Wisconsin Recount Gets the Green Light

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosyAnne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally I think the Clinton camp (and her money man) is behind the recount effort.
I think they don’t want to look like sore loosers if it does not pan out, so Stein is the front man. If Clinton had seemed to have been leading the charge, public sediment would turn against her and Trump might “conveniently” not stand in the way of a Justice Department investigation of Clinton… when Trump takes office.

But the reversal of the election of Senator Franken in Minnesota was an unbelievable turn of events at the time.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Minnesota,_2008 so I would not rule out a “reversal” in this election.
foxnews.com/story/2008/11/10/minnesota-ripe-for-election-fraud.html

I think Clinton is walking a fine line here.The fact that she has joined in the recount is just a little too suspicious csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1126/Clinton-joins-Stein-s-recount-effort-in-Wisconsin-Michigan-and-Pennsylvania

One scenario is a Clinton-Stein ticket in 2020 as payoff for Stein’s being the front man; if they don’t end up stealing the 2016 election. If Stein and Clinton do reverse the election look for Stein to be offered a cabinet seat.
 
I_trust said:
Personally I think the Clinton camp (and her money man) is behind the recount effort.
I think they don’t want to look like sore loosers if it does not pan out, so Stein is the front man. If Clinton had seemed to have been leading the charge, public sediment would turn against her and Trump might “conveniently” not stand in the way of a Justice Department investigation of Clinton… when Trump takes office.

But the reversal of the election of Senator Franken in Minnesota was an unbelievable turn of events at the time.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Minnesota,_2008 so I would not rule out a “reversal” in this election.
foxnews.com/story/2008/11/10/minnesota-ripe-for-election-fraud.html

I think Clinton is walking a fine line here.The fact that she has joined in the recount is just a little too suspicious csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1126/Clinton-joins-Stein-s-recount-effort-in-Wisconsin-Michigan-and-Pennsylvania

One scenario is a Clinton-Stein ticket in 2020 as payoff for Stein’s being the front man; if they don’t end up stealing the 2016 election. If Stein and Clinton do reverse the election look for Stein to be offered a cabinet seat.
Click to expand...
HC needs to give it up already.The people have spoken loud and clear.Just go and enjoy your grandbabies Hillary.😉
 
Jeanne_S said:
HC needs to give it up already.The people have spoken loud and clear.Just go and enjoy your grandbabies Hillary.😉
Click to expand...
She has. All these speculative criticisms against her are just criticisms of straw-woman Hillary.

But I should point out that winning the popular vote by more than 2 million is not exactly the people speaking “loud and clear” against her.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
She has. All these speculative criticisms against her are just criticisms of straw-woman Hillary.

But I should point out that winning the popular vote by more than 2 million is not exactly the people speaking “loud and clear” against her.
Click to expand...
Au contraire’ I see DT 's prevailing in spite of all the underhanded efforts to defeat him,as the real victory!👍
 
Jeanne_S said:
Au contraire’ I see DT 's prevailing in spite of all the underhanded efforts to defeat him,as the real victory!👍
Click to expand...
Agreed, tell me what the popular vote is once the zombie and illegal votes are removed from the tally.

The reality it the only count that matters is the electoral collage and always has been, wouldn’t have had a country if there wasn’t an electoral collage.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Huh? I did not dispute that DT prevailed. I only disputed the claim about the people speaking “loud and clear” against Clinton.
Click to expand...
Trump won 2,600 counties compared to Clinton’s 500 counties. I would say that is very loud and clear. 83%!

Clinton won in the congested city areas where there are all kinds of visible evidence that intimidation to agree or be hurt/ridiculed, is rampant. Where do you think the main stream media resides?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Huh? I did not dispute that DT prevailed. I only disputed the claim about the people speaking “loud and clear” against Clinton.
Click to expand...
Much of those popular votes are of a dubious nature seriously doubt she legitimately garnered as many as the libs are claiming
 
_Abyssinia said:
I don’t know if the study claims that millions of people vote illegally, but the study does claim that that there are people that non-citizens that vote, and that this has had an impact in the 2008 elections.

]
Click to expand...
It would help to know who exactly he is talking about here. The votes that are being counted are absentee ballots and there are by some estimates 8 million citizens living abroad who can vote. Some don’t think that’s legal. Not all states allow it either. If anything, there’s suppression.
 
dmelosi said:
Trump won 2,600 counties compared to Clinton’s 500 counties. I would say that is very loud and clear. 83%!
Click to expand...
The statement was made about “the people” speaking loud and clear. Citing the number of counties won does not prove that claim.
Clinton won in the congested city areas where there are all kinds of visible evidence that intimidation to agree or be hurt/ridiculed, is rampant.
Click to expand...
Jeanne_S said:
Much of those popular votes are of a dubious nature seriously doubt she legitimately garnered as many as the libs are claiming
Click to expand...
Sure. Any data that does not support your narrative, just declare it to be “dubious” and be done with it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The statement was made about “the people” speaking loud and clear. Citing the number of counties won does not prove that claim.

