Dems Are Stalling, Recount Will Not Be Completed, WISCONSIN WILL FORFEIT TRUMP VOTES

[bripat9643]

You realize that asking a question is not the same as answering a question. Why they would do whatever is beyond what I or you could know. But by the link I provided you if they don't finish the recount by the time limit then their delegates drop out.

No it doesn't. Your link is a blog, and it gives no compelling reason their electors would have to "drop out", recount or no recount. Because again, as I keep telling you ---- .they're not even required to hold a public election. In other words they technically don't even need to know how their population voted. At all.

Now, to ask you a question. Since it is well known that this process will not produce a change, never has, what is the true reason for the recount? Hillary said that challenging the election was an attack on America. Is the reason she is joining in an attack on America?

I have no idea. You should ask her. But your blog gave one possible reason, even if it failed to make its case. I gave you another, which may be reading too much into it but actually works. And if it is the actual intention --- i.e. calling public attention to the fact that the election day process itself is meaningless --- then it's brilliant.

Here's the bottom line: We won, you lost. So go sit in the back and shut the fuck up.

All your petulant whining isn't going to change the fact that you will now be addressing Trump as "President."

 

[longknife]

Hillary is doing this in several states and it will cause civil war, but hillary has no choice. If trump is prez she's going to prison.

WI GOP Lawmaker: Dems Are Stalling, Recount Will Not Be Completed, WISCONSIN WILL FORFEIT TRUMP VOTES

dec 1 2016 Wisconsin Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI) went on with Tucker Carlson tonight to discuss the recount in Wisconsin.

Duffy said Democrats and far left Green Party supporters are stalling the recount in Dane County Wisconsin, where Madison is located. The county is holding a hand recount. The recount will not be completed by the deadline on December 20th. Therefore, according to Rep. Duffy, the state will quite possibly be forced to forfeit their electoral votes.

This was the plan all along. Democrats knew they couldn’t make up 20,000 votes. But they also knew if they stalled on the recount the state could not certify the vote.

Wisconsin, won fairly by Donald Trump, will forfeit.

Federal law says that presidential recounts must be completed within 35 days after an election. Stein waited until 90 minutes before the Wisconsin deadline for filing a recount petition expired.

All the votes have to be certified by December 13 according to a report on Friday. The electors meet on December 19.

Another whiny butthurt Libtard thread.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Wisconsin will not be prevented from casting their electoral votes

 

[Pogo]

You might want to sit down for this ---

Millions of Wisconsin voters --- as well as in every other state --- are already disenfranchised by the EC system.
A little perspective.

Complete nonsense.

Complete failure to make any counterargument.
I get a lot of that.

None is necessary. The system in play is fully constitutional.

Again, complete lack of counterargument, augmented by implied strawman.
I've intimated absolutely nothing to the effect that anything is not "constitutional". To the contrary I've been specifically pointing out that that same Constitution does not require Wisconsin, or any other state, to "forfeit" its Electoral Vote, regardless what the vote count is or even if there's no vote at all.

No one has countered that argument.

But I'm used to it.

So in effect you agree that the will of the people of the state of Wisconsin should be infringed and going around agreed upon rules because you're such a sore loser is the way to go.

Noted.

Actually the Constitution of the United States already notes that, via the EC system.

Wanna borrow my copy?

 

[boedicca]

Trump Won. Get Over It Losers.

 

[Pogo]

For some reason I dislike candidates that cheat....and are constantly exploring methods to screw the voters out of their vote.

I wonder if Pogo really thinks the people will stand back and let this go unpunished.

Let what "go unpunished"?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Wisconsin 10 electoral votes aren't going to change a thing

yes it is.
Its going to take away the votes of all the residents of that state.
Must be nice to know you have no say in the government you support.
Hillary is a piece of shit. Now, I wouldnt do it because of my upbringing and basic fear of prison. But if someone comes along and were to give her .50 cal of lead, I dont think I would be able to find it in me to squeeze a tear out.

 

[Pogo]

The gist of what I see in this thread is why is Stein asking for a recount. I asked you why and you said you have no idea why she would.

Wow, can't even read your own posts?

You asked me why Hillary would join it, not why Stein peititioned it. Doesn't matter, the answer is the same; I'm not concerned with that. I started out by disassembling the premise of the OP --- who seems to have run away --- that Wisconsin would for some reason "forfeit" its vote. No one has countered that.

And then I mused on an actual effect it could have been designed for --- to expose the reality of how the electoral system works as opposed to the myth -- and that's a theory that actually DOES work.

Stein after all is a third party, and as are all 3P candies, is shut out of the process by the EC so it's to her advantage to expose that.

Follow me?

What I spoke to is what could be the technical result if it did happen.

A result that no one anywhere, including all the links, has demonstrated would necessarily follow.

And here we are at the beginning again, lather rinse repeat.

 

[Auld Phart]

Wisconsin 10 electoral votes aren't going to change a thing

yes it is.
Its going to take away the votes of all the residents of that state.
Must be nice to know you have no say in the government you support.
Hillary is a piece of shit. Now, I wouldnt do it because of my upbringing and basic fear of prison. But if someone comes along and were to give her .50 cal of lead, I dont think I would be able to find it in me to squeeze a tear out.

Sure the governor won't send the electors to DC anyway?

or a different slate with the same instructions?

You've got 10 days, bud


Stop screaming the sky is falling

 

[LaDexter]

This is exactly like Miami-Dade in 2000, when they told Gore "NO" to a recount... because they knew they had already cheated for Gore, which they did, and the USA Today recount proved it...

 

[mudwhistle]

For some reason I dislike candidates that cheat....and are constantly exploring methods to screw the voters out of their vote.

Then you should be in your car driving to WI to volunteer to help count the votes.

Sorry, I'd end up beating the crap out of some liberals. They wouldn't let me help anyway.

 

[Pogo]

For some reason I dislike candidates that cheat....and are constantly exploring methods to screw the voters out of their vote.

Then you should be in your car driving to WI to volunteer to help count the votes.

Sorry, I'd end up beating the crap out of some liberals. They wouldn't let me help anyway.

So you would resort to assault, just because you can't comprehend that this entire thread is based on a false premise huh.

Isn't that revealing.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Even in the most far-fetched fantasy, the Court would not disenfranchise millions of Wisconsin voters.

You might want to sit down for this ---

Millions of Wisconsin voters --- as well as in every other state --- are already disenfranchised by the EC system.
A little perspective.

Complete nonsense.

Complete failure to make any counterargument.
I get a lot of that.

None is necessary. The system in play is fully constitutional.

Again, complete lack of counterargument, augmented by implied strawman.
I've intimated absolutely nothing to the effect that anything is not "constitutional". To the contrary I've been specifically pointing out that that same Constitution does not require Wisconsin, or any other state, to "forfeit" its Electoral Vote, regardless what the vote count is or even if there's no vote at all.

No one has countered that argument.

Again, none necessary, as any forfeiture was not the issue to which I responded. Attend:

YOU: Millions of Wisconsin voters --- as well as in every other state --- are already disenfranchised by the EC system.
A little perspective.

ME: Complete nonsense.

You're very confused.

 

[FA_Q2]

Hillary is doing this in several states and it will cause civil war, but hillary has no choice. If trump is prez she's going to prison.

WI GOP Lawmaker: Dems Are Stalling, Recount Will Not Be Completed, WISCONSIN WILL FORFEIT TRUMP VOTES

dec 1 2016 Wisconsin Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI) went on with Tucker Carlson tonight to discuss the recount in Wisconsin.

Duffy said Democrats and far left Green Party supporters are stalling the recount in Dane County Wisconsin, where Madison is located. The county is holding a hand recount. The recount will not be completed by the deadline on December 20th. Therefore, according to Rep. Duffy, the state will quite possibly be forced to forfeit their electoral votes.

This was the plan all along. Democrats knew they couldn’t make up 20,000 votes. But they also knew if they stalled on the recount the state could not certify the vote.

Wisconsin, won fairly by Donald Trump, will forfeit.

Federal law says that presidential recounts must be completed within 35 days after an election. Stein waited until 90 minutes before the Wisconsin deadline for filing a recount petition expired.

All the votes have to be certified by December 13 according to a report on Friday. The electors meet on December 19.

Jim Fucking Hoft. When will you cretins ever get it.

