https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...-recount-sealing-trumps-michigan-win.amp.html Well hopes and pipe dreams are being dashed once again. The sliver of hope the Trump haters had is gone. Will Stein keep up her insanity? If the cash keeps rolling in, you betcha!
What's the problem with having a recount? Some of those states were quite close. Who cares either way?
It depends. If a recount would not interfere in the electoral voting or cause problems it would be ok. It also seems that historically no election has ever been changed much by a recount so these efforts are a big waste. Besides Hillary said that not accepting the results is a threat to our democracy. Are you saying she is wrong?
Stein had no standing being she had a pitiful vote count, and it cost the Michigan taxpayers $500,000 a day to conduct the recount that wasn't changing anything.
Michigan Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay half a million dollars to fulfill Stein's vein ego. I'm just now trying to think of a way for Michigan to recoup that money.
Why not recount California? Oh that's right. She only wanted to recount the states that Trump won. Not the states that might have the highest voter fraud...
The irony is, assuming Stein's votes would go 100% for Clinton which may be a stretch, Clinton would have won Michigan.
No doubt, Steins votes going to Clinton wouldn't have won Pennsylvania. Stein's little temper tantrum has been brought to a halt before it impacted taxpayers further.
Stein is not an aggrieved party so has no standing and recounting Michigan is impossible anyway because of so much fraud in over 300 Democratic precincts in Detroit. As for the "problem," federal law requires electors to vote this coming Monday and a recount can not be done by Monday. Since Stein does not even allege a recount could result in her winning Michigan there is no issue relevant to her. She does not have standing to act as a surrogate for Hilary Clinton - meaning Clinton could not hide behind Stein. Since Hilary Clinton did not ask for a recount, there is no basis to engage in one since it could not give Stein a Michigan win. Since this is only a publicity stunt by Stein and nothing else, the federal court shut it down as it contradicted federal law on when electors vote. If Hilary Clinton wanted a recount she would have needed to pursue it herself.
Wisconsin recount is 70% complete and so far Clinton is up a whopping 82 votes http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/12/07/recount-update-expected/95087708/ Wisconsin's presidential recount is 70% done but the effort has resulted in almost no change to President-elect Donald Trump's winning margin in the state, election officials said. The Wisconsin Elections Commission said Democrat Hillary Clinton has gained 82 votes so far on Trump, a Republican who won the Nov. 8 election in the state by more than 22,000 votes.
These are the problems with this particular recount effort: 1. The person who demanded it had nothing to win or lose because they took 1% of votes. 2. The demand to recount was not based on a need to re-tally due to close margin (as is the primary reason for recount) but rather because of claims that the integrity of the count was wrong due to "Russian haxxxsoring", a claim that literally had not one single micron of proof. 3. The manner in which Stein demanded the recount was not feasible to schedule, to pay for, to execute, or as we found just now to enforce legally. Furthermore the entire endeavor should have never taken place because of the corrupt and hypocritical elements at work here. Do voters generally have some sort of "right" to a recount, ya sure. Its not iron clad and you don't get it just for the asking, there are conditions and there are procedures, but ya sure recounts are an important thing. But I say whatever "right" the people had to a recount was rescinded because of these things: 1. Leftists voters have racked up hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars in costs due to their destructive rioting over Trump's win; law enforcement costs, property damage, lost revenue for businesses, insurance claims, court legal costs. 2. The Queen of "if you don't accept the results you're Satan", Mr Hillary Clinton, spurred nation wide vitriol over Trump's mere expression that he might not immediately accepted the rules only to actually refuse to accept them herself. 3. The entire recount effort is funded by picking the pockets of gullible fools when it stands to benefit a woman, and a party, that has billions of dollars at its disposal. The fact that they would even dare to turn to the public to fund their scam is grounds for intimidate rejection of any recount request.
Odd, Fox News gives Trump a gain of 146 votes. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/07/recounts-barely-making-dent-in-election-results-trump-gains-in-wisconsin.html
How does one keep up something that's naturally ingrained? Seems like it's a 24/7 thing. This time it's just in the spotlight of the election coat tails.
Asking for a recount is not refusing to accept results. Claiming fraud and that the election was stolen is not accepting results.
It is when there is absolutely no reason to think a recount will make any difference at all to a candidate who failed to gain even one percent of the national vote!
Because the loser wanting the recount has no chance of winning and still walks away a loser while an entire committee wastes their time counting votes that won't change.