Sure. Any data that does not support your narrative, just declare it to be “dubious” and be done with it.
Click to expand...
I think one thing we can all agree on is that there are deep divisions in the country. No presidential candidate on either side is winning with 70% (or more) of the popular vote. The last guy to crack 60% was Nixon (against McGovern). There are no blowouts. Whoever is elected always starts off with about half the people in the country wishing they had lost the election to the other candidate.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The statement was made about “the people” speaking loud and clear. Citing the number of counties won does not prove that claim.

Sure. Any data that does not support your narrative, just declare it to be “dubious” and be done with it.
Click to expand...
It isn’t my narrative.There is a concerted effort by both parties to debunk the prevelant voting fraud in this Nation.They cannot allow it to be verified that the democratic right to cast a vote is being violated by illegal votes.Perception is reality as in most thing political.
Think Chicago and Kennedy stealing the election from Nixon.Nixon being a statesman preferring not to put the country through the shenanigans we are dealing with in this election and prior ones.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The statement was made about “the people” speaking loud and clear. Citing the number of counties won does not prove that claim.

Sure. Any data that does not support your narrative, just declare it to be “dubious” and be done with it.
Click to expand...
In the 2010 Illinois gubernatorial election, the democrat won 4 out of 102 counties. The vote difference in Cook (Chicago) county was 900,000 to 400,000 in favor of the democrat. The difference between the democrat who won and the republican who lost, in the election was about 28,000 total votes. In Illinois, it is well known there is rampant voter fraud in Chicago and an uphill battle to get anything done in Illinois.
 
dmelosi said:
In the 2010 Illinois gubernatorial election, the democrat won 4 out of 102 counties. The vote difference in Cook (Chicago) county was 900,000 to 400,000 in favor of the democrat. The difference between the democrat who won and the republican who lost, in the election was about 28,000 total votes. In Illinois, it is well known there is rampant voter fraud in Chicago and an uphill battle to get anything done in Illinois.
Click to expand...
I keep seeing claims about voter fraud being “well known” and basically a given. What concrete evidence is there?

I don’t discount the possibility, but I am somewhat skeptical. I mean, I can see how a few people might slip into a voting precinct and vote a second time as someone else (assuming they know the name and address of another registered voter who they also know will not be exercising their right to vote). But on a scale of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands)? Enough to shift the election in favor of the otherwise losing candidate?

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could really pull that off on such a large scale without leaving a large trail of evidence to follow—a trail which the opposing party would be only too happy to bring to light. Instead, I see a lot of insinuation that seems designed to make people suspicious of “the other guys”. But if they had any evidence, why aren’t elections being overturned and people being prosecuted?
 
I’d point out that counties vary widely in size. The county my parish is in has 75,000 people. The county with the nearest metropolitan area has 475,000. Liberals tend to live in more densely populated areas.

I submit that things are exactly as they seem: Trump legitimately won the electoral vote and presidency, but Clinton outperformed him in the popular vote.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I keep seeing claims about voter fraud being “well known” and basically a given. What concrete evidence is there?

I don’t discount the possibility, but I am somewhat skeptical. I mean, I can see how a few people might slip into a voting precinct and vote a second time as someone else (assuming they know the name and address of another registered voter who they also know will not be exercising their right to vote). But on a scale of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands)? Enough to shift the election in favor of the otherwise losing candidate?

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could really pull that off on such a large scale without leaving a large trail of evidence to follow—a trail which the opposing party would be only too happy to bring to light. Instead, I see a lot of insinuation that seems designed to make people suspicious of “the other guys”. But if they had any evidence, why aren’t elections being overturned and people being prosecuted?
Click to expand...
Here is a little history…dnainfo.com/chicago/20161019/downtown/vote-rigged-elections-history-fraud-stolen-trump
 
Jeanne_S said:
It isn’t my narrative.There is a concerted effort by both parties to debunk the prevelant voting fraud in this Nation.They cannot allow it to be verified that the democratic right to cast a vote is being violated by illegal votes.Perception is reality as in most thing political.
Think Chicago and Kennedy stealing the election from Nixon.Nixon being a statesman preferring not to put the country through the shenanigans we are dealing with in this election and prior ones.
Click to expand...
You say it is not your narrative, but here you go, telling it again.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Thanks. But even that article comes to the conclusion that voter fraud is more a thing of the past than of the present (at least in Chicago, which was the focus of the article)
Click to expand...
Yes it does say that. But keep in mind that entire area is controlled by the machine. It is a very tightly controlled and loyal group. The article can conclude anything it sees, but it really is that tightly controlled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top