Diga me this Tonto --- why would Wisconsin, or any other state, be forced to forfeit their EVs? The Constitution doesn't care how any state picks their electors or how they instruct them to vote. The Constitution doesn't even prescribe a public election at all.

If they don't finish the recount before the dead line then their state drops out.

Blog: The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts

Same question still stands, that being: why would they "drop out"? What would compel the to do so?

They're not even required to hold an election at all yanno. Again, all the Constitution requires is that they designate electors who cast their votes. And they can do that any way they see fit. It doesn't even require an election -- that's a complete bread and circus sham. You know that, right?

Y'all conspiracy theorists looking for an ulterior motive, maybe you have one right here--- by demonstrating that Wisconsin (in this case) can and will do its EV thing with or without a popular vote count, it exposes the fact that the entire Election Day process is a charade and that the decision is completely out of We the People's hands.

You say this over and over again.

It is an utterly false statement. Justify why you call the entire process a sham.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Hillary is doing this in several states and it will cause civil war, but hillary has no choice. If trump is prez she's going to prison.

WI GOP Lawmaker: Dems Are Stalling, Recount Will Not Be Completed, WISCONSIN WILL FORFEIT TRUMP VOTES

dec 1 2016 Wisconsin Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI) went on with Tucker Carlson tonight to discuss the recount in Wisconsin.

Duffy said Democrats and far left Green Party supporters are stalling the recount in Dane County Wisconsin, where Madison is located. The county is holding a hand recount. The recount will not be completed by the deadline on December 20th. Therefore, according to Rep. Duffy, the state will quite possibly be forced to forfeit their electoral votes.

This was the plan all along. Democrats knew they couldn’t make up 20,000 votes. But they also knew if they stalled on the recount the state could not certify the vote.

Wisconsin, won fairly by Donald Trump, will forfeit.

Federal law says that presidential recounts must be completed within 35 days after an election. Stein waited until 90 minutes before the Wisconsin deadline for filing a recount petition expired.

All the votes have to be certified by December 13 according to a report on Friday. The electors meet on December 19.

Jim Fucking Hoft. When will you cretins ever get it.

Diga me this Tonto --- why would Wisconsin, or any other state, be forced to forfeit their EVs? The Constitution doesn't care how any state picks their electors or how they instruct them to vote. The Constitution doesn't even prescribe a public election at all.

CONSTITUTION of the United States
amendment XII
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President

That does not say anything about forfeiting their vote.

There is nothing in the amendment that states electorals are allowed to make their own decisions contrary to the voting results of that state. It does state they are obligated to reliquish those electoral votes based on the results of the vote received in their state. Show me where in the Cinstitution it specifically says otherwise.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not winning is not the same as being disenfrancised. Your vote counted in YOUR state.

"Not winning" is not the same as being disenfranchised, correct. Having one's vote tossed in the round file however, is. And that's how it works.

My vote "counted" in my state, only to the extent that it was not clear going in how the entire state population would settle. --- therefore I had a say in it. My friends and relatives in Texas and Massachusetts and Mississippi and California, didn't have that luxury. They were disenfranchised. Any or all of them could have voted with their state, against their state, or not voted at all, and the effect in all three cases would be exactly the same --- nothing.

That's what I call disenfranchised. It's arguably worse than not being allowed a vote at all --- "OK you can vote, but we're just gonna throw it out".

So once the votes were counted in my state it was resolved that the state's Electors will declare that "the people of North Carolina cast all 15 votes for Donald Rump" ------ which is absolute bullshit, and tosses into that same round file everybody who didn't vote that way, which is in the millions. That's disenfranchisement. We did not vote unanimously and it's nakedly insane to declare we did.

Now if the state's electors would say, "8 votes for Rump, 7 votes for Clinton" that would be actually counting the people's votes. But that's not how they do it.

If your state has a bigger population then YOUR state has more influence than a smaller state.

I'm not a "state". I'm a "people". And at no time in this election or any other did I confer with the entire population of my state to come to an agreement on how we would vote. That has never happened, anywhere ever.

This is not much different than stating a national popular vote disenfranchises voters because when one wins 51% of the vote and they are elected the other 49% were 'thrown out.'

I agree that the process we follow does disenfranchise voters that do not see a possibility that their votes will change the outcome (as in CA is certainly going Democrat and TX is certainly going Republican) but that is not the same as stating those votes do not count or are thrown out. Neither of those statements are true - they are counted and they are not thrown out.

 

[FA_Q2]

For some reason I dislike candidates that cheat....and are constantly exploring methods to screw the voters out of their vote.

I wonder if Pogo really thinks the people will stand back and let this go unpunished.

Recount <> cheating.

 

[FA_Q2]

Hillary is doing this in several states and it will cause civil war, but hillary has no choice. If trump is prez she's going to prison.

WI GOP Lawmaker: Dems Are Stalling, Recount Will Not Be Completed, WISCONSIN WILL FORFEIT TRUMP VOTES

dec 1 2016 Wisconsin Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI) went on with Tucker Carlson tonight to discuss the recount in Wisconsin.

Duffy said Democrats and far left Green Party supporters are stalling the recount in Dane County Wisconsin, where Madison is located. The county is holding a hand recount. The recount will not be completed by the deadline on December 20th. Therefore, according to Rep. Duffy, the state will quite possibly be forced to forfeit their electoral votes.

This was the plan all along. Democrats knew they couldn’t make up 20,000 votes. But they also knew if they stalled on the recount the state could not certify the vote.

Wisconsin, won fairly by Donald Trump, will forfeit.

Federal law says that presidential recounts must be completed within 35 days after an election. Stein waited until 90 minutes before the Wisconsin deadline for filing a recount petition expired.

All the votes have to be certified by December 13 according to a report on Friday. The electors meet on December 19.

Jim Fucking Hoft. When will you cretins ever get it.

Diga me this Tonto --- why would Wisconsin, or any other state, be forced to forfeit their EVs? The Constitution doesn't care how any state picks their electors or how they instruct them to vote. The Constitution doesn't even prescribe a public election at all.

CONSTITUTION of the United States
amendment XII
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President

That does not say anything about forfeiting their vote.

There is nothing in the amendment that states electorals are allowed to make their own decisions contrary to the voting results of that state.

You posted it. It directly states they will name the person voted for as presedent and vice presedent. THEY vote for that person. There is nothing anywhere in the cited amendment that even mentions the popular vote in the state they come from or restricting their vote there.

It does state they are obligated to reliquish those electoral votes based on the results of the vote received in their state. Show me where in the Cinstitution it specifically says otherwise.

No, it does not. A vote in the state itself is not even required at all. Nowhere in the constitution, even to this day, is a vote for the president by the people required. Should a state decide to adjust their own law, they can elect the president by coin toss should they chose.

You are entirely misunderstanding what the point of the 12th amendment is - it addressed the problem of having electors cast 2 votes that ended up with a president and a vice president of different parties. Clearly, having Trump president and Kaine VP could cause major problems.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

This only proves they don't have much belief in democracy - something which we already knew.

Now, get ready to spell "President Trump".

Didn't you and your pals tell me about 100 times last week that we are NOT a democracy?

We aren't, we have a Republic system of government as clearly laid out in the U.S. Constitution

So? Republic and democracy can be the same thing.

The Constitution specifically gives a method that a presidential election is to be held, and it's not based on a democracy nationwide majority vote wins. No where is democracy even mentioned in the Constitution or our nation's pledge, to describe the chosen system of representation for our government.

 

[Pogo]

This only proves they don't have much belief in democracy - something which we already knew.

Now, get ready to spell "President Trump".

Didn't you and your pals tell me about 100 times last week that we are NOT a democracy?

We aren't, we have a Republic system of government as clearly laid out in the U.S. Constitution

So? Republic and democracy can be the same thing.

The Constitution specifically gives a method that a presidential election is to be held, and it's not based on a democracy nationwide majority vote wins. No where is democracy even mentioned in the Constitution or our nation's pledge, to describe the chosen system of representation for our government.

----- which is why the conclusion that "Wisconsin will have to forfeit its electoral vote" is a non sequitur. Wisconsin can as FA_Q2 notes, flip a coin if it likes. It could run an internet poll. It could consult a ouija board. Any way it wants to. It does not require knowing what the vote count is, or even having a vote.