed? Be specific, What incidents or irregularities were specifically found? Perhaps cite news stories about problems reported in michigan on election day.
Glen December 3rd, 2016 at 12:23
There’s no need for a specific “accident” being observed. The result is fairly close, and thus it makes sense to double-check to make sure nothing inappropriate happened.
The worst that can happen is they recount and find that everything was appropriately counted or discarded, nothing changes, and some people spent some time so that America can proclaim that the victory was 100% legitimate. Alternatively, it can reveal problems with the count – irrespective of whether those problems favour Trump or Clinton (or third parties, for that matter) – and help to indicate areas in need of improvement.
And if it turns out that, after a recount, Clinton ends up ahead, then Clinton should be president because that’s what the people voted for. Alternatively, if after the recount, Trump remains ahead, then Trump should be president.
The only reason to fear a recount is if you believe it will reveal your preferred candidate didn’t actually win.
So why are you so scared of a recount?
Bunya December 2nd, 2016 at 13:50
Republicans now own the state of Michigan, so it’s not unlikely that the election results in that state were somewhat altered.
The Original Just Me December 3rd, 2016 at 03:36
Sister State to Idaho.
Red Eye Robot December 3rd, 2016 at 05:02
Please produce evidence of these crimes.
Bunya December 5th, 2016 at 10:19
Sure. As soon as you produce the elusive “WMD’s” that cost over 4000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens their lives.
Red Eye Robot December 3rd, 2016 at 05:12
Would this be the same state of michigan that voted democrat in every presidential election from 1992 to 2012? The same michigan with 2 democrat senators?
Bunya December 5th, 2016 at 10:42
That’s the same Michigan. Republicans now own that state, and it’s been in a downward spiral ever since.
The Original Just Me December 3rd, 2016 at 03:36
Michigan should have done it Correctly and Legally the First Time instead of the Republican Way.
Red Eye Robot December 3rd, 2016 at 05:01
We did, people voted, The votes were counted
The Original Just Me December 3rd, 2016 at 08:23
So then YOU are NOT afraid of a Recount.?
Red Eye Robot December 4th, 2016 at 06:36
Are you going to cough up the $10 million dollars?
TKList December 2nd, 2016 at 08:42
Fake news.
mistlesuede December 2nd, 2016 at 10:56
Fake comment.
fahvel December 2nd, 2016 at 12:49
dim bulb.
mistlesuede December 2nd, 2016 at 10:50
Something smelled on election night, it still does.
Where is the problem President-elect P*ssy grabber? It wasn’t going to cost you anything to do this, until you got lawyers involved, just like with everything you’ve ever done.
The Original Just Me December 3rd, 2016 at 03:33
Is T. Rump afraid of a little DEMOCRACY ?????
Red Eye Robot December 4th, 2016 at 06:42
A million a day would be 1200 police officers. The state of michigan recount will cost the state $10-$12 million. Stein offered ZERO evidence there were problems with the election